Template talk:Abortion in the Republic of Ireland

This template 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 articles

Ireland

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles

"Case law" & "Individuals" - should there be a "Scandals"/"Incidents" section instead? edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are 2 sections in this template: Case law and Individuals. Some of theses are case law, like the X Case. But many are things that wound up in court. Yes there was a court case for (say) D v Ireland, or PP v. HSE, or C Case, however these things are not "notable" for being case law. They are more "Scandals". The same can be said for Ms Y, or death of Savita Halappanavar. I am thinking of creating a new section which includes these "scandals", and moving those things in there. I wouldn't call it "Scandals", maybe "Incidents", "Events"? What do people think? ____Ebelular (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, case law or "cases" or "individual cases" is best. Remember Wikipedia's tone. Let other people use terms like that. wikipedia should be as neutral as possibleKtlynch (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

"Anti-abortion" name edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

NuclearWizard has changed the term "anti-abortion" to "unborn children's rights" [1] [2], and I invite them to talk about it here. IMO "Anti-Abortion" and "Abortion rights" are more neutral terms to use, and have widespread use on Wikipedia. NW's argument that 'pro-abortion' isn't used for the other side isn't really very convincing, and not in the spirit of WP's neutral point of view. ____Ebelular (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

You don't even want to put it in the light of saying the other side is "pro-choice" -- you want to explicitly declare that abortion is a right in the template. If both are called "rights" then at least you can tell there's a neutral point of view, as the "pro-abortion" side believes that abortion is a right and the "anti-abortion" side believes that unborn children have the right to life as legally declared by the Eighth Amendment. Nuke (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I don't think "pro-choice" is a very neutral term, and shouldn't be used here either. "pro-abortion" is quite a biased term. I remember reading a Wikipedia community consensus that "Abortion rights"/"Anti-abortion" was the best neutral compromise and should be used on Wikipedia. I'll have to dig that up ____Ebelular (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

you can't say one side is "Pro-choice" and the other is anti-abortion. It's either pro-choice/pro-life or pro-abortion/anti-abortion.Ktlynch (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Didn't see this problem and been raised before. Yes, "pro-choice" is a term used by those who favour the abortion lobby, just as "pro-life" is a term used by those who are part of the anti-abortion lobby. Its best to avoid either of these terms and just have "Advocacy" and "Opposition". Otherwise it has a POV pushing activist spin on it. JustAChurchMouse (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your edit but changed pro-choice into pro-abortion. So now we have sections pro and anti. The Banner talk 14:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic