Talk:Maternal–fetal conflict

Peer review

Article Evaluation by Julia Stein

I think explaining the shift in maternal-fetal conflict from unity to duality perspective is very helpful. I would (if enough peer reviewed information can be found) introduce a short history section explaining the emergence of maternal fetal conflict and its implications in women’s health thought time. How did society affect these choices? I know it is still a controversial issue and it is likely to continue to be controversial, but was it more controversial before? You sort of do this in your lead section. I would add a little more information in your lead section encompassing your articles main sections: Ethics and the the fetus and mother as two separate as well as united entities.

Privacy and autonomy section looks good. I would clarify which ways and maybe which conditions may lead to overriding a woman’s right to autonomy in curcumstances like this.

I think you did a good job explaining the basics of the fetus’ perspective in having the right to become a child. You could maybe elaborate in how ethicists do not agree with each other or what the popular differences in opinion are on independence of a fetus from the mother.

The last sentence in the subsection ‘defining a “healthy fetus”,’ could be reworded a bit in order to flow better. I think the subsection is very appropriate and well placed.

In the second sentence of ‘Experince, Circumstance and share interest’ woman àwomen. (Minor grammatical error)

If you are able to find good sources, I would elaborate a little bit on the alternative viewpoint contrasting with conflict: shared interest. How did these views originate? Are they due to maternal-fetal conflict emerging as a term? This makes sense especially because of the larger section it is under: Maternal-fetal relationship.

Under legal issues, maybe you could add any relevant court cases, if there are any? I think you placed this section very well by prefacing ethical section you are still working on. Good job.

I would title your 'Examples' section something a bit more informative, maybe using the word ‘health’ within the heading.

(Juliastein8 (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC))

Response to Peer Review

Hi Julia :) Thank you for the feedback. It was helpful. I'll respond to your feedback via my original sandbox and incorporate your edits. leah_ayyy 21:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leah611 (talk • contribs)

Update post Dobbs

This article is interesting and useful, and highly relevant in a post-Dobbs age. Would be great to update for Dobbs. 172.110.60.18 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

"Woman" vs "Maternal"?

This article is useful in its attempt to illuminate one of the most central and difficult topics in the debates about abortion. However, I do find the nomenclature to be problematic and biased on several counts. Firstly, the repeated use of the terms "mother" and "baby" in sections where "woman" and "foetus" are clearly more appropriate (as reflected in the section headings themselves). Secondly, the tern "maternal" has strong social, not simply biological, connotations. The article in its present form categorises women collectively and primarily by their maternal function, rather than as independent human beings with individual rights. Thirdly, I would argue that the primary conflict here is not "maternal-foetus" but rather "woman vs state partiarchy". The foetus is physically and intellectually unable to engage in legal or ethcial debate. The conflict is between those who claim to speak on behalf of the foetus, and the women whose bodies they seek to control. In summary, I am grateful to the original author and subsequent editors for articulating this central question in the abortion debates. However the article is quite clearly biased in its language and would benefit from further editing. Wikiniceguy123 (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)