Talk:Reproductive rights/Archive 1

message: I've edited the article heavily, simply because it's not appropriate for the article to take a position on whether or not fetuses count as "living" (e.g, "a society granting legal sanction to women to abort a living pregnancy"). NARAL would say that they are not; James Dobson would say that they are. It's not for us to take a side here (see WP:NPOV). In light of this, I've made the following changes:
*remove the second sentence of the lead. I integrated the first half of the sentence (controversial) into the lead, and dropped the rest for NPOV
*removed scare quotes from around "rights" in the first sentence, second paragraph--since we're describing the framing of the issue here, the scare quotes weren't appropriate
*removed "and liberal feminism"--feminism is broader than this, so I felt it wasn't really accurate, but I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of rephrasing.
*Removed the entire first paragraph of the "social Rights versus human rights" section. It takes a position in the very first sentence ("perhaps best represented as choice between the human rights of women versus the human rights of fetal or "unborn" human beings"), and goes downhill from there--it completely ignores the significant point-of-view that argues that fetuses have no rights. 
*Remove the second paragraph of the same section. It too takes a position--note how it sets up the claim that RR are human rights, and then knocks it down ("Hence, in any heirarchy of legal principles, if "reproductive rights" are recongnized in the society, they must be subordinate to more universal rights such as human rights"). Again, this takes sides in a POV dispute over whether reproductive rights are human rights or not. 
*made a few adjustments to avoid the dispute over "human vs. social" rights in the next paragraphs--I tried to stick to the facts of the dispute.
*Remove the paragraph about Roe v. Wade--it was too U.S.-centric and also digressed into non-reproductive rights areas (right to die etc)
*Removed the paragraph about pro-life views on the right to privacy, and merged some of it into the preceding paragraph. It rests too heavily on the "social vs. human" frame for this section, which I've been trying to expunge. Mentioned that pro-life people seek to define fetuses as people, while pro-choice people oppose this--that's a good enough answer to the debate.
*Remove the last paragraph--takes a POV ("both present moral contradictions"). Again, these may or may not be moral contradictions, but it's not the place of the article to determine that.
*Removed "arbitrary" from discussion of trimesters; see trimester, which claims they're not completely arbitrary
*Rearranged paragraph about middle grounds, and noted controversies over other issues
In addition, I think this article needs to cover more ground. The current section (renamed "fetal personhood") is OK, but needs to be a sub-section of a larger discussion. Specifically, we need:
*A history section (when did the idea of RR evolve, etc)
*A discussion of contraception, including history and current stances
*A brief history of the abortion controversy as it relates to RR
Hope this helps. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 14:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
===Response===
Thank you for looking at it, and taking such care and attention towards it. While I disagree with your characterization of the fetus as of questionable living status, I'm enthusastic about reviewing your changes and comments.  Legal questionability doesnt equal factual, moral/ethical, social, or cultural doubt --likewise few would disagree that a "fetus" at 8.9 months [or perhaps even 4.9 months] is not, legalese aside, a "baby." Sireg-St|eve 19:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stevertigo's additions, my revisions

message: Thank you for looking at it, and taking such care and attention towards it. While I disagree with your characterization of the fetus as of questionable living status, I'm enthusastic about reviewing your changes and comments.  Legal questionability doesnt equal factual, moral/ethical, social, or cultural doubt --likewise few would disagree that a "fetus" at 8.9 months [or perhaps even 4.9 months] is not, legalese aside, a "baby." Sireg-St|eve 19:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: by apartmento
I'm considering adding paragraphs discussing the reasons that the 
pro-life and pro-choice people have for their oppinions. I want to say that:
http://www.family.org.au 
Prolife
:-these babies are human, look human, suffer pain and the killing of them can be concidered infantcide
:-late term abortions (after 20 weeks)are quite often survive when the are out of the womb
:- it is sickening
Pro-Choice
:-a woman has the right to her body
:-the elimination of abortion will lead to dangerous backyard operation that are quite oftenly deadly for both the baby and the mother
:-The baby if born might be put into an unloving, uncaring family
I'm not really good with words so may someone please put this into the article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.41.31 (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Information 

message: Okay, so generally the term 'reproductive rights' does mean 'women's reproductive rights'. But since Stevertigo's edits, the article supports this de facto definition with logical argument, claiming that 'reproductive rights' is a term exclusive to women by logical necessity. I'd dispute this—women are not the exclusive 'vessels of human reproduction', and the first paragraph still has the example of forced sterilization, which can be forced on men as much as women. -- Perey 08:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women only? 

message: How is forced sterilization a component of reproductive rights?  I would think anything forced is the exact opposite of rights.
:Reproductive rights entails rights to procreate or not. Forced sterilization takes away the right to procreate—which is a reproductive right. —GrantNeufeld 06:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  forced sterilization? 

message: I find the sentence regarding the pro-life position unclear, and also unnecessary. It says:
Many "pro-life" advocates claim that the term is simply mincing words—claiming there to be no practical (hence meaningful) difference between the two statements. 
Since the previous sentences state that the terms reproductive rights and pro-choice reference pretty much the same position, is it really important for this sentence that says, basically, that they are the same thing? It is redundant as well as misleading; the sentence is framed in such a way as to imply disagreement, where in fact there is no disagreement. 
Furthermore, the next sentence, 
However, supporters of reproductive rights may consider it misleading to say, in the context of reproduction politics, that a political figure “supports abortion”, when instead that person may simply support a woman's right to choose abortion among other alternatives.
seems out of place; if this is to be included in the article it should have a bit of explanation/background information. 
I am inclined to take these two sentences out, but since they constitute a large part of the article, I thought it better to see if there is any opposition before doing so. Please let me know what you all think about this. Thanks, romarin[talk to her ] 19:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As there were no comments, I've gone ahead and made these two changes. Please let me know, anyone, if you disagree or have any other suggestions. Thanks! romarin[talk to her ] 23:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear sentences

message: This article has a strong US bias information-wise (even more so since I added a bit of info on US supreme court cases), and I think that we should add more about reproductive rights in other countries. Can those of you who live in (or know a lot about repro rights in) other countries add a section? Then maybe this article can be taken out of the stub category... romarin[talk to her ] 20:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: International reproductive rights

message: Recently, an anonymous user added a tag suggesting merging Pro-choice into this article. Although it's true that reproductive rights advocacy usually goes along with the "pro-choice" position, they are two different things and should have their own articles. There has been very little activity here lately, so I'm inclined to just remove the tag myself, but I will leave it for a couple days in case there is any discussion. romarin[talk to her ] 23:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, am I the only one here? And I haven't even checked in for a week or so... ok, well I'm removing the merge tag, as it seems to make little sense. romarin[talk to her ] 14:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree that they shouldn't be merged. --Andrew c 04:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally I think that the applier of a merge tag has to justify its existence, and since that editor didn't do so at the time s/he added it, nor has s/he seen fit to defend it since it was questioned back in May, it is acceptable to just remove it.--Anchoress 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: I added some text to the Reproductive Rights article to correct the bias already present in the article. The article only referred to Reproductive Rights as a "Women's Rights Issue", and ignored any reproductive rights issues relevant to Men's Rights. As the NPOV page states articles must be "representing fairly and without bias all significant views ". I quoted the position of an external verifiable source Choice4Men. Whether or not you agree with the Choice4Men position it is a 'significant view'.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afp2258 (talk • contribs).
:First of all, please sign your talk page postings by typing four tildes (~~~~). Next, we have notability guidelines, reliable source guidelines, and an undue weight section of the NPOV guidelines. You did not explain why you believe this view is significant, you simply stated it so. Please try to explain its significance, while keeping in mind the 3 pages I referred to. Thanks!-Andrew c 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to MrDarcy's Reverts

message: Per international aspects of reproductive rights:
*Some reference to the Mexico City policy
*The international effects of the MCP - the Guttmacher Institute has some useful info to that end.
*International response to the MCP
*Beijing Conference on Women http://www.reproductiverights.org/ww_adv_beijing.html
*Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN, based in Nigeria, http://dawnnet.org but I think I have a good article for them)
In a slightly different direction, this article has some decent legal content relating to the US but little critical (as in academic and cultural discourse) content. Some nice additions might include 
*reproductive rights as they relate to general health
*reproductive rights and feminism, Anne Fausto-Sterling and Angela Y. Davis come to mind   
*particular aspects of rr, like the critical discussions of fetal rights v. women's rights as well the dangers of fetal rights - the notion of the public fetus and the objectified mother. Anne Balsamo is a great source for that particular discourse. 
Any thoughts? Phyesalis 08:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the liberty of doing some serious editing, including adding res and removing the ref tag, since the Supreme Court decisions don't need additional citation - that Kirk ref could use some work. It's not perfect, but I think it's an improvement. I hope to be adding a History section in the next few days. Comments? Phyesalis 20:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for expansion 

message: Blackworm, I would appreciate if you would provide sources that contextualize the material within the specific discourse of health. The material you have included does not relate to reproductive health, nor does the source contextualize the material within a reproductive rights discourse. If reliable sources cannot show how this material relates to reproductive health and actually discuss men's rights within an explicit reproductive rights context. It should be removed. Phyesalis (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about reproductive rights, not reproductive health.  Again, perhaps the problem lies in defining the term, and whose definition is taken as binding.  Is the definition of "reproductive rights" self-evident?  Does "the topic of [this] article [have] no name," and is the "title [...] simply descriptive," (in the language of WP:LEAD)?  I'm inclined to say yes.  In any case, the source describes what self-described "reproductive rights" advocates believe.  Its relevance to this stub, at least for the moment, is clear.  Blackworm (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reproductive rights are about reproductive health. The article has a 3 yr status quo as such. I have provided two peer-review articles that discuss this. All I'm asking for is a citation that contextualizes "financial abortions" as part of the Reproductive Rights (as in health) debate. Abortion as one particular reproductive right in an Western context is already discussed in Abortion debate. As the current material/source only actually responds to this and Roe v Wade, it is not appropriate to characterize American men's desire for "financial abortions" as an international issue in men's reproductive rights. The article is about the overall international context of reproductive rights as human rights and this is what your material must be contextualized as in order to not be WP:OR/WP:SYN. Phyesalis (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop reverting material you asked me to provide. I added citations, you removed them which left the article lacking peer-review citation. Your willful inability to read and comprehend what is a basic concept is disruptive. I then reintroduced the material adding additional quotes. You reverted multiple edits, one of which corrected a date in a citation.  Please stop - if you find something missing - ADD IT. Do not remove reliable citations just because you don't like them. Phyesalis (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated in the edit summary, your sources have not been shown to support the article text.  Also, I am afraid it is you who are being incivil and disruptive.  Please review WP:NPA and  WP:CIVIL.  Blackworm (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shown where? You have voiced your opinion and failed to provide examples or support as I requested (here and on your talk page - which you deleted).  I think you need to step back, read the articles, (maybe think about actually typing out the short paragraph on pg 20 as requested) and show where I have allegedly misused my sources. As yet you have done nothing other than make allegations, revert citations and add inappropriate info (NCM and their "financial abortions"). You have failed to provide peer-review sources, failed to explicate or support accusations and failed to follow WP policy (3RR violation). I believe you are the disruptive one. Phyesalis (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reproductive rights as a men's issue

message: This seems off-topic to me:  "In addition, reproductive rights advocates endeavor to protect all women from harmful gender-based practices. Examples include cultural practices such as female genital cutting, or FGC, as well as state, customary and religious laws that contribute to women's political and economic disenfranchisment." (in the leadin).  I'm sure many advocates of reproductive rights also advocate for other rights too, but that isn't really relevant here.
:I'm not sure what you are objecting to, info regarding advocacy or specific examples? I'm in the process of expanding this article (no ownership) but as you can see, it's been a bit slow going. If it is the specific mention of FGC in the lead, I'd have no problem with creating a section and moving it down there (honestly, I can't remember if I intro'd that or if it pre-existed). I would have an issue with expunging of coverage of the most basic aspects of RR, particularly since I plan on giving these their own subsections. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to mention of FGC etc. provided what is claimed about it is supportable and relevant.  The problem here is that apparently a claim is being made that everyone who supports reproductive rights also advocates certain other things.  That's very hard to believe.  Or, maybe it means that the term "reproductive rights" is used only to refer to people who also advocate those other things.  That's also somewhat hard to believe -- I mean, some people might use the term that way, but I doubt that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do that, which is what would be required to make such a statement in the leadin.  I don't see any footnote to support this hard-to-believe claim.  Maybe it needs to be reworded, deleted and/or supported with reliable sources. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I see your point. However, the claim is that "advocates", not "supporters" or "proponents", endeavor to protect women from gender discrimination - this is the basic thrust of reproductive rights, they are not two different things. Actually the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do claim this, as it is the most basic precept of the discourse. But I surely invite you to provide reliable evidence to the contrary. I'm thinking in this context, advocacy would be understood as a particular type of action. Perhaps you are not familiar with the topic? If so, I highly recommend reading the 2 cited peer-review articles on the subject covering the basic history of reproductive rights. Would "activists" solve the issue? Like to get rid of "all"? Maybe "In addition"? Personally, I think "activists" is a bit loaded for the discussion (most people in the discussion agree that women should be protected from harmful discrimination, they disagree on what constitutes "harmful" - predominantly in terms of moral and cultural relativism). I'll spend some more time adding more cited material. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veering off-topic in the leadin 

message: There is a section on reproductive rights in one country, the United States, but no similar sections on any other countries.
:I suspect this is because of the US abortion issue (it was here before I was). Personally, I think RR has a clearly established international context as a subset of human rights - tons of top tier sources on this. I wouldn't mind c&ping it here until we could develop other sections. Phyesalis (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imbalance re countries 

message: I see no mention of lesbian struggles to insure that they have access to reproductive technology as one area of reproductive rights, nor any awareness related to lesbian, gay and transgender parenting and family formation issues. This needs to be remedied.
Calibanu (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the article just recently came off of stub status, so it's missing a lot of things! If you would like to add some material, it would be a great contribution. Phyesalis (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's also no mention of male castrati having the basic human right of free reproductive technology -- this also needs to be addressed.  Blackworm (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what Farinelli has to do with modern reproductive rights. But hey, if you can find some peer-reviewed sources that contextualize it specifically within the reproductive rights discourse, add it to the mix. Phyesalis (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LGBT Reproductive Rights?

message: It means, "this statement needs to be attributed to the people who claim it."  It doesn't mean "this statement needs more cites from people with the same views."  The first sentence of this article is an opinion, not a fact.  No amount of evidence from the UN, AI, or any other groups will make it a "fact." 
What you are doing in this article Phyesalis, is writing unattributed "facts" which are challenged by other editors.  In response to the challenge, you demand to see evidence to the contrary -- this is not a correct approach.  If the views you wish to present are those of a majority, or even universal, you need to find a source that says so, then specifically write that in the article text.  For at least the fourth time, you cannot present opinion as fact in this encyclopedia.
You write that (all unattributed "facts"):
* Reproductive rights are a subset of human rights
* Reproductive rights includes the right to abortion
By making these claims without attribution, you are making the Wikipedia article claim that abortion is a human right.  Clearly this is not a universal view -- do you agree or disagree?  Do you, Phyesalis, believe that it is a universal view that abortion is a human right?  Because that's what the article says right now.  Blackworm (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you appear to believe it legitimate and correct for Wikipedia to claim, without attributing the claim to any party (paraphasing): "Reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, are a subset of basic human rights," then I rest my case here.  Blackworm (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop. Get a source. Or attribute it yourself. Phyesalis (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the "attribution needed" tag means 

message: So, in addition to the footnote I added to the citation for the article "Advancing Reproductive Rights Beyond Cairo and Beijing", Cook and Fathalla use the terms "human rights" and "reproductive rights" virtually interchangeably (HR is the greater category and RR is the subset). For example, they state:
:*Meticulous documentation can show that human rights abuses represent systematic state policies rather than merely individual abberations. Evidence in court cases can show that a government has failed to eliminate and remedy reproductive rights abuses, and such evidence can be used to analyze conscious patterns over time. Complaints before national, regional and international legal tribunals and incidents publicized by nongovernmental human rights organizations can also be used to direct attention beyond the facts to the underlying conditions of abuse of reproductive rights for which states are legally answerable. (pg 117)
:*Under the subsection "Applying Human Rights", first sentence: "Reproductive rights may be protected through specific legal rights. Which rights are invoked and how they are shown to have been violated depend on the particular facts of an alleged violation and on the underlying causes of reproductive ill-health. The rights addressed here are not exhaustive, but only suggest some of the approaches that may be developed to advance reproductive interests. Table 1 shows the relevant provisions of the respective international instruments that relate to each right. Moreover, we indicate only certain ways in which specific rights may be applied to reproductive interests and how the Cairo Program and Beijing Platform can be used to add meaning to them. As human rights laws are applied more vigorously to reproductive interests, a variety of ways of applying them will emerge to serve reproductive interests. (end paragraph,pg 117)
:*The Cairo and Beijing texts suggest a variety of strategies for effectively protecting and promoting reproductive rights at every government level, from local government to international agencies. The Beijing Platform recognizes that legal literacy and legal service programs are required to ensure that women understand their human rights, how to use them and how to gain access to courts to enforce their rights [paras. 232-233]. Moreover, the Beijing text recommends support of those who try to uphold human rights, sometimes at great odds [para. 232] Important efforts towards this end include hearings held at Cairo and Beijing nongovernmental forums, where women testified about violations of their reproductive rights. (pg 120)
:*The Cairo and Beijing documents recommend that the health professions develop, disseminate and implement ethics codes to ensure practitioners' conformity with human rights, ethical and professional standards...Overall, the Cairo and Beijing documents develop the content and meaning of reproductive rights. (p 121)
Response? Phyesalis (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a source saying "Reproductive rights are a subset of human rights."  Then we can say, "This source claims that reproductive rights are a subset of human rights."  Until then, all you have presented is an argument in support of that claim, which by definition is original research.  Blackworm (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, check out the Amnesty international citation: "Reproductive rights - access to sexual and reproductive healthcare and autonomy in sexual and reproductive decision-making - are human rights; they are universal, indivisible, and undeniable. These rights are founded upon principles of human dignity and equality, and have been enshrined in international human rights documents. Reproductive rights embrace core human rights, including the right to health, the right to be free from discrimination, the right to privacy, the right not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment, the right to determine the number and spacing of one's children, and the right to be free from sexual violence. Reproductive rights include 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 the right to have the information and means to implement those decisions free from discrimination, coercion, and violence. Reproductive rights also include the right to the highest standards of sexual and reproductive healthcare." Phyesalis (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Amnesty Internation citation is fine -- attribute the view to them, and all is well.  You may not, however, claim that because AI claims reproductive rights are human rights, that it is a fact that reproductive rights are human rights.  Clearly groups opposed to certain practices claimed as reproductive rights (e.g., abortion) disagree that they are human rights, thus the claim is not fact but opinion, which must be attributed.  Blackworm (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Documentation for RR as human rights

message: I looked at a couple of the sources again and found the following statements.  They don't use the word "subset" and I don't think they have "human rights" and "reproductive rights" in the same sentence, but they can perhaps be seen as supporting a position similar to what Phyesalis is trying to assert.  Hopefully we can use these to help build a compromise:
*Human rights and Reproductive Choice, Freedman and Isaac (currently a footnote in the lead): "Almost invariably, discussions of reproductive health strategies acknowledge the close connections between health and law, and include as a basic tenet the importance of reproductive choice as a universal human right."  A weakness of this quote is that it refers to "discussions", not to declarations, ratified documents, etc.
*Advancing Reproductive Rights Beyond Cairo and Beijing by Cook and Fathalla.  "The Declaration and Platform for Action adopted by 187 UN member states in Beijing reaffirm the Cairo Programme's definition of reproductive health (para. 94), but advance women's wider interests. 'The human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence.'" A weakness of this quote is that it applies only to women, not to men.  It also emphasizes health but isn't clear on freedom to choose whether to have children.
The lead currently says "Various reproductive rights have been claimed as human rights in international human rights documents ..." and I see that my replacement sentence suggested in the "Reverting/Arbitrary section break" section won't fly without changing what comes after, since what I just quoted isn't the full sentence.  The word "claimed" needs to be changed, IMO, because in a similar way that "recognizes" implies truth, "claims" tend to suggest falsehood.  I suggest changing it to "Reproductive rights have been asserted to be human rights by an international advocacy group, and various reproductive rights have been discussed in international human rights documents, particularly with ..."
Later in the article, more detail can be given based on these same quotes.  I'm trying to make a concise statement that will fit into the lead, that doesn't necessarily cover all the information in the quotes. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes partially supporting Phyesalis' position 

message: Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) engenders the right to health. Note also the link to the general comment on its implementation. There's a focus there on women. 
Hope this helps. 
There's also an instrument which is either still under discussion or originally was, that discusses human dignity and the embryo on an international/multinational level. I suppose that may be relevant. Sephui (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN Documents 

message: The section on "men's reproductive rights" only covers sexual rights and doesn't mention reproductive rights at all. It is in definite need of improvement. — NRen2k5(TALK), 02:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Men's reproductive rights 

message: I have cleaned up some fo the language so that the clean up tags can be removed. I have taken out the following statement, which may be included in the article where appropiate (cant think of where right now and the language needs looking at).--SasiSasi (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: At the moment, compulsory sterilization section seems to put too much weight on China.  It seems like should give a brief summary of various issues/instances and leave the details for the main article.  Zodon (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compulsory sterilization weight 

message: A recent edit restored the phrase "leaving the informed mother with the same three options"
and said it was a very important point in the edit summary.
It is not obvious from the entry here, or from the article on Male abortion that this phrase is particularly important, it seems more like extra words saying what is blindingly obvious (a change in circumstances that doesn't eliminate any of your options leaves you with the same options).  
If it is an important point, its meaning/importance should be clarified in the Male abortion article.  (The phrase is there, but there is no particular mention made to explain its significance.)
(Note: I am not saying that it isn't important, just that it isn't clear that it is or why it is, and therefore it would improve the coverage of the topic to explain it in the main article.) Thanks. Zodon (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From having discussed this with people in the past, it is not at all obvious that the woman is left with the same three options -- many people believe that supporters want to force abortions on women, or force adoption, or that the woman would not be informed early enough to make an informed choice involving all previous options.  The woman being informed, in fact, is a crucial part of the concept, and one which would not be mentioned if the phrase were removed.  I don't see the motivation behind removing the nine word clarifying phrase unless one wants to create the impression that it is not the case that the woman is left with the same options.  Blackworm (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Was just trying to shorten the entry and cut out what looked like needless words.  Zodon (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mens rights - "Male abortion" 

message: The question was posed in an edit summary about how Tragedy of the commons is related to reproductive rights.  Couldn't come up with a short enough answer for edit summary, so here is a longer one. 
The tragedy of the commons deals with individual choices resulting in over-use or destruction of common resource, specifically with relation to human overpopulation.  "To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action."Tragedy of the commons  Curtailment of individual reproductive rights may be necessary for the common good.
So the tragedy of the commons is a commentary on the right to determine the number of children a couple has, which is among the rights some claim as reproductive rights. Zodon (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I didn't see the above discussion from earlier this year when I removed Tragedy of the commons from the see also section. Still, I think there could be a sentence or two about it somewhere in the article, but in the see also section it just looks unrelated. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tragedy of the commons 

message: Under Compulsory sterilization and abortion:
Compulsory or forced sterilization or abortion violate these rights, particularly when they occur in the context of eugenics programs.
Just wondering why it being part of a eugenics program makes it violate the rights more. Surely it either breaks them or doesn't?
--152.78.174.10 (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right, I will check the sources to see if it supports this wording, the section needs rewrite anyway.--SasiSasi (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The paragraph seems a bit weasely and OR-ish: we start with what "some" understand RR to include, then discuss what we seem to believe is an example that violates that interpretation, then assert that it "violates" "rights."  I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to attribute these views to their adherents, or find a source discussing eugenics in the context of reproductive rights (or at least human rights, which might be an acceptable stretch).  Blackworm (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: jep, I will try and get some reliable sources of the next couple of days and update the article. In the moment the section on compulsory sterilization and abortion is too much original research, there must be some specific sources on the issue. This would also help to cut down on the detail.--SasiSasi (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused about wording 

message: I have done some work to the article, still needs work though. I have not got round to changing the particular wording discussed above (eugenics).--SasiSasi (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On footnote style, where many references to the same book are used, please consider putting the details of the book in once, and then just footnoting with the author and  page (see for instance, human rights#References and Bibliography).  Makes it a lot easier to read/edit.  (Also, combining of duplicate references helps.)  Thanks. Zodon (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to article 

message: I did a bit of work on it but did not finished, I have removed the eugenics bit from the article because its too much original research. Have to find better sources. In the meantime, I put the removed section below:--SasiSasi (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugenics stuff 

message: I have put an expansion tag on this section to signal that it is work in progress. Please feel free to contribute.--SasiSasi (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of reproductive rights issues section 

message: A couple of suggestions on terminology.
* We should try to keep straight the distinction between Population control and population policy.  Population control describes a subset of population policy.  The terms are not interchangeable.  (At the moment Wikipedia is weak in this area, with an article on population control, but not much about population policy in general.)  
* Family planning is sometimes used as a synonym for birth control, but they aren't the same thing.  It can sometimes be difficult when interpreting a source to determine what they mean when they say family planning. 
To avoid confusion we should try to keep these terms as clear and distinct as we can in our writing here.  Thanks.  Zodon (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Zodon, re: family planning, we've been through this before, and couldn't seem to reach a consensus on how the term should be used.  It seems to me now, based on sources, that "family planning" = "birth control" + "treatment of involuntary infertility (artificial insemination, etc.)"  You don't seem to agree with that, but IMO it isn't clear that we can define "family planning" based on what "family planning clinics" provide, as you've done in the family planning article.  If family planning clinics provided STD testing, for example, would that make getting an STD test "engaging in family planning?"  I wouldn't say so.  Blackworm (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology - Population policy vs. control; Family planning vs. birth control 

message: This edit has as its edit summary, "remove links included in template."  None of the removed links appear in the "Rights" sidebar, and so I ask what template are these links already present in, and where in the article does this template appear.  Blackworm (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See this edit. It is the reproductive health footer template.-Andrew c [talk] 19:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of links