Talk:Abortion in Brazil

Untitled

Suppressed section about a woman supposedly imprisoned for abortion; as it was the killing of a already born infant, not of a fetus, she was imprisoned for murder, not for abortion.

Donadio (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It is incorrect the information that abortion in cases of rape and risk of mother's life is technically a crime. In Brazilian system of application of criminal law, "crime" is a conduct that is has a legal typification (i.e. abstract description) and with no "ilicitude excludent cause". The life risky pregnancy and that resulted from rape are both included among "ilicitude excludent causes" for the legal typification of "abortion", thus making it not a crime at all. I will have to correct that information in the article. Phcgontijo (talk) 02:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Misleading first sentence?

The first sentence is phrased rather oddly.
It says, “Abortion in Brazil is legal if the pregnancy puts the life of the woman in danger or if the pregnancy is the result of a rape”, but arguably it could also read like this:
“Abortion in Brazil is illegal unless the pregnancy puts the life of the woman in danger or if the pregnancy is the result of a rape”.
The first sentence (the one that the article uses) has a positive impression (it’s legal) whereas the second sentence has a negative (but truer) impression (generally, in 99% of cases, abortion is illegal in Brazil). Surely the article should use the second instance, as abortion is illegal in Brazil, except in rare circumstances. Somebody might visit the article to quickly check / look up / research the legality of abortion, and see the first relevant word: legal. In that instance they would be getting a false impression of the actual reality in Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.43.163 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that anyone who picks one word in the first sentence of any Wikipedia article to look at will likely be badly misled about the topic and content of that article. I also don't see how specifically stating the cases in which abortion is anything but clearer and less cumbersome than stating that abortion is in general illegal, and then stating these cases. Denoting specific cases in the summary section of a Wikipedia article about legality generally implies that they are the only, or at least by a great degree the most common, known instances in which the status (in this case, legal) applies. In addition, leaving that to implication is closer to factual correctness, as laws are being made and changed all the time and we cannot assume that some individual or group with an omniscient knowledge of all details of Brazilian law is at all time watching over all that transpires and immediately committing details to this page...I imagine it would be rather longer and more in depth were that the case. There may well be many other specific cases such as the anencephaly provision, more obscure, less publicized or controversial, but nonetheless existent. In this case, to blanket state illegality would be to diverge from the truth on an assumption, however seemingly reasonable. 104.243.244.46 (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Public Opinion edit

The paragraph about the obstetrician-gynecologists might be better as its own section such as "Extralegal Medical Practices" or "Medical Opinions" (though the paragraph is actually about personal practices, not political opinions).

I left that as is for now, but added in "obstetrician-gynecologists affiliated with the Brazilian Federation of Obstetricians and Gynecologists" in place of "doctors", and added a few occurrences of the word "these". Just an issue of avoiding vagueness, biased tone, tautological error, or confusion. There is no evidence contained within the source cited to support the claim that any comprehensive sampling of Brazilian doctors returned these percentages: this study is specifically restricted to obstetrician-gynecologists affiliated with the aforementioned organization. It's only a few more words and was probably just an innocent omission to begin with. 104.243.244.46 (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abortion in Brazil. 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/20140223153757/http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/impresso%2Ccnbb-desautoriza-iniciativa-de-bispo%2C338133%2C0.htm to http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/impresso%2Ccnbb-desautoriza-iniciativa-de-bispo%2C338133%2C0.htm

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) 11:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abortion in Brazil. 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/20070629163234/http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15370 to http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/15370

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) 07:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Future of Abortion Rights in Brazil

I think information could be added about how abortion rights might change in the coming years for Brazilians. This source might be helpful: https://progressive.org/latest/future-of-abortion-rights-in-brazil-felizola-090122/ Graceland2 (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)