Talk:Reproductive rights

NPOV

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)

I also don't see any obvious POV problems with the article.

I am removing the POV-check like box that was added because it was subst'd (which that template is not supposed to be, see the documentation), and it appears to be using some non-standard version of the template (puts it into a category that isn't used, so won't help attract people to fix POV problem).

If you still feel there are POV problems, please give more specifics so that article can be improved. (And if you feel that the template is needed, please use regulation one so it gets categorized correctly). Zodon (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is written in a tone that is highly favorable to its subject matter; however, the overall trend is improvement, with most individual instances of specific POV having been removed. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What does "favorable to the subject matter" mean? Can you give a concrete example (specific sentence, pharsing, etc.) that think questionable and specific example of how it might be improved? Zodon (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

maybe there is a "misunderstanding"... the article is about "reproductive rights", so it will naturally deal mostly with those developments and international standards that enshrine such rights. The article does not contain a criticism section (although it does cover some of the controversy surrounding reproductive rights, e.g. in the men's rights article). All human rights article are "screwed" in this way. However, the article is not POV, as it presents all positions included in the article in a balanced way.

the article certainly needs extension, and almost every single issue that comes under the heading reproductive rights is controversial (see population control in China), so as long as those issues covered in the article are presented in a balanced manner, I think there is no POV problem.

You say "most individual instances of specific POV have been removed", indicating there are still some remaining, I cant see them, so help would be appreciated.--SasiSasi (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point of view of the article is obvious on its face. However, the last time I pointed this out, all of the specific examples of POV (for example, the assertion that the UDHR "failed" to include reprodutive rights) were removed. The only thing left is the fact that the article, as a whole (rather than any specific sentence), assumes the validity of the rights in question, which is itself a POV. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The article does not assume the validity of reproductive rights, far from it, it documents on what basis groups or agencies have claimed or defined reproductive rights, that it is regarded as a subset of human rights, and that reproductive rights may be defined to include different issues, as well as pointing out that reproductive rights may be regarded primarily as women's rights or men’s' rights.

This article does not simply state "reproductive rights exist and include z, y and z"... this would be POV... instead it states "the WHO defines reproductive rights as..." etc. Please refer to Wikipedia policy on POV if you still think there is an issue.--SasiSasi (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the Wikipedia policy on POV. The article assumes the truth of the subject matter, without question, but uses proper sources to describe and explain it. Thus, it adheres to the requirement of verifiability, but according to WP:NPOV, "verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it." The fact that the article uses reliable sources to document the point of view denoted by the term "reproductive rights" does not guarantee its neutrality. For it to be neutral it must also be impartial in tone. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and if you would be so kind to point out where we could make improvements... this is getting boring, you obviously appear to know what you are talking about (I don’t), so why don’t you have a go and make the article less POV... I really fail to see where the article is not impartial in tone, really sorry. While you at it, please have a look at the human rights article as well, I assume you would judge this article to be POV as well, oh, ya and the United States Constitution article, how POV is that....--SasiSasi (talk) 15:06, 5 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)

Good NPOV edit, Blackworm! [1] "none, some or all of the following rights" ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) But then this one [2] was stlll necessary. I instantly realized that it's up to the reader to recognize that inherently every WP article leads the reader to some degree. Blackworm (talk) 23:31, 6 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)

Okay, let's consider the second paragraph, which sets the tone for the rest of the article. How about changing it something along these lines?

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 basic right 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 respect has been was recognised as a subset of human rights in the 1968 Proclamation of Teheran.[4] This right is however not recognised in international human rights law treaties.

In this regard, I know that the first sentence already cites the statement to its source, but WP:V is not a substitute for WP:NPOV; I propose (above) to word it in a way that merely describes the viewpoint without advocating it. (How to fill in the blank remains to be discussed; although Amnesty International clearly advocates for reproductive rights now, in the past it was scrupulously impartial regarding the matter.) Continuing to the next sentence, I am striking out the word "basic" because that is an editorial comment; if it is to be retained then maybe it can be phrased in a more neutral manner: "the 1968 Proclamation of Tehran declared that parents have the basic right to decide freely and responsibility on the number and spacing of their children...." The goal is for the article to describe the viewpoint without assuming its truth (and also to include some information about all major controversies regarding the subject). 69.140.152.55 (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Uff... you know there is an Amnesty International article that could do with a section on how they have changed their position on women’s rights and reproductive right over the years (and the associated controversy), but lets focus on the reproductive rights article.

How about the following:

"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."

I had a look at the proclamation and the education bit was not mentioned in connection to the number of children thing, so it should not be in the intro.

also, please feel free to contribute to the article if you believe it needs extending... there are a lot of people of have POV issues with this article (obviously), but hardly any editors who actually contribute some referenced content. If anything the article is suffering from that, not NPOV.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I did an edit which I hope encorporates the ideas suggested above.

• Since the Proclamation of Teheran was covered twice in the lead, I used the copy which quoted the text. "Basic" was in the original, so seemed reasonable to keep it.
• The part about the realization of reproductive rights being linked to rights recognised by intl. human rights law made more sense coming after the observation that the right to determine # children isn't recognized by said law. So I rearranged the order a little.

The POV-check tag was removed because there had been no responses to the requests for clarification/specifics here for over a month. Discussing, contributing, offering specifics is far more likely to produce improvement than just tagging. (Especially since the back-log on POV-check appears to be considerable.)

As noted above, the tone of the article being favorable to the topic is not clearly an NPOV problem. (As long as it doesn't favor any particular view on the topic.)

Phrasing problems in terms of tone, etc. may tend to confuse, whereas if you say this view needs attribution to who holds it, that is specific and something can be done about it. Zodon (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

good edits, I will try and find a reference for the international law statement.

so, unless any other specifics are forthcoming (anybody??) I suggest we remove the NPOV tag.--SasiSasi (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, at this point it seems the only POV problem left is the word "established" in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Although the word can mean "to bring into existence," it has a connotation of permanence and stability. This is mitigated, somewhat, by the first sentence of the following paragraph. Nevertheless, I would re-word the second paragraph to read: "The United Nations first considered reproductive rights to be a subset of human rights at its 1968 International Conference on Human Rights.[3] The sixteenth article of the resulting Proclamation of Tehran states, 'Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children.'" 69.140.153.142 (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I would not use the word "considered" in this context. At the 1968 International Conference on Human Rights many concepts and aspects were "considered" and discussed. Also, it was not the United Nations that considered or established anything at that conference, it was the UN member states present at the conference, which have adopted the Proclamation of Tehran.

To be honest connotations are something very subjective (different people will read it differently). So that in itself is not a reason to change it.--SasiSasi (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Parental law in Canada

Next 2 paragraphs are a recent addition to article, moved here for discussion.

In Canada, a different legal approach has been taken by the Canadian Children's Rights Council - Conseil canadien des droits des enfants. According to family law in Canada, a biological father can't be forced by the biological mother to parent the child if he alone chooses not to be a parent to that particular biological child. In a Calgary, Alberta legal case currently before the courts in late 2008, the man (a biological father) seeks to not pay child support for his biological child on the basis of equality of sex (gender equality) a provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A pregnant woman in Canada can't be forces to pay financial child support if she chooses to not parent her biological child. She alone can choose abortion, abandonment to the government who will adopt the baby out, or abandonment through private adoption agencies. In all 3 choices, she avoids paying child support to the biological father if she knows that he wishes to parent his own biological child. The case is seeking equality of outcome for males. Parenting Choice for Men

In Canada, a biological father doesn't have the right to raise his own child when the mother wishes to have the baby adopted out. One famous national case is that of the "Saskatoon Dad"

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)

Add Connection between Reproductive Rights and Family Rights/Responsability

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)

UN Charter

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)

Eugenics

How can this article not mention eugenics and its relationship to "reproductive rights"? 173.2.20.232 (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Article title

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" does not refer merely to the choice of whether to reproduce. It refers also to the choices of how and under what circumstances to reproduce. Access to abortion is an aspect of this right because it is the only available option when other forms of birth control fail. Ermadog (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a weasel word, but loaded language. The term is used exclusively by "pro-choice" activists, and is thus POV. Unfortunately, I can't think of a neutral article title. Perhaps the article can be rephrased to be about the term "reproductive rights" instead of saying "Reproductive rights are legal rights and freedoms..." DanBishop (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2011 (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)

I'm open to ideas but I have not seen any sources that use a different label when discussing this set of rights as a whole. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

It is defined that way by supporters of legalized abortion. That's why there are four "pro-choice" organizations listed under "see also". That's why NRLC refers to 'the fudge term "reproductive rights"' and NPRC refers to 'so-called reproductive-rights groups'. The article treats the term as if it were universally accepted when it's not. In contrast, Wikipedia says that the "Right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that (emphasis mine) a human being has an essential right to live", and describes it as a "pro-life" rhetorical device in contrast to opponents' framing of "choice". I think that's much more balanced. DanBishop (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Is everyone OK with my rewording of the definition? DanBishop (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not. The definition given in Black's does explicitly state these are "constitutionally protected rights" not just wishful thinking. I'd also say that a human being does have a constitutionally protected right to life. The pro-life belief seems to be that those rights should extend to zygotes, fetuses, the unborn, etc. as they currently do not. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

@DanBishop - Could we see some other definitions of "reproductive rights" from sources like other encyclopedias, federal U. S. legislation, United Nations, NGOs, and - most importantly - scholars that write on the topic. That would be the best path forward do determining the best definition for this article. --Noleander (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the 3 December re-wording of the lead, in the spirit of WP:BRD. I think we need to see some more definitions of "reproductive rights" from important sources before we make any changes. --15:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

For reference, other WP articles on rights, such as Voting rights, Civil rights, and Minority rights all begin with a definition, and do not use the word "term" in their lead. That is, they do not say: "[blah] rights is a term ..." but instead say "[blah] rights are rights that ...." --Noleander (talk) 16:10, 5 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)

That a person has reproductive rights is well established in law. So called "fetal rights", where they exist, protect a woman and her fetus... they are not rights granted to a person. I.e. It's a term. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

"Reproductive rights" is a rhetorical device, and a recent addition to the legal vocabulary. The term wasn't even INVENTED until after the death of Margaret Sanger, for crying out loud! How can it be "well established" in law if it wasn't even invented until the 1970's, and has been hotly contested ever since? And as to the personhood of the fetus, I see no consistently applied set of criteria that one could use to grant personhood to infants and the mentally handicapped without granting personhood to a fetus. If the concept of fetal rights is valid (which it may well be, and it may well not be), then the fetus is, in fact, a person. The point is that the debate over fetal rights and reproductive rights (unlike, say, the rights to life, liberty, and property of those already born) is not yet over, and no universal consensus has yet been established. Therefore, neither fetal rights nor reproductive rights should be treated as true rights by an encyclopedia... yet. I say that for the time being, the most reasonable thing to do with this as yet undecided issue would be to say that "reproductive rights is a term..." just like "fetal rights is a term..." I also say that we should wait several decades before rewording the definition in either article to "______ rights are rights that..." because anyone with a lick of sense can see that this debate will last well into the twenty-first century, and quite probably well into the twenty-second as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.237.225 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have yet to see a reliable source, Black's Law Dictionary for example, that lists reproductive rights as a "rhetorical device". The OED has a definition for reproductive rights: "n. orig. U.S. the rights of women as individuals to control and make decisions relating to reproduction, esp. with regard to contraception and abortion." "Fetal rights" is absent from both. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with those who have objected to the euphemistic, biased language of the title and of the article. I find it outrageously POV. "Reproductive rights" is a loaded political term that implies that abortion is some kind of basic human right. This itself, as everyone knows, is hotly contested! Some say that on the contrary, abortion is the ultimate violation of human rights, as one thereby murders an unborn child! The same goes for contraception: Some say universal access to it is good, because they believe that promiscuity is okay. Others, who think that promiscuity is not okay, opposing essentially encouraging it by making contraception available to one and all. The POV wording in this article essentially brands opponents of abortion on demand and contraception on demand as "violators of basic human rights" on a par with those who deprive people of food and water! What nonsense! I tried to somewhat improve the article, but I have been repeatedly reverted. Could others please comment here so consensus can be reached. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the sources that discuss the topic use this term for their cold, clinical analysis, there's not really a better term to use as the title. An analogy would be the term economic rights - many would "hotly contest" the notion that a company should be able to, say, park revenue in offshore tax havens; but since laws vary greatly between countries, this is an option available to them and any analysis of comparative economics discusses this as an ability or a "right." Similarly, even if you do not agree that reproductive health services (which, by the way, encompass more than just contraception and abortion) should be available to all who want them, it's still the case that the most dispassionate way to describe varying levels of access to them is the term "reproductive rights." Some countries or sub-national regions grant more than others, and this page is an attempt to describe that. If Wikipedia were trying to advocate for their expansion, this page would be called something like "Sexual civil liberties and freedoms." ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Youth Access/Rights

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)

Clearly there's a lot of unexamined information out there that needs adding to this article. Youth access to reproductive health services, and its costs (both economic and social), vary greatly even within countries. I would say go for it, and any number of editors, myself included, will be happy to give feedback. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 03:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

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.

• Do you have page numbers for the Knudson 2006 references?
• I think that it is important that everything in the youth section is directly relevant to reproductive rights. The primary definition of reproductive rights refers to legal rights and freedoms. The section on youth rights should directly address the legality of abortion for youth, the legality of accessing birth control and reproductive healthcare for youth, the right to education, and freedom from coercive processes such as sterilization and FGM. The new section does a great job on the right to education, but is weaker in the other areas.
• I see that you've structured the subsections 'Rates of contraceptive use and common contraception', 'Youth knowledge and sex education', and 'Consequences of reproductive health problems'. While rates of contraceptive use can be indicative of the success of sex education, they are not in themselves directly under the umbrella of 'reproductive rights'. As a reader, I'm looking for information on whether or not birth control is legal for minors and whether parental consent is a factor.
• It would be good to have a lead paragraph at the beginning of the section that addresses the youth reproductive rights landscape and the overall trends and common issues that are shared across the world.
• Africa: Rather than saying that youth sex education in Uganda is 'low', maybe it could be worded to say that it is uncommon or not comprehensive or that rates of adoption of sex education curriculum are low.
• Sweden: It says that there is a high rate of emergency contraception in Sweden, where it is presumably legal for minors to access it. Is it also legal throughout Europe?
• Female genital mutilation isn't mentioned, but this is a reproductive rights topic that directly affects girls and young women in many countries.

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)

New contributor looking for advice on creating a new article looking to link back to this article

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)

Yes, your plan for the construction of the article is fine. It's important that you use very new sources, because El Salvador (like many other Latin American countries) has made major advances in regard to legislation on violence against women during the last few years.

• Here are links to the 2011 law on violence against women/domestic violence: [3],[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:509F:FFFF:0:0:50C:9108 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. TINGLED1 (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Empty citation

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)

Gender Equality

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)

As noted in both the edit/revert summaries and your talk page, the removed additions are statements/views that were unreferenced. They appear to be original reasearch or personal opinion.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090726150133/http://www.who.int//reproductive-health/gender/index.html to http://who.int/reproductive-health/gender/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304122237/http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/principles_en_about.htm to http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/principles_en_about.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515111556/http://www.ishr.ch/archive-general-assembly/933-majority-of-ga-third-committee-unable-to-accept-report-on-the-human-right-to-sexual-education to http://www.ishr.ch/archive-general-assembly/933-majority-of-ga-third-committee-unable-to-accept-report-on-the-human-right-to-sexual-education
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304093634/https://www.oas.org/es/mesecvi/docs/CSW-SideEvent2014-Flyer-EN.pdf to https://www.oas.org/es/mesecvi/docs/CSW-SideEvent2014-Flyer-EN.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160708000957/https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168046031c to https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168046031c
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120140923/http://www.amnestyusa.org/Stop_Violence_Against_Women_SVAW/Reproductive_Rights/page.do?id=1108242&n1=3&n2=39&n3=1101 to http://www.amnestyusa.org/Stop_Violence_Against_Women_SVAW/Reproductive_Rights/page.do?id=1108242&n1=3&n2=39&n3=1101
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319014005/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/orgs/txpep/_files/pdf/Grossman%2CWhite%2CHopkins%2CPotter-PublicHealthThreatofAnti-abortionLegislation-Contraception-2014.pdf to http://www.utexas.edu/cola/orgs/txpep/_files/pdf/Grossman%2CWhite%2CHopkins%2CPotter-PublicHealthThreatofAnti-abortionLegislation-Contraception-2014.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150305060244/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/supreme-court-texas_n_5986244.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/supreme-court-texas_n_5986244.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113104553/http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/ua_paper/en/index.html to http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/ua_paper/en/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170531114057/https://rm.coe.int/168046031c to https://rm.coe.int/168046031c
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301223751/http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-107364 to http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-107364

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://populationmatters.org/search_results.php?q=%22reproductive+rights%22
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927135721/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/576/53/PDF/N0957653.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/576/53/PDF/N0957653.pdf?OpenElement
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002004052/http://www.amnesty.org/en/human-rights-defenders/issues/challenges/srr-defenders to https://www.amnesty.org/en/human-rights-defenders/issues/challenges/srr-defenders
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304022604/http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/1961/15158/Smith,%20Angela%20-%20Spring%202013.pdf?sequence=1 to http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/1961/15158/Smith%2c%20Angela%20-%20Spring%202013.pdf?sequence=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR27/002/2007/en/71da229c-d39d-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/eur270022007en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130804230201/http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL02/pres.html to http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL02/pres.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060217123302/http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Reproductive_Choice&Template=%2FTaggedPage%2FTaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=23&ContentID=991 to http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Reproductive_Choice&Template=%2FTaggedPage%2FTaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=23&ContentID=991

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Multiple issues

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 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

We already have an abortion debate article. LifeNews appears to not be a reliable source (WP:RS). —PaleoNeonate – 08:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

To maintain a NPOV the scientifically accurate "post-reproductive" should be used rather than "reproductive right" to describe abortion.

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)

Wikipedia operates according to verifiability in reliable sources. Neutrality is about neutrally summarizing what reliable sources say. The content you changed starts with "Women's reproductive rights may include some or all of the following" and there are plenty of sources backing up its inclusion as such. Could you highlight the sources on which you're basing your arguments? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Go down to "when does life begin" on this genetics education site and it explains that life is reproduced during the process of fertilization: https://lagenetica.info/en/life/origin-of-life/ I believe an science education site should be a sufficient source.

As far as the scientific literature goes there is the following:“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”

And then from a med school textbook: “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

And again from the National Institutes of Health: “Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.”

Any of these are scholarly and could be used. Perhaps the science education one you could dispute as being a science education site rather than a scholarly source, but the other three still work. Jfraatz (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

These sources are useful for the biological process of reproduction. They are not useful for describing the social and political ramifications of reproduction, which is what this article is about. Preceding the language you want to change is this very clear description of what the article is about (citations omitted):

Reproductive rights are legal rights and freedoms relating to reproduction and reproductive health that vary amongst countries around the world. The World Health Organization 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.

What you would need to come back with to support your desired change is a list of reliable, and reputable, sources saying that when reproductive rights are under discussion, it's only a technical contingency that it happens to include abortion. And those sources frankly don't exist. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Requesting copy edit help

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)

Reproductive Rights in Islam

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)

Requesting some help

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)

Legislation on human reproduction

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)

You created a redirect, not an article. At the moment, I don't have thoughts any thoughts on creating an article for that topic. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Not all governmental interventions against high fertility rates are universally regarded as 'abuse' / Policies affecting only certain ethnicities are not eugenic bust racist.

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.

Claim that vast majority of the population does not know the law

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)