foeticide

This is obviously a pro-life assumption that is bound to be controversial as voluntary abortions cannot be labelled as killings and aborting women as killers.

Response to above remarks: The word "kill" be can be used because if the fetus dies unintentionally, inside the womb, it due to natural causes, it is delivered stillborn. Abortion methods are an intentional means to produce a dead fetus, and are not natural causes. Intentional violence against the fetus which results in injury or death are not natural causes. Wikipedia is not a place to quibble about the word "killing" is or means. Women who decide to kill their fetus sometimes do this independently themselves (ex. a chemical toxic tea) but usually the pay for someone to perform the actions needed. We are all adults so, facts, not feelings please.Lmlmss44 (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The ending "icide" is often used is a somewhat metaphorical manner (ethnocide, liberticidal etc.) and shouldn't taken always literally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.119.64.217 (talk • contribs)

You are disputing the meaning of the word while arguing against the existence of the word.

"Foeticide" is not a metaphor in legalese, medicalese or any other type of English. It's the latinate form of "killing a foetus". Pro-lifers do not like the word foetus. They call it a child, baby, or person, and refer to killing an embryo or foetus at any stage of development as "murder". They also use it when referring to legal abortion, which is always incorrect in the legal sense. AvB ÷ talk 15:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC) it Stop using the word “unborn child” or “baby” when referring to a blastocyst, zygote, embryo, or fetus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:C300:7EE0:C095:B231:CF33:232C (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

These days, a fetus can often live outside of the womb at very low weights, with current neo-medical care,so if there are medical definitions for this category of fetus, they should be used. Lmlmss44 (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The archived version of the Guardian article has the 300 figure, but the currently live version omits that entire section. There's no correction note or anything; should the fact that it's no longer in the live version be taken to mean that the Guardian no longer stands by it (they're quoting Nat'l Advocates for Pregnant Women, which is an advocacy group that appears to basically be what it sounds like) or no? (If we are to keep it, we should definitely note "as of 2011".) Pinging MastCell (talk · contribs)? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)