Talk:Therapeutic abortion

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health 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.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health

Medicine

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine

This redirect was nominated for deletion on August 13th, 2010. The result of the discussion was retarget to Abortion#Induced.

Hmmm... so the countries(all iberoamerican countries)that consider therapeutic abortion different from elective abortion are not developed enough yet... this sounds as pro choice POV. --Crio de la Paz (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most this, most that... but in all of the hispanic and portuguese culture, and in "most" of the world (LOL) therapeutic is _different_ from elective. That _is_ part of the abortion debate (prochoice vs. prolife). --Crio de la Paz (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many Ibero-American cultures, including the Hispanic and Portuguese cultures, at least until the latter half of the 20th century and today, were heavily influenced by Christianity's (specifically, Catholicism's) teaching on abortion, which considers all abortions, elective or therapeutic- except two extremely specific medical situations where the doctrinal ethical principle of double effect applies: ectopic pregnancy, or severe cancer affecting the uterus- to be a mortal sin (a grave matter, or delict, punishable by immediate excommunication. Strictly speaking, the medical community generally considers the term therapeutic abortion to include those contexts (cases) where the woman and/or her health care provider have identified a biological (physiological) issue or a mental health issue, though both the official definition and unofficial usage definitions can and have been stretched to accomodate situations which do not qualify as physical or psychological crises or emergencies. Some- presuming they endorse abortion at all- would consider having too many children to provide for without going into serious poverty an elective abortion since it does not involve an immediate physical or mental issue, but many in the medical and public health community and in the public who support population control and abortion would consider it otherwise because of the difficulties that could be present in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.133.1 (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the debate between the rigth to live since conception as stipulated in the Universal Declaration of The Rights of The Child by the ONU and the Convention of the Rigths of The Child and the Reproductive Rights of Women _is_ a worldwide open debate on on _human_rights_ and not only a "Christian matter" as statted above.

If in doubt read http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm and http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/child.asp in order to know what the _UN_ position on the rights of the child is.

In truth not even the US Supreme Court on Roe vs. Wade dared go into the delicate matter of the definition of person and decided to avoid the subject of wether a person was _being_killed_: wether the fetus or embryo was a person. In the debate on the rights of the child vs. the reproductive rights of women they decided on the rights of women "on the risk of doing harm" or something like that. Actually polls show that the population of the USA is divided around 50%+ "pro choice" 40%+ "pro live" so it is not like "mostly americans are pro choice". Attitudes vary but are not quite deffined, world wide http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Societal_attitudes_towards_abortion

All this to show that the above (unsigned) comment does not seem to be backed up by the facts... --Crio de la Paz (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

This article was clearly written or edited by someone who disagrees that therapeutic abortion is necessary, with multiple assertions that issues with the fetus' health does not endanger or compromise that of the mother's, and therefore the abortion is not therapeutic at all. Citations are missing to back up these assertions. References are dictionaries, encyclopedias, the name of a book with no page number, and a woman's name. That is not enough. The article is poorly written in sections to boot.

I'm not sure what the "historical background" section is even doing here.

All uses of the word "baby" should be replaced with "fetus," which is the scientifically correct term.

Finally, I'm not even sure if the image used is a "therapeutic abortion." It links to a Flickr photo which has been used in anti-abortion publications. I think for a topic as controversial as this, a more reliable source should be used.

Also the sources are exceedingly poor. We have an article on abortion already and do not need another one. Should be redirected there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abortion

I now see that this entire page was supposed to redirect to the "Induced" section of the abortion entry as of 2010 and have changed it to reflect that decision. See https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_August_13#Therapeutic_abortion

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]