Talk:Reproductive rights

message: 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)
thread_title:  Parental law in Canada 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Add Connection between Reproductive Rights and Family Rights/Responsability 

message: 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)
thread_title: UN Charter

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Youth Access/Rights 

message: 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)
thread_title: Feedback

message: 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)
replies: text: 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: ,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:509F:FFFF:0:0:50C:9108 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New contributor looking for advice on creating a new article looking to link back to this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Empty citation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gender Equality 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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 http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/16/79-of-planned-parenthood-abortion-clinics-target-blacks-hispanics 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)
replies: text: We already have an abortion debate article.  LifeNews appears to not be a reliable source (WP:RS).  —PaleoNeonate – 08:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple issues 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Requesting copy edit help  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reproductive Rights in Islam 

message: 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)
thread_title: Requesting some help

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Legislation on human reproduction

message: 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)
thread_title:  Claim that vast majority of the population does not know the law