This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This subject is featured in the Outline of rights, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
Under the header "rights" and under rights claimants the unborn/ fetuses are not on there and they are people too. They deserve a place.
Or it could go under children's rights.
That sidebar is a navigation box linking to other rights-related articles. If there is an article on "unborn rights" or "fetus rights" to link to (besides general articles on the beginning of human personhood and the abortion debate and so on), feel free to add it (or just link to it here and I can add it for you, if you're uncomfortable with the wiki table markup). --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It assumes that rights are inherent in the development of civilization, even though most civilizations lacked them until they were introduced via transmission from Western civilization. It is important to keep in mind that most civilizations operated for thousands of years (albeit in a terribly inefficient and arbitrary fashion) without any conception of rights. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
... OK, I'm not going to do every one. The pattern is clear, no? In every case, Hendrick 99 is either changing something that is spelled the same way in both American English and Commonwealth English to a Commonwealth-specific spelling, or else he is changing an American spelling to a word that is spelled the same. The agenda is clear — he is trying to change the English variety from American English to Commonwealth English. --Trovatore (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)