Talk:Birth control

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Godot will like this one: new section)
(Godot will like this one)
Line 186: Line 186:
  
 
The Brookings Institution has released a new study that basically says it's significanly cheaper for taxpayers to pay for family planning services (than the alternative of having a baby).  The article [http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/07/study-shows-birth-control-saves-taxpayer-money/ here] does a good summary of the lengthy and verbose [http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2012/03_unplanned_pregnancy_thomas.aspx original report]. --[[User:Sethpeck | Seth Peck]] ([[User_talk:Sethpeck|talk]]) 18:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 
The Brookings Institution has released a new study that basically says it's significanly cheaper for taxpayers to pay for family planning services (than the alternative of having a baby).  The article [http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/07/study-shows-birth-control-saves-taxpayer-money/ here] does a good summary of the lengthy and verbose [http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2012/03_unplanned_pregnancy_thomas.aspx original report]. --[[User:Sethpeck | Seth Peck]] ([[User_talk:Sethpeck|talk]]) 18:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 +
:This is exactly what Obama said, when he bypassed the religious right's whinying by saying "Fine, you wont' pay but insurance companies will be obligated to offer it for free".  They were on board, cause it's far cheeper to pay for several years birth control, than one routine pregnancy.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]<font face="Estrangelo Edessa">[[User:WaitingforGodot|<font color="Blue">Godot</font>]]</font><font color="green"><small></small>oi, putain, genial, merci</font> 18:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:47, 7 March 2012

Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here.
I also created a cp on this one...i'll go see...162.82.215.199 13:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Here's what I got axed for on CP:

Contraception (Lat. against conception) generally refers to methods of preventing pregnancy (birth control). There are many different methods, each having its own level of effectiveness and safety. The safest and only completely effective form of birth control is abstinence. The argument could be made that this is not actually "birth control" as there was never a risk for a pregnancy, but in common parlance, abstinence is the first line of protection. Except for condoms, most methods offer little protection against sexually transmitted diseases.[1] and many STD's can be passed even with condom use as well,[citation needed] although the probabilities are usually reduced.

Contents

Barrier Methods

  • Male condom: latex condoms are the most effective method of preventing STDs. 85% effective against pregnancy, increased to 95% if used with intravaginal spermicide - higher effectiveness (99%) when used as directed.
  • Female Condom
  • Sponge: 85% effectiveness
  • Cervical cap: about 85% effectiveness
  • Diaphragm: about 84% effectiveness
  • Shield: 85% effectiveness

Hormonal Methods

  • Oral Contraceptive Pills (OCPs): 92-99% effective when used as directed
  • Depoprogesterone (Depo-Provera): 97% effective
  • Vaginal ring (Nuva Ring): 92% effective
  • "Rhythm method" (also sometimes referred to as a method of "timed abstinence"): low effectiveness
  • Patch: 99.7% effective

Other

  • Copper Intrauterine device (IUD): 99% effectiveness
  • Hormonal Intrauterine device: over 99% effectiveness
  • Withdrawal: low effectiveness
  • Spermicide: about 70% effectiveness when used alone
  • Male Sterilization
  • Female Sterilization

Religious Perspectives

In general, the Catholic Church is opposed to contraception other than abstinence. Other Christian denominations vary. Jewish Law traditionally opposes birth control although it is generally held that as long as a couple is planning to have children, the concept of planned parenthood or spacing of births does not constitute a religious problem. Some methods of contraception are not permitted because of the injunction against "the destruction of seed." For example, contemporary Orthodox rabbinical authority has expressed no objection to the use of the OCP but the use of condoms is forbidden, as are some IUDs.[2] Islamic views are quite diverse; there is no single attitude to contraception within Islam, however eight of the nine classic schools of Islamic law permit it. Egyptian scholars have argued that any method that has the same purpose as 'azl (the withdrawal method), that is, preventing conception, is acceptable, so long as it does not have a permanent effect.[3]

References

  1. Birth Control Guide, Mayo Clinic
  2. What is the Jewish position on contraception and abortion? SCJ FAQ Accessed July 16 2007
  3. "Islamic views on contraception" BBC: Religion & Ethics Accessed July 16 2007

Information on Birth Control - National Institute of Health

merge?

I like most of what is above better than the way the article is currently set up. Anyone want to take on the chore of merging them? humanUser talk:Human 17:13, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Remember that I wrote if for CP, so we can sex it up a bit.-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --It hurts when I do "this" 17:15, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Ouch!

Shouldn't it just be withdrawal of the penis before ejaculation? Removal of the penis seems awfully drastic.Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 17:26, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Not according to assfly.-- Asclepius staff.png-PalMD --It hurts when I do "this" 17:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
That was what it struck me as at first. Anyway, you (or someone) fixed it. This needed a lot of fixing... Hmmm. Should we list castration? humanUser talk:Human 18:04, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
I'd also thought about castration (in the context of the article - not personally) and hysterectomy. Although they are effective at preventing conception the're hardly voluntary methods of birth control. Jollyfish.gifGenghis Marauding 18:08, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Yes, hysterectomy should also be on the list. Although not "done" only for birth control, it is a reliable "method". Also, we need to add a subsection to abstinence - "Waiting for menarche" humanUser talk:Human 18:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Douching is not a method

It is not a method of birth control. I removed it; cite sources


http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/birth-control-contraceptive-myths http://www.epigee.org/guide/none.html http://getcloser.in/myths_pregnancy_Contraception.html

If you want to re-add it, it would do better on a page of 'Contraception Myths' Original number said it was 60% successful, it is not even close to that. Seems it would be maybe .5% effective at the most, and that would just be pure luck.

Douching is also pretty bad for you, and not nearly as common as it once was. --Kels 21:41, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes... it should be in the article, but as mentioned, appropriately subheaded ("Useless methods"?). But since "withdrawal" is in there, with its really low usefulness rate ("grunt, grunt, oops, you're pregnant"), we should also cover ineffective methods in order to "debunk" them? PS, whoever you were that edited this, please sign talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~ humanUser talk:Human 22:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Success rate

I see that we give various percentages of "success rates" in the article for various types of contraception. Is "success rate" the best term to describe something which doesn't happen?--Bobbing up 13:23, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Would "prevention rate" be a better choice? humanUser talk:Human 13:36, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
A wording of that sort would seem - at least to me - to be more appropriate. Or perhaps effectiveness? --Bobbing up 14:27, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, that works. I think I whitewashed out all the talk of "success rates". humanUser talk:Human 14:35, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Cover story

(Please do not archive this section)

This is going to look like shameless self-plugging, but what does the mob think of putting this on the front page as a random featured article? I believe that this article is informative enough in what people would need to know, and I cannot think of any significant ways in which this article can be expanded. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ What the hELL is that P at the end of my sig?!


coughshamelessarticlepimpingcough. Just kidding. Yeah, sure, why not. What cat, though? The EmperorKneel before Zod! 14:27, 1 March 2009 (EST)

I'm fine with it being featured content, but I have one small reservation in that, because of the way it's laid out, the opening section that's going to appear most prominently on the front page is abstinence, which possibly doen't give quite the right message about us as a site. Anyway, it's just a thought; if nobody else has a problem with it, then I don't either. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:59, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Actually, having just reread that section, I don't think it's a problem at all. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:02, 1 March 2009 (EST)
I support the addition of this article to our cover stories. I find it informative enough, and certainly it is among our better articles. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 20:11, 1 March 2009 (EST)
I support, this has had quite a bit of work put into it and is nicely and clearly informative. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:13, 1 March 2009 (EST)
Thats five for, zero against. What sayest the rest of the mob? ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ What the hELL is that P at the end of my sig?!
Five is plenty. I've marked it as a cover story. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:20, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Implant

I am positive that the contraceptive implant is much more effective than 90%, more like 99% or more, as I just had one put in a week ago and I did plenty of research beforehand. I am quite busy and I shouldn't even be slacking off from my Engineering homework to even be reading this, so can someone find a source for the right number? I know that the vast majority of studies had 0 pregnancies, and they can attribute the few pregnancies to being there prior to implantation or to the times where the implant fell out of the needle before being inserted. Just thought I'd let you know so someone with more time on their hands could fix that! — Unsigned, by: 164.107.93.204 / talk / contribs 23:46, 10 March 2009

I agree, you're probably correct. Both for Norplant and the injection... Depo Provera. Surely they are at least as effective as the Pill, taken correctly? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:47, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Latest edit about jebus

There are other reported virgin births, like Adonis or Attis. Possibly even Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great. Neveruse513 16:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

I rolled it back, the simple joke is enough without going further. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
And going into mythology reveals a lot more virgin births. --Vtalk 17:12, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Coke heads and Revolting Cocks shows

I had a friend with a girlfriend who got knocked up and she insured inappropriate conditions by maintaining a high level o' drunkenness, intoxication on controlled substances, and getting her ass kicked at industrial shows in Chicago in the early 90s. Would the church approve? It was 100% effective. User:Nutty Roux/signature 03:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-defining birth control is needed, I think

if the definition is "the practice of taking steps to prevent pregnancy whilst engaging in sexual activity" then how does "Abstinence" (NOT engaging in sexual activity) being a form of birth control? Thieh 21:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstinence perhaps needs to be more clearly defined - it does not mean "no sexual activity" so much as "no penis/vagina sex". Although it can mean the former, it doesn't have to. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I've reworded the intro to "the practice of taking steps to prevent pregnancy or childbirth as a result of sexual activity", which allows for the inclusion of abstinence as well as abortion, which I've added. I'm surprised it wasn't there already. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Where else is abortion classified as a form of birth control?

I simply ask; I honestly don't know.--Earthland 20:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've heard people say they aren't against abortion "except when people use it as a form of birth control". It's not contraception, obviously, but it certainly "controls" at least one birth. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia lists abortion as an uncommon method of birth control. --Earthland 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
When you ask "where else" - you mean in addition to here? Do we actually call it a method of contraception?--BobNot Jim 21:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
"Although most abortions are performed for birth control, they are by no means contraceptive." - from Contracept.org, emphasis added by me in response to the queries above. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Batteries

"Men, Make sure to dispose of your batteries in an environmentally friendly manner." - Shouldn't this be for "women", or am I missing out on the latest male jax0ring craze? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 16:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it, it looks like an editing error, since "Make" is capitalized. I turned it from a command to a request, too. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh

http://www.bypassfanpages.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Funny-Motivational-Posters-4.jpg Scarlet A.pngpostate 13:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nearly 100%

Okay, so I understand why this article doesn't say abstinence is 100% and I guess that it's similarly acceptable for mf anal sex to be nearly 100% effective, but has anyone really gotten pregnant from oral sex or non-mutual masturbation? I know how their's inertia to writing down 100% and people want to always make it "nearly 100%", but come on.

That being said, if anybody can cite a source for people getting pregnant from oral or non-mutual masturbation, I will be highly amused. Perceptron (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Source duly cited, sir. DalekEXTERMINATE 05:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't artificial insemination also count as getting pregnant while maintaining abstinence? Dendlai (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Not if you're the camerlengo from Angels and Demons. Wait, you probably aren't. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 00:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Topic Order at RW

I was curious, given our focus at RW as a challenge to stupid ideas, bad science, conspiracy theories and other such malarky, might this article be more effective if we highly the Right Wing view, and the push to have contraception made illegal in the US and other areas by brining that to the top, and pushing down the "wikipedia esque" facts? I'd never make that change without discussion - but it seems to me, we aren't as complete as WP on facts, and we are pretty good about calling out the uber idiots who want to make it their legal right not to serve me my damned morning after pill, cause it's "effects their morals' or some such.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 17:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

On that same note, if no one cares, I'd like to add something about the modern legal challenges to contraception in the US, at least, as well as something about the silly "moral objection" laws popping up.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 17:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Percents

Anyone want to discuss this edit war on a cover article? No? Peter Monomorium antarcticum 04:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

THIS is a cover article??? are we that desperate? I'd rather discuss that this isn't such a great article for a cover. But I don't really know RW's standards. The main point is that the tone of the article is flippant, slightly fun. Percents aren't necessary and don't add anything to what had already been written.Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 04:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Apparently we were, back in '09. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 04:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Godot attack! TyAnnoy 04:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@Godot RW has both a snarky and scientific POV. Re-read the community standards, like you told me to. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hindenburg, did you take WfG's statement that "The main point is that the tone of the article is flippant, slightly fun" as a criticism? Rennie McGreet (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cover Story - NOT

This is not really up to par for a cover story. It might have been, but there are sections (some, mine) that are badly written, sections that are vague, and others that are just jumbled. I pulled the gold for a short time by commeting it out, but I'm not sure that actually removes it from the random cover stories. does it? Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 04:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It does not. TyAnnoy 04:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I see that. Can we temp remove it from "cover stories"? I'm going to try to clean it up a bit, but I'm not the best writer. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 04:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I dropped it to silver + cover story nominee. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Roman Catholic opposition to birth control

This bit has always bothered me, so I've taken it out:

[[Image:Sperm.jpg|thumb|upright=0.6|A fully differentiated embryo was thought to exist inside each male gamete]]
The prohibition on most methods of birth control by the Roman Catholic Church is based on a faulty understanding of human biology which dates back to an ancient theory of human reproduction. It was once believed that male seed contained a complete (but microscopic) human being, and the only contribution of the woman was to provide fertile ground to allow it to grow to the size of an infant. The Church no longer holds this to be true, but opposition to the practice remains due to inertia.

While this theory may have been held at some point in history, the Catholic Church's opposition to contraception in modern times has nothing whatsoever to do with it (would they really advocate the rhythm method if this is what they believed?). The RCC still holds that sex must only take place within marriage & is intended for procreation, and it attached a lot of guilt to notions of sin surrounding casual sex & sexual desire. This is why they oppose artificial contraception, for theological reasons rather than biological ones. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Cover story - revisisted

As far as I can tell, this is still a cover story. Anyone want to weight in on things that are missing, things that need to be rewritten, etc? I cleaned up what I could as far as facts, but it really needs a once over from someone with an "eye on the writing style'. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 02:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Locked

For a day, until the Rickroller quits. One of the IPs used has a history of vandalism. CopperheadHisssssss 21:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh? Тyrannis 21:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Never gonna make you cry, never gonna say goodbye...!@#$!@#$ -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
This is patrol, we have an attack on an officer in Birth Control. Dispatch air unit from Fun Space. Dispatch NOOSE unit from WIGO CP. 146.185.23.179 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Call the FIB!!!!

Somebody maniac's wandalizing us with RR links! 96.44.163.76 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. CopperheadHisssssss 21:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Godot will like this one

The Brookings Institution has released a new study that basically says it's significanly cheaper for taxpayers to pay for family planning services (than the alternative of having a baby). The article here does a good summary of the lengthy and verbose original report. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what Obama said, when he bypassed the religious right's whinying by saying "Fine, you wont' pay but insurance companies will be obligated to offer it for free". They were on board, cause it's far cheeper to pay for several years birth control, than one routine pregnancy.Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci 18:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support