Talk:Fetal rights

PROBLEM: Use of 'Fetus' Technically Incorrect

I found this article via the rights by claimants portal. The article focuses on rights which some would say belong to humans (here meaning 'human organisms') from the "moment of conception." That's a claim about rights which would exist for a zygote and for an embryo. I'd recommend changing the terminology from "fetal" to "prenatal." The subject is rights which belong to prenates, not to fetuses. Conversationally people often use the terms interchangeably because 'prenate' is a rarely used word and is unfamiliar to many, but it seems to me that in a reference work accuracy in the use of language is more important than avoiding unfamiliar language.

OckRaz ^talk 18:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Introductory Sentence: "Fetal rights refers to _legislation_"

I see in the above Talk entry ('Unbalanced, POV wording in first sentence')that this sentence has been a bone of contention. In that entry it was asked if fetal rights are "legal or ethical rights" and if the term 'fetal rights' refers to a belief. To the former, I'd say, "yes." They are a subset of legal and ethical rights, and more specifically a subset whose reality &/or legitimacy is disputed (as is the case with animal rights). To the latter, I'd answer, "no." The 'theory of' fetal rights refers to beliefs, but 'rights' surely does not.

The current wording ("Fetal rights refers to legislation related to the human rights of fetuses.") cannot possibly be correct unless 'fetal rights' is taken to refer only to legal rights and not to moral or ethical rights. For comparison I checked the other two articles in the 'rights by claimants' portal which seemed analogous in that said rights are ones whose reality &/or legitimacy is disputed and in that the 'claimants' are unable to claim rights, and so the rights are actually claimed by others on their behalf.

The articles I checked were animal rights and plant rights. Both articles are concerned not merely with legal rights but with moral and legal rights as well. In fact, both articles have more lines of text devoted to moral and ethical rights than to legal ones. Therefore, limiting this article only to legal rights would not be in keeping with the treatment of similar topics elsewhere in wikipedia and I intend to change the introductory sentence.

OckRaz ^talk 19:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I changed the introductory sentence from, "Fetal rights refers to legislation related to the human rights of fetuses," so that it now reads, "Fetal rights are moral or legal rights to which human fetuses may be entitled." This matches the plant rights article which begins, "Plant rights are rights to which plants may be entitled." I didn't use the larger animal rights article as a model because it begins, "Animal rights is the idea that..." which strikes me as both semantically and syntactically problematic.

The sentence still requires some changing because it's not merely fetuses, but zygotes and embryos as well which may have the rights in question (see above, talk page entry 'PROBLEM: Use of 'Fetus' Technically Incorrect'). Fixing that seems more complicated a problem though, so for the time being I'll leave it as fetuses. OckRaz ^talk 20:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fetal rights. 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/20150908050922/https://stortinget.no/globalassets/pdf/constitutionenglish.pdf to https://www.stortinget.no/globalassets/pdf/constitutionenglish.pdf

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) 06:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fetal rights. 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/20151028182953/http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/a1/ to http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/a1/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140905083724/http://www.bhutanaudit.gov.bt/About%20Us/Mandates/Constitution%20of%20Bhutan%202008.pdf to http://www.bhutanaudit.gov.bt/About%20Us/Mandates/Constitution%20of%20Bhutan%202008.pdf

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) 10:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"International human rights charter clearly"

Replace with: notable international human rights scholars argue that "international human rights charter clearly..." as a detailed analysis of the referred human rights charter could reflect a counter position. 102.91.30.7 (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)