Talk:Wrongful abortion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal 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 has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. For more information, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

[edit] Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 21:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article Overhaul

I overhauled the article as per Tznkai's clean-up request. I removed a lot of sentences that I found to be redundant and also the comparisons between "wrongful birth" and "wrongful abortion" (because, in my eyes, it was editorialistic). I carefully researched case examples (but, unfortunately, I have neither access to nor means to understand court documents). If you believe that my revisions and additions are good, then remove the clean-up flag. Also, in light of the expansion of the "wrongful birth" section" do you think this article should be renamed "wrongful abortion and wrongful birth"? --Kyd 04:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The amendments introduced by Kyd have seriously impaired the article. He confuses legal terms, uses irrelevant examples, ignores the original comparison between various causes of action (that shed some light on the topic), refers (once again) to irrelevant sources, etc. If necessary, I am willing to elaborate on that. All in all, he turned an article that was written in legal jargon into an amateurish mish mash of headings, concepts, explanations, and examples. I strongly suggest that the pre-Kyd version be restored. Dr.Genius 22:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)(typo fixed, thanks KYD. Dr.Genius 10:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC))

Moreover, Kyd suggests that in light of the expansion of the "wrongful birth" section the title of the article should also change. This seems absurd to me. The article was supposed to discuss wrongful abortion. So after changing its focus and contents, it is obvious that the title no longer fits. Once again, the dicussion of wrongful life/birth and wrongful conception/pregnancy that was omitted - was only introduced to enable better understanding of the wrongful abortion concept. It was not meant to expand the article. Dr.Genius 22:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps totally reformatting the flow of the article was a bit too much of a bold move. However, it was my opinion that the categorization was overspecific and unnecessary. It is much more concise to incorperate all of the causes into two paragraph-based sections. As for the following, I'm shaking my head: "All in all, [s]he turned an article that was written in legal jargon into an amateutish [sic] mish mash of headings, concepts, explanations, and examples." Should the average Wikipedia user — who, I am guessing, is not a lawyer and does not have access to subscription-based court document archives — be able to understand the subject? Does it hurt to include case examples to augment the article? Or would it have been better to just leave the terse legal references in place and let Wikipedians fend for themselves? If you think the original article was superior, by all means, revert it. But, rememeber, it was flagged for clean-up for a reason, probably because it was a maze of run-on sentences and esoteric legal references. --Kyd 23:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

There. I reverted it for you. Now, you sort it out in whatever manner tickles your fancy in order to comply with the clean-up request. --Kyd 00:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Kyd, I do not contend that this article does not need to be cleaned-up. However, if we wish the articles to be accurate, we need to encourage professionals to define and elaborate on professional terms. You cannot just assume that you know everything and completely reformat an article based on rudimentary understanding of fairly complex matters that even professionals sometimes fail to understand. Would you, for example, change the "theory of relativity" article the same way? Would you be bold enough to delete the article and rewrite it following a simple web-search? Wrongful abortion, wrongful birth, wrongful life, wrongful conception, wrongful pregnancy, etc. - are professional legal terms, which are defined and used in the legal literature. If you don't have access to legal databases, that's fine. Ask those who do to clean-up. Dr.Genius 10:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

What about cleaning up? Either someone do this or remove the cleanup tag. 128.139.64.111 18:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expert needed

This article needs serious expert legal opinion. The term "Wrongful abortion" should be shifted away from distinct pro-life agenda and more into how it is a legal term that needs to be better defined. --Cutesmartguy 04:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that the main issue with this article is that it is based on a single journal article which isn't accessible to most readers. As such, I don't think this article's treatment of the subject is readily understandable, specifically to readers who do not have a legal background or do not have resources to research legal topics. I tried overhauling this article two years ago with the goal of increasing accessibility but ran into objections. -Severa (!!!) 06:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I did a search and finally found the paper which this article is based off: "Wrongful Abortion: A Wrong in Search of a Remedy." Most of the text in this article is lifted verbatim from that source, so, it's presence on Wikipedia indicates a clear WP:COPYVIO concern. Does anyone think that we should revert to my 2-year-old rewrite in order to remove the concern of infringement? -Severa (!!!) 06:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say - ask the journal (which probably holds the copyright for the article). I am sure that a law journal of an elite school would allow use of the text. After all, they Yale guys would like the seemingly new term become part of the legal discourse.207.237.245.85 20:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)