Talk:Abortion in New Zealand

message: The article says that this Act was incorporated into the law of New Zealand in 1866. I would be grateful if you could give me a source for this (preferably the statute that incorporated it). James500 (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offences Against the Person Act 1861 

message: I removed this sign from the top of the page and requested that it be moved to the section on controversy over abortion law as it was clearly biased towards the pro life movement. However this change was reversed by Alan Liefting. I would like to point out to him that the neither the US or UK versions of this page contain such heading pictures. The title picture helps set the tone of the article and this provides a negative one instead of the neutral tone wikipedia aims for. Furthermore I notice that your profile says you are interested articles regarding the "christian religion." Please don't let your personal beliefs affect the article. My edit was meant for the sake of neutrality. The reasonable thing to do is move the picture to the section on controversy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.237.91 (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A roadside sign in the South Island advocating pro-life. 

message: Why is there nothing about recent legal cases, and the High Court confirming that the de facto status of abortion on demand (itself not covered by the article), is illegal? These are surely the most important current developments in this area.124.197.15.138 (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion on demand 

message: A recent edit has stuffed up the heading nesting, and there is a heading name which does not make sense. Also, a recent High Court case ruled the the foetus is not a human in t eyes of the law. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged with cleanup and update. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Abortion in New Zealand. 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/20141129111548/http://abortion.org.nz/abortion-law-information to http://abortion.org.nz/abortion-law-information
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a discussion just started today about this topic on the Jacinda Ardern article talk page, if anyone is interested. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Illegal or not?

message: I took it upon myself to read the 1936 Committee to Enquiry report. Here's what the current article says about this:
There are a few discrepancies here.
First of all, according to the report, so-called "therapeutic abortions were legal in 1936 "not specifically, but by inference". I'm not exactly sure what this means (case precedence? court interpretation?), but it claims they're legal and even mentions their safety.  The report also states that "the law is interpreted liberally, and no doctor who has acted honestly in the belief that the mother's health was seriously endangered has ever been challenged". If true, this contradicts the rather absolutist claim in the Te Ara article that abortions were "completely illegal until the 1930s". Worth examining.
Second of all, the claim that one in five pregnancies resulted in an induced abortion is based on a misreading. Note the term "abortion" used to encompass miscarriage. The terminology didn't change until the 70s/80s, and you still see abortion being used in its more general sense in medical contexts. The report is careful to distinguish between "spontaneous abortion" (miscarriage) and "induced abortion" (what we would more commonly understand as abortion). The one in five figure includes miscarriages. The actual figure of induced miscarriages is approximately 4000 out of 24395, or 16.4% of all pregnancies (pp. 4-5).
Third of all, most of the report is about why the abortions were taking places and what responses should be taken. It would be valuable to spend a bit of time (a sentence or two) summarising these.
Fourth is this claim: "Some pregnant women died, were injured or infected, or abused by practitioners of illegal abortion. Historically, the death rate was high". I'm not sure where this come from. The 1936 report confirms that New Zealand had a comparatively high number of deaths from illegal abortions, but this was because of sepsis (infection); it makes no mention of abuse and injury. 
I'm happy to make improvements at some point, but want to do a bit more research into the claimed (il)legality of "therapeutic abortions", before doing so.
Craigthelinguist (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies Re: 1936 Report 

message: Why is the National party's position on abortion not mentioned?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E000:6A1F:DB01:C169:6D4A:AF2F:55AD (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  National party? 

message: Should we explain that abortion is not criminalised at any stage of pregnancy? The law specifically says that abortion can only be considered a criminal offence if it's performed without a medical licence. 75.27.37.89 (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full decriminalisation