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 WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
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)
QUALIFICATIONS ON THAT: If I depended on brainwashing of helpless children to propagate a medieval mythology no fully functional adult could be convinced of, I too might militate for increasing the number of vulnerable children regardless of cost. However, population biology teaches us that when the reproduction rate of a population increases very fast, that population is subject to a disastrous reduction. This is both inductively true - a generality, since there are no exceptions - and relevant to the context of rights. Legally, the Fourteenth Amendment reads: "All persons born..." Biologically, since a right is a moral claim to freedom of action, it is reasonable that the rights of persons who already exist ought to take precedence over unconstitutional attribution of rights to hypothetical future persons for the mere sake of perpetrating mystical traditions, the surface area of the planet being invariant over time. A woman, pregnant or not, is an individual, and has a right to choose whether or not to reproduce. A graph of the rate of increase of the human population v. time shows the number is fast becoming asymptotic to the vertical axis. Claims that women must be coerced into reproducing might perhaps be listed under religion, but certainly not "the free exercise thereof." translator (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2014 (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)
Negative and positive rights section being inclusive of active (e.g. liberty) rights
Scott, this is all that remains of your edits after reverting everything that I'd already given reason for, and an additional objection. No significant difference remains, so you can understand why I didn't undertake the effort to piece together multiple partial reversions like this, but to forestall an edit war I've done that anyway to prove the point. You could (and should) have just reinstated those inconsequential changes again if they're really so important, and brought the rest of the contentious matter here to talk about it, instead of tendentiously reinserting your changes with no further justification after I already reverted them with good reason. Please leave it be now and discuss here until we reach consensus. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)