Talk:Timeline of reproductive rights legislation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Timeline of reproductive rights legislation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Abortion Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Reproductive Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[History of abortion#Advertisement of abortion services|advertisement of abortion services]] The anchor (#Advertisement of abortion services) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

New article

I've created this page as a sister-article to History of abortion. Someone put a lot of hard work into compiling this list. However, the article on HoA, is being expanded to include more material on the social contexts and the list as such takes up a lot of room in the article. While this material will be summarized in the article, I'd hate to see this all go to waste, so I created this page for it. I figured the expansion would create a timeline of greater value to WP. Although, upon reflection I recognize that some might not appreciate me broadening the context to reproductive rights.

But as such, the article could use more info pre-17th century, as well as info relating to contraceptives. Any comments? Phyesalis 01:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry about forgetting to remove the inuse tag - my bad, very bad. Thank you for removing it.Phyesalis (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Reproductive rights"

The term "reproductive rights" is often used as code for the support of legal abortion, an extremely contentious position. The introduction to this "timeline of reproductive rights legislation" should not assume a general acceptance of legal abortion as part of a a "subset of human rights," ergo my qualification in the opening sentence. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing the matter of supporters vs. opponents definitions without clarification just makes it sound more contentious and less clear, as if the definition was a minority view (which it is not).

This article is about laws relating to human reproductive rights. Hence human rights - rights claimed or asserted to apply to humans. It is not about animal reproductive rights, it is not about plant reproductive rights, it is not about copyright and digital rights. (All reasonable article topics and hence need to make clear which set of reproductive rights talking about.) Whether somebody opposes or supports particular rights does not change that. (In order to oppose something it is still well to define it.)

This article uses reproductive rights in a much more general way than as a code for abortion. I think the list of examples should make that clear.

There is nothing in the lead that says these are legal actions in support of reproductive rights, in fact many of the legal actions listed restrict or deny particular reproductive rights. The article does not does not say that these rights are good (or bad), whether they should be supported or not, or whether they should or should not be protected. It just delineates the set of rights involved.

Since the lead was unsourced I copied appropriate sources from the article on Reproductive rights, and expanded the list of examples. Does that help?

Perhaps if you could supply on the talk page another widely held definition of reproductive rights (with citation and indication that it is similarly widely held, of course) might help clarify the matter. Zodon (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but denoting any claim as a "right" essentially begs the question as to whether it should be legally supported. If you take a look at the Wiki article on "fetal rights," from the outset there are qualifications stating that this is how supporters understand the issue. The previous wording for this listing invited the reader to "buy into" the notion that legal abortion is pretty much a universally accepted proposition. It isn't, and encyclopedias are not supposed to be advocacy pamphlets. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC) PS: You are basically correct when you say that the listing isn't simply about expansions of "reproductive choice," however that observation invites us to question the title of the article. Shouldn't it be something like "Timeline of reproductive policy legislation."?[reply]

As far as the suggested title change - that seems like it may be broadening the topic even further. (This article already casts a prety broad net.) Reproductive rights does give a reasonably concrete list of what is/isn't included. And it is a name/concept used in this context.

I am not particularly familiar with the term "reproductive policy." What is reproductive policy? How frequently is it used in this context compared to reproductive rights? What is/is not included in reproductive policy vs. reproductive rights? Zodon (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Badmintonhist, on the grounds that the term "reproductive rights" is exclusively used by "pro-choice" activists. (In contrast, "gay rights" is used by both sides of that debate.) Neutral terminology would be "abortion and contraception". DanBishop (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Reproductive_rights#Article_title (didn't want to cross post) ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What to include in timeline

How strictly should this timeline adhere to the title/description of covering reproductive rights legislation? I just removed some items which are not legislation, or are only peripherally related.

e.g.

1969–1973 – The Jane Collective operated in Chicago, offering illegal abortions.

Not legislation.

1969– Senator Robert Packwood of Oregon introduces legislation to legalize abortion in Washington D.C.; no action is taken. Proposed, but not enacted

Others, which I have left for the moment:

how is 1551 17th to 19th centery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.71.69 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1959– The American Law Institute drafts a model state abortion law to make legal abortions accessible.
1968– President Lyndon Johnson’s Committee on The Status of Women releases a report calling for a repeal of all abortion laws. Propsal

Of course any legal action generally has antecedents, it is proposed, considered, drafted, argued, ... for some time before. I am not sure to what extent we should include such preparatory items. My general thought is that as long as we give a link to the main law/event/etc., that should suffice, since the article about that item should (hopefully) cover the antecedents. There might be a few cases where some particular model/event/advance triggers a bunch of legislative action, and therefore warrants inclusion.

Another item that I am not sure about is 1869 - Pope Pius IX. Is this legislation/legal action? A few centuries earlier the Papacy definitely had governmental/legislative type power. At that late date - were they still a government, or more of an NGO. Or does this qualify by being a tremendously important non-legislative event? (e.g. was this the first time Catholocism set a policy relating to abortion).

1869 – Pope Pius IX declared that abortion under any circumstance was gravely immoral (mortal sin), and, that anyone who participated in an abortion in any material way had by virtue of that act excommunicated themselves (latae sententiae) from the Church. In the same year, the Parliament of Canada unifies criminal law in all provinces, banning abortion.^[1]

Zodon (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sixtus

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Timeline of reproductive rights legislation. 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:

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) 22:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union first country to legalize abortion

I read on this page that Mexico was the first country in the world to legalize abortion, sometime around 1930. But I don't think this is true. I believe that a whole ten years prior to this, in 1920, the Soviet Union became the first country (at least in Europe) to legalize abortion.

-John Jacobsen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9800:AB10:6DB9:C791:E3F:11FB (talk) 06:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Child murder rights?

Came across this entry while researching for an article - someone went through and repeatedly changed "reproductive rights" and similar terms to "child murder/child murder rights." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadedlyrics (talk • contribs) 06:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Firsts"?

I'm not quite sure how, for example, Mexico can be the first nation to legalize abortion in the cases of rape when those cases were already legal in the Soviet Union at the same time? The same is true with the other "firsts" on the timeline, which seems severely flawed as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TorpedoFahrt (talk • contribs) 21:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there a reference to Cuba? The Cuban government decriminalized abortion in 1965. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.L.G. Perez (talk • contribs) 08:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[history-1] Sixtus

[1]