Talk:Birth control/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Statistics regarding prevalence of birth control use among various populations

I am very interested to learn about rates of birth control use among various populations: various ages, ethnicities, in different countries. I am interested to learn what percentage of any given population at any given time is using birth control. I am particularly interested to learn, overall, what percentage of sex acts, worldwide, involve birth control. I would like to know what research has been done on the topic of sex for pleasure versus sex for procreation. Is there any research like this? Can we add any such section to the article?

Another topic that I think would benefit this article is the discussion of wanted vs. unwanted pregnancy. For instance, I am very interested to learn what factors affect the use of birth control: price, ease of use, morals of the community. Can we find out how likely it is that a person will have sex without birth control, without wanting to be pregnant? I am also interested to find out about abortion rates, whether people who get abortions are married or single, in a monogamous relationship or having many partners, etc. Whatever404 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't already looked at them, you might check the section on the talk page about Stats on usage, which links to a reference that gives usage by age in the USA. Also the section on Talk:Comparison of birth control methods#Comparison - cost, method use contains some discussion in a similar vein.

You might also want to check the article on unintended pregnancy (still a stub, but has some stats and one of the references there covers unwanted pregnancies from a global perspective), other places you might look (to see what is already here) include some of the articles on abortion, e.g. abortion in the united states, some of the links on the Family planning article, and the articles on adolescent sexuality and/or teenage pregnancy (US, UK, in general).

This source might also be helpful: "Family Planning Worldwide: 2008 Data Sheet" (PDF). Population Reference Bureau. 2008. Retrieved 2008-06-27. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) Zodon (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Abortion

Since people feel the need to discuss abortion as form of birth control I would like to say why I removed it.

1. It is not an accepted form of birth control within the medical community,
2. Making such a wild statement needs some support from medical literature, or some official health organisation. Absent that the claim is speculation on the part of WP editors and cannot be used.

RespectfullyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad someone finally decided to come to the talk page. I agree that "Abortions are not meant to be used as a regular form of birth control" [1], but then I can't deny what the number one form of birth control is in Russia [2]. I mean, how can abortion not be a way to control birth? I think we should include abortion, but mention that western doctors do not recommend it as a regular BC method, and that it is a controversial topic. Some interesting articles: PMID 17682547, PMID 16579317, PMID 15006265, PMID 18465478, etc... -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As in the earlier discussion on this topic, it seems unclear that abortion isn't a means of "reducing the likeliehood of childbirth" (i.e. birth control). Abortion typically prevents childbirth. Birth prevention seems to be one of the main reasons for using abortion (as compared to Hysterectomy, for instance, where birth prevention is a side effect).

Birth control doesn't just encompass methods that are considered regular, ongoing forms of birth control by modern medicine. (For instance pessaries, or many of the herbs and preparations that were at one time considered to be birth control may not now be so regarded. Also, some do not consider emergency contraception as a regular ongoing method, although some do.)

Some definitions use birth control as fairly synonymous with contraception, or slightly more generally with prevention of pregnancy (e.g. contragestives).

Some definitions extend it to include methods of fertility regulation. (e.g. Stedman's medical dictionary, 28th ed.)[3]

Some extend it more broadly to include interruption of pregnancy:

"Methods of fertility control, including contraception, that are intended to prevent pregnancy, and means of interrupting early pregnancy." (Sci tech encyclopedia)

"Voluntary limiting of human reproduction, using such means as contraception, sexual abstinence, surgical sterilization, and induced abortion."Encyclopedia Britannica

If abortion is to be removed, then it appears that the explanation of what birth control is in the lead will also need to be modified, and note that broader meanings exist.

I think should note variations in possible meaning, rather than eliminating abortion all-together. Perhaps putting it in a separate section under methods, with notation that some definitions include it as birth control and some don't would help clarify the situation. Zodon (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

To make a more concrete suggestion, I have restored the section[4], but separating it from the other methods (in view that some consider it birth control, and some not) and adding notes that definitions vary on whether abortion is birth control or not, and something to the effect of what Andew c suggested about it's not being recommended as a regular BC method. Thoughts?

Should it be further differentiated by, for instance, changing "Methods" to "Contraceptive methods," and having induced abortion in a distinct section? Zodon (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact some choose to terminate gestation does not mean it represents birthcontrol. Unless you are suggesting that avoiding pregnancy (the pill) is equal to a women being seriously endangered by the pregnancy (all kind of medical condsitions spring to mind) and then trying to avoid getting killed herself.

I have clarified in the text is is a nonmainstream view to use abortion as family planning.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have given specific examples. We also have cited sources here on the talk page which states abortion is BC, and other sources that say it is not. We cannot take sides here, so I have altered the wording. I believe contraception is the more accurate term which we can use which universally excludes abortion (although... this is a sticky issue in the abortion debate with some pro-life groups arguing over the beginning of pregnancy, and claiming hormonal contraception prevents implantation and should be classified as an abortificient, although I personally don't know of any mainstream medical or scientific group which agrees). Anyway, the issue is complex, and we shouldn't oversimplify it. NPOV, we should present all notable views, and I believe it isn't clear 100% whether abortion IS or IS NOT birth control..-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As stated by Andrew c, "contraception is the more accurate term which we can use which universally excludes abortion". Since this article includes abortion as a form of birth control, this means that the article is not about "contraception". The top of the page equates birth control and contraception (which is flatly wrong given that the first is a subset of the other), and "contraception" redirects to this article. (see talk topic above) I am making the appropriate edits.OckRaz (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

New sections

I created three sections out of the existing written material. I did not add material (besides a word or two for clarification). Here is the result:

• Mainstream medical opinion. This section discusses whether abortion is considered contraception or birth control in the mainstream medical community. Ethical debate and physical risks are mentioned. This section is completely unreferenced and needs to be sourced.
• Prevalence. This section mentions the higher prevalence in Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine. This section should be expanded, perhaps to explain why abortion is used as birth control in these areas.
• Methods. This sections briefly mentions medical and surgical methods. The section on abortifacient herbs is weasel-worded and needs to be sourced.

-- Whatever404 (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Three main methods

I've added the following to the intro:

There are three main routes to preventing or ending pregnancy; the prevention of fertilization of the ovum by sperm cells ("contraception"), the prevention of implantation of the blastocyst ("contragestion"), and the chemical or surgical induction of abortion of the developing embryo or, later, fetus. In common usage, term "contraception" is often used for both contraception and contragestion, as well as for chemically-induced abortion in the very early stages of gestation.

I'm not a biologist; can someone check the above for correctness? -- The Anome (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The colloquial or vernacular use of the term 'contraception' (for a couple of reasons) frequently doesn't distinguish between the 1st two methods, but it doesn't refer to abortion, although that can (depending on defintion) be included in the category 'birth control'.OckRaz 17:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Contraception

It has been suggested that some sections of this page be moved to a separate article on Contraception. Please leave your comments on whether such a move would be in accordance with Wikipedia's core principles of content creation (mainly, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:N) on Talk:Contraception. Any expert opinions are especially welcome. Thank you. — Rankiri (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What sections specifically? Can you flesh out this proposal a little more? What would this article's "methods" section look like if your proposal went through?-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, this proposal is based on the assumption that the linguistic differences discussed in Talk:Contraception are correct. Another thing to keep in mind that I only got involved in this discussion because of my earlier research for this AfD nomination. I'm only interested in keeping a balanced perspective so I'll leave any actual content decisions to people who have more medical experience—and better sources—than I do.

To partially address your questions... Well, right now the methods are split between Physical methods, Behavioral methods, Induced abortion, and Methods in development. But induced abortion is also a physical method, is it not? Encyclopedia Britannica lists contraception, sexual abstinence, surgical sterilization, and induced abortion as some of more notable means of birth control. Wouldn't it be at least just as reasonable to list the methods in a similar manner? In no particular order, Contraception (contraceptive methods), Induced abortion (abortion methods), Sterilization (surgical prevention methods), Abstinence (behavioral methods) seem to cover the available methods just as effectively and seemingly with even less overlap.

Additionally, if you look at the numbers, the entire concept of surgical sterilization is covered by about 70 words. The whole subject of abortion is covered by less than 150 words. The coverage of Physical(primarily contraceptive) Methods, in contrast, takes up almost 1300 words. Quite disproportionate, to say the least. Shortened Physical Methods ({{main|contraception}}) would provide more consize method summaries that would link to contraception for more exhaustive or technical coverage. Induced abortion and Sterilization summaries could be expanded with more information and the article could place more emphasis of the general subject of fertility control rather than in-depth coverage of only one of its key methods.

As mentioned on Talk:Contraception, the contraception page would also have its own potential for expansion, with prospective subsections like "Types of contraception", "Contraceptive methods", "History of contraception", "Social issues", "Contraception laws", "Public debate/Religious views" and others springing to mind almost immediately. Pages like Barrier contraception, Progestagen only contraception, Vas-occlusive contraception, Hormonal contraception, Heat-based contraception, Male contraception, Female contraception, Oral contraceptive and others would also benefit from having a more organized parent page.

From WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPLIT and WP:BETTER (Articles covering subtopics):

• Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place. The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects.

• Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way that lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. The text of any article consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized in the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article.Cricket is an example of an article covering subtopics: it is divided into subsections that give an overview of the sport, with each subsection leading off to one or more subtopic articles.

— Rankiri (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Several common methods (listed here) are commonly considered contraceptives, but there is a vocal minority that considers them abortifacient. I believe it helps further NPOV for Wikipedia to stay out of the debate by just calling these methods "birth control" and refraining from labeling them as contraceptives. I know other articles on Wikipedia do this; all I can say to that is WP:Other stuff exists.

Many readers come to this page and click through to articles on specific methods. Forcing them to navigate through an additional article (contraception) would add zero to what information they get (from the specific method article) but would make that information more difficult to find. Lyrl^Talk _C 19:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Birth Control Eduation

I am planning on adding that recent research has found that comprehensive sex ed is more effective than the absintence only sex ed; does anyone have any references I can use?--Mnd marquez (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Methods 2

i am thinking about adding information about birth control, condoms and other ways not preventing from std's..for example herpes...does anybody have good references..?Monica07 (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To edit you need references to back up your information. Feel free to edit as long as you have those sources. --Brad Polard (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Birth Control; a debatable topic.

"Controversy is everywhere but more so in the methods of birth control which actually prevent the implantation of an embryo if fertalization occurs, which is commonly known as the “morning after pill”. Family planning facilities have greatly helped to reduce the birth rates in developing countries which has many advantages. In the past the most common forms of birth control were barrier methods, which we know today as “condoms”, but also the attempt to have intercourse with a woman during a “non-fertile” time. The latter method might have proved to be a good idea, however, it wasn’t until the early 20th century that scientists were actually able to sort out the rhythm of the menstrual cycle, with that and the inconsistencies in every individual meant that this method was completely unreliable. If Birth Control is an issue on your mind, I would recommend talking more time to research and figure out what it means to you, and which method is right for your individual situation." ref:http://pregnancyguide.theazonway.com/discussions-about-birth-control/ 189.136.121.85 (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That does not seem like a reliable source. What does "scientists were actually able to sort out the rhythm of the menstrual cycle" mean? 75.166.200.250 (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Side Effects section moved here

I've moved the orphaned "Side Effects" section here (below) from the article. It was a non sequitur, and seems to have been dropped into the middle of the Methods/Behavioral Methods/Fertility Awareness section, splitting off the last paragraph of that section. I've restored the continuity there, and I invite an editor to either (1) condense and insert this text at the end of the Methods/Hormonal methods section, since it only deals with side effects of birth control pills, or (2) expand it into a separate section, including side effects for other methods besides hormonal. Regards, Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 21:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Best way to handle abstinence section?

Abstinance having a similar success rate to condoms is rediculous. It's impossible to get pregnant by abstaining. IE 100% effective. Condoms vary from 85-98% (depends who you ask, if it's in practice, if its device failure or whatever) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.112.137 (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In the "methods" section, the "avoiding vaginal intercourse" and "abstinence" paragraphs are the only ones that discuss effectiveness. For all other methods, discussion of effectiveness is limited to the "effectiveness" section. In light of recent instability in the abstinence paragraph, I've wondered if it would be best to move the effectiveness statements of "virtually zero" and "zero risk" to the "effectiveness" section.

Instead, we could say something along the lines of, "Any practice that prevents semen from coming in contact with the vulva can be used to reduce the possibility of pregnancy" and then just define the practices? Lyrl^Talk _C 23:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure about this. While I see the point about putting the effectiveness things all together, the myth that long term abstinence is 100% effective seems to be fairly widespread, without being carefully examined (e.g. typical vs. theoretical) or having much supporting evidence. I am concerned that the material about effectiveness of abstinence might tend to be lost/ignored if moved into the effectiveness section.

People aren't used to thinking of the effectiveness of abstinence in the same terms as the effectiveness of other methods, and so might not look in that section. Abstinence is not well covered in the comparison of birth control methods article. It isn't uncommon for abstinence to be called out in some fashion as if it were significantly more effective.

So I think it is important to highlight this aspect for this particular method (that it is poorly studied, and often misrepresented). Not sure what is best way to do that in the context of this article. Zodon (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The method or perfect-use effectiveness of abstinence is uniquely high. The concept of typical use, where people that intend to use the method but forget a pill or occasionally have sex without a condom are included in the statistics, is not intuitive for most people. I think having these terms defined would help readers understand where the article is coming from. There is such a discussion in the effectiveness section; do you think it would be worthwhile to duplicate it in the abstinence section? Maybe we could abbreviate it and provide a prominent wikilink to the effectiveness section for a further explanation?

To move on to the subject of what refs to use, I haven't ever seen typical use statistics for abstinence. A possibility for this article is trying to find a study of pregnancy rates for teenagers who have made a pledge to abstain until marriage. A quick Google search didn't turn up pregnancy rates, but this New Yorker article says that only half of abstinence-pledgers actually abstain until marriage. We could also look for statistics relating to abstinence-only sex ed programs, but that doesn't seem as directly relevant: just because someone goes through an abstinence-only program doesn't mean they intend to rely on abstinence to avoid pregnancy. Lyrl^Talk _C 14:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Free Inquiry article currently used as a reference seems to have a POV that the concept of method effectiveness useless. I find method/perfect-use effectiveness to be valuable information, and since all the Wikipedia birth control articles include information on method effectiveness, there seems to be consensus that it's useful. I would like to replace it with something more balanced. One suggestion is this Journal of Adolescent Health editorial that acknowledges the 100% "perfect-use" effectiveness of abstinence but discusses the fact that intending to be abstinent does not provide full protection. Lyrl^Talk _C 15:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get that sense from the Free Inquiry article. They don't say that ideal use effectiveness is useless, just that it isn't as relevant to the average person as the typical use effectiveness. Which might be true almost by definition. (The "average" person should expect to get something like the typical use effectiveness. Of course those who are "well above average" might do as well as the ideal use, and those who are not as careful will probably do worse than the typical use.)

The Fortenberry editorial is interesting (thank you for finding that), however it seems to be dealing with STIs, rather than birth control. (So I am not sure how directly applicable it is here.)

There was a different article on this topic which I had in mind when I came across the Free Inquiry article. Since there appeared to be some confusion here about what was being said, I figured it was well to get something in as a reference soon. I will try again to find the one I had in mind and see if it is better.

I haven't seen typical use effectiveness data for abstinence either, but it would be really neat to have (it was while looking for that that I came across these references.) Zodon (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

A confounding issue to treating abstinence as a birth control method is that many people are celibate as a lifestyle choice that has little to do with a desire to prevent pregnancy. In that sense, it's not really a "birth control method" so much as a "lack of a need for birth control". Abstinence is compared to (other) birth control methods most often in the public policy sense, where promoting abstinence (instead of or in addition to promoting, say, condoms) is a technique used to try to reduce a population's unplanned pregnancy rate.

I believe if a person understands the cause for typical-use failures they will be able to choose a method that is better for them. Knowing that most condom failures are caused by not using a condom, a person who knows they "get caught up in the moment" can decide to use a coitus-independent method. Knowing that most pill failures are caused by not taking pills, a person who has trouble staying on a strict schedule may realize that a "less effective" method such as barriers may be more reliable for them personally (a 2% failure rate for consistent condom use is much better than an 8% failure rate for someone who forgets to take pills). I don't think it's as simple as saying, "average people all experience average effectiveness".

We might be able to use the fortenberry article to say that over half of those who pledge abstinence-until-marriage break that pledge. And the comparison to condoms ("simulation studies suggest that abstinence appears to be about as good as condoms") seems like it could also be useful. Lyrl^Talk _C 15:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think "abstinence" belongs at all. It's like discussing drunk driving: non-drivers will never drive drunk, but it rather misses the point. Abstinence-before-marriage isn't a birth control strategy, it's a sex control strategy. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 1

The practice of avoiding all sexual activity is termed sexual abstinence. Because pregnancy can only occur when sperm enter the vagina, people who are sexually abstinent do not experience unplanned pregnancy. Sometimes people choose to be sexually abstinent to reduce their risk of pregnancy, and abstinence is often treated as a method of birth control. Other sources say instead that people who are abstinent have no need for birth control.

Relying on abstinence is not 100% effective in preventing pregnancy: not everyone who intends to be abstinent refrains from all sexual activity. As a public health measure, it is estimated that the protection provided by abstinence is similar to that of condoms.

How does that sound? Lyrl^Talk _C 23:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

One addition needed to the above is "do not experience unplanned pregnancy from consensual sex"

One question this discussion has raised to me is - what is the pregnancy risk from non-consensual sex? Obviously this may vary based on age, socio-economic status and location. For instance, if the risk is on the order of a few tenths of a percent, then it doesn't make much sense to compare the theoretical 100% (which ignores non-consensual sex) with other methods that are a few tenths of a percent less effective in typical use, (where non-consensual sex won't change the effectiveness).

I will think more about the suggested wording when I am more awake. Zodon (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

My intention in defining abstinence as "avoiding all sexual activity" was to include rape in the "not everyone who intends to be abstinent refrains" group. If you think it's better to define abstinence as "not consenting to any sexual activity" we may need to work on that first sentence (the definition) to make that clear. Lyrl^Talk _C 15:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed the wording[5] from

• "Other sources say instead that people who are abstinent have no need for birth control."

to

• "Other sources classify abstinence as not being a form of birth control."

While the former wording is closer to what the sources given say, what I understood it to mean, both here and in the "Contraception Update" is that abstinence is not being considered to be a form of birth control. (Just as we do not call pregnancy a form of contraception, although technically it acts as such.)

The problem with the former wording is that it could also be interpreted to mean that those who are using abstinence as a primary method do not need a backup method, or need to know about birth control, etc. While I would guess that there are sources that support that view, it isn't clear that the sources given would support that interpretation. Further, I think that if that question is to be covered, it should be separated from the question of is abstinence a form of birth control. Zodon (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the improvement to the wording. Lyrl^Talk _C 14:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstinence section - mention of rape

An editor recently added to the "abstinence" section the phrase, "people who maintain abstinence can still become pregnant as a result of rape." To me, sexual abstinence is "not having sex," making the extra phrase unnecessary. This editor seems to define abstinence as "not consenting to sex," and with that definition the phrase addition is needed.

What do others think? Does the abstinence section need to spell out that not consenting to sex offers no protection from pregnancy? Lyrl^Talk _C 19:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I added that. In the United States, at least, particularly in Republican/red/right-wing states, a high value is placed on abstinence as supposedly the "only 100% effective form of birth control" (the most cursory Google search reveals this). Lyrl, when you added the part about how people who intend to remain abstinent sometimes end up choosing to have sex, I took that to mean that you're interested to discuss the ways in which the effectiveness of abstinence is less than 100%. Clearly, forced sex is another way.

Yes, of course, all methods that require user action just prior to sex (such as condoms) are less effective if they are not used (whether by choice during consensual sex, or by force during rape)... but no one claims that condoms or any other such methods are "100% effective" in the way some people do with abstinence. I think that the sort of exalted status attributed to abstinence by certain groups warrants a special mention of the issue of rape and the resultant risk of pregnancy from that. Additionally, perhaps we could create/expand a section describing the issues specific to methods requiring user action just prior to sex. Whatever404 (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My question is whether pregnancy from rape counts as a method failure or an actual use failure. Sources I trust for such information, including Planned Parenthood and the Feminist Women's Health Center, report a 100% perfect use effectiveness. Although none of these sources specifically address pregnancies from rape, reporting a method failure rate of 0% implies they include nonconsensual sex in the actual use failure rate. The Free Inquiry article that Zodon found and the Journal of Adolescent Health editorial also list a perfect use effectiveness of 100%: both argue that typical use statistics are more useful, not that the method failure is higher than zero.

If Wikipedia is to include pregnancies from rape as method failures of abstinence, it should cite a source that also does this. I'm not aware of one, but I'm not well-read in this area. If another editor knows of such a source, I'm hoping they will chime in here. Lyrl^Talk _C 13:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Defining pregnancies from rape as user failures means that we define pregnancies from rape as situations where the user did not practice abstinence "correctly" or "consistently". The obvious, nasty subtext is that if the survivor had behaved differently, she would not have been raped. Considering how many rape survivors blame themselves for their ordeal, I cannot in good conscience agree to this definition.

Skirting the issue is no solution: using phrasing like "abstinence prevents 100% of pregnancies from consensual sex" in order to avoid any further discussion of pregnancies resulting from rape does a disservice to people who have experienced it.

It may be worth noting that many of the groups promoting abstinence as "100% effective" also tend to focus on what the victim was wearing or doing prior to the rapist's crime: I've seen variations upon this theme at several websites.

Pregnancies from rape, being beyond the person's control, are best defined as method failures. Whatever404 (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Defining virginity as not having experienced vaginal penetration has a similarly nasty rape-related subtext. And indeed, many sexually inexperienced rape victims continue to consider themselves virgins after the assault [6]. At the same time, the most widespread definition of virginity is one that is ended by a rape, and so this is how Wikipedia treats the topic (see, for example, the third paragraph of Virgin#Perceived value).

Some groups that consider premarital sex to be a sin have victim-blaming attitudes towards sexual crimes [7]. I do not believe the evidence supports "promoting abstinence as 100% effective" to be a marker for this misogynist POV: as I documented above, every verifiable source I was able to find held that view, regardless of political or religious viewpoint of the website owner.

Wikipedia policy is to report what reliable sources say, not what we believe to be true. Without a source to support the discussion of rape-means-abstinence-isn't-100%, that discussion should not be a Wikipedia article. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am confused as to why you brought up "virginity". One need not even be "a virgin" in order to practice abstinence as birth control. A definition of "virginity" and what ends or does not end this culturally-defined state need not even enter into this conversation. We were talking about whether rape-induced pregnancy constitutes a situation where the user of abstinence as a birth control method failed to use the method correctly or consistently.

My take on this is that rape-induced pregnancy is a situation where the user did use the method correctly and consistently (UTMCC), but the method failed them. Are you saying that we should state that rape-induced pregnancy is a user failure, a situation where the user failed to UTMCC? Are you saying the article should state that abstinence is "100% effective", even though we both seem to grasp that this is clearly false? What do you think the article should state, and what sources are you using? Whatever404 (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, we are talking about what ends or does not end the culturally-defined state of abstinence. According to the current version of this article, "The practice of avoiding all sexual activity is termed sexual abstinence." A person who has been raped has not avoided sexual activity. In the current version, the definition is supported by a reference to Planned Parenthood. Other reliable sources that define abstinence as 100% effective with perfect use are the Feminist Women's Health Center, a Free Inquiry article, and a Journal of Adolescent Health editorial.

If a source were found, we could change the definition to "trying to avoid all sexual activity," or to "not consenting to any sexual activity." By those definitions a person who had been raped would be considered abstinent. I am open to including other sourced definitions that are found, or sources that have some other angle on the rape/abstinence issue. Since such sources have not yet been presented, my current proposal is to remove the unnecessary, incorrect, and unreferenced phrases about rape. Lyrl^Talk _C 12:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to acknowledge that nonconsensual sex limits the effectiveness of abstinence, especially since the typical use effectiveness of the closest competing method is only 5/100 of one percent less effective. Even a fairly small risk would make abstinence not so uniquely high.

The main point that I thought was important when starting the effectiveness of abstinence discussion was that the effectiveness of abstinence is not well understood (or maybe even well defined). There are a lot of loose claims about it ("100% effective"), but it isn't clear that there is much good data to back that up. The mater of how to treat non-consensual sex is an example of that.

I added a reference that might help to support that nonconsensual sex reduces efficacy of abstinence. Kim Best (2005). "Nonconsensual Sex Undermines Sexual Health". Network. 23 (4). (I left the citation needed tag in case folks think it needs better support. If you think this adequate, we can remove the citation needed).

The definition of abstinence currently being used "The practice of avoiding all sexual activity" is a bit too narrow, that corresponds to only part of Planned Parenthood or Contraceptive Tech. definition of abstinence, or what is on the abstinence wikipedia page. It is not even theoretically attainable in a prospective sense (only in retrospective). It matches more closely what the FWHC reference calls "total abstinence." ("Avoiding some or all" would be more general). Zodon (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Further changes to abstinence section

I think there is some merit in stating unequivocally that (aside from ART) if semen does not contact the vagina, there can be no pregnancy. With that in mind, I would like to remove the reference to rape from the first paragraph of the abstinence section. It's been almost a week since there was any discussion; if we go another few days with no objections, I'll go ahead and make this change.

Zodon's point about common definitions of abstinence is a good one; suggestions I would support for addressing that issue include renaming the section "total abstinence" or adding a brief discussion of different abstinence definitions. Other's thoughts? Lyrl^Talk _C 14:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstinence is generally impractical and relatively ineffective as a method of birth control. Regions which have transitioned to abstinence-only family planning education over the past few decades have had increased rates of abortion and unwanted pregnancy. I object to the religious motivation which I suspect is behind this suggestion. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Dual Protection

Hi all, it seems like the article Dual protection will never be more than a few sentences to the effect that you can get higher reliability by pairing up certain kinds of birth control. So I propose to get rid of that article and move (some of) its contents over into Birth control. Please comment here, or if you agree and there seems to be a consensus, then please be bold and execute the merge yourself. Thanks, Vectro (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well... But it's not only about birth control, also about safer sex. If merging, maybe it'd be better to merge it info safer sex? I made a single article because it's a term used in publications on safer sex, than an wiki article is an easy way to see the definition of it. (es_uomikim (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Hrm. You got me. My inclination would be to copy the content into both birth control and safer sex, since it would only add up to a paragraph or so. But I agree, the article is a lot more justifiable since it is an effective strategy for avoiding both pregnancy and infection. I've added merge tags to safer sex as well. Let me know what you think. 03:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You've got my point! I just think that adding a paragraph to both texts is worse than making one (small) article on it. I think that is the more efficient way and it captures the idea that it's both birth control and safer sex. But still, we can improve the text to make it better. (es_uomikim (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Not totally convinced that this article can't grow beyond a couple of paragraphs. The topic of promoting condom use in addition to more effective birth control methods, prevalence of such practice, etc. could be covered in condoms (male and female) and safe sex and birth control (or the particular methods), but having one place to focus such coverage doesn't seem bad. So I would give a mild keep to dual protection. Zodon (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. Is oral sex "non-penetrative" -- and even if it is, should Dual protection be using that umbrella term to describe it and other non-vaginal sex? The chance of confusing English as a foreign language readers here is quite high. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

OVUMCIDE

Why don't they make a substance which SPECIFICALLY kills an egg cell and doesn't cause any kind of irritation at all? Maybe using the same trick spermatozoid uses to enter egg cell and doesn't go inside other (skin/mucous membrane) cells? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.213.89 (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

separate article on contraception

The article says that there are three types of birth control. So I am wondering why contraception which is a big topic and there are hundreds and thousands of articles on contraception itself, does not have a separate wikipedia page.

Also this falls under verbal engineering. Look at this website: http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=316

Whenever widespread social engineering of this magnitude occurs, it is invariably preceded by skillful verbal engineering. The late Msgr. William Smith observed that the argument about contraception was basically over as soon as modern society accepted the deceptive phrase, “birth control” into its vocabulary. “Imagine if we had called it, ‘life prevention’,” he once remarked. The great Gilbert Keith Chesterton put it this way: “ They insist on talking about Birth Control when they mean less birth and no control,” and again: “Birth Control is a name given to a succession of different expedients by which it is possible to filch the pleasure belonging to a natural process while violently and unnaturally thwarting the process itself."

I don't think wikipedia should get into ideological things like this. let's separate alright? Pinoyrk (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Almost all of this article is about contraception or contraceptives. There are a lot of articles in wikipedia about contraception and contraceptives. (See the birth control methods navigation box, and the various categories.) What particular aspect(s) do you think are not addressed?

See also WP:Name#Treatment of alternative names Zodon (talk) 06:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up

I found this article disappointing, especially the history section. I came here wanting to see a time-line of the major technical innovations in birth control, especially the birth control pill. The pill was only referred to a few times in the article, but not really discussed. The social impact of the "the Pill" is well-discussed in the "Social and cultural impact" section of the "Combined oral contraceptive pill" article. I think it would be good for a time-line to make brief note of this & refer to the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.214.127 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I will attempt a bit of a cleanup, starting with the history section. The article contains a lot of unreferenced material and is badly structured. Help welcome.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

made a start with the history section, needs more work and extending.--SasiSasi (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding citation needed tags is a much better way to approach material that is verifiable but simply lacks citations. Especially in a well developed article like this one, encouraging adding citations is likely to improve things faster than massive removal of material.

If you think there are problems with article structure, probably better to bring them up and discuss here, rather than starting by making large changes to a well developed and stable article. (Would save you some work, less likely to be reverted, etc.) Zodon (talk) 00:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In history, arranging material by geography is no better than arranging it by method. The material about the history of the particular methods should be restored.

There is definitely enough material to create a separate article about the history of birth control, which could explore it from various perspectives (different areas/cultures, history of various methods, etc.) Zodon (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all I did not make significant changes to the structure of the article. Did you have a look at the original history section? it was neither arranged by method, geography or time. It was a collection of random stuff, much of what was in there was unreferenced, from dubious sources or so general that it hardly made sense. You are free work on the article by adding referenced material. The history section was certainly not well developed and did not comply with wikipedia guidelines. Just because nobody edited it for a long time does not mean that it complied with wikipedia quality standards or deserves to remain in the article. Much of what is included under Methods is unreferenced as well, and as such does not comply with wikipedia quality standards; maybe you want to help by replacing it with referenced material.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

--SasiSasi (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In the opening statement you said "The article ... and is badly structured." Which appeared to indicate that you thought the entire article was badly structured. If you just meant that the history section was poorly structured - that wasn't clear.

Please consider WP:PRESERVE - since most of the material here is verifiable and there is little questionable content it would probably be politic to indicate items that need citations and then allow time for such citations to be gathered. The purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to enforce rules.  :::For the most part the material under methods doesn't need replacement - much of it is summaries of the articles on the particular methods (which are a good source for references.) It is much easier to gather references for existing material than it is to have to re-write the material and gather references.

This article has had a lot of work from several well informed and dedicated editors, just chopping out large sections is likely to set peoples backs up. Indicating items that need improvement and then allowing time for that improvement is much more likely to facilitate progress Wikipedia:Editing policy#Be cautious with major changes: discuss. Zodon (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

the only editor who appears to have a problem with me improving the article as per wikipedia quality standards is you... progress would be made if you start making constructive contributions to the article as per wikipedia quality standards.--SasiSasi (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Intro removal

I have removed the following, because non of it is referenced in the article itself:

The history of birth control began with the discovery of the connection between coitus and pregnancy. The oldest forms of birth control included coitus interruptus, pessaries, and the ingestion of herbs that were believed to be contraceptive or abortifacient. The earliest record of birth control use is an ancient Egyptian set of instructions on creating a contraceptive pessary.

Different methods of birth control have varying characteristics. Condoms, for example, are the only methods that provide significant protection from sexually transmitted diseases. Cultural and religious attitudes on birth control vary significantly.

The intro should summarise what is referenced in the text. Claims like that the history of birth control started with the discovery of the connection between sexual intercourse and pregnancy are pretty significant assertions, that need a reference. Similarly assertions such as coitus interruptus, pessaries and ingestion of herbs are the oldest form of birth control need a reference as well. Like wise the assertion that condoms are the only method that provide significant protection from sexually transmitted diseases.

Maybe it would be best to get the article itself into some sort acceptable shape, in terms of only containing referenced material, and then summarising the content of the article as per wikipedia guidelines for lead sections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section

Considering the significance of the subject matter it would probably best to be cautious about including non-referenced material.--SasiSasi (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The article already is in well developed state. You removed a considerable amount of referenced material and then removed this lead asserting that it was unsupported.

Certainly the assertion about condoms being the only methods that provide significant protection could use a citation - but it is obviously true and verifiable.

Simple lack of a citation is not a good reason to remove material. The point it to build an encyclopedia, not to enforce rules. If material is of dubious verifiability or quality, weight, etc. - those may be reasonable reasons. Simple lack of a citation is much better handled by adding a citation needed tag.

Just because you think the article needs a major overhaul doesn't make it so. Zodon (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Zodon, as per wikipedia quality standards anything that is not referenced can be removed.

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

"Simple lack of a citation is not a good reason to remove material. The point it to build an encyclopaedia, not to enforce rules. " wrong - The point is to write articles that comply with wikipedia quality standards. If you want to add stuff like condoms being the only methods that provide significant protection could use a citation needs a reference.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

the article still contains substantial amounts of unreferenced material. Which should be referenced or removed. If you are unwilling to help provide references for the stuff, then it will and should be removed.

if you continue to add unreferenced material to this article I will ask an editor to intervene.--SasiSasi (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to help improve the article by adding references to unreferenced material. In the absence of you making a constructive contribution to the article that complies with wikipedia quality standards I will remove unreferenced material and replace it with referenced material.--SasiSasi (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Quality scale regrade

Regraded from B to C. The article does not meet the criteria for B quality, which is amongst others that "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged."

The criteria for C is "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective."

--SasiSasi (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in the specific statements you think need citations. Please add {{cn}} tags to make that clear. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Originla research grouping - Physical methods

I will remove the following text unless someone can provide a reference or source for this. It makes substantial assertions which need a reference and I cant find this grouping/categorisation of birth control methods in any reliable source: "Physical methods may work in a variety of ways, among them: physically preventing sperm from entering the female reproductive tract; hormonally preventing ovulation from occurring; making the woman's reproductive tract inhospitable to sperm; or surgically altering the male or female reproductive tract to induce sterility. Some methods use more than one mechanism. Physical methods vary in simplicity, convenience and efficacy."

Barrier methods are explained and are a grouping/category that can be found in literature on the subject. In the moment the article names barrier methods, as well as hormonal contraception, Ormeloxifene (Centchroman), Emergency contraception, Intrauterine methods and Sterilization under "physical methods", which does not make sense. I can certainly not find any literature that categorises hormonal contraception or Intrauterine devices under "physical" birth control methods.--SasiSasi (talk) 11:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Streamlining the Navigation and Article Links

First time discussing on Wikipedia ever, but I feel that this article needs some editing. Specifically in regards to the links in the introductory paragraph. If you search for the term "contraception", you are directed to the birth control page. That's fine, however, you'll will notice in the introductory paragraph that "contraception" is in blue and gives the impression that you might be directed to either another page or somewhere further down the article where contraceptives may be discussed in more detail. But the problem here is that upon clicking "contraception", it redirects to the top of Birth Control again, exactly where you started. The same situation occurs with "contragestion". I think it would be a good idea to have contraception and contragestion redirect to their respective locations further down the article, or even make separate articles for each, as is the case with abortion. As this is my first time actually involving myself in the editorial processes of Wikipedia, I wanted to discuss this first before attempting to edit anything. SimplificationIsKey (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean, though I think it is time for contraception and contragestion to have their own article. the categories under which the various con. are categorised in this article in any case need work, the "method" categories such as "Physical methods" don’t exist in expert literature. It’s something I mean to do some time ago, but did not find the time to. If contraception and contragestion had their own article, this article could link to them and summarise modern methods in reference to the main article. I will have a go at creating stubs for contraception and contragestion using material from this article. Though I don’t have much time in the moment, so help in developing those would be welcome.--SasiSasi (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

ok, contragestion and contraception have their own stubs now and I sorted out the methods section. I removed chunks of the unref text. the two stubs plus this article could do with expansion, but only with refs please. Anything that has no ref can be removed, it has been tagged for a while now.--SasiSasi (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm a beginner at editing. But I'm confused now about these contragestion/contraception segments: because contragestion (very specialized word, hardly ever used) is a subset of contraception, is a subset of birth control- right now, it sounds like contragestion and contraception are totally separate. The normal usage is that contraception prevents pregnancy (all steps up to just before implantation, and normally no one would use the word contragestion) and contragestion is the subset of that which prevents implantation after fertilization. Plus- the IUD is a contraceptive (e.g. ParaGard IUC: intrauterine copper contraceptive.) Unsurprisingly, so is emergency contraception. They're both under contragestives right now, even though they are contraceptives. The only mainly contragestive birth control method in common use is lactational amenorrhea, and that's under behavioral methods.Nimravid (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above. There has been no compelling reason advanced to justify the spinout of these into their own standalone articles (which is certainly not to say that one cannot be put forward). Eusebeus (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Birth control is an umbrella term, while contragestion and contraception are two methods which have been described as birth control. Contraception prevents fertilisation and contragestion prevents the implantation of the blastocyst. They work very differently. The two methods are indeed very separate, in terms of how they function, but ultimately they prevent birth. Normal usage may not commonly distinguishes between the two - but they are nevertheless different methods of birth control. From this perspective they merit seperate articles, which also has the benefit that details can be added to the relevant article.--SasiSasi (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are some drugs which probably do both, including the most popular emergency contraception. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Birth control, Contragestion, Contraception articles

Closed as merge

It appears that Calliopejen1 more or less lifted a large portion of the article at Contragestion and pasted it here with the comment, "merged there - better covered in comprehensive parent article". (Full disclosure: the sections at issue were my contribution to the contragestion page) Then she turned the the contragestion page into a redirect to Birth control. I undid her revision (which was a de facto deletion) of the Contragestion page, but before I make any changes to her addition to Birth Control, I wanted to comment about the issues that I believe have been raised. OckRaz (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC) [note: I'm copying the relevant parts of this to the contragestion and contraception talk pages. OckRaz (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)] Birth control: 'Mechanisms of action' and 'Terminology' Since the information was basically transferred, I'm going to assume that it's presence on wikipedia is not at issue, but that the question is merely where it belongs. OckRaz (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Mechanisms of action The opening paragraph here says, "Birth control is an umbrella term for several techniques and methods used to prevent fertilization or to interrupt pregnancy at various stages. Birth control techniques and methods include contraception (the prevention of fertilization), contragestion (preventing the implantation of the blastocyst) and abortion (the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus). Contraception includes barrier methods, such as condoms or diaphragm, hormonal contraception, also known as oral contraception, and injectable contraceptives. Contragestives, also known as post-coital birth control, include intrauterine devices and what is known as the morning after pill." Section 1.1 (just added by Calliopejen1 to 'Methods') says, "The function of birth control can be classified by the stage of reproduction during which it is active. A form of birth control which prevents the sperm from fertilizing the egg is a contraceptive agent. A form of birth control which acts after fertilization to prevent or interrupt the implantation of the embryo into the uterine lining is a contragestive agent. After implantation has occurred, an agent which ends gestation by terminating the pregnancy is an abortifacient." These duplicate on another. I'm not sure why this was transferred, and I propose that this needs to be cleaned up. I'll do it if no one else wants to or objects to my doing so. The contragestion article still has this, "Contrasting Mechanisms of Action: The function of birth control can be classified by the stage of reproduction during which it is active. A form of birth control which prevents the sperm from fertilizing the egg is a contraceptive agent. A form of birth control which acts after fertilization to prevent or interrupt the implantation of the embryo into the uterine lining is a contragestive agent. After implantation has occurred, an agent which ends gestation by terminating the pregnancy is an abortifacient Contraception occurs when an agent prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg Contragestion occurs when an agent prevents or interrupts implantation of the embryo or causes the uterine lining to shed during the implantation period An abortion has taken place if, after implantation has occurred, an abortifacient terminates the pregnancy before the fetus achieves viability." I anticipate that some people may suggest that this material be removed from the Contragestion page because it duplicates what is in Birth control. The opening paragraph in Birth Control (which I think was sufficient) is specifying different things that comprise the larger 'umbrella' category. It can be divided by stage of reproduction, but in other ways too. (eg, pharmacological, surgical, behavioral) It is important to keep the contrasting methods in the the Contragestion article because contragestion is a term which is unfamiliar to many and it is significant in large part because of the fact that it comes between the other two. Sexual reproduction can be divided into fertilization, implantation, and gestation. Preventing the first and ending the last are things which are fairly well understood. Preventing or interrupting the second, however is not. If one looks up 'Contragestion', then that context is important in understanding the term. OckRaz (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Terminology This is what's at issue: "The term, 'contraception' is a contraction of 'contra', which means 'against', and the word 'conception', which is a non-technical term that is synonymous with fertilization. The word 'contragestion' is likewise a combination of 'contra' and 'gestation'. French scientist Étienne-Émile Baulieu coined the word in 1985 because he felt that there was a need for a technical term to describe the prevention of implantation, which did not fit the traditional definitions of either 'contraception' or 'abortion'. Elisabeth Johannisson of the International Committee for Research in Reproduction endorsed the use of this nomenclature saying that, "it is appropriately descriptive and fits in with contemporary medical ethics, which require us to indicate (when we know them) the phenomena which occur in patients. The word 'contraception' is ambiguous and 'abortion' remains the traumatic symbol of a painful failure... Faced with the imprecision of these currently used terms, 'contragestion' is preferable because it takes recent scientific knowledge into account. At the same time, it is difficult to make this term accepted because more classical expressions have great force. The word 'abortion' has a long tradition... The word 'contraception' has had a strong impact on the history of our century. Between the two it is difficult to find a place, either biological or semantic." It is also worth noting that since 18 U.S. states define pregnancy as beginning at conception,[9] describing methods of birth control in terms of their potential means of action allows one to be technically accurate while using language that is neutral with regard to the abortifacient versus contraceptive controversy." I think it's obvious that that is appropriate on the Contragestion page. The same thing (minus the International Committee for Research in Reproduction bit) is now on the page for Birth Control. Frankly, I don't see why that is appropriate. There is a section for the etymology of the term 'Birth Control', which I think is an important part of the birth control article. If the terminology information were appropriate to the page, then perhaps they should be in the same section- but I fail to see how inclusion is appropriate. Terms like 'abstinence' and 'outercourse' don't have their etymology addressed here, and I don't see why 'contraception' and 'contragestion' should. OckRaz (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC) "Birth Control" versus "Contragestion" and "Contraception" articles There have been two major arguments against separate articles for contraception and contragestion. One is that by making a distinction between 'birth control' and contraception (and/or contragestion) one is advancing a point of view, which would violate the NPOV policy. The other argument deals focuses on how to best organize information and has multiple parts: 1) The user is better served if the information they want is available in a "comprehensive parent article" rather than in multiple locations, 2) There is no information which would be appropriate on either a contraception or contragestion page, but which would be inappropriate to a birth control page, and 3) When articles contain only information which is duplicated on a more comprehensive article, then wikipedia is improved by their elimination. OckRaz (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC) POV Issue I think that this was disposed of as an objection a long time ago, but perhaps it wasn't. It is common practice to have articles where the topic of one is a subset of the topic of another (eg, there is an article on Homer Simpson as well as one for the Simpson Family). I don't understand how that could be considered to be a POV problem. I personally believe that the POV objection was made not because the existence of separate pages was ever thought to be a genuine POV problem, but because there was a fear that the existence of separate pages might be the beginning of a "slippery slope" with regard to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy The fact is that neither contraception by itself, nor contraception and contragestion combined can be identical to 'birth control' if birth control is being defined so that it includes abstinence and abortion (which is how the article presently reads). Therefore, while objections can certainly be made on other grounds, there is no sensible POV argument against the inclusion of contraception and contragestion articles in wikipedia. OckRaz (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC) How to Organize Entries I take issue with the term "parent article". "List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks" is a clearly a parent article to "List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks." Whether Birth control is a parent article to contraception and contragestion seems to me to be a matter of opinion, and it's an opinion which I do not share. I also believe that there is information which would be appropriate on the contraception and contragestion pages, but which would not be appropriate to a birth control page. The concept of 'birth control' is a social construct, whereas contraception and contragestion are biological phenomena. Birth control is a category of behaviors, substances, and procedures which human beings use to regulate their own reproduction. Contraception and contragestion can occur naturally in non-human animals. Obviously there is overlap, but there are significant differences too. I'd argue that insisting upon using 'birth control' (with it's social context) as the only window through which one can view human contraception & contragestion comes much closer to presenting a POV problem, than insisting upon multiple lenses through which one can view human contraception and contragestion (such as the biological phenomenon outside of a social and cultural context). There isn't any there now, but there's no reason why the contraception and contragestion articles couldn't have information about non-human animals (both in the wild and domesticated) and unintentional contraception and contragestion (eg, malnutrition and or chronic stress). The only reason that that sort of information couldn't be added in the future to those pages would be if people keep turning the pages into redirects to Birth Control (where that sort of information can never be added). OckRaz (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Ockraz, I'd really suggest that you summarize this to something around one paragraph long, because no one is going to read all this. I don't think my merger deleted any information - everything was at this article in the end. At least at the present date, I didn't see anything in either Contraception or Contragestion that didn't belong in this article. All there was was a definition of the term and a few examples of types of birth control that used each mechanism. I don't think we need to break out these articles until the sort of content you discuss in your last paragraph is ready to be added. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC) To Calliopejen1- I believe that your merger deleted information. There is less information at 'birth control' about the use and source of the word as well as fewer citations and the loss of attribution. There's no standard for merger and deletion regarding whether content is "ready to be added". If your point is that the information has not been added and it ought to be, then I agree. In that case you could have designated them as stubs in need of expansion. I've done this myself. I designated it a stub in biology because all of the current info is about artificial methods in humans. I'll add the information that would make the pages non "stubs" eventually if no one else does it first. The standard of "unlikely to be expanded" is not met. I'm not in a particular hurry to do it; if you are acquainted with someone with expertise who could do it more quickly than I, then please ask them to do it. In the meantime, a stub notice will encourage those who go to the pages to add content. I understand that what I wrote/write has a "TL;DR problem" in this context. I'm trying to figure out a way to have all of the same information available for anyone who disagrees or thinks my points are unclear without putting it all in the talk page for an article (perhaps a link to my talk page or something). If you know how that could be done, I encourage you to add it to my talk page.OckRaz talk 01:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC) To Calliopejen1- I had a little extra time tonight, so I added a few bits about naturally occuring contraception and contragestion and a few bits about contragestion and contraception in non-human animals. This is just scratching the surface of what could be added, but it's all I have time for right now.OckRaz talk 06:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Support merge These are more or less co tracts. The small technical distinctions can be discussed here without the need for separate articles.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC) Support merge Finally found the merger discussion. Multiple articles appear result of POV fork. Much easier to handle in one article. If article gets too big there are plenty of ways to split out material without getting mired down in abortion/anti-contraceptive politics. Zodon (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Support merge The topics are extremely similar, and - more importantly - are treated as an organic whole by the sources. The split into 3 articles seems to be an attempt at pushing a POV (see WP:POINT). Of course, there are sources that do distinguish between -ception and -gestion, but that is fairly minor from the reader's point of view. The material should all be in one article, with a section on contragestion. If the day ever comes when the contragestion section becomes huge, it can be split off at that time (see WP:CONTENT FORK). --Noleander (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Comment - I added a merge notification to the Contragestion article; also, I changed the title of this (top level) section to include "merge proposal" in its text, to make it clearer to editors. --Noleander (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Support merge The content would be much clearer and easier to access and understand if combined into one article. Watermelon mang (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Support merge Sentences like, "Since 18 U.S. states define pregnancy as beginning at conception, describing methods of birth control in terms of their potential means of action allows one to be technically accurate while using language that is neutral with regard to the abortifacient versus contraceptive controversy." are cumbersome to read, and pov into the bargain. Ongepotchket (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Oppose merge It would harm wikipedia to merge these articles because while they are related,they're also very different. Birth control refers to a set of procedures or techniques which people engage in to control their reproduction, but contragestion and contraception (and "abortion" when it is used in the medical sense that includes miscarriages) are biological processes which can occur naturally or artificially in both humans and non-human animals. In the context of birth control, even so-called "natural contraception" is artificial in the sense that it is directed human activity. On the other hand, "natural contraception" as a biological process need not be artificial at all- such as when rodents undergo hormonal changes in response to the presence of new individuals. Attempting to merge these articles overlooks the distinction between the human manipulation of the biological processes and those processes themselves. OckRaz talk 19:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Support merge. The real womens' life-and-death health impact of making this article easier to read at a lower reading level far outweighs complications from allowing the controversy to spill out and complicate the entire article instead of focusing it in a section. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Additional Comments Zodon suggests that the existence of multiple articles may indicate a POV fork. Given the subjects involved, I'd like to respectfully suggest that trying to keep everything under the heading of "birth control" is the real indication of (likely unintentionally) biased editing. If you disapprove of people who argue that there's an important moral or ethical distinction to be made between contraception and contragestion, then you could feel that the existence of separate articles somehow serves to forward the arguments you find objectionable. If that's the case then limiting the topics to a distinction within a single category could make you more comfortable than having two separate articles - which on some level might seem to emphasize a distinction you think should be viewed as unimportant. To the extent that that is the motivation for merging articles, it's the merger that would be a POV edit. As to the specific points that have been raised: 1) They are merely "small technical distinctions." - I may think that the difference between dolphins and porpoises is a small but technical one and that there isn't a need for separate articles, but since they are biologically distinct categories and since both meet the criteria for noteworthiness, my opinion is irrelevant. 2) It's much "clearer" or "easier to handle" this in one article. - If you ignore the distinction between biological processes and the human practice of manipulating those processes in our own bodies, then that would be reasonable. Is it easier to handle as one article if the article on birth control needs to incorporate information about the reproduction of monkeys and rats and attempts to control the population of wild deer? 3) The articles should be merged because it's important to treat these as "part of an organic whole". - I see why it's important to treat them as an organic whole in the article on birth control, but not how that's an argument for removing the other articles. The existence of the other articles doesn't make this article less clear or harder to read (and there are links to this article in the others if they aren't what the reader sought). No one is objecting to the many articles on abortion even though abortion has been classified as a method of birth control in this article. While more material's been added on abortion, the mere amount of material isn't what matters with mergers. What matters is whether there is material which would either be lost or else would be out of context if present in the merged article. Birth control deals with our attempts to prevent or inhibit our reproduction, but contraception and contragestion often occur without our causing them and they occur in other animals as well. This means that only one subset of instances of contraception and conragestion occur in the context of birth control. 4) These topics are "minor from the reader's point of view." - Who's to say what the readers' points of view must be? I can assure you that there are people for whom it's not a minor issue (in point of fact it's something that could permanently affect their lives), and it's not an editor's place to judge which readers have come to the site with good or bad points of view. Editing on that basis is the opposite of maintaining a NPOV. OckRaz talk 22:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC) We typically use terms per their common usage. Birth control is commonly used to refer to all these terms without the subtle technical distinctions. See WP:Common Usage Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of discontinued methods

A discussion of how or whether to include discontinued methods at Comparison of birth control methods is here. Similarly, perhaps we should consider whether to indicate the availability (or discontinuation) of various methods, on this page. Please feel free to join in the discussion, on that page (I think we should keep the discussion in one place. Whatever404 (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That article needs to be linked from the introduction, or maybe an infobox. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It already is, and the section doesn't exist anymore. Archiving this section. Cupco 08:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Birth control of Christians vs. Birth control of Muslims

Is there any evidence to suggest that Christians have felt the effects of birth control at a higher rate than in the case of Muslims ? People in the West may not notice it, but in many countries, there is a birth rate rivalry between Christians and Muslims. One of the most recurrent criticisms against birth control is that it is sectarian in its very nature and that it targets certain ethnic groups, such as African Americans. Poor people are especially targeted, but wealthy people may also make use of it. ADM (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This is strongly dependent on sub-sects (e.g., Protestant/Catholic and local Imam opinion) in both cases. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Effect on the economy

I would like to see some non-original research on the effects of birth control on the economy, which could later be added in the article or in a sub-article. On the short term, many might view birth control as an effective solution because it presumably reduces the number of poor people being born, thus allowing the preservation of the consumer economy. On the long term however, some economists have been critical of birth control because less children being born will presumably buy less cars, car companies might well go bankrupt, and general commerce would also suffer as a result of less people being fed, educated, employed, etc. ADM (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And of course in the longer term fewer people competing for resources means greater material wealth, less stress on environment, etc. (e.g., as happened after the Black death in Europe).

Some publications by the Guttmacher Institute document savings to governments from investments in family planning. (Savings in health care costs, education, etc.) E.g. in the US, each dollar invested in Title X family planning programs saves $4 in governmental health expenses.

There is also coverage of some of this material in the articles on population and demographics articles (population stabilization, population decline, population control, overpopulation, demographic economics, demographic transition, Demographic window, demographic gift, Demographic dividend, Demographic trap etc.). Zodon (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see also [8], [9], and [10] from #Reviews on the topic in the Lancet this month below. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed Section

In Germany, during the reign of Hitler, and before World War II, in 1935, birth control information was readily 
available to outcast groups including Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and mentally or physically disabled people.
 When it came to women that were classified as Aryan, they were forbidden to receive 
information after the Nuremberg Laws were implemented. 

According to [11] the Nuremberg Laws did not refer to Birth Control other than making sexual intercourse between aryan and non-aryans illegal. Furthermore "Birth Control" of non-aryans was "promoted" by means of forced sterilisation. Therefore I removed the above section. --Arcudaki (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the particular removed section presented this information poorly, and support its removal.

However, I'd like to point out (in case anyone wants to work on the history section of this article) that reversible methods of birth control were outlawed in Nazi Germany. This is noted in Intrauterine device#History (supported by footnote 6) and Condom#1930 to present (supported by footnote 6, pages 252-4,257-8). Lyrl^Talk _C 12:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's very obscure. I'm thinking the History section should be spun off into its own WP:SUMMARY section article because it's so irrelevant to what most readers will be looking for. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Backup method

It seems like a paragraph or small section covering backup method might be appropriate. Having backup method(s) (typically condom, spermicide + condom, or ECP) available is recommended for many methods. Whether for cases of imperfect use (e.g. missed pills), method failure (IUD came out), or for times when primary method is ineffective (fertility awareness). Zodon (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A paragraph in the "effectiveness" section could be a good improvement to the article. Even if that's added to the "effectiveness" section, though, I'd like to see the wording you added to the abstinence section stay there or nearby; it fits in nicely with the discussion of unplanned and nonconsensual sex. Lyrl^Talk _C 14:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember that spermicides have become disfavored because one of the most popular tends to vastly increase the probability of HIV transmission. I think I heard that in 2010. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Contraception vs. Abortifacient

It would be nice if this article discussed the difference between contraception and abortifacients and the fine line between the two. We all know that the "morning after pill" can act as an abortifacient, preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. However, can normal birth control sometimes act as an abortifacient? I've looked online and seen contradictory statements, so I'm confused.67.188.208.139 (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC) I'm counting contragestion as a type of abortifacient, in case anyone is confused.67.188.208.139 (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If you mean mifepristone, yes it prevents zygote implantation, but apparently levonorgestrel is a genuine post-copulation contraceptive. "Normal" hormonal birth control is not contragestive because it keeps eggs from being released by the ovaries. Levonorgestrel's mechanism of action apparently involves uterine-ova hormonal channels which effect the egg in a manner similar to fertilization, preventing absorption of sperm nuclei just like absorption of an initial sperm nucleus usually does. However, I'm guessing it probably prevents implantation, too, since it's effective three days after copulation. I would love to learn more about this. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Contraception vs contragestion

The information presented here characterizing IUD and emergency contraceptives as contragestives lacks neutrality, and is way out of date. (I note reference in the lead is from way back in 1997). Should use contraceptive technology. While it is possible that some of the mechanisms may be contragesitve, it has been demonstrated that they have contraceptive action as well. So it is misleading to say that they are just contragestives. This is part of the reason it is a poor idea to try to have a separate article characerizing some methods as contraceptives vs. contragestives. Some methods may act in both ways. Some methods we may not know that level of detail. The mater is overly technical for most audiences, and a mater of politics and POV pushing for a minority. It is easier to present a balanced point of view in one article (rather than trying to balance 3 of them, with the hard borders that an article imposes). Zodon (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: "This is part of the reason it is a poor idea to try to have a separate article characerizing some methods as contraceptives vs. contragestives. Some methods may act in both ways." - Unless someone edited it out that was actually stated explicitly in the other articles. You've made the mistake of assuming that the other articles have birth control methods as their subjects just because contraception and contragestion can be methods of birth control. In fact, contraception and contragestion can and DO occur without their being birth control. They are biological processes which CAN be induced as a method of birth control, but they are not NECESSARILY birth control at all. That is why it would be wrong to merge the articles.OckRaz ^talk 23:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I suggest that we wait another 2 weeks or so to see if anyone has more input in the "merge" discussion above. If, after a couple of weeks go by, there is consensus for merge, then merge the 3 articles, and bring the material up to date. I also concur that - based on the sources I've read - researchers are not entirely certain if IUDs and emergency contraceptives prevent conception or just implantation. There is data for both, and the article needs to reflect that. --Noleander (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that IUD and EC (both progestin and UPA) prevent conception (e.g. source Contraceptive Technology). To what extent they may prevent implantation is, as you say, unclear. I was figuring to give the merge discussion a week (plus however long takes me to get a round toit), but have no objection to two weeks. Zodon (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that Plan B is contraceptive but that it has been found not to be contragestive. There is widespread misunderstanding about this because of when it is taken and because the labeling included a warning that it could be contragestive - apparently the labeling was created before studies could determine for certain whether it was contragestive or not and the FDA still hasn't changed it. Most people (reasonably) assume that the warning means that it has a contragestive effect (rather than that it was suspected of having one at one time and the bureaucrats never fixed it). This is unfortunate. I personally know women who say that even if they were sexually assaulted they would not use emergency contraception because of this. That is one reason why I feel strongly that this is not merely a technical matter unworthy of its own article. Compared to Plan B, Ella is much more recent, so there's not been as much study. Apparently the MOA is contraceptive and not contragestive and there is no evidence that it has a contragestive effect, but I don't think it's been proven that it cannot have such an effect. I'm not as sure about IUDs, but my understanding is that they have a contraceptive MOA and not a contragestive one (which is counter to what most people believe). I think that it's possible for them to act contragestively (even though that's not the MOA), but that it's rare. I'd need to do some more research to find out for sure. Also, it's my understanding that IUDs can be abortifacient if inserted after implantation occurs. OckRaz ^talk 23:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The entire distinction is too technical for the millions of women whose lives are hanging in the balance. If there is a compelling reason to include the distinction, I can't see it. Most fertilized embryos don't implant, so contragestion is more common than gestation. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The distinction between contraception vs contragestion is of little significance. What people wish to know is 1) what options are there 2) how do they work and how effective are they 3) what are the side effects. We need to keep our audience in mind. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Comparison

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Contraception_(medical_methods) looks much better than Birth control even if Contraception and Contragestion were merged in, doesn't it? I'm unwilling to try for peer review or upgrade to B-class until this is addressed. I will ask for help improving this article. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I recommend merging the "Effectiveness" and "Adverse effects" sections inline with the "Methods" section to keep same topics together, and then checking to see what Citizendium's article has that we don't. Some of it only appears to be missing because the section headings here hide some of the topics. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Our recommended sections for medication related articles is here WP:MEDMOS. And typically we keep separated adverse effects and the discussion of effectiveness. This is also what is done by drugs.com Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Contragestion

I removed these sections merged from the Contraception and Contragestion articles, because they are unnecessary, cite (or mis-cite) inaccurate and outdated sources, and contain WP:SYNTH:

Definition

Birth control is frequently used synonymously with contraception, family planning^[2] and fertility control.^[6] Birth control can be classified by the stage of reproduction during which it is active. A form of birth control which prevents the sperm from fertilizing the egg is a contraceptive agent.^{[7][8][9][10]} A form of birth control which acts after fertilization to prevent or interrupt the implantation of the embryo into the uterine lining is a contragestive agent. ^{[5][8][11][12]} After implantation has occurred, an agent which ends gestation by terminating the pregnancy is an abortifacient^{[13][14][15][16][17]}

It is important to bear in mind that these mechanisms of action are not mutually exclusive. One substance or device can have more than one potential effect depending upon when it is used. For example, while mifepristone is best known as an abortifacient, it can also function as a contragestive agent.^[18] Likewise, the IUD can be used as a contraceptive or a contragestive depending upon when it is inserted.^[19]

Mechanisms of action

The function of birth control can be classified by the stage of reproduction during which it is active. A form of birth control which prevents the sperm from fertilizing the egg is a contraceptive agent.^[7][9] A form of birth control which acts after fertilization to prevent or interrupt the implantation of the embryo into the uterine lining is a contragestive agent.^[11] After implantation has occurred, an agent which ends gestation by terminating the pregnancy is an abortifacient.^[13][14]

The term contraception is a contraction of contra, which means against, and the word conception, meaning fertilization.^[51] The word contragestion is likewise a combination of contra and gestation. French scientist Étienne-Émile Baulieu coined the word in 1985 because he felt that there was a need for a technical term to describe the prevention of implantation, which did not fit the traditional definitions of either contraception or abortion.^[18][52] Since 18 U.S. states define pregnancy as beginning at conception,^[53] describing methods of birth control in terms of their potential means of action allows one to be technically accurate while using language that is neutral with regard to the abortifacient versus contraceptive controversy.

These mechanisms of action are not always mutually exclusive. One substance or device can have more than one potential effect depending upon when it is used. For example, while mifepristone is best known as an abortifacient, it can also function as a contragestive agent.^[18] Likewise, the IUD can be used as a contraceptive or a contragestive depending upon when it is inserted.^[19]

Etymology

The term, 'contraception' is a contraction of 'contra', which means 'against', and the word 'conception', which is a non-technical term that is synonymous^{[51][65][66][67][68]} with fertilization. The word 'contragestion' is likewise a combination of 'contra' and 'gestation'. French scientist Étienne-Émile Baulieu coined the word in 1985 because he felt that there was a need for a technical term to describe the prevention of implantation, which did not fit the traditional definitions of either 'contraception' or 'abortion'.^[18] Elisabeth Johannisson of the International Committee for Research in Reproduction endorsed the use of this nomenclature saying that, "it is appropriately descriptive and fits in with contemporary medical ethics, which require us to indicate (when we know them) the phenomena which occur in patients. The word 'contraception' is ambiguous and 'abortion' remains the traumatic symbol of a painful failure... Faced with the imprecision of these currently used terms, 'contragestion' is preferable because it takes recent scientific knowledge into account. At the same time, it is difficult to make this term accepted because more classical expressions have great force. The word 'abortion' has a long tradition... The word 'contraception' has had a strong impact on the history of our century. Between the two it is difficult to find a place, either biological or semantic."^[52] It is also worth noting that since 18 U.S. states define pregnancy as beginning at conception,^[53] describing methods of birth control in terms of their potential means of action allows one to be technically accurate while using language that is neutral with regard to the abortifacient versus contraceptive controversy.

In other animals

One factor which can cause contragestion is malnutrition. For example, a deficiency of vitamin A can cause contragestion in cats^[122] and studies indicate that insufficient calcitonin causes contragestion in rats.^[123] Rodents also display something called the Bruce effect wherein exposure to the scent of an unfamiliar male causes contragestion.^[124] Environmental factors are also a cause of contragestion. Toxins can cause contragestion in both animals and humans, with exposure to dioxins preventing 70% of implantation of mouse embryos.^[125]

Contraception occurs naturally in non-human animals just as it does in humans. For example, the same hormonal effect of breastfeeding occurs both in humans and in chimpanzees.^[126]

A high-level umbrella article like Birth control or Pain control should not have a "Mechanisms of action" section, the methods of birth control or pain control are too diverse—these can be and should be discussed in articles about specific methods.

Contragestion is a rarely-used term coined in the 1980s by French endocrinologist Étienne-Émile Baulieu to promote the acceptance of the French abortion pill RU-486 (mifepristone) by blurring the differences between the mechanisms of action of contraceptives and the abortion pill. Baulieu's definition of a contragestive included any birth control method that could possibly act after fertilization and before nine weeks gestational age—not only after fertilization and before implantation.

Current medical reference textbooks on gynecology and contraception, contraceptive drug and device prescribing information, and the Encyclopædia Britannica "birth control" article by Malcolm Potts, do not use the terms contragestion or contragestive and most medical dictionaries do not include them—this article should follow the lead of those WP:MEDRSs and not include them. I have added a couple of sentences about contragestion and contragestives to the Pharmacology section of the Mifepristone article and changed their redirects from this article to the Mifepristone article.

The first paragraph and the first sentence of the "In other animals" section were WP:SYNTH: the cited sources did not mention congtragestion/contragestives or contraception/contraceptives.
BC07 (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)