This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reproductive rights article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Drake University/Global Youth Studies (Spring 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
|
The article has become significantly more neutral in the last few months, but the overall tone of the writing still is generally favorable to the subject matter. 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 18:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
"Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." It would be helpful if you point out examples of where this is a problem, rather than saying there is a general problem with the article... overall the article is extremely factual, and well referenced. I read it again and cant see any case of the position included in the article being presented in a biased way.-- SasiSasi ( talk) 18:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] What "significant views that have been published by reliable sources" Wikipedia:NPOV dispute on the material being covered do you feel are not presented or are underrepresented?
It sounds like there may be confusion about the topic of the article vs. its content. Subject-object problem If the topic of an article is a POV, that does not make the content of the article not NPOV. Consider also: Meta:Positive tone Zodon ( talk) 19:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
So.... can we remove the neutrality tag? Either that or make suggestions (Specific) on what needs to be changed.-- SasiSasi ( talk) 12:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
According to ______, (or ______ believe that) the realisation of reproductive rights is interlinked with the realisation of a series of recognised international human rights, including the right to health, the right to freedom from discrimination, the right to privacy, and the right not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment.[3] The
basicright of parents to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and a right to adequate education and information in this respecthas beenwas recognised as a subset of human rights in the 1968 Proclamation of Teheran.[4] This right is however not recognised in international human rightslawtreaties.
"Reproductive rights are rights relating to reproduction and reproductive health.[1] The World Health Organisation defines reproductive rights as follows:
"Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence."[2]
According to Amnesty International the realisation of reproductive rights is interlinked with the realisation of a series of recognised international human rights, including the right to health, the right to freedom from discrimination, the right to privacy, and the right not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment.[3] According to the 1968 Proclamation of Teheran "parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children".[4] Reproductive rights are not recognised in international human rights law."
Next 2 paragraphs are a recent addition to article, moved here for discussion.
This material about paternity law in Canada was added to the reproductive rights as men's rights section. I don't think it is appropriate in this article. It isn't clear that the question of whether to parent after a child is produced (reproduction has taken place in the biological sense) is a question of reproductive rights. It seems more apropos of Parents' rights, Fathers' right, or child custody, or laws relating to said (e.g. Parental responsibility (access and custody) or some other area of Family law). Zodon ( talk) 07:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It might be worth adding something noting the connection/segue between reproductive rights and parent/child rights & responsabilities. When does it occur, provide pointer to coverage/issues that come after reproductive rights.
It might include things like links to Family law and Parental responsibility. And address issues like the question of legal vs. biological reproduction. (biological reproduction = having a child, legal reproduction = making or changing legal determination of who's child it is). e.g., Do "reproductive rights" include questions of legal reproduction, or just those of biological reproduction?
This was brought to mind most recently by the recent additions on Canadian parental law, although similar questions arose about the "Male abortion." Coverage of this might help build the web, and clarify where material such as this is most appropriate. Zodon ( talk) 08:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think these rights are included in the original 1948 charter. Anybody have a clue on why it was not included ? ADM ( talk) 15:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
How can this article not mention eugenics and its relationship to "reproductive rights"? 173.2.20.232 ( talk) 20:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Calling "abortion rights" "reproductive rights" seems perilously close to WP:WEASEL. No one (in the US or the western world) that I know of has ever questioned a woman's right to "reproduce." I am aware of attempts of various states and nations to prevent women from terminating a pregnancy, rather the opposite of "reproductive rights." And other nations to force abortion on unwilling women. Euphemisms are fine, as are politically correct wording, but calling abortion "reproductive rights" is a bit much IMO. Student7 ( talk) 00:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
reproductive rights. A person's constitutionally protected rights relating to the control of his or her procreative activities; specif., the cluster of civil liberties relating to pregnancy, abortion, and sterilization, esp. the personal bodily rights of a woman in her decision whether to become pregnant or bear a child. &bull The phrase includes the idea of being able to make reproductive decisions free from discrimination, coercion, or violence. Human-rights scholars increasingly consider many reproductive rights to be protected by international human-rights law.
— Garner, Bryan A. (2009). Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.). Thomson West. ISBN 9780314199492.{{ cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored ( help)
The sources use the term "reproductive rights", and - as the article indicates - it is defined as "reproductive rights are legal rights and freedoms relating to reproduction and reproductive health". The article title is neutral and reflects the sources. -- Noleander ( talk) 17:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Is everyone OK with my rewording of the definition? DanBishop ( talk) 08:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
@Noleander- some consistency, please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights If it's NPOV to say that "fetal rights is a term..." then to be NPOV here we also must say that "reproductive rights is a term..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.237.225 ( talk) 03:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I am considering adding a section for youth reproductive rights, particularly access to birth control through the legal system. We are doing Wikipedia edits through at class at the university level, so I am really new to Wikipedia. Would it be appropriate to add a section for youth rights, including subsections for rights in different countries? More research needs to be done on my end before contributing anything to the page (there is nothing in my sandbox yet), but I wanted to get feedback on my ideas. At the moment, there is nothing in the existing article about youth access to contraception or abortion services and these vary greatly across countries, from developing nations to developed nations. Youth is an important demographic to look at when discussing reproductive rights because minors can be treated differently under the law than adults and may have less access to contraceptive services due to economic and legal reasons. These rights vary greatly across the world and are definitely worth looking into. Thoughts? Is this topic something that belongs on this page? Court caitlin ( talk) 01:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Court caitlin ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Great additions Court caitlin! I'm reviewing this article as the online ambassador for Global Youth Studies (Spring 2013). I think there is potential for the 'Youth rights and access' section to be split off to another article at some point. Overall I think the emphasis placed on reproductive health should be shifted to an emphasis on legalities; a stronger connection needs to be made between the reproductive health statistics and the legal environment for minors. I'll make some specific observations below.
Youth rights are an important part of reproductive rights and I was surprised that this article previously made little mention of them. Thank you for taking on such a difficult and controversial topic. Gobōnobō + c 18:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
From an anonymous editor:
I made a minor change to the youth section, as I felt it was somewhat biased.
1) Not all health workers who decline to provide services to youth do so because they believe that youth sexual activity is unacceptable. Some of them do so because they believe treating a youth without knowledge and consent from a parent or guardian is unacceptable.
2) I find the assertion that all people have a right to medical services to be inflammatory, and changed the wording from stating that the youth are denied their rights to say that they are denied access. I could go into a long rant on why I don't believe healthcare is a right, but let's just agree to disagree on that. Suffice to say, I believe the edits I made present a less biased perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.51.249 ( talk) 16:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello all, I am required to contribute to Wiki for my class Gender and Economics in the Third World and have been designated to work on El Salvador. I am working on an article to be called Reproductive rights in El Salvador. I am looking at covering topics including things like history, abortion, sexual violence/crime, legal and/or religious issues, education, activism, prenatal care and other issues surrounding pregnancy. Other than the Wiki article creation links and basic available information; Does anyone have any suggestions on the best way to structure an article? What about content? Is there something within this topic I should focus on more than another? For example, if you were reading an article, called Reproductive rights in El Salvador, what would you like and/or expect to see? What advice can you offer to a first time contributor? Thank you all for your time. TINGLED1 ( talk) 23:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Based on what I have seen, I was thinking of something like this: Contents 1 History – A short overview of El Salvador and significant events that changed reproductive laws, rights, and policies 2 Human rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies and a look at their own laws – like their stance on the Programme of Action of the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, etc. 3 Women's rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies for women and a look at their own laws – like prenatal care, family planning education, birth control access 4 Men's rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies for men and a look at their own laws – things like family planning education, access to condoms and spermicides, sperm donation 5 Youth rights and access – Education – Sexual education policies – What information, if any, do children receive and at what age? Contraceptive policies and availability 6 Gender equality and violence against women – What forms of gender-based violence are happening? – Rape 7 STD’s/STI’s/HIV/AIDS – Practices, polices, education, prevention 8 Issues
8.1 Family rights, laws, and polices 8.2 Abortion rights, laws, and policies 8.3 Religious beliefs and issues
9 See also The Center for Reproductive Rights, Human sexuality, Planned Parenthood, Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition, Roe v. Wade, Reproductive rights 10 References - I don't want to spam up this page by listing them all here but I do have a lot of them. 11 External links - Again, I have plenty but don't want to spam this up by listing them all here.
TINGLED1 ( talk) 06:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. TINGLED1 ( talk) 23:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The citation labelled [2] links to the WHO's reproductive rights page, and implies that the text contained here is pulled from a WHO source. While this may be the case, the cited link does not connect to a document relevant to the passage or support the claims made. Clicking on the citation simply dumps you at the WHO's front page on reproductive rights. I'm not clear on what to do with an irrelevant or non-supporting citation like this. Should it simply be removed? I'd like to have some feedback before modifying a page about an issue as sensitive as this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njzinck ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey, just observing that it's apparently unpopular for me to be adding information about men's reproductive rights in the introduction, where my only intention is to strive for a little balance - women's reproductive rights are afforded a full paragraph in the introduction, after all. It appears that my edits are being reverted by people with non-neutral agendas who wish to promote a gender-neutral article towards a sexist purpose. 115.64.159.41 ( talk) 14:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Reproductive rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Reproductive rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://populationmatters.org/search_results.php?q=%22reproductive+rights%22When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This article isn't neutral, because it includes abortion in its topic with a title that is an expression used only by abortion activists. Aside of this obvious issue, there are other multiple issues with this article which deepen in its lack of neutrality: it focuses too much on abortion, as if it was the main topic and the others were secondary, when abortion is a topic already treated extensively in its own article. Also, the entire article seems written by pro-abortion activists, with almost every statement made by institutions favorable to abortion and birth control and no counterarguments made by oppositors to considering abortion a right. By quoting only those sources, regardless of their relevance internationally, Wikipedia is only showing one side of the coin and dismissing the other, which is against neutrality.
Also, racial eugenic abortion is not a "conspiracy theory" as the article states when it's a verifiable fact that 79% of abortion clinics in the US are placed in or near neighborhoods with high percentages of african and latin american people [1] and their pro-abortion ads also concentrate in those neighborhoods. It's significant that african americans have 31% of the total abortions in the US when they only represent 13% of the total population of the country. Furthermore, the very same Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, defended this policy stating that is was a tool to prevent the "forming and reproducing of a race of degenerate people" (in reference to non-white and disabled people).-- 37.133.216.10 ( talk) 02:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
References
To maintain an objective scientific NPOV, given that medically speaking abortion is a procedure that occurs after biological reproduction has taken place, abortion should be described as post-reproductive on the page, while mentioning that it is labeled as a "reproductive right" due to being closely associated with other rights that are reproductive rather than post-reproductive. Without this clarification it would generate confusion around the term "reproductive" which would be easily understood as either editorializing or constituting of the Orwellian-type political language, both of which we want to avoid to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality. Jfraatz ( talk) 20:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
In draft namespace I created a new article relating to one of well known feminist Category:Catchphrases namely Draft:My body my choice (Feminism) to be included in category Category:Feminist terminology. It is far from complete and needs proactive copy edit support to include related remaining aspects.
Suggestions about suitable references are welcome on Draft talk:My body my choice (Feminism)
Thanks in advance. Warm regards
Bookku ( talk) 10:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi! In the issues section (14) of this article, there is a subsection about the Roman Catholic Church (14.8) but nothing on other religions. I am planning on focusing on what other religions have to say about the topic, mostly about what Islam says, how it is interpreted and how it affects women in Muslim majority countries. I am still learning how Wikipedia works so let me know if you have any advice. -- VickiPattyWerf ( talk) 21:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.
Thanks and regards
Bookku ( talk) 02:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I made the article " Legislation on human reproduction and just implemented a redirect to here. I do think that it needs to be worked out as an own article though. Perhaps some wikipedians are interested in working it out ?
It seems important because the Reproductive rights article doesn't cover it. It does not discuss the exact laws that are put in place per country on this. -- Genetics4good ( talk) 11:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
While I agree that forcing people no have children is abuse, I changed the word state abuse to state intervention, because abuse suggests 'universally regarded as morally wrong' when actually attempts of lowering the fertility rate, like China did, could be morally supported by avoidance of famines. Not enforcing birth policies might lead to weak result. Also, the policies that targeted minorities, no matter their abilities, are better described as racist than eugenic.
Eugenic = good genes, is in theory affecting all people willing to have children. If policies affect ethnic minorities exclusively, they are not really eugenic but just racist.
In the section Lack of knowledge about rights (content added in the edit of 20 November 2017), it is claimed that one of the reasons that reproductive rights are poor is that "the vast majority of the population does not know what the law is". This is followed by several examples of specific countries and facts about the limitations on knowledge of specific reproductive rights by specific segments. (As a counterpoint, in the U.S. as of April 2023, the issue is not about knowing what the reproductive rights are, but rather that the reproductive rights have in fact been restricted.)
In any case, while lack of knowledge may be a contributing factor for reproductive rights being poor, I don't think "vast majority" of the population is justified based on the citations provided. Fabrickator ( talk) 06:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reproductive rights article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Drake University/Global Youth Studies (Spring 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
|
The article has become significantly more neutral in the last few months, but the overall tone of the writing still is generally favorable to the subject matter. 69.140.152.55 ( talk) 18:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
"Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." It would be helpful if you point out examples of where this is a problem, rather than saying there is a general problem with the article... overall the article is extremely factual, and well referenced. I read it again and cant see any case of the position included in the article being presented in a biased way.-- SasiSasi ( talk) 18:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
[outdent] What "significant views that have been published by reliable sources" Wikipedia:NPOV dispute on the material being covered do you feel are not presented or are underrepresented?
It sounds like there may be confusion about the topic of the article vs. its content. Subject-object problem If the topic of an article is a POV, that does not make the content of the article not NPOV. Consider also: Meta:Positive tone Zodon ( talk) 19:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
So.... can we remove the neutrality tag? Either that or make suggestions (Specific) on what needs to be changed.-- SasiSasi ( talk) 12:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
According to ______, (or ______ believe that) the realisation of reproductive rights is interlinked with the realisation of a series of recognised international human rights, including the right to health, the right to freedom from discrimination, the right to privacy, and the right not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment.[3] The
basicright of parents to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and a right to adequate education and information in this respecthas beenwas recognised as a subset of human rights in the 1968 Proclamation of Teheran.[4] This right is however not recognised in international human rightslawtreaties.
"Reproductive rights are rights relating to reproduction and reproductive health.[1] The World Health Organisation defines reproductive rights as follows:
"Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence."[2]
According to Amnesty International the realisation of reproductive rights is interlinked with the realisation of a series of recognised international human rights, including the right to health, the right to freedom from discrimination, the right to privacy, and the right not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment.[3] According to the 1968 Proclamation of Teheran "parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children".[4] Reproductive rights are not recognised in international human rights law."
Next 2 paragraphs are a recent addition to article, moved here for discussion.
This material about paternity law in Canada was added to the reproductive rights as men's rights section. I don't think it is appropriate in this article. It isn't clear that the question of whether to parent after a child is produced (reproduction has taken place in the biological sense) is a question of reproductive rights. It seems more apropos of Parents' rights, Fathers' right, or child custody, or laws relating to said (e.g. Parental responsibility (access and custody) or some other area of Family law). Zodon ( talk) 07:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It might be worth adding something noting the connection/segue between reproductive rights and parent/child rights & responsabilities. When does it occur, provide pointer to coverage/issues that come after reproductive rights.
It might include things like links to Family law and Parental responsibility. And address issues like the question of legal vs. biological reproduction. (biological reproduction = having a child, legal reproduction = making or changing legal determination of who's child it is). e.g., Do "reproductive rights" include questions of legal reproduction, or just those of biological reproduction?
This was brought to mind most recently by the recent additions on Canadian parental law, although similar questions arose about the "Male abortion." Coverage of this might help build the web, and clarify where material such as this is most appropriate. Zodon ( talk) 08:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think these rights are included in the original 1948 charter. Anybody have a clue on why it was not included ? ADM ( talk) 15:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
How can this article not mention eugenics and its relationship to "reproductive rights"? 173.2.20.232 ( talk) 20:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Calling "abortion rights" "reproductive rights" seems perilously close to WP:WEASEL. No one (in the US or the western world) that I know of has ever questioned a woman's right to "reproduce." I am aware of attempts of various states and nations to prevent women from terminating a pregnancy, rather the opposite of "reproductive rights." And other nations to force abortion on unwilling women. Euphemisms are fine, as are politically correct wording, but calling abortion "reproductive rights" is a bit much IMO. Student7 ( talk) 00:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
reproductive rights. A person's constitutionally protected rights relating to the control of his or her procreative activities; specif., the cluster of civil liberties relating to pregnancy, abortion, and sterilization, esp. the personal bodily rights of a woman in her decision whether to become pregnant or bear a child. &bull The phrase includes the idea of being able to make reproductive decisions free from discrimination, coercion, or violence. Human-rights scholars increasingly consider many reproductive rights to be protected by international human-rights law.
— Garner, Bryan A. (2009). Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.). Thomson West. ISBN 9780314199492.{{ cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored ( help)
The sources use the term "reproductive rights", and - as the article indicates - it is defined as "reproductive rights are legal rights and freedoms relating to reproduction and reproductive health". The article title is neutral and reflects the sources. -- Noleander ( talk) 17:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Is everyone OK with my rewording of the definition? DanBishop ( talk) 08:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
@Noleander- some consistency, please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights If it's NPOV to say that "fetal rights is a term..." then to be NPOV here we also must say that "reproductive rights is a term..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.237.225 ( talk) 03:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I am considering adding a section for youth reproductive rights, particularly access to birth control through the legal system. We are doing Wikipedia edits through at class at the university level, so I am really new to Wikipedia. Would it be appropriate to add a section for youth rights, including subsections for rights in different countries? More research needs to be done on my end before contributing anything to the page (there is nothing in my sandbox yet), but I wanted to get feedback on my ideas. At the moment, there is nothing in the existing article about youth access to contraception or abortion services and these vary greatly across countries, from developing nations to developed nations. Youth is an important demographic to look at when discussing reproductive rights because minors can be treated differently under the law than adults and may have less access to contraceptive services due to economic and legal reasons. These rights vary greatly across the world and are definitely worth looking into. Thoughts? Is this topic something that belongs on this page? Court caitlin ( talk) 01:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Court caitlin ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Great additions Court caitlin! I'm reviewing this article as the online ambassador for Global Youth Studies (Spring 2013). I think there is potential for the 'Youth rights and access' section to be split off to another article at some point. Overall I think the emphasis placed on reproductive health should be shifted to an emphasis on legalities; a stronger connection needs to be made between the reproductive health statistics and the legal environment for minors. I'll make some specific observations below.
Youth rights are an important part of reproductive rights and I was surprised that this article previously made little mention of them. Thank you for taking on such a difficult and controversial topic. Gobōnobō + c 18:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
From an anonymous editor:
I made a minor change to the youth section, as I felt it was somewhat biased.
1) Not all health workers who decline to provide services to youth do so because they believe that youth sexual activity is unacceptable. Some of them do so because they believe treating a youth without knowledge and consent from a parent or guardian is unacceptable.
2) I find the assertion that all people have a right to medical services to be inflammatory, and changed the wording from stating that the youth are denied their rights to say that they are denied access. I could go into a long rant on why I don't believe healthcare is a right, but let's just agree to disagree on that. Suffice to say, I believe the edits I made present a less biased perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.51.249 ( talk) 16:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello all, I am required to contribute to Wiki for my class Gender and Economics in the Third World and have been designated to work on El Salvador. I am working on an article to be called Reproductive rights in El Salvador. I am looking at covering topics including things like history, abortion, sexual violence/crime, legal and/or religious issues, education, activism, prenatal care and other issues surrounding pregnancy. Other than the Wiki article creation links and basic available information; Does anyone have any suggestions on the best way to structure an article? What about content? Is there something within this topic I should focus on more than another? For example, if you were reading an article, called Reproductive rights in El Salvador, what would you like and/or expect to see? What advice can you offer to a first time contributor? Thank you all for your time. TINGLED1 ( talk) 23:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Based on what I have seen, I was thinking of something like this: Contents 1 History – A short overview of El Salvador and significant events that changed reproductive laws, rights, and policies 2 Human rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies and a look at their own laws – like their stance on the Programme of Action of the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, etc. 3 Women's rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies for women and a look at their own laws – like prenatal care, family planning education, birth control access 4 Men's rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies for men and a look at their own laws – things like family planning education, access to condoms and spermicides, sperm donation 5 Youth rights and access – Education – Sexual education policies – What information, if any, do children receive and at what age? Contraceptive policies and availability 6 Gender equality and violence against women – What forms of gender-based violence are happening? – Rape 7 STD’s/STI’s/HIV/AIDS – Practices, polices, education, prevention 8 Issues
8.1 Family rights, laws, and polices 8.2 Abortion rights, laws, and policies 8.3 Religious beliefs and issues
9 See also The Center for Reproductive Rights, Human sexuality, Planned Parenthood, Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition, Roe v. Wade, Reproductive rights 10 References - I don't want to spam up this page by listing them all here but I do have a lot of them. 11 External links - Again, I have plenty but don't want to spam this up by listing them all here.
TINGLED1 ( talk) 06:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. TINGLED1 ( talk) 23:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The citation labelled [2] links to the WHO's reproductive rights page, and implies that the text contained here is pulled from a WHO source. While this may be the case, the cited link does not connect to a document relevant to the passage or support the claims made. Clicking on the citation simply dumps you at the WHO's front page on reproductive rights. I'm not clear on what to do with an irrelevant or non-supporting citation like this. Should it simply be removed? I'd like to have some feedback before modifying a page about an issue as sensitive as this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njzinck ( talk • contribs) 22:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey, just observing that it's apparently unpopular for me to be adding information about men's reproductive rights in the introduction, where my only intention is to strive for a little balance - women's reproductive rights are afforded a full paragraph in the introduction, after all. It appears that my edits are being reverted by people with non-neutral agendas who wish to promote a gender-neutral article towards a sexist purpose. 115.64.159.41 ( talk) 14:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Reproductive rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Reproductive rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://populationmatters.org/search_results.php?q=%22reproductive+rights%22When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This article isn't neutral, because it includes abortion in its topic with a title that is an expression used only by abortion activists. Aside of this obvious issue, there are other multiple issues with this article which deepen in its lack of neutrality: it focuses too much on abortion, as if it was the main topic and the others were secondary, when abortion is a topic already treated extensively in its own article. Also, the entire article seems written by pro-abortion activists, with almost every statement made by institutions favorable to abortion and birth control and no counterarguments made by oppositors to considering abortion a right. By quoting only those sources, regardless of their relevance internationally, Wikipedia is only showing one side of the coin and dismissing the other, which is against neutrality.
Also, racial eugenic abortion is not a "conspiracy theory" as the article states when it's a verifiable fact that 79% of abortion clinics in the US are placed in or near neighborhoods with high percentages of african and latin american people [1] and their pro-abortion ads also concentrate in those neighborhoods. It's significant that african americans have 31% of the total abortions in the US when they only represent 13% of the total population of the country. Furthermore, the very same Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, defended this policy stating that is was a tool to prevent the "forming and reproducing of a race of degenerate people" (in reference to non-white and disabled people).-- 37.133.216.10 ( talk) 02:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
References
To maintain an objective scientific NPOV, given that medically speaking abortion is a procedure that occurs after biological reproduction has taken place, abortion should be described as post-reproductive on the page, while mentioning that it is labeled as a "reproductive right" due to being closely associated with other rights that are reproductive rather than post-reproductive. Without this clarification it would generate confusion around the term "reproductive" which would be easily understood as either editorializing or constituting of the Orwellian-type political language, both of which we want to avoid to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality. Jfraatz ( talk) 20:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
In draft namespace I created a new article relating to one of well known feminist Category:Catchphrases namely Draft:My body my choice (Feminism) to be included in category Category:Feminist terminology. It is far from complete and needs proactive copy edit support to include related remaining aspects.
Suggestions about suitable references are welcome on Draft talk:My body my choice (Feminism)
Thanks in advance. Warm regards
Bookku ( talk) 10:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi! In the issues section (14) of this article, there is a subsection about the Roman Catholic Church (14.8) but nothing on other religions. I am planning on focusing on what other religions have to say about the topic, mostly about what Islam says, how it is interpreted and how it affects women in Muslim majority countries. I am still learning how Wikipedia works so let me know if you have any advice. -- VickiPattyWerf ( talk) 21:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi,
Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.
Thanks and regards
Bookku ( talk) 02:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I made the article " Legislation on human reproduction and just implemented a redirect to here. I do think that it needs to be worked out as an own article though. Perhaps some wikipedians are interested in working it out ?
It seems important because the Reproductive rights article doesn't cover it. It does not discuss the exact laws that are put in place per country on this. -- Genetics4good ( talk) 11:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
While I agree that forcing people no have children is abuse, I changed the word state abuse to state intervention, because abuse suggests 'universally regarded as morally wrong' when actually attempts of lowering the fertility rate, like China did, could be morally supported by avoidance of famines. Not enforcing birth policies might lead to weak result. Also, the policies that targeted minorities, no matter their abilities, are better described as racist than eugenic.
Eugenic = good genes, is in theory affecting all people willing to have children. If policies affect ethnic minorities exclusively, they are not really eugenic but just racist.
In the section Lack of knowledge about rights (content added in the edit of 20 November 2017), it is claimed that one of the reasons that reproductive rights are poor is that "the vast majority of the population does not know what the law is". This is followed by several examples of specific countries and facts about the limitations on knowledge of specific reproductive rights by specific segments. (As a counterpoint, in the U.S. as of April 2023, the issue is not about knowing what the reproductive rights are, but rather that the reproductive rights have in fact been restricted.)
In any case, while lack of knowledge may be a contributing factor for reproductive rights being poor, I don't think "vast majority" of the population is justified based on the citations provided. Fabrickator ( talk) 06:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)