Talk:Fetal rights/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article categorization

Fetal rights includes more than just the abortion issue. Because of this I do not suggest that it is merged into the abortion page.

I understand the concern that fetal rights is only about abortion since it is so closely connected to the issue. As such I understand why you might think that the questionable neutrality label is necessary. But fetal rights is an issue in its own right in addition to abortion as can be demonstrated by the other laws that have nothing to do with abortion but concern fetal rights. Although fetal rights and abortion overlap the two are distinct issues as such I do not feel the need to keep the labels up on this page. Thank you.

Pax

[b]~jfraatz

Additional parts wouldn't fit into abortion folder.

The parts about the smoking ban, fetal insurance and the laci and connor law don't really belong in the abortion folder. Since they are the bulk of the page they really belong in this folder.

Pax

~jfraatz

{{pov}} tag

I've reinstated the {{pov}} tag on this article. The language used here is heavily biased to a particular point of view. For example, the opening paragraph is:

Fetal rights refer to the rights of fetal persons as they are legally and ethically recognized.

The phrase "fetal persons" expresses the point of view that fetuses are people. This is one viewpoint in the abortion debate. It may be true, but its still a point of view. It would be like writing an article about Jesus that started "the mythical being Jesus...". That would be unacceptable because its one very particular point of view.

The whole article is littered with this sort of language promoting a specific POV. Until its cleared up, please do not remove the {{pov}} tag again, as this would be vandalism. Thanks, Gwernol 18:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright I see what you are saying about "fetal persons" I'll remove that in the cases where that is used inappropriately to fix the neutrality problem.

As for deleting the neutral point of previously the reason I did that was because previously you posted it without giving any rationale behind it and because saw no reason to question its neutrality before hand. I wasn't trying to vandalize the page or anything.

If don't have any other problems besides the use of "fetal person" I'll delete the POV label.

Thanks

~jfraatz

jfraatz (neutrality problems fixed)

Alright I have gone through and examined the article and made changes in it to fix the neutrality problem.

The following words or phrases came to attention.

1.)"Fetal Person" I think you may be right with this one. I've removed this terminology except at the bottom of the article where it is accepted conditionally for sake of argument.

2.)"Unborn Child/Children" This probably isn't part of the problem but I have heard of people having problems with this terminology in the past. However it is accurate terminology as "child" refers to a young human:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Child

and a fetus is a young developing human.

3.) Fetal Personhood

This is only discussed in terms of the debate about it so this doesn't have a neutrality problem.

I think this pretty much covers it. BTW when you first put the POV label up you should have explained what reasons you had for putting it up so I could fixed the problem.

Thank you.

~jfraatz

Its better, thanks for making the changes. But it still makes some questionable assertions. For example in the Abortion section it states: "The existence of abortion leads many pro-abortion activists to oppose fetal rights even when they do not come in conflict with the abortion issue.". At the least this needs a reliable source to back it up.

In the Fetal Personhood section it states: "If the fetus is a person then naturally it should be accorded the rights of a person" which is extremely POV, I'm afraid. The one does not follow from the other and the word "naturally" is highly biased. It then goes on to say "If Singer is correct then differing degrees of intelligence would correspond to differing degrees of personhood which would obviously contradict the identity argument as it would be ambiguous in determining personhood at any given time." which is just untenable unless its a direct quote from Singer. Use of words like "obviously" and the implied correctness of the identity argument are also problematic

The Fetal Rights and Parental Rights section assigns views to large numbers of people without sources and I suspect in a manner that greatly over-simplifies both sides of a complex debate.

These are the most glaring but there are numerous other more minor issues that should be addressed, there are no sources for any of the article (remember that verifiability is an inviolable policy of Wikipedia) and I don't fully aggree with your assessment of the term "fetal personhood" above.

Sorry to be a stickler on this, but contentious issues like this are exactly where we need to be most careful not to convey a strong viewpoint.

(By the way, you are quite right that I should have mentioned the specific issues when I first marked the article as POV, my apologies)

Gwernol 19:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There were still a lot of problems, not least that the views attributed to Singer were not his actual views. They were more like a caricature or a parody. The criticisms as expressed could only apply to those parts that are not his actual views. I've cleaned this up as much as I can without having to take a lot of time. There are more sophisticated and accurate criticisms of Singer around but they are in books, not on the internet. Metamagician3000 12:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

More refinements

I will fix the remaining problems and add a outside links section. Thanks for your comments. Pax. Jfraatz 22:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

A few goals

I suggest that, if this article withstands the AfD, it be remodelled after Paternal rights and abortion. Perhaps, if I had been familiar with WP:PROD, I would have instead chosen that route.

A hypothetical future structure for this article:

• History: Include information of ancient laws and traditions which recognized the fetus. Examples would be Roman inheritence laws, Biblical law which proscribed a monetary fine for assaulting a pregnant woman, etc.
• Laws and cases: Globalize the list of laws. These, I believe, can be broken down into three classes:
  • Behavioral intervention: Laws intended to control what a pregnant women can or cannot do. It should be no trouble to populate this section with information on laws intended to regulate smoking, driving, and drinking during pregnancy. Also, example cases are numerous, such as this case or this one.
  • Conditional recognition: Laws which recognize the fetus for specific purposes. Inheritence laws and anti-violence laws such as the Unborn Victims of Violence act would fall into this category.
  • Complete recognition: Laws which recognize the fetus as a person on par as anyone else. The Eighth Amendment of the Irish Constitution would be an example of such.
• Religion: Cover how the fetus is regarded by different faiths.
• Debate: Needs a complete and total facelift. Would be benefited by sourced opinions and arguments.

Okay, so the divisions are arbitrary, but it's born of my need to structurize things. I'd be willing to help build this article — specifically, I would work to find example laws, cases, etc., as I did for Paternal rights and abortion and Anti-abortion violence. -Severa (!!!) 19:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Pregnancy & alcohol awareness signs

There's a sign like this in a local restaurant, but, unfortunately I don't have a camera. Does anyone have a photo of this sign, or a sign like it, that they'd be willing to share with us? The following photos, of course, are copyrighted, but photos of awareness signs like these would be great for illustrating the "Behavioral intervention" section.

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/clairehelene7/190106594/in/set-72157594200018496/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/rgrjnr/80533888/in/set-1721074/

-Severa (!!!) 04:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sex selection in the USA

In Behavioral Intervention there is a claim: Similar laws have been suggested in the US where 42% of females have been aborted compared to only 25% of males. The source for these statistics was given as [1]. This is an opinion piece from a Dartmouth Coalition for Life page. Since it cites no source for the satatistics it does not meet verifiability requirements. This is a controversial claim and should be backed up by a reliable and objective study. I've done some brief searching but can't find mention of this phenomon that references research. Can we find a source or remove the claim? Thanks Siobhan 01:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, this statistic is a worldwide estimate, but is sometimes cited as being U.S.-specific. [2] I can't find an ultimate source for this mysterious data, even on a global scale, but the numbers have been floating around since at least 1996. [3] Removing as unsourced for the time being.-Severa (!!!) 03:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

This article should be merged to fetal protection, or vice versa, as the existence of both is redundant. Thoughts? -Severa (!!!) 04:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think fetal protection should be merged into this article, though. --Hyphen5 15:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. They look like basically the same subject to me. I think the content of this article appears to be a more solid base for the merger than the fetal protection one (great work - to the folks who have been building this up over the last few months). The title the merged article lives under should probably be based on prevalance of links and/or search terms (is there anyway to know what people search for the most on wikipedia?). Siobhan 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Support for/opposition to legal abortion edits

I notice there's been a small bit of back forth on the couple of sentences about support for and opposition to legal abortion paragraph. I think the current wording (Opposition to legal abortion usually stems from concern for fetal rights) is a very modern Western view, and one which diminishes the role of religious organizations in the organized opposition to abortion. The view of life as sacred (which is different from the idea of a life having rights) is completely missing in the current wording, but has been much more revelent historically and in other cultures (and is a significant part of the current pro-life movement as the article the sentence links to makes clear). I'd prefer to see the more measured "sometimes" than the blanket "usually". Siobhan 02:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. "Usually" is counter to the global perspective which Wikipedia seeks to create. It suggests that the reason for opposing abortion most familiar to Westerners is the universal norm. Other reasons I have encountered, which do not concern "fetal rights," include the belief that a man has the right to children, the belief that motherhood is the correct role for women, or that reproduction is the ultimate purpose or plan for the human species, the desire of a government to boost its population, the belief that abortion averts the will of God or the gods, and the belief that abortion is a form of violence and that non-violence is preferable. This is clearly a case in which WP:WEASEL must be applied. -Severa (!!!) 03:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the "usually" and its global context. I was reffering to a global context here though it could have been mistaken as a Western context. This is because these policies are usually oddities in any part of the world (not just the west). "usually" is appropriate in both western and non-western contexts since these cases are occasional oddities (hence my reluctance for the use of "sometimes".

"Other reasons I have encountered, which do not concern "fetal rights," include the belief that a man has the right to children, the belief that motherhood is the correct role for women, or that reproduction is the ultimate purpose or plan for the human species, the desire of a government to boost its population, the belief that abortion averts the will of God or the gods, and the belief that abortion is a form of violence and that non-violence is preferable."

I have not noticed most of these as reasons are not really reasons per se. Due to asymmetric advocacy of fetal rights by religious people individuals espousing anti-abortion views are more likely to hold these views as well. However, these are not at the stated primary reasons of their anti-abortion views and do not represent the focus of the large majority of these views.

I understand that these views as well as the views supporting larger populations in countries with declining birth rate do exist. Which is why I used "usually stems" instead of just "stems" unqualified which could denote bias since they appear to mask other reasons or "sometimes stems" which would also denote bias since it is falsely denotes that fetal rights are not the primary motivation for these views.

I've changed it back to "usually" though I have also noted the existence of other views in the same sentence. I hope that resolves it.

Thanks. Pax Jfraatz 03:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

I have to agree with Siobhan and Severa on this. You'll at least need to provide reliable sources that show that concern for fetal rights is usually the reason for opposition to abortion. I have never seen such evidence. There are (and historically have been) many other reasons for opposition to abortion. Most of these have been outlined above; another is the political motivation - countries explicitly trying to increase their populations often ban abortions. I think you dismiss the religious motivation far too easily, its clear that much opposiion to aborion has been driven by explicit religious motivations rather than direct concern for fetal rights. The term "usually" implies that concern for fetal rights is the majority reason for opposition. Unless you can provide strong statistical evidence, I don't think this can be justified and is a point of view. Your addition of "occasionally for other reasons" actually makes it worse by making an offhand dismissal of other reasons that should be discussed in the article. Gwernol 13:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording before looking at the discussion page since I did not get a message regarding this. However, you have a valid point. I will provide references as soon as possible to back up my claim however, for now I will cite that most anti-abortion advocates refer to themselves popularly as "pro-life" implying that the life of the fetus is their primary concern. As for religious motivation I would have to note that it appears to be largely coincidental since usually opponents of abortion (including religious ones) do not cite religious arguments as their rationale.

Thanks. Pax. Jfraatz 20:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

Well, first anti-abortion advocates are a small subsection of the population. Second "Pro-life" is a political term, not necessarily a descriptive one, so you can't infer intent from it. Third the term "pro life" is a modern Western one and doesn't take into account historical or non-Western opposition to abortion; you need to provide sources for the claim that the label "pro-life" implies that fetal rights are the primary concern of those who use it. Your argument about religion and abortion views seems to ignores the world's 1 billion Catholics for whom abortion is deeply linked to religion and whose religious beliefs are often cited when talking about abortion. Gwernol 20:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the sentence in the article slightly. This is not intended to be a final proposed version, just something to get by, and fix a minor grammatical error in the previous version. If/when we reach consensus here we should update it again. I just don't think its sustainable to argue that anti-abortion views and religious views are "coincidental" for many millions of people. Gwernol 21:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

When reffering to anti-abortion advocates I am reffering to general dispositions on abortion. Though there are only minorities holding the harder versions of the pro or anti-abortion views most of the populace has a general leaning on the issue. As for "Pro-life" being a political term and not necessarily a descriptive one I am not sure what you base this on. If you look at the public discussion related to the term it centers around fetal rights to life and rarely encompasses much else. So it seems useful as a descriptive term as well.

As for non-Western and non-contemporary opposition to abortion it seems to be a term used in much of the world and before the last few centuries surgical abortion wasn't common due to lack of medical expertise and before the last 50 years or so abortion was mostly illegal. So much of the history regarding opposition to abortion corresponds to the same time that the term "Pro-life" has been used to describe it.

"I just don't think its sustainable to argue that anti-abortion views and religious views are "coincidental" for many millions of people."

As for this. Perhaps I should not have used "coincidental". There is a much more logical explanation for the correlation. Social cohesion is probably a better explanation here. The fact is I haven't much evidence that relgious people base their opposition to abortion in their religious beliefs. However, a population with a fundamental belief A (say Catholocism) is more likely to have a common agreement on beleifs B,C and D as well than they would with a population with a fundamental belief E because peer pressure will more likely cause them to agree with these views than it would if they belonged to the other population. Since one can derive support for and opposition to abortion from just about any secular or religious worldview it seems that social cohesion is more likely a factor here than relgious belief.

Thanks Pax Jfraatz 23:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

Sorry, you've made several important factual errors here. First the claim that abortion is a modern phenomenon, there is much evidence that its been going on for most of human history, see History of abortion. As for anti-abortion laws being a 20th. century practice, please see the same article, which shows the long history of legal and extra-legal discussion on this issue, which stretches back two to three thousand years, at least. The history of opposition to abortion stretches back to at least 350 BC.

As for the religious basis of opposition to abortion amongst Catholics, this poll shows that 68% of Catholics in the US believe that their religion is morally opposed to abortion. Are you seriously arguing that the Catholic church, that teaches the infallibility of the pope and strongly condemns abortion has nothing to do with the fact that most Catholics in the world are anti-abortion? Gwernol 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"As for non-Western and non-contemporary opposition to abortion it seems to be a term used in much of the world and before the last few centuries surgical abortion wasn't common due to lack of medical expertise and before the last 50 years or so abortion was mostly illegal. So much of the history regarding opposition to abortion corresponds to the same time that the term "Pro-life" has been used to describe it."

This is not evidence that the abortion debate is a recent phenomenon. The references to surgical abortion in historical documents are scarce for precisely the reasons you state. The majority of references to abortion in classical literature are to herbal or manual forms — i.e. potions, poultices, violent excercise, etc. -Severa (!!!) 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Amerocentrism

The usage of only American polls was because it was hard to find other polls representing the world overall. I used the poll to support a particular claim. Though I doubt that this claim is much different elsewhere either. Its just that I don't know of a polling center that conducts global polls.

Thanks. Pax Jfraatz 23:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

The source was a non sequitur. The claim you intended to support did not follow from the source. You cannot generalize what trends might be in the world at large from those that are observed in the U.S. Millions of Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains believe in the principle of ahimsa, or non-violence, and those that oppose abortion might do so for this reason. [4] The Dalai Lama denounced abortion as a sin against "non-violence to all sentient beings." [5] We are not in a position to judge what is to be considered the normative reason through editorialistic terms like "usually" and "mostly." -Severa (!!!) 23:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Right but these non-violence principles would entail that the beings they should not be violent to would have the right not to have violence committed against them. In this case the beings involved would be fetuses. So the basis may be a little different than Western reasons, but in both cases the general concern would still be over fetal rights. This is why I assumed it was predominant not just in the West.

I used "usually" and "mostly" because I felt it would have been a little strange giving the actual numbers as it would seem to go off topic. However, I based these on the polls I referenced. The "other" category in these polls regarding personal view on abortion was very small, usually around 1%.

pax Jfraatz 00:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

These are misleading conclusions. It does not follow that those who call themselves pro-life immediately do so for concern over fetal rights. We can't infer what the most prevalent basis for opposing abortion in the world is from an opinion poll, specifically a U.S. opinion poll, and one that relies on broadly-defined, catch-all political terms. Such opinion polls rarely, if ever, delve into the deeper reasons behind public opinion. Such opinion polls rarely, if ever, delve into the deeper reasons behind public opinion. Obviously, the "other" category in such polls represent those who feel that the neither the term "pro-life" nor "pro-choice" fit them — the fence-sitters, the middle ground, those apathetic few who actually don't care enough about abortion to take a stand. -Severa (!!!) 00:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason I had for relating "pro-life" to certain fetal rights concerns is due to the primary pro-life argument. I always thought the link was defined since that has always been the argument I have heard from anti-abortion activists. As such people would not consider themselves "pro-life" if they did not have that view. Because of that I didn't understand what was meant by "sometimes" the only thing I could think of was that implied disingenuity of the bulk of abortion opponents. That is why I found it POV.

As for the the "catch-all" comment I understand that perhaps their are a few people who would pick "pro-life" in the poll. However, due to the prevalent use of fetal rights (not necessarily that wording) related arguments used by anti-abortion people it would be hard to imagine people picking that without having those arguments as their primary reasons for taking that position. (notice the main focus of the other polls relating to abortion from that link). Others who truly did have distinctly different reasons would probably call themselves something else (the only example I have heard of here is something called "pronatalism") and probably care much for the label "pro-life" since the term is used closely with the fetal rights based arguments I mentioned about.

Also the poll had other categories for undecided or mixed opinions.

Also what do you think SiobhanHansa suggested edit? It seems neutral to me.

Pax Jfraatz 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

Other views are rare and not related to fetal rights

By saying that opposition to abortion sometimes stems from fetal rights concerns it gives the impression that it is just one of several reasons and not the primary reason.

I feel this could easily be viewed as POV since I haven't seen any evidence proving that other concerns are significant factors in public opinion.

If you look at the polls I referenced earlier you will see that the significant basis for opposition to abortion has to do with peoples concerns for what they view as fetal rights to life. The polls comparing the predominant viewpoints("pro-choice" and "pro-life") didn't even have other specific viewpoints listed. In each case the choice for "other" accounted for a very small minority of public opinion.

If other views are prevalent, I'd need to see data proving it.

Pax Jfraatz 23:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

Well, that works in reverse too. If you say opposition to abortion usually stems from fetal rights concerns, you give the impression that it is the primary reason, not one of several. This can be viewed as POV since you haven't presented any evidence to show that other concerns are not significant factors.

The polls you cite apply to the US only, which was my point above. The polls only ask whether people are pro-life or pro-choice; the behavior of most people when encountering such polls is to choose one of the named options. Because the poll is not designed to answer the question you want it to, it cannot be used as evidence one way or the other for that question. You need to provide better evidence that concern for fetal rights is the primary reason for people to be anti-abortion globally and historically. Gwernol 23:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

? Um the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" correspond to particular viewpoints based on particular concerns. The argument for the pro-life viewpoint is based on concern for fetal rights. So when the poll says that n% are pro-life it is saying that n% base their opposition to abortion from concerns for fetal rights. I understand that oftentimes the term "fetal rights" isn't used in their arguments but that is just because they use terms like "right to life" in their place, but they still refer to the same thing.

Pax Jfraatz 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

I completely disagree with your reasoning here. "Pro-life" is not synonymous with "believes fetal rights mean abortion should not be permitted". Siobhan 00:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

From my experience it seems to be the argument I hear abortion rights opponents using almost exclusively. I've always heard of the two being used synonomously (though the term "fetal rights" might not have been used) by abortion opponents as well everyone else I have discussed it with.

Pax Jfraatz 18:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

How many people have you talked with 100? 200? Let's be generous and say its 3000. How many people are there in the USA? 300 million. So you've spoken with 0.01% of the population. This is one of the important reasons we ask for sources rather than rely on people's personal anecdotes. Gwernol 22:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Siobhan. All the poll tells us is that given the choice between describing themselves as "Pro-choice", "Pro-life" or "other", then x% of those polled chose a), y% chose b) and z% chose c). You cannot draw any other conclusion from the poll, because that's the question that was asked. In order to answer the question you want answered the poll would have to explicitly ask about the reasons people oppose abortion. Until you can cite a poll that does that, and does it across the globe, you cannot make the sweeping statement that you do. Its your assumption that the terms mean the same thing. You can't add information to Wikipedia based on your assumption, you must have evidence from reliable sources. Sorry, Gwernol 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the poll I posted had choices of "mixed" and "other" so it wasn't a sweeping either/or poll like most of the ones out there. As for the link between the two see my comments to SiobhanHansa and Severa. I was under th understanding that it was defined. That's why I cited the poll as support.

Also what do you think of SiobhanHansa's suggested edit? It looks like a good edit. I was thinking we could use it.

Pax, Jfraatz 18:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

Jfraatz, one important point: you say "If other views are prevalent, I'd need to see data proving it. ". This is the wrong way round. You have put an unsourced assetion into the article. The onus is on you to provide a source supporting your claim or it can be removed at any time by any editor. Please see Wikipedia's policy on verification. Thanks, Gwernol 00:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought those positions were the same thing since the term is commonly associated with those arguments. That is why I thought the burden of proof would be to prove that this wasn't the case.

Pax Jfraatz 18:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

No, you've added a statement to the article. This means you are obligated to source it appropriately. Gwernol 22:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are some sources showing that people oppose abortion for a wide variety of reasons. In [6] - Barak Obama says "I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will." In [7] "Nancy Coulter-Parker... said she was not anti-religious, but did not want policy made on the basis of faith. She cited a range of issues where she felt religion had intruded improperly into the political sphere, including abortion..." In [8] there are several reasons other than simply fetal rights mentioned, for example: "Black Americans for Life sees legalized abortion as being particularly devastating in the African-American community. 'Abortion has become the new form of black genocide which is systematically destroying about 400,000 black babies every year,' said Day Gardner, director of the organization." In [9] "In my work as a teacher of medical ethics in the philosophy department of a Catholic university, one of my main tasks is to show how opposition to abortion is not necessarily a matter of faith,". There are many, many more. Gwernol 01:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The people you mention don't take "pro-life" position. Most of the abortion rights opponents I have talked with don't agree with the claims that these are intrinsically religious beliefs. I think the problem here is that depending on which position you take you might assume things about the other position which are not assumed by the adherents to that position. That looks like the case here. Especially in political debate setting where often times politicians or pundits use popular arguments that may not be accurate for political effect.

The genocide argument is good. I might include it in the article regarding rascism and abortion. Though generally genocide is first opposed because it is a direct human rights abuse and only secondly because it is rascist. (if the people you are being rascist towards don't have rights it wouldn't matter anyway)

Does your professor oppose abortion? I've sometimes heard this from philosophers or philosophy professors who oppose abortion. I'm a philosophy minor by the way, and usually when I hear these claims it's usually because they are trying to debunk this as a popular misconception and not necessarily as a claim that the two are usually intrinsically related views.

Perhaps what could clear this up is that frequently religious groups are connected to civil rights issues anyway. Often the notion of "equal rights" is both a relgiously and rationally held view. However, this wouldn't mean that their support of civil rights would be a distinctly religious view. Look at MLK his support of civil rights had a religious dimension but we wouldn't say that civil rights for blacks is only a religious view.

Pax Jfraatz 18:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the opposition to abortion is only a religious view, just that religious views are a part of what moves many people to oppose abortion. MLK opposed abortion because he saw life as God given. The right to life (there's that "rights" language) in the Catholic church has traditionally been based on the sacred nature of life, not the rights of an individual, but on the rights of God - our God given dignity and humanity, that humankind cannot rightfully intefere with. (To over simplify!)

I also think it's a mistake to equate rights based arguments with rationality and religion based ones with something else. In the end these are both values based arguments (aren't all these debates?) that can be argued in a rational way (or not). It's a matter of whether or not you see those values as based in religious belief or not. And for many people, religous belief *is* a huge part of their value system. SiobhanHansa 23:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand Jfraatz wanting to indicate the significant nature of fetal rights as a rationale for the opposition to abortion. The language of rights is the language of choice for many organizations on both sides of the abortion debate, especially as the most public debate has played out in the US Supreme Court as a consitutional issue. Would the wording Much opposition to legal abortion is based on a call to fetal rights. Similarly many pro-choice groups oppose fetal rights even when they do not impinge directly on the abortion issue, because of a perception of these moves as a slippery slope strategy to restricting abortion choice Not sure about the "call to" wording in the pro-life piece. Comments welcome. SiobhanHansa 16:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC) And that should read: Would the wording Much opposition...........abortion choice work? SiobhanHansa 16:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your wording. I don't think it could be considered POV since it neither hides other reasons for opposing abortion nor implies disingenuity of most of the people who consider themselves "pro-life". And rights due seem to be the common reference point of both views.

Thanks. Pax Jfraatz 17:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)jfraatz

Again, this presumes to impose the Western standard upon the world at large, without any source to substantiate that this is in fact the case. Qualify the statement, as in, "Much opposition to legal abortion in the West is based upon concern for fetal rights." But, honestly, I don't see what the brouhaha is over. -Severa (!!!) 23:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good catch on the geographical bias. I like the addition. As to "the fuss" I think that any subject deserves considered debate to find expression that can sit comfortably with an encyclopedic approach and the good faith efforts of people who want to develop content. It's difficult for any single person to write an article that doesn't contain POV. SiobhanHansa 23:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Improvement ideas

I was just taking a quick read through of this article again, and one of the big things that struck me about it was that it was written as though the US was the fetal rights universe. I know how easy it is to miss this sort of thing (I did it myself in my suggested edit a few days ago). But I also think taking a wider view is the sort of thing that can really improve an article on a contentious subject, without leading to a POV push.

For instance, the first section is entirely about the law in the US. Examples of fetal rights in other legal jurisdictions, particularly rights that might surprise or shock readers, would be the sort of thing that could make this article really interesting to a general audience.

Also a piece on how the same stated right are interpreted in different cultures would add nuance to the subject that is currently lacking.

If we are careful about examples, we should be able to show readers the myriad of ways that fetal rights are and can be viewed, without making a particular POV dominant.

Is there any enthusiasm to try and improve this article in this sort of way? I have no idea how to start on this, so I was hoping for a bit of support :-)--SiobhanHansa 02:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A "History" section would definitely be of benefit to this article (see Paternal rights and abortion). I think the information that is most lacking in this article pertains to fetuses and inheritance law. However, as for the uninteded Amerocentrism, I think it will be hard to counter, given that much of the push for fetal protection in the West is centered in America. I do think that the worldwide perspective has improved since earlier versions of this article. -Severa (!!!) 04:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

partially reverted edit

I've partially reverted Siobhanhansa's reversion. Though snowflake children touch tangentially on the issue of prenatal rights they are not directly related to fetal rights so I kept that out. On "pregnancy discrimination" I don't feel that's related since it doesn't have any thing to do with fetal rights itself but is only tangentially related to some persons opinions of fetal rights. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.213.113.58 (talk)

I remembered the pregnancy discrimination article as having more about acts of pregnancy discrimination being based on respect for fetal rights or a desire to avoid harm to the fetus. I don't see anything on that in the article now (and I don't know if I misread, misremembered or if it's changed). I support its removal from the see also section. -- Siobhan Hansa 23:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You both have good points it does seem tangential and I don't see anything about it in the article. I'm not sure how it got up there I'll just take it down.{{subst:unsigend|Jfraatz|18:34, 1 March 2007}}

Problematic Wording

Quoting from the Article:

In the debate on abortion those who consider themselves "pro-life" generally believe that the fetus' rights outweigh the parent's rights. People who are "pro-choice" but who might also agree with the personhood of the fetus generally would argue that the mother's right to autonomy supersedes the rights of the fetus as otherwise it would compel the her to act in such a way that would severely limit her freedom.

This is explanation of who's rights outweigh the other is a flawed explanation. The pro-choice side sees the ethical dilemma as a sort of "power struggle". This is obvious since the citation used for the above quote was from an abortion apologist, and the article was titled "A Defense of Abortion". The pro-life side of the issue does not see it as a struggle for power over one another, but simply that the right to life for the child/fetus outweighs any right of choice the mother may have. A sub-text of this argument is that many American pro-lifers feel that life is a fundamental American Constitutional right, whereas choice or control of one's body, is not.

I propose the following edit:

This debate is complicated as many on the pro-choice side see the argument for fetal rights being an argument for the rights of a non-person, or in this case, the fetus, over the rights of a person (in this case the mother). ((perhaps the original writer here could help clean this up))

However, many on the pro-life side see it as a battle for the supremacy of different rights. On one hand the right of life for the child (which the pro-life side sees as more important) and on the other, the right of choice of the mother. (which pro-lifers see as less important). Thoughts??--Jmarinara 04:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A woman in Manatoba...

I have reverted the "mother" edits. Please read the context of this sentence. It would be like changing the sentence at Dennis Rader from Rader was stopped while driving near his home and taken into custody shortly after noon on 25 February 2005. to The father was stopped while driving near his home and taken into custody shortly after noon on 25 February 2005. We can both agree that Dennis Rader is a father, and we can both agree that "A woman from Winnipeg, Manitoba .. had three previous children" is a mother. But there is no reason to add "the father" to the sentence about Rader, any more then there would to mention "the balding man" or "the Luthran" or any other attribute. To me, this isn't even a question of whether a first time pregnant woman is "technically" a mother. I'm not denying the woman is a mother any more than I am deny Rader is a father. I'm saying this sentence makes much more sense the way it was when it was introduced nearly a year ago, and the way it stood untouched for nearly a year.-Andrew c ^[talk] 05:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the particular sentence in question was not the best place to use the word "mother." I've made this edit instead. Anyway, the only reason I got involved here is because the Dennis Rader article does refer to him as a father, contrary to what was said here.Ferrylodge 06:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

123helpme and WP:RS

A recently added content was tagged specify and possible original research. Both of the tags were removed, and replaced with a link to123helpme, a site that offers free (and not free) research papers "for research use only". Here is the sentence and link in questions:

However criticism can be drawn from this as in the majority of cases the women is responsible for the liability of getting pregnant.http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=16907

I think it is clear that this link does not meet our verifiability/citation guidelines. We have no idea who the author is and the author doesn't cite sources. How is this anonymous, online, free essay any different than writing a blog entry stating Thompson's argument is problematic because in the majority of cases the women is responsible for the liability of getting pregnant and then citing the blog entry? This is still original research, once removed. I have instead altered the sentence and added a link to the more detailed discussion on Thomson's criticism.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Fetus/Fetuses" Terminology

I modified the terminology "fetus" to individual in a fetal stage of development as many consider the term to reflect an inherent bias when used in an ethical, or legal as opposed to a medical context. "Fetus" is originally a medical term, but has also appeared in much literature concerning fetal rights abortion and related issues. Many believe this terminology to be dehumanizing when used in a non-medical context as it is always refered to in a neutered non-personal manner. As such it is can reflect a bias since it can be argued that it weighs down arguments concerning fetal rights in one direction. I also believe that many on the other side of the discussion also believe the term "unborn child" to be biased as it connotates personhood which they find to be in dispute. So I used the phrase "individual(s) in a fetal stage of development" instead since it does not necessarily imply personhood but does not at the same time sound potentially dehumanizing. Rdjohnson 01:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Rdjohnson

I disagree, and have reverted you for the time being. I believe that the term "individual" is at least more loaded than the term "fetus". Your edit, while clearly well intentioned, in my opinion, didn't work to reduce bias, even if that was the purpose. You say that "individual" doesn't necessarily imply peronshood, but I cannot think of a situation where it it is used as such. It isn't even used for pets, which are often more personified that fetuses. I believe the phrasing "individuals in a fetal state of development" sounds like hyper-politically correct jargon, and in this instance, I think using the much more simpler, common term "fetus" works, even if it isn't 100% free from POV.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

While I would agree that "individual in a fetal stage of development" may be somewhat biased I would have to say that "fetus" is more biased. The problem is that term "fetus" deceptively only appears to be less biased. The reason is that it's an official term in medical and scientific areas and therefore carries the aura of authority. If it did not come from such a source I think it would be far more questioned than it is in ethical and legal contexts. In addition to this the phrase "the fetus" appears as though it is describing an object rather than something that could potentially be viewed as a person. In a debate that relates to the personhood of such a being I think that the whole idea is that it could potentially be viewed as a person rather than an object regardless of ones personal position on the matter. Thus it would be categorically biased as it would immediately connotate that one of the debated possibilities is automatically not the case I once experimented with the term "fetal child" here thinking that that may be less biased than either the colloquial term "unborn child" or the medical-turned-ethical term "fetus" as it seemed to imply both. I can see how people might think that is biased now but I think that other terms should be used than fetus simply because it deceptively appears to be more unbiased than it actually is. As for andrew c's argument that he couldn't think of a context in which individual would not sound like a person I think that is because there are no other relevant examples today. I think the closest relevant example would be the concept of "homo sacer" in ancient Roman law. Essentially it would imply that the legal personhood of someone was not recognized. Since the debate over fetal rights revolves around the legal personhood status of unborn children I think this would be a relevant example to compare to. I can see how someone who homo sacer status is applied could be still be thought of as an individual as such it wouldn't be much of a stretch to imagine fetuses being thought of as individuals either. While I understand that the term "individual in a fetal stage of development" could be seen as biased I think it is less biased at least categorically than the term "fetus". I reverted it to the later term, although I would be open to having it changed in the future as long as someone comes up with a term less biased and more relevant to the issue of fetal rights than "fetus".

Pax. Jfraatz 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)jfraatz

This is absurd, uncited, POV, original research. It has no place on Wikipedia unless you can find a cite from a reputable published source.--Cberlet 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"individual in a fetal stage of development" is awkward, verbose, and receives ZERO google hits. It's like saying "stems cells which have differentiated into renal tissue" instead of saying "kidneys". I mean, I don't see how we are humoring this as a serious idea. While part of NPOV is to present all relevant, notable points of view, another part is undue weight. We don't need to go coining new phrases for the sake of NPOV. We should use language recognizable to all wherever possible. This is akin to trying to find a new neutral term for "meat" in order to satisfy vegetarians (maybe "individual's in the carcass stage").-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be verbose but the shorter alternative I once experimented it with is potentially more biased. Fetal child or children would be a shorter third alternative but it would definitely connotate personhood which some could think would weight the discussion down more to one side. It isn't like finding another term for "meat" because in this case one if one were an animal rights activist one would still categorically refer to cooked animal muscle tissue as meat. Try it with humans. It would be a nasty thought experiment but a canibal would still view cooked human muscle tissue as "meat." The same isn't true here because here the language assumes that it is a "thing" and since the whole point of the discussion on the matter has to do with whether or not it is a person and not a thing. The term is categorically misleading and automatically to some extent predetermining the argument.

paxJfraatz 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)jfraatz

A teenager is not an "Adult in the teenager stage of development". Compare someone who is elderly, an adolescent, a toddler, a child... none of these words need qualification. Similarly, fetus, embryo, infant don't need qualification either. The fact of the matter is by trying to coin a new "neutral" phrase to combat alleged connotations in the word "fetus", we are publishing original research. We do not have a single source that uses this new, awkward phrase. So, where are the sources? I believe that the majority of sources, regardless of partisan affiliation, use and recognize the word "fetus" as a basic, descriptive term of a specific gestational age range. I'm willing to consider a terminology change once we have sources to back it up. But discussion without sources is pointless, because wikipedia operates on verifiability and attribution. Also, please don't edit the article regarding this matter until we reach an agreement here on talk. We don't need to edit war when we can progress here on talk, and work together!-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I support what User:Andrew c said above.--Cberlet 01:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree with what user:Jfraatz had to say about this. I think there is a much simpler reason for using "individual in fetal stages of development" rather than fetus. It's simply accurate and more so than fetus I think. "Fetus" doesn't rely to people the information that a fetus is biologically continuous with an individual, that we were fetuses at one point. "Individual in a fetal stage of development" does. Because of this and since it isn't inaccurate to use this terminology anyway; why not? Just use the more accurate phrase over the less accurate one. ~~user:rdjohnson —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. The word fetus MEANS "individual in fetal stages of development". Why would you want to add 13 syllables that add no new information? If you know what "fetal" means, then you know that the word "fetus" implies individuality and development. johnpseudo 16:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is being pedanticised to death - typical wikipedian behaviour. The point of linking words to to point to an explanatory page, therefore there is no point in offering such an explanation inline. Especially if it's not relevant. 87.113.83.79 (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two points of view here. I take one of them. Accordingly, I am not making any changes to the article, to save others the trouble of reverting them. Maybe having a point of view disqualifies one from contributing to the discussion, as well as the article (feel free to advise me about this). I wish to point out that there is no neutral terminology here (I do not provide a source for this statement, because it is absolutely obvious: "The Court will take judicial notice that rain falls from time to time"). There is a major controversy: one party refers to 'fetuses', the other (typically) to 'unborn children'. Accordingly, to refer throughout to 'fetuses' is to take one side of the controversy against the other. It is clearly POV. I make two further points against 'fetus'. First, it is scientifically inaccurate. Several laws protect 'unborn children' from before the point they can properly be described as fetuses. Secondly, such laws typically describe the objects of protection as 'unborn children' (see for example the US law). Obviously the lawmakers have POV, but their POV should be recognised (without adopting it), not suppressed. I waive the point that 'fetus' sounds unpleasant (like 'foetid', cp 'niggardly'). It is ridiculous to pretend that the terminology currently used in this article is NPOV.

Should this be accepted (which I do not necessarily expect) what should be done? Perhaps 'fetus' and 'unborn child' should be used alternately. The minimum to give the article a proper claim to NPOV status would be to note the different terms used by supporters and opponents of protection (as evidenced by the terms used in laws that give protection). Of course, if the article then used 'fetus' in preference to 'unborn child', it might still appear to be POV. Twr57 (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Person in the fetal stage of development"

This edit is ridiculous. See the definition of fetus. johnpseudo 20:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"A fetus (also spelled foetus or fœtus) is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate, after the embryonic stage and before birth. The plural is fetuses."

Okay. I'm pretty sure that these laws don't apply to elephant or gerbil fetuses. Gay rights laws don't apply to gay chimps either. The description is accurate.✍ (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Name change

I propose changing this article title to 'Nascent human rights'. -Zahd (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Any particular reason why? It helps to explain and back up your proposals. First thing that came to my mind is "what the heck does 'nascent' mean". Next thing, I googled the phrase to find it had just over 2,000 hits (while "fetal rights" has 47,500). Wikipedia's naming conventions urges us to use the most common phrasing. So as of now, I cannot support your proposal. But since you didn't explain it, I could be missing something, so feel free to go into more detail. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And those all seem to be nascent human rights movement, nascent human rights literature, nascent human rights regime, et cetera. Though I'm not using Google. 75.118.170.35 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

The trouble with doing that is that it to call it "nascent" would imply that they are not yet human rights. Now whether or not they actually are that would violate wikipedia's policy neutrality. People taking the pro-choice view would agree that they are nascent whereas people taking the pro-life view would say that they are already human rights. So whereas this is an interesting suggestion it would put the whole article in a POV frame. -jfraatz —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC).

Move

To prenatal rights. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 13:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

As with the above suggested name change - why? Fetal rights appears, currently, to be the most common term for this concept. -- SiobhanHansa 14:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Because the issue is broader than the title. Unless we make a page for Embryonic rights, and Zygotal rights, and Blastocystal rights, I think Prenatal rights is the most accurate, NPOV term. ✍ (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mother v. Pregnant Woman, the saga continues

If you have time, please take a look at this discussion regarding the debate on the talk page for Wikiproject Abortion. - Schrandit (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fetal Personhood

Fetal Personhood is not established by the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The Act refers to the fetus as "unborn child". Children occupy a grey area in law. They are not considered legal persons until they reach the age of majority, at which time they are considered competent to enter into legally binding contracts. Their status is similar to adults suffering mental incapacity: they are considered persons in respect to assaults on their person. Fetuses are not even "full children". Their status is even more problematic. The Act does not allow the death penalty for feticide, as it does for homicide, showing they are not regarded equally with other murder victims. This is in keeping with a tradition going back to the Leges Henrici Primi, in 1115, which holds feticide to be "quasi homicide" (whatever the heck that means). I have plans to revise this page in future; but, for now I am just eliminating misleading language. You'll notice that the page linked to for "person" includes for its definition "of reasonable nature". The common law born alive rule used the expression "reasonable creature in rerum natura" (Coke). The fetus displays no reasonable nature; and the child develops reason gradually, with time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ermadog (talk • contribs) 11:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced, POV wording in first sentence

"Fetal rights are the legal or ethical rights of fetuses". For NPOV and balance this was recently edited to "The term fetal rights refers to the belief that fetuses have ethically and/or legally recognizable rights" to reflect a universal, unbiased view of the topic. User:Valknuter has reverted it twice now with the summaries: "This isn't opinionated at all, that is what fetal rights is, regardless of whether you agree" & "This is not opinionated, the sentence here is neutral. It is the rights of fetuses, whether or not they are recognized. That is what "fetal rights" are...."
It seems we need an admin to explain to Valknuter what "neutral" and "encyclopedic" (and probably also "opinion", "belief" and "bias" as well) mean. Sorry, he just doesn't seem to get it.-- TyrS  chatties  05:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, personal attack much? I "don't get it"? The old sentence is not biased at all. It is the legal or ethical rights of fetuses. This is what "Fetal rights" are. The introduction makes no mention of whether they actually have rights, it just says that the term "Fetal rights" is used when referencing the "legal or ethical rights of fetuses". Where is this bias coming into play? Valknuter (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Valknuter, the direct statement, as if it's a universal fact, of a non-universal belief/position is clearly POV. There's no simpler way I can put it.  TyrS  chatties  10:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary: Leaving it as "the belief" is sufficient enough, and does suggest some, most, or all. TyrS is correct on this matter when it comes to neutral point of view. Flyer22 (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just in regards to phrasing, the term "fetal rights" is itself very weasel-wordy, which makes this a bit more complex than usual. "X rights is the belief...", although it does get the idea across, it is a bit strange-sounding (Valknuter's objection seems perhaps in part to relate to the sentence making basic sense, it seems, maybe? It's a bit hard to tell though). I actually don't think that WP:WEASEL really applies to the "some people" in the less clumsy phrasing: "Fetal rights are rights that some people believe apply or should apply..." since the concern with weasel words is that "They can pad out sentences without adding any useful information and may disguise a biased view" which is actually the reverse of what's happening in this case (due to inherent weasel-wordiness of "fetal rights"). Phrasing-wise, I think I prefer the "...are rights that some people believe..." Not that I can be bothered changing it again.  TyrS  chatties  01:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyranny Sue (talk • contribs)

The wording "Fetal rights" cannot be helped since that is the title of this article and is what reliable sources refer to it as, unless there becomes agreement to change the title. As for the wording you suggest, it's still WP:Weasel wording to state "...are rights that some people believe...," especially for the lead. We only use "some" when we have to, such as in the case of "some experts state" and "others state," and only when we attribute those lines to reliable sources. But Wikipedia, in regards to standards, hates the word "some." In either case, Valknuter has changed it to "are the status" and has left out "the belief" part. It would be better that you two take this to the wider community, before either of you get addressed for WP:Edit warring or WP:3RR. Flyer22 (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well let me note that if "fetal rights" is a weasel word, it is no more so than "abortion rights." Yet we use both all the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.254.182.131 (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

While I do not intend to pursue this particular issue, I will ad my 2 cents worth. Statutory rights cannot be said to actually exist until they have been well established in law and have passed judicial review. For instance, while we offer legal protection to animals and have done so since the first cruelty to animal laws were passed in the early 1800s, the concept of animal rights is more recent and has not, as yet, been established in law. By contrast, when natural law theory was first discussed, it was based on the assumption that some rights of man exist independently of law. The question then becomes, to what extent to fetal rights actually exist and to what extent are they merely theoretical? When abortion rights were established in the US, they were found to be encompassed in previously existent rights, such as the right to privacy and the right to bodily integrity, which exist as natural rights and as statutory rights. Whether abortion may then considered either as a natural right or as a statutory right or both may possibly be a matter of debate. Here in Canada, abortion was not ruled a right. It was simply decided that criminalizing it violates the woman's right to security of person, which again is entailed in the right to privacy. I would suggest changing the wording to something along the lines of "Fetal rights theory refers to ..." Ermadog (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Research is a good thing. West's Encyclopedia of American Law, cited by freedictionary.com "The rights of any unborn human fetus, which is generally a developing human from roughly eight weeks after conception to birth." " Fetal Rights I found this by doing a search at alphaDictionary online, which searches 1,650 English dictionaries. This search returned only 2 hits, West's and Wikipedia. The paucity of references gives weight to my suggestion that fetal rights is not a concept well established in law. I would point out that "developing human" does not have the same meaning in American law as the term "person". Many states include the fetus in the term "human being", but only in the biological sense. None have succeeded in conferring legal personhood on the fetus.Ermadog (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Confusing section

I moved the so-called "Cultural views" section here. It does not outline the views of any particular culture. I have never seen any Wikipedia article pose random, unanswered questions, certainly not without a source. Who says that those issues are central? The whole thing needs to be reworked. Photouploaded (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cultural views

Several questions are central to the issue of fetal rights: Should a fetus be considered a person? If it should, to what degree? If a fetus is deemed to have rights, how should those rights be considered in relation to the rights of the woman carrying the fetus (the mother) and the man who impregnated her (the father)?

Human cultures and governments have generally granted some degree of protection to fetuses. However, fetuses are generally given less protection than children or adults. In an attempt to quantify the value of human life, the ethicist Peter Singer has argued that our notion of personhood relates to a being's possession of the capacities for reason and self-consciousness, and that therefore Homo sapiens without these characteristics should not be considered persons. Since he believes children in the fetal and even infant stages of development do not possess such capacities, Singer argues that they should not be considered persons.

Critics of this view argue that individuals comatose states, or perhaps individuals who are simply unconscious, could not be considered persons as they would not meet Singer's criteria at that point of time. Such critics also claim that such a view could conflict with the identity argument which states that either the individual in question is a person or he or she is not as it seems to allow some ambiguity as to precisely when a being is a person.

Another relevant question arises: does the fetus's right to live or to be born in a healthy state outweigh the woman's right to abort? In the debate on abortion, those who consider themselves "pro-life" generally believe that the fetus' rights always outweigh the woman's rights. Judith Thomson in her essay, A Defense of Abortion, argues that even granting the personhood of the fetus, the woman's right to freedom can sometimes outweigh the right-to-life of the fetus, as she believes no person should be have to sacrifice their freedom even to save someone else's life. However, this argument is not without criticism.

12:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Reproductive Rights reference.

I will be rewording the third sentence in the current version of the introductory paragraph. The current description of the term "reproductive rights" is not reflective of the actual discussion found in the linked source. There, we find that reproductive rights encompasses a broad range of issues from general family planning issues to genital mutilation in both males and females. There is no mention of the grant of "sovereignty" over the fetus to either biological parent. More importantly, various bodies defining the term have rejected an reference to abortion rights. The attempt to pit fetal rights against reproductive rights falls flat. Ermadog (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

rights claimants for the rights portal

We need to put unborn/ fetuses under rights claimants for the rights portal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.223.184 (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)