Talk:Abortion Act 1967

NPOV

May I suggest that the description of abortion, in the first paragraph, as 'medical aid' is not neutral as it appears to be a positive description. May I suggest simply replaking it with the word 'abortions'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.76 (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have used the term "medicalizing practises" instead. Is this acceptable to you? Road Wizard (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OAPA 1861

The following provisions of the 1967 Act had been set out in the Article on the Offences Against the Person Act 1861:

"when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith..." that one of four sets of circumstances apply, notably s.1(1)(d): "...that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped."

I have moved them here because they do not really belong there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.76 (talk) 20:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Misspelling

In the second paragraph there is a reference to the ROCG committee. Is this a misspelling of RCOG (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists)?

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1506770/Sir-John-Peel.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Neljack (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abortion Act 1967. 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/20071026034749/http://www.parliament.uk:80/parliamentary_committees/science_and_technology_committee/scitech200607.cfm to http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_and_technology_committee/scitech200607.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Terminology query: Pro-choice for abortion

A recent edit sought to change instances of pro-choice to pro-abortion. Pro-abortion does not seem appropriate since that indicates supporters actively want people to get abortions rather than simply allow them the choice. Nevertheless there is some ambiguity in the phrase, especially as pro-choice is sometimes used amongst assisted dying advocates. Therefore another phrase such as “pro-choice for abortion” could be considered. Thoughts? cc: @Bondegezou: Jdee4 (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I concur that "pro-abortion" has problems. "Pro-choice for abortion" seems too wordy to me. I thought past Wikipedia consensus was for "pro-choice" and "pro-life", but I can't find where I saw that? Bondegezou (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem with "pro-life" is that it implies pro-choice advocates are anti-life. Being more wordy has its advantages, perhaps. Jdee4 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we look to prior decisions on this matter on Wikipedia. This is not the first article to face this issue. Bondegezou (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)