Talk:Minors and abortion

message: The Heritage Foundation did not find that minors seeking abortion did not travel out of state, therefore the argument still stands. The argument may not be as affective, but we don't make any positive claim regarding interstate travel and abortion rate. We just state that one argument used against the laws is that some women will travel out of state for an abortion. Seems simple enough? The edits are problematic because it is inserting text that is not an argument against in the argument against section. I believe the recent edits have addressed the concerns raised by the study, but I'm glad to discuss any further issues with this section.-Andrew c 19:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heritage Foundation and interstate travel 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Sounds like a perfectly good argument in opposition. A reference need not be cited because common sense tells us that some minors are in fact mature enough. Nor is the subjectivity of "mature" an issue - "mature" means capable of making an informed decision about abortion without parental involvement. --Vptes1 (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, a citation IS needed. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, i.e. we cannot be the first place to make an argument. We only summarize existing reliable sources. That is the point of an encyclopedia. If no one notable has ever made the claim that minors of childbearing age are sufficiently mature to make abortion decisions by themselve, then that claim has no place in this article. Period. And if someone has used that argument before, then we can simply add that citation. Make sense? Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 02:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok...I'm adding a citation. --Vptes1 (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By contrast, though, it is simple to find reliable sources that say that minors are not mature enough, since maturity is open to opinion. So then, do we have "Minors are mature" under opposing arguments and "Minors are not mature" under supporting arguments? It seems a bit awkward, but may be the best way to fairly represent both points of view. KatrinasForest (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many minors of childbearing age are sufficiently mature to make abortion decisions by themselves 

message: User:86.121.11.61, I'm afraid you may not be familiar with how wikipedia works. You simply cannot add your own arguments to articles. It violations our no original research policy. You need to find reliable sources which you can cite and thereby attribute this views to. Unsourced content will most likely inevitably be deleted. Please feel free to acquaint yourself with some of our basic policies, and feel free to try again to improve this article. -Andrew c [talk] 17:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, http://www.clinicquotes.com/coerced%20murder.htm is not a WP:RS.-Andrew c [talk] 17:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text: First of all, "reliable" has a specific definition on wikipedia, where self-published websites are usually NOT reliable. Secondly, please don't try to speculate on my, or other editors motivation. We assume good faith here on wikipedia (see WP:AGF). I am just trying to make sure your contributions are up to our professional standards. And I know it can be hard to learn all of our rules when you first start editing., I don't want to discourage you at all. In fact, I am here to help out in any way I can.  So relax, read up on some of our policies, and see if you can't bring your contributions up to standards in the future. -Andrew c [talk] 18:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text: First of all, the sentence states "Women's health organizations believe..." and then cites... (surprisingly) two women's health organizations. Choicematters.org is not an unqualified, neutral source of information (period), but it can be used as a source of information for what the organization itself believes. Furthermore, this is a professional, official website for a (marginally) notable organization. Clinicquotes.com seems entirely self-published. So yes, the source you asked about is more reliable, but couldn't be used unqualified (and isn't neutral). Hope this helps.-Andrew c [talk] 18:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Minors and abortion. 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/20120905025157/http://www.sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/guide_ivg-2.pdf to http://www.sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/guide_ivg-2.pdf
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) 21:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Minors and abortion. 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://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/fr1/Articolo.asp?c=274622
*Added  tag to http://www.planned/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061027230948/http://www.healthvote.org/index.php/site/prop_home/C36/ to http://www.healthvote.org/index.php/site/prop_home/C36/
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) 06:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the US section, there are a couple things that are not well explained:
"Parental notification law currently enjoined" and "Parental consent law currently enjoined". What do these things mean? It sounds like the legal definition of "enjoined" is basically "prohibited", but um.. certainly "notification law" is not prohibited. Is this trying to say that notification of parents is prohibited by issuing an injunction? Fresheneesz (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enjoined?