Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Discussion at WT:NOT

There is currently an extensive ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not about a proposal that is intended to affect the choice of image(s) on this article. Your comments in the discussion would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but also wow! As if enough hadn't been said here already, and multiple attempts made to deal with the situation, we now have another page. Ack! Just saying...(olive (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC))

If you have the time, it's worth a look. It's clear that those seeking change have failed in that other forum. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

HiLo: why is it that so many editors cannot understand the difference between establishing a consensus and asserting one? I respect that you don't want a change; I respect that we disagree; I respect your opinions on the matter. But I cannot respect this mindless cawing about who has and hasn't 'won'. make your argument, and if you make it good enough then you'll get what you want and won't need to say a word about it. until that time, stop blathering; you sound like a spoiled kid trying to browbeat his parents. --Ludwigs2 22:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I assert quite the opposite. Those who stretched the rules have got their way in a debate that should never have existed. This issue has not been decided purely on the merits of argument. That's my opinion, but I said I would accept the umpire's decision. I will not damage the structure of Wikipedia any further than has already been done. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove lead image for six months then reassess the images

I'm closing this; this proposal evidently isn't going anywhere. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

A pledge

Obviously not the solution being looked for
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We, the undersigned, realize that there is not currently an agreement to remove, add, change or do anything to the current image at the top of the article. As such, we agree that, for a period of six months, we will not participate in any discussion proposing such changes, except to link to this statement. We will shun anyone who proposes such changes and does not stop when informed of this agreement. Hipocrite (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Oppose If there every was a bad faith proposal, this is it.--v/r - TP 22:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC) You appear to believe that AGF is a suggestion. It's not. This is also not a "support" or "oppose" thing, it's a pledge. Hipocrite (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Although I may disagree with many folks here, any proposal to simply hold your head high and ignore those who disagree with your point of view in a effort to enforce a "status quo" is bad faith. I'll not back down. Further, I'm not neccessarily opposed to the nude image. I'm just opposed to closing the discussion which is exactly what your proposal seeks to do. At least the above proposal suggest self-imposed break from the subject. Your's involves shunning others. That's not appropriate.--v/r - TP 22:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC) That's not what the proposal says. Please read it closely, again. Hipocrite (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Be——Critical 22:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC) This not a "support" or "oppose" thing, it's a pledge. Hipocrite (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC) It's gaming, so: oppose. Hans Adler 22:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC) What is this, the frigging Tea Party? --Ludwigs2 23:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC) Sorry, error on my part. I have moved what I said (upward to before the pledge sub-heading) JonRichfield (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ectopic Miscarriage?

EDIT: now we're talking about another edit I made, so I renamed the section. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Gandydancer removed the line on maternity clothes, with a justification of "I think we can just skip this as many women now just wear stretchy clothes rather than special garments."

I've undone that edit because the maternity wear article contradicts that rationale. Additionally, it provides a multicultural view that I don't think is reflected in Gandydancer's argument. Triacylglyceride (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That is fine with me and on second thought I believe you are correct. As always, please feel free to improve/change my edits. I made some changes but I believe that the 3rd trimester section is, for the most part, so bad that it needs a re-write. I am working on it and will present it here before I go ahead and make any changes. Gandydancer (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

However this edit AFAIK is not correct:

An ectopic pregnancy may resolve as a miscarriage without medical intervention, but if not medical attention will be required to remove the pregnancy and prevent rupture of the structure into which it has implanted.[31]

An ectopic embryo would never be termed a miscarried pregnancy. If it is growing in a tube it either dies and is absorbed or grows and ruptures the tube. If outside of the womb it could not miscarry. I don't believe it would "rupture" anything either - perhaps an ovary, but I doubt it. Perhaps if it implanted on the cervix it could be said to have miscarried. Where are you getting your information? Gandydancer (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it depend on your definition of "miscarriage"? One definition that source gives is "the unplanned end of a pregnancy". To the extent that the term means any and all unintentional pregnancy loss before 20 weeks (at which point, it's renamed "stillbirth"), then an ectopic would be considered a type of miscarriage, and in practice that's how it's coded in simpler records (which frequently differentiate induced abortions from miscarriages and stillbirths, but rarely bother with listing ectopics and molars separately).

The specific information from that source, BTW, is on page 544, and the ISBN is 9780761148579. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I would not trust information from What to Expect When You're Expecting. A better source is our Abortion article (see "notes"). On the other hand, I did find a Mayo Clinic source that said that rarely a tubal ectopic pregnancy is spontaneously aborted. By that I assume that they meant that the embryo is expelled, but I may well be wrong. I have assumed that ectopic pregnancies that resolve on their own without the necessity of medical intervention have been absorbed similar to the absorption of tumors, which frequently happens. Should we wait and see if any other editors have any thoughts? BTW, I'd be interested in your info re the site that lists how abortions are listed. Gandydancer (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Site? Oh, right: 85% of Wikipedia editors are male. No, this fact is something that basically all adult women and healthcare professionals will be aware of. The number of pregnancies and their outcomes is a routine question in medical histories up through at least menopause. (A high number of induced abortions, for example, raises the provider's index of suspicion for sexually transmitted infections.) See this or this or [1] or this or this. As you can see, ectopics and molars are just ignored by most of the standard intake forms. Ectopics end up being coded as spontaneous miscarriages. I'm not absolutely certain, but I believe the same is done with molars. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As a mother of two daughters and a woman that has been a health care professional for most of my life, I am well aware of hospital paper work. I also work on the abortion article and thought that you may have information such as this [2] that would be useful for that article. Gandydancer (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

By the definition on miscarriage, it seems fine technically. (Also ectopic pregnancy, which is going on my articles-to-edit list, especially its introduction.) Let me know if you worry that it may be confusing, which is a different conversation! My initial sentiment is that it's not confusing.

The reason I edited it to clarify that is that "resolve" left open the possibility that an ectopic pregnancy may resolve to a uterine pregnancy, or be carried to term.

Looking forward to the third-trimester rewrite. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If people find the sentence or terminology confusing, perhaps a compromise would be to change it to something along the lines of:

An ectopic pregnancy may resolve without medical intervention, as a miscarriage (usually involving absorption back into the mother's body), but when that does not happen medical attention is required to remove the embryo and prevent rupture of the structure into which it has implanted. --MsBatfish (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd find that fine, but nobody has said that they find it (potentially) confusing at this stage. (Feel free to say that you do!)

As I recall, ectopic pregnancies still induce uterine changes of pregnancy, so a cessation of pregnancy would still involve many of the characteristics of an early miscarriage. If ectopic miscarriage were a clinically distinct entity, I'd be more concerned about specifying. I'm aware that all of that gets a "citation needed," though.

(I would suggest saying "woman" instead of "mother" in this case, as the person in question would likely not even know that they're pregnant, and as covered on mother the word is as much about identity as biology. What I'd really like is "gravida," but I know that decreases readability.) Triacylglyceride (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I just meant that Gandydancer, for one, appeared to find it confusing, and I would assume other readers might, as "miscarriage" is sometimes commonly assumed to involve expulsion of the embryo and other materials. I also agree that "woman" or "pregnant woman" is better than "mother", I thought that right after I posted :-) -MsBatfish (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Totally, which is why I was prompting you or Gandydancer to say that you had found it confusing. It looks like he resolved it below, though. Plus, ectopic miscarriage does involve expulsion of other materials. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Gravida == pregnant woman. We can use "pregnant woman" rather than just plain "woman" in such circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems a little bit like you thought I didn't know what "gravida" meant, which is strange. Readability aside, I think "gravida" is slightly superior to "pregnant woman" because other people than women can be pregnant, such as girls and transmen, plus genderqueer and genderfluid people (Latin gendering aside). But like I said, I think readability is a valid concern. Anyway, it's off-topic at this point. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Socially, sure. Biologically, no. If you have managed to achieve a pregnancy, then you are biologically a pregnant woman. Sexual maturity is the biological definition of adulthood, and in humans, being biologically female is a requirement for achieving pregnancy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Gandy, I suspect that the problem is that you are thinking that miscarriage requires the expulsion of an embryo or fetus. It doesn't. Otherwise, there'd be no such thing as a "missed miscarriage", i.e., a miscarriage that doesn't result in expulsion. Miscarriage is spontaneous pregnancy loss before 20 weeks LMP (well, before 18 weeks after conception and/or with a fetus <500 g when the date of conception is unknown). Expulsion is a normal outcome, but not a required feature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I had been thinking that the embryo is always expelled in a miscarriage. I have now realized that I was wrong and hopefully we can move forward. Gandydancer (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

How about this:

Ectopic pregnancy

Main article: Ectopic pregnancy

An ectopic pregnancy is a complication of pregnancy in which the embryo implants outside the uterine cavity. With rare exceptions, ectopic pregnancies are not viable. Most ectopic pregnancies occur in the Fallopian tube (so-called tubal pregnancies), but implantation can also occur in the cervix, ovaries, and abdomen. An ectopic pregnancy is a potential medical emergency, and, if not treated properly, can lead to death.

About 1% of pregnancies are in an ectopic location with implantation not occurring inside of the womb, and of these 98% occur in the Fallopian tubes. In a typical ectopic pregnancy, the embryo adheres to the lining of the fallopian tube and burrows into the tubal lining. Most commonly this invades blood vessels which causes bleeding resulting in the expulsion of the implantation from the tube. If left untreated, about half of ectopic pregnancies will resolve without treatment. These are termed tubal abortions. The advent of methotrexate treatment for ectopic pregnancy has reduced the need for surgery; however, surgical intervention is still required in cases where the Fallopian tube has ruptured or is in danger of doing so. This intervention may be laparoscopic or through a larger incision, known as a laparotomy.

An ectopic pregnancy should be considered in any woman with abdominal pain or vaginal bleeding who has a positive pregnancy test. An ultrasound showing a gestational sac with fetal heart in a location other than the uterine cavity is clear evidence of an ectopic pregnancy.

There are a number of risk factors for ectopic pregnancies, however, in as many as one third to one half of ectopic pregnancies, no risk factors can be identified. Risk factors include: pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, use of an intrauterine device (IUD), previous exposure to DES, tubal surgery, intrauterine surgery (e.g. D&C), smoking, previous ectopic pregnancy, and tubal ligation. Gandydancer (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Beautiful, and I think it's a valid level of expansion on the topic for this article. Only objection: I don't think that calling IUD a risk factor for ectopic pregnancy is responsible use of language. They don't cause ectopic pregnancies, they just prevent uterine pregnancies, so if one is pregnant with an IUD it's much more likely to be an ectopic. This is a fairly common thing in language where English meshes poorly with statistics and cause-and-effect; Wikipedia may have a policy for it, I don't know.

I also don't see a reason to highlight D&Cs, especially because scar tissue from abdominal surgery in general can lead to ectopics, and your citation doesn't single out D&Cs.Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree that it deserves its own section - it seemed to me that we were trying to condense it too much which was resulting in perhaps confusing and even incorrect statements. As for your suggestions for changes, I will think about them since for the most part I just used our existing ectopic article and did not check out the sources. Gandydancer (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at our IUD article I find this (from a source)

Today's IUDs are about 98 per cent effective, which makes them not all that far off being as good as the Pill (and about as good as the mini-Pill). What this means is that if 100 women use IUDs for a year, then only about two of them would become pregnant. This isn't very much when you consider that if they used nothing, at least 20 of them would get pregnant. Please note that if you do become pregnant while using an IUD, there's a chance that the pregnancy might be ectopic (in the Fallopian tube). This is because these devices are good at preventing pregnancies in the womb, but not in the tube.

To me this info seems to suggest that an IUD does carry the risk of an ectopic pregnancy. But, that may be just me... As for abdominal surgery other than intrauterine, would you have a source that states that abd surgery in general can lead to an ectopic? In the meantime, I will continue to look more closely at sources. Gandydancer (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a primary source, but I found some stuff here: http://www.estronaut.com/a/ectopic_pregnancy.htm

Super-busy for a while (should be studying right now), but I'll look for primary sources soon, too.

IMHO that IUD bit isn't very clearly written. See link to Planned Parenthood, below, for IUD facts. Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Risk factor" means "something correlated with an outcome", not "something causing an outcome". If women who drive red cars are more likely to have ectopics, then driving a red car is a risk factor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

But women with IUDs aren't more likely to have ectopics. A woman with an IUD who becomes pregnant is more likely to have that pregnancy be an ectopic pregnancy. From http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/iud-4245.htm : Women who use IUDs are much less likely to have an ectopic pregnancy than women who are not using birth control. But if a woman does become pregnant while using an IUD, it is more likely to be ectopic than if she was not using the IUD.

So maybe there's a thing where women with IUDs, compared to women with perfect condom and OCP use, get more ectopics. It's still not the IUD that's the risk factor for ectopics, it just decreases the risk of uterine pregnancy. So IUDs are a risk factor for ectopic pregnancy in pregnant women, but not in, say, all sexually active women. As opposed to PID, which is a risk factor for ectopic pregnancy in all sexually active women.

Again, not a primary source, but I believe it to be true. Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I get what you're saying. How about if we instead use this Mayo Clinic site [3] ? With proper use, pregnancy is rare when using birth control pills or an intrauterine device (IUD). If pregnancy occurs, however, it's more likely to be ectopic.Gandydancer (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good! I've seen the OCP-ectopic thing listed as only progestin-only OCPs, so I'm making a note to myself to dig up primary sources on that in the future. Triacylglyceride (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, how's this - is it too wordy?

A woman who has had a previous ectopic pregnancy is more likely to have another. The majority of women with ectopic pregnancies have had pelvic inflammatory disease or salpingitis, an inflammation of the fallopian tube. A history of gonorrhea or chlamydia can also cause tubal problems that increase the risk. Endometriosis, a condition that causes the tissue that normally lines the uterus to develop outside the uterus may slightly increase the incidence of an ectopic. The risk is increased in women who have unusually shaped fallopian tubes or tubes which has been damaged, possibly during surgery. Taking medication to stimulate ovulation increases the risk of ectopic pregnancy. When used properly, pregnancy is rare when using birth control pills or an intrauterine device (IUD) however, if it does occur, it's more likely to be ectopic. Although pregnancy is rare after tubal ligation, if it does occur, it's more likely to be ectopic. Gandydancer (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not in my opinion! Awesome job, go for it. Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I like it too. I think it is much clearer. I had the same opinion with the original phrase about IUDs too (that is was confusing). -MsBatfish (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! When looking for references I did find one with the exact wording that I took from the Ectopic article, so I changed that a little. Also, interestingly, I found that even in the dictionaries both fallopian and Fallopian are used. I'm not sure which is correct. Is it traditional to use caps to honor "Mr. Fallopio" (Senor Fallopio?) in medical terminology? I think I will change them all to Fallopian. Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thinking more about why one sees both caps or not for fallopian, I think I may have figured out the reason for the confusion. If it would have been named the Fallopio tube it would always be in caps, but since the word is fallopian tube there is confusion. Gandydancer (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Duration of pregnancy

I believe that it is both confusing and not correct to change the duration of pregnancy in the lede from gestational age to dating that uses the number of weeks from conception, since the former is universally used. Gandydancer (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It pains me to say it, but LMP dating is the sad truth of pregnancy care. This article does a good job of highlighting the assumptions made by LMP dating. We, like the readers, must simply subtract two weeks and move on. Triacylglyceride (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is sufficiently explained in the article. Or we could always have both. Although it is kind of confusing that one isn't consistently used throughout the article, in the captions, etc. -MsBatfish (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it would be a mistake to use both since none of our sources list both. Unless it is stated that date from conception is being used, one is to assume that it is stated in gestational weeks. Gandydancer (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean that we need to use both for every single instance in the article, just that I think it is important that both are mentioned/explained in the lead (I believe they now are). I am not sure what you meant about there not being no sources that state both - did you mean that for specific instances where one or the other is used in the article (and the reference only uses one) that we can't just translate it into the the other like we would with, say, miles and kilometres? I wasn't actually suggesting doing that - since it's my understanding that it doesn't work that way and that we can't necessarily just add/subtract 2 weeks (as Triacylglyceride put it) - but I do think it is important to be as clear as possible to readers and for us all to remember that all sorts of people with varying degrees of understanding about pregnancy read this article and whatever we can do as editors to make it easier to understand is very helpful.

I would also like to change my previous comment, when I said "I think it is sufficiently explained in the article" I actually meant to say "as long as it is sufficiently explained in the article", although even then I am not so sure now. I think that you and Whatamidoing bring up some valid issues... -MsBatfish (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

LMP has many limitations, especially for non-wealthy women, whose "LMP" might be "five years and three babies ago". They also don't apply to young women who achieve pregnancy before menarche. The system has been criticized as exclusionary and demeaning to women with irregular or unusual length cycles. (And, yes, I can source the word "fiction" as a description of LMP.) Finally, using "reality weeks" makes the article more accessible to non-pregnancy professionals, like biologists, who are not accustomed to thinking of conception as occurring two weeks after the start of pregnancy.

But my major point is that we should never give the "fictional" LMP dates without specifying that they are LMP dates. In the lead, I think it better to choose weeks since conception, which the reader will immediately understand, rather than LMP, but whenever they are used, the units must be labeled. I also believe that they ought to be labeled as LMP dates rather than "gestational" dates, because gestation doesn't physically start until after conception. There is no need for us to confuse the reader with an unexpected jargonistic use of this normal English word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a social-justice point: yes, it excludes non-wealthy women who are more likely to be sequentially pregnant, but using gestational age dating excludes the larger group of women who aren't sequentially pregnant, but don't get ultrasound dating on their pregnancies, so LMP is the best they have to go on.

Also for our readers, most of them are interacting with a system that uses LMP, so we should strive to be as comprehensible as possible to them. Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, for our readers, most of them aren't interacting with any system at all. Our audience is not patients and healthcare providers. But even if it were, there'd still be value to labeling LMP dates as being LMP dates so that nobody can get confused. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I have never heard of the date of implantation being used as the date of the start of a pregnancy. Could you please give a source for that information? Gandydancer (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Summary of terms: implantation is defined as the start of pregnancy (i.e., before implantation, a person is not pregnant). But the start of pregnancy is dated from LMP, and the gestational age is dated from conception in embryology and LMP in obstetrics. LMP is two weeks before conception in an idealized 28-day cycle.

To confuse matters, because of the domains of embryologists and obstetricians, there are some who use GA dating until 9 weeks and then switch to LMP dating. So 6, 7, 8, 11, 12... (I don't have a source; it was in a medical school lecture).

I've bolded and embiggened this because these questions are coming up all over this discussion, and I thought it would be helpful (let me know if it's not!). Those are the norms as best I know them. I'll edit this if anybody corrects me so we can maintain a point of reference in discussing what this article should do. Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought that WahatamIdoing was just pointing out that the term "gestational" was potentially confusing as some readers might possibly think "gestation" to be when an embryo has been implanted, while some might think it means from the time of fertilization? (not that either of those would be correct). I'm not sure if my understanding was correct, just explaining what I thought. Either way I think it is important to use the clearest terms possible and make sure the different terms are explicitly defined somewhere noticeable in the article.

Personally, as a layman, I find it strange and confusing that "gestation" is defined as the carrying of an embryo/fetus, yet some "gestational dates/periods/ages" either add an arbitrary 2 weeks to this or go from the actual last menstrual period.
And I find it confusing that the article Gestation period says:
"the gestation period is the time in which a fetus develops, beginning with fertilization and ending at birth",
yet the article Gestation says: "The time interval of a gestation plus two weeks is called gestation period, and the length of time plus two weeks that the offspring have spent developing in the uterus is called gestational age."
and the article Gestational age says: "Gestational age relates to the age of an embryo or fetus (or newborn infant). There is some ambiguity in how it is defined", and then goes on to explain that there are a number of different methods of calculating what is known as "gestational age", only one of which is LMP. --MsBatfish (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. The reason that you are confused is because it is confusing! I thought it was bad enough but looking at various links I found this Beginning of pregnancy controversy and I note that the Implantation article states it as the beginning of pregnancy right out, which certainly raised my eyebrows!

However, it is my understanding that the vast amount of literature used both by medical professionals and the literature that the profession uses to explain pregnancy to the public uses "gestational age" terminology even though the actual time that the sperm and egg united, generally considered the moment a new life began (even though there is no unequivocal definition of life either), is actually about two weeks off since they did not unite till midway between ("normal 28day") menstrual periods. See for instance this British article [4] regarding safe induction dates that uses gestational age, never bothering to explain that the fetus is actually two weeks younger because it goes without saying. I could furnish many similar articles because I work on the abortion article where fetal age is of extremely great importance. Also, I note that as I have looked for refs for this page that offer information to the pregnant woman, they all use the gestational age for the fetus.

Do you think we should have a small section titled something like "Confusion over terms used to define fetal age"? While I believe that it is important that readers understand the difference, to feel compelled to constantly repeat it does not seem reasonable to me since almost all pregnancy literature does not handle the issue in that manner. Gandydancer (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

While I greatly respect your edits, I would like to make sure that your statement that conception is generally considered the moment a new life begins does not go unchallenged. Many activists against reproductive rights assert that a life begins at that time, but to those of us on the other side of the aisle, it is a milestone in development, nothing more. A pretty big, important, and convenient milestone in terms of dates that are useful to talk about, but with no more significance than its convenience.

I'm not looking to argue about it; I just want to make sure both views of the importance of conception dating are represented in this discussion. Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up because I am strongly pro-choice as well. That is why I was careful to state that our Life article shows that even the brightest minds throughout history have been able to "prove" exactly when Life begins. Does that answer your question? Gandydancer (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have a question! Just wanted to influence the framing of all this. (As a complete aside, I took a glance over your talk page, and the "oh look! my new friends are e-mailing me already" bit gave me totally the wrong idea about your views -- that's why I was suspicious about singling out D&C as a risk factor.) Triacylglyceride (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're still looking for sources, see this and others, but I suspect that the article you found has answered your question.

In practice, it's a political choice: pregnancy starts a week after conception if you need to be able to say without fear of contradiction that it is absolutely impossible for the so-called 'morning-after pill' to cause 'an abortion'. Using that particular definition, it is impossible for the hormones (taken "today") to end a pregnancy (that won't exist until "next week"). Except for that circumstance, pregnancies are normally said to begin two weeks before conception according to those clinicians whose standards are stuck in the 19th century or at the time of sexual intercourse if you listen to the pregnant women (none of whom have ever believed that they magically got pregnant two weeks before having sex), the infertility specialists (who, in the case of ART, know the time of conception down to the hour), and, of course, every biologist in the world who didn't attend medical school (Sandra Steingraber, for example, writes about having to mentally convert these dates when she was pregnant to reconcile the embryology papers she was reading with pregnancy advice books).

The main problem with using LMP dates at all is that "add two weeks to conception" only works for healthy, typical, non-breastfeeding women with well-spaced, naturally occurring pregnancies. They don't line up with reality for up to one-third of pregnant women. The problem with not using it, of course, is that this sloppy, outdated system is very widely used. My basic preference is to avoid the problem as much as possible, e.g., by referring to "months" or "trimesters" rather than specific "weeks" whenever that is feasible, and whenever we use weeks, to directly label which system we're using. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's a political choice, but I agree that it would be a good idea to have a "dating" section at the start and label our weeks. ("28 weeks LMP" or "26 weeks GA" is the sort of thing that gets used in medical school). Triacylglyceride (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am beginning to see how little I know...that I thought I knew... I will let others who seem to be more familiar with the issues come to a conclusion. Gandydancer (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: let's make a polished clarification section for the different types of dating, and clarify with each date which type of date we're using.

• For dates relating to gravid health, "24 weeks LMP" will be preferentially used, because most pregnant people get their dates given to them in LMP.
• For dates relating to embryology, "7 weeks since conception" will be used, because that's what embryologists do. We'll avoid using "in the seventh week," which means "6.0-7.0 weeks," and instead say, "between 6 and 7 weeks since conception."
• For dates relating to fetal development, I think we should switch back to LMP, because that's what obstetricians do.
• I think we should avoid using "gestational age," because embryologists and obstetricians mean different things by it. We should clarify the ambiguity in the "dating" section.

(Trying to reframe this to push towards a consensus, please shoot me down if I've trampled over a valid objection that you made, for I did not mean to trample.) Triacylglyceride (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as the dates are labeled (and explained somewhere, so people can figure out what the labels mean), the actual system is not hugely important to me. I don't think that we should have a self-referential section that says "when we say 'X weeks' in this article, we mean...": we should just label every occurrence.

I firmly agree with avoiding the phrase "gestational age" entirely for exactly the reason you give. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Pregnancy fetishism

Hey Anupam, you reverted an anonymous edit of the pregnancy fetishism that gender-neutralized it because women can maiesophiles too. I switched it back, because women can be maiesophiles too. Let me know if you have any questions. Triacylglyceride (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sexual desire during pregnancy

I am not satisfied with the way the article now reads and I'd like some feedback. It recently read like this: Most pregnant women can enjoy sexual activity during pregnancy throughout gravidity. Most research suggests that, during pregnancy, both sexual desire and frequency of sexual relations decrease.[79][80] In context of this overall decrease in desire, some studies indicate a second-trimester increase, preceding a decrease.[81]However, these decreases are not universal: a significant number of women report greater sexual satisfaction throughout their pregnancies.[82]

I changed it to read: Most pregnant women can continue to enjoy sexual activity during pregnancy throughout gravidity.[78] Most research suggests that, during pregnancy, both sexual desire and frequency of sexual relations decrease.[79][80] In context of this overall decrease in desire, some studies indicate a second-trimester increase, preceding a decrease.[81][82] However, these decreases may not be universal. A 2007 study done at Assiut University found that 37.4 women reported an increase in desire during the whole of pregnancy, however the study also reported that 43.7% also believed that sexual intercourse during pregnancy could lead to problems.[83

It was then changed to read: Most pregnant women can continue to engage in sexual activity during pregnancy throughout gravidity.[78] Most research suggests that, during pregnancy, both sexual desire and frequency of sexual relations decrease.[79][80] In context of this overall decrease in desire, some studies indicate a second-trimester increase, preceding a decrease.[81][82] However, these decreases are not universal. A 2007 study done at Assiut University found that 37.4% of women reported an increase in desire during the whole of pregnancy. The study also reported that 43.7% of women believed that sexual intercourse during pregnancy could lead to problems.[83]

Here is the copy from the one and only source which states an overall increase in satisfaction/desire, a study from an Egyptian university: The results showed that 37.4% of women had better sexual desire during the whole of pregnancy, 47.9% had sexual satisfaction during the second trimester of pregnancy, and 75.7% felt change in sexual intercourse during pregnancy. A considerable proportion (43.7%) believed that sexual intercourse during pregnancy could lead to problems.

I changed the wording because I do not believe that one study done in Egypt (a repressive society that does not believe in a woman's abortion rights even when the pregnancy may be the result of rape, the fetus may be malformed, or the pregnancy may threaten the mother's health, and where almost half of the women wrongly believe that intercourse may "lead to problems") is sufficient to state that an overall decrease in desire is not universal.

Rethinking my initial edit in which I attempted to downplay the conclusion of this one study, I now believe that it would have been more accurate to delete this information entirely because Wikipedia medical articles generally expect statements that make an unusual claim to be well-sourced and not based on a few studies, and certainly not only one.

Here is the information that the Mayo Clinic offers to pregnant women, which I believe to be accurate:

As long as your pregnancy is proceeding normally, you can have sex as often as you like — but you may not always want to. At first, hormonal fluctuations, fatigue and nausea may sap your sexual desire. During the second trimester, increased blood flow to your sexual organs and breasts may rekindle your desire for sex. But by the third trimester, weight gain, back pain and other symptoms may once again dampen your enthusiasm for sex. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated because "how often" and "how satisfying" are separate issues. I think that much more general statements are warranted. The details can go in the sub-article.

It appears that a decrease in sexual activity during the first trimester (nausea is presumably not conducive) and third trimester (fatigue?), but not during the second trimester (when most pregnant women are feeling well) is generally accepted per PMID 20626601. But there appears to be some variation: PMID 6524302 (warning: 1984 source) says "Sexual desire increased for a few women both during pregnancy as well as after childbirth." This (free) paper says "the pregnant woman's libido is often greatly increased" in the second of the four stages they outline.

The What to Expect folks have a page about this and assert variations between women in their book (ISBN 9780761148579 p 355). Baby Center, another mainstream pregnancy website, says "There's a wide range of individual experiences when it comes to sexual desire during pregnancy. Some women have a heightened libido throughout pregnancy, while others find they're less interested in sex. Many women find that their sexual appetite fluctuates, perhaps depending on how they're otherwise feeling physically and emotionally."

So I think that we can safely consider variation both within a single pregnancy and between women to be a generally accepted fact, with increased libido generally being the less common response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info/links. Yes, I agree that general info would be best. The free study was good, however this statement really did make me wonder about even that one when it discussed pelvic congestion related to the growing fetus:

It is important that couples know about this physical fact because a delay of 48 to 72 hours may be needed for repeated sexual intercourse. It is important to respect this delay, at least for vaginal orgasm. Clitoral orgasm can be substituted, but some women complain of pain radiating to the outer labia.

Isn't it pretty well accepted today that all orgasms are clitoral orgasms regardless of whether or not they were achieved through clitoral stimulation or vaginal penetration? At any rate, most (if I remember correctly about 80%) women never did achieve orgasm through penetration in the first place.

One thing that I did find in almost every study was that health care workers are not discussing sex during pregnancy with their patients and there is a lot of misinformation due to that fact, and I feel that that could be included in the article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's now widely agreed that it's all the same nerves, but as a matter of practical mechanics, making a distinction is not unusual. It's quicker to type "vaginal orgasm" than to type "an orgasm triggered by stimulating this nerve vaginally".

I think including facts about the lack of education would be perfectly fine and easily sourced. It might also be appropriate to include an example of when intercourse and/or female orgasm is contraindicated, e.g., after premature rupture of membranes (when it increases the risk of infection). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have missed my point re vaginal/clitoral organism. I have no problem with using the terms and it seems proper to me, I was referring to the physiological aspects. It seems to me that since they, as far as I know, physiologically involve the same process one would not involve more "congestion" than the other. At any rate, looking at our various articles related to female sexuality and reproduction, I was rather horrified to find that most of the information is poorly sourced or more often than not, had no sources at all. One article said that menstruation "cleanses" the vagina, and one revealed that pubic hair grows when puberty "hits". :=/ I certainly hope that not too many people are coming to Wikipedia for accurate information.

As for including info re sex after rupture of membranes, I'd rather just skip it as it may be getting too specific and I'd agree that we keep our information broad. Gandydancer (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the Egyptian study. The article states, "Sex during pregnancy is a low-risk behavior except when the healthcare provider advises that sexual intercourse be avoided for particular medical reasons.", which should cover sex after the membranes have ruptured. Gandydancer (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've assumed that the "congestion" referred to vascular congestion, which might well differ between body parts.

I think your changes are a clearn improvement. Do we really want the "how to" information about weight on the belly? The source is weak (unfortunately typical, as you've noticed), and it seems to me that more generalized information ("common sense" or "avoiding any actions that are uncomfortable") might be more appropriate (or, indeed, nothing at all). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

Just a quick note that if we need to source any basic definitions for this article, Part 1 and Part 2 of this paper might be convenient, since it's free. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Objections to new Exercise section

While I believe that it is a good addition, I have several objections to some claims it makes. Here is the edit:

Exercise

Exercising regularly during pregnancy can lead to both negative and positive fetal adaptations, depending on the gestational period when exercise was maintained. Maternal exercise may reduce the risk for childhood obesity, but may also increase the risk of type 2 diabetes in adulthood. Past research has not documented maternal diet well, which in combination with exercise, can have a great impact on offspring birth size. Exercise in itself may not have a significant impact on offspring. Rather, the body composition of already fit mothers may have a greater effect on offspring. Maintaining exercise earlier in pregnancy and then cutting back in later pregnancy leads to heavier and taller babies. There is evidence that exercising in late gestation can suppress placental growth and reduced birth weight. There is also evidence suggesting that aerobic exercise during pregnancy restricts fetal growth.[84]

Additionally, maternal exercise is thought to prevent preeclampsia, something that benefits both mother and baby. Concerns over fetal stress due to exercise have been researched and are invalid. Exercise may even lower the risk of preterm childbirth. Several studies suggest that maternal exercise leads to longer and heavier babies and increased fetoplacental growth. In addition to fetal benefits, maternal exercise also helps a woman’s pregnancy symptoms.[85]

Fetal injury due to maternal exercise is unlikely. There is no direct evidence of lasting effects of maternal exercise on offspring, even if it does interfere with transplacental transport of certain nutrients. Maternal exercise associations with fetal heart rate and umbilical blood flow are unfounded. Even its association with SGA has not been confirmed and trends that are documented could be due to deficient diets or other factors unrelated to exercise.[86]

Most of my objections relate to the first section.

It makes this statement: Maternal exercise may reduce the risk for childhood obesity, but may also increase the risk of type 2 diabetes in adulthood.

However the abstract for the second section states:

Exercise in pregnancy is correlated with a decrease in many common problems of pregnancy. In addition, establishing the habit of exercise in pregnancy may decrease the later life incidences of chronic hypertension and type 2 diabetes in women who are predisposed to these illnesses.

It also states: There is evidence that exercising in late gestation can suppress placental growth and reduced birth weight.

However section two states:

Several studies suggest that maternal exercise leads to longer and heavier babies and increased fetoplacental growth.

It states:

Exercise in itself may not have a significant impact on offspring. Rather, the body composition of already fit mothers may have a greater effect on offspring. Here it contradicts even its own research.

I'd like to just get rid of source #1. One source is not enough if we're going to be making claims that do not seem to be in agreement with most other sources. Source #2 seems better, but I think it should say "decreasing the chance of developing preeclampsia". Source #3 perhaps should state "There is no direct evidence of lasting untoward effects..." That article is available and would perhaps be helpful for this section, though I have not had time to read it yet. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There has been no feedback so I went ahead and rewrote this section. I will post it here as well for comparison to the previous edit. It may still need a little work but I'm going to go ahead and add it for now.

The Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee of Canada recommends that "All women without contraindications should be encouraged to participate in aerobic and strength-conditioning exercises as part of a healthy lifestyle during their pregnancy". Although an upper level of safe exercise intensity has not been established, women who were regular exercisers before pregnancy and who have uncomplicated, healthy pregnancies should be able to engage in high intensity exercise programs, such as jogging and aerobics for less than 45 minutes, with no adverse effects if they are mindful of the possibility that they may need to increase their energy intake and are careful to not become overheated. In the absence of either medical or obstetric complications,they advise an accumulation of 30 minutes a day of exercise on most if not all days of the week. In general, participation in a wide range of recreational activities appears to be safe, with the avoidance of those with a high risk of falling such as horseback riding or sking or abdominal trauma such as soccer or hockey.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reports that in the past the main concerns of exercise in pregnancy were focused on the fetus, and any potential maternal benefit was thought to be offset by potential risks to the fetus. However, they write that more recent information suggests that in the uncomplicated pregnancy, fetal injuries are highly unlikely. They do, however, list several circumstances when a woman should contact her health care provider before continuing with an exercise program including: • Vaginal bleeding • Dyspnoea before exertion • Dizziness • Headache • Chest pain • Muscle weakness • Calf pain or swelling (need to rule out thrombophlebitis) • Preterm labour • Decreased fetal movement • Amniotic fluid leakage

The Journal for Nurse Practitioners (2007) reports that many pregnant women do not exercise and they advise that moderate exercise should be advised for pregnant women as part of prenatal care. They write that exercise is of benefit for both mother and fetus as well.

A 2006 Cochrane review of prenatal exercise-related studies assessed the effects regular aerobic exercise (at least two to three times per week) on physical fitness, the course of labor and delivery, and the outcome of pregnancy, in healthy women. They concluded that regular aerobic exercise during pregnancy appears to improve (or maintain) physical fitness, however the authors noted that the trials were small and not of high methodologic quality and the data was insufficient to infer important risks or benefits for the mother or infant. The authors suggested that larger and better trials are needed before confident recommendations can be made about the benefits and risk of aerobic exercise in pregnancy. Gandydancer (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The list of when to call a healthcare provider sounds rather how-to to me. I don't think we should include it. In fact, I'd be happy if this section were half its size, with far less detail about which study said what. The general recommendations are consistent between sources, and that's really all we need to present. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The list is provided by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, word for word, and I see no reason that it should not be included. I'm surprised you object to my rewrite saying it is too detailed in citing "which study said what", when that is exactly what I objected to in the earlier exercise section - and exactly what I wanted to get rid of. In fact, I didn't use any studies but rather used the recommendations of OB/GYNS from both Canada and the U.S. instead. Furthermore, if you read more closely you will see that the first paragraph discusses exercise as it relates to the mother and the second paragraph is more as it relates to the fetus. Then I rounded it out with info from the nursing journal and a Cochrane review. BTW, I did some copy edits on the article page, so it is an improvement of what I pasted here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Pregnancy, By what I have studied.11156156TX

Fertilization When male sperm and female egg combine, they start a process from the time of conception growth. It takes about 5 days to get through the fallopian tube to get to the uterus to begin to set, which leads to implantation. Once the emplanted, it continues to grow on a daily basis by means of organs,brains and blood,ect... I read somewhere in the article that it took months to implant. It takes about 5 to 7 days, approximately, for implantation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.91.193.250 (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. What is wrong about the Pregnancy article? Where does it say that implantation takes months? Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent revert

Hey,

just explaining my recent revert of the following: Weeks 13 to 28 of the pregnancy are called the second trimester. Most women feel more energized in this period, and begin to put on weight as the symptoms of morning sickness subside and eventually fade away. If they don't by week 20, consult your doctor.

That last bit was an odd tone of voice for two reasons: first, it presumes that the reader is pregnant, as opposed to the phrasing, "those who still have these symptoms in the 20th week and later should consult their doctors." Second, it's medical advice, which Wikipedia strives to avoid offering. Better to say, "when these symptoms continue past week 20, it may be a sign of..." (with citations!)

I notice that it's made by a new editor, and I hope they continue editing! Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Trans-inclusivity and replacing the word "woman"

While I'm open to arguments for why "female" is better than "woman," I'm a proponent of "woman"/"women" in this article for the sake of humanization and readability. Reverting Terrymon's edits. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Although the vast majority of pregnancies occur among women there are those who don't identify as women- such as genderqueer, transgenders and androgynous. Calling the people who undergo pregnancies by their reproductive-system rather than gender seemed to me as a more accurate and inclusive, non-invasive way of presenting the subject. I'd like to add that in my edit I've only changed "woman" to "female" where the information had to do with pure biology and left the original woman/women where the topic was real people or researches revolving this certain gender. --Terrymon (talk) 04:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

First off, I totally respect the sentiment. I'm really big on gender-neutralization and inclusive language, and actually work in obstetrics so I spend a lot of time balancing gender-neutralization with using language that will make patients (who may not understand the reasons for gender-neutralization or speak English as a first language) comfortable. Let me therefore open by mentioning that those who don't identify as women don't include genderqueer, transgenders, and androgynous, they include genderqueer people, transgender people, and androgynous people.

That's one of the reasons that I think "female" isn't appropriate in this article: it is less inclusive of ciswomen by erasing their humanity and reducing them to their reproductive systems. It's also less accurate, as this article does explicitly address only female human pregnancies (saying "female human" instead of "woman"... see next paragraph). One option to bypass these that I would recommend over "female" would be to simply say "people," e.g., "Most pregnant people experience a number of symptoms."

The downside to "female," or worse, "female human," and to a lesser extent "person" is the loss of readability, which I strongly feel is a very real cost to any Wikipedia article. People are coming to this article for information. I want to make sure the non-"woman"-identifying person doesn't feel alienated, but I know that using "pregnant person" or (as I once proposed) "gravida" all over the place will take a toll on the article.

I'm very happy to continue discussing the reasons for the word choice, but on the off chance that you find my argument sufficiently compelling at this stage, I'd also like to propose another way of achieving our common goal re: trans-inclusivity: something saying, "this article discusses pregnancy in human women. For a biological description of pregnancy in nonhuman mammals, see pregnancy (mammals). For a sociological description of pregnancy in trans men, see male pregnancy."

(Included the mammals bit to be like, "hey, biological difference over here, sociological difference over here," certainly don't want it to sound like transmen are also nonhuman mammals, don't think it does sound like that.) Triacylglyceride (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Some people who get pregnant aren't women, though -- they are girls. (To get pregnant you must be an adult (biologically), but the term "girl" is somewhat vague and does not equate exactly with "non-biologically-adult human female", in general usage.) Also BTW "human woman" is a redundantcy, there are no non-human women. Herostratus (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point on "human women" in my sample top-of-the-article-italic-text -- I don't think redundancy is bad, but I do think that sounding like a sci-fi author wrote the article from an alien perspective is bad. Re: "girls," what are you proposing? Because I have the same defense of "woman": readability. Triacylglyceride (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

At first I thought repeating the word "people" might confuse people more than asserting to the sex, but after reading your comment I find it most appropriate. I'm still very new to this and unsure about how to direct, link and edit the way you suggested (besides changing the word "woman" to "people" over and over again). I'd love to see this change happen though... --Terrymon (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Anybody else want to chip in on this? Replacing "woman" with "people," when possible, throughout this article? (I'm still opposed to it for the same reasons as stated above; I would prefer a comment at the top clarifying the gendering choices in the article.) Triacylglyceride (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

So user:Littleolive oil's edit, with the description "per talk [page]" didn't actually resemble anybody's suggestion and had innovative grammar, so I reverted it. Nobody suggested "adult human female" as a reasonable compromise; I used "human female" as an example of how devotion to precision in language can result in loss of readability. Also, "adult, human-female uterus" is incorrect and bizarre hyphenation. Triacylglyceride (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually the language was suggested by the above "non-biologically-adult human female", and seemed to take into account and compromise on the several issues. The grammar is accurate. I have no problem with reverting, and wish you the best in this discussion. I have no desire for myself, to spend a lot of time discussing something which could be decided quickly and which should not be contentious. I agree its somewhat awkward sounding so tossing it out, is fine, no problem.(olive (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC))

How can the word woman or female be replaced with the word people. I don't understand this idea. Any thought on this?(olive (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC))

Well, when discussing someone who could potentially be pregnant, it isn't sufficiently inclusive to say "woman" (transmen, girls) and dehumanizing to say "female." "People" is not precise, as there are people who don't get pregnant (men), but there are also women who don't get pregnant (women)! So it's not strictly better or worse than saying "woman." Still, my vote is for the clarification at the top. Triacylglyceride (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no perfect solution. Among the imperfect solutions available to us, I think we're better off sticking with the plain words woman and mother. This covers approximately 99.99% of the people who are pregnant, which is sufficient for our purposes. Furthermore, and more importantly, this is what our reliable sources do, and we should follow the sources rather than our own political opinions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Due dates source

This isn't a gold-plated source (it's the manuscript for a paper that was apparently rejected by a journal), but it appears to be pretty comprehensive outline of the issues around calculating due dates. Some of the sources it names might be useful to us, and it might help us identify information that we've overlooked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Morning After Pills/Prevention

Should you include more about the morning after pills? Issues involving the pills, especially with health care, have become more prevalent in the media. It is possible many people don't know exactly what they do to prevent pregnancy. For instance, are they abortion pills or are they similar to birth control? Do they affect an already existing pregnancy? Things like that.

Sahummel (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would it be better for this to be covered in the pregnancy article than in the emergency contraception article? The pregnancy article also doesn't mention condoms, for example. Feel free to make a suggestion as to what material would be added where. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, while issues surrounding this are currently pretty prevalent in the American media, they are not really mentioned elsewhere outside of the US.AerobicFox (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much point in covering morning after pills in particular. But planning and contraception definitely need more coverage. They also should not be relegated to the society and culture bin. Planning for pregnancy is part of recommended medical care, unintended pregnancy leads to significant maternal ill health and poorer pregnancy outcomes. Likewise, although it is rarer than undesired fertility, infertility is a regular part of family planning and reproductive medicine. Zodon (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Pregnancy vs human pregnancy

The article is about human pregnancy, as can I see. Since pregnancy not typical of Homo sapiens, should the article be changed to a new title "Human pregnancy", and an article titled "Pregnancy" will deal with all species. For example, we have Penis and Human penis, --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

See Pregnancy (mammals) (there is a link to it in the lead of this article). So the article you are talking about already exists. As to the matter of naming, the article names here seem to follow naming guidelines. Human pregnancy is probably the type of pregnancy that is most talked about (by humans). So other articles with same name use disambiguation suffix. (Presumably the penis example could also have Penis (human), e.g.) I think the existing article names are adequate. Zodon (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We should definitely leave the article where it is at pregnancy. We have thousands of articles on conditions / diseases from gout to pharyngitis. We are not going to change these to "gout in humans" or " human pharyngitis". We are humans and we thus assume "human" unless we state otherwise in common usage. Also per the WP:MEDMOS we include a potential section called "In other animals" at the end specifically for this reason.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong periods!!!

Attention to embryo pictures and links to sources! The sources show these images for later periods then written under pictures!!! Difference is 2 GOD DAMN WEEKS!!!! Links 42-45 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.73.188.203 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Attention to unregistered editor: The captions are correct!!!

The captions report the times since fertilization, which is an actual, measurable biological event. (Did you notice the words "after fertilization" that appear in each caption?)

The source named names the time since the "last normal menstrual period", which is a theoretical construct created in the 19th century by an old man who didn't understand how the female reproductive system works, and which has sadly been followed ever since—despite it having been scientifically proven that this old estimate produces erroneous results in most cases (Africans and Asians give birth a week "too early" according to this white-person-only rule) and laughable results in some cases (women with a series of closely spaced births can be said to have been pregnant for years). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, maybe the single-entry IP could explain the difference between a standard week and a "g.d." week? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Baby fat

An entry in the disambig page baby fat links to the pregnancy article to refer to the fat that mothers develop during pregnancy. As per the disambig page rules, any entry's link should have a mention of the term anywhere in the article. There is no mention of "baby fat" in the Pregnancy article. Can a statement be added, or is there a better article where this should be added, probably in Maternal physiological changes in pregnancy? Jay (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

New Image for Initiation section of Article

Fertilization in humans. The sperm and ovum unite through fertilization, creating a zygote that (over the course of 8-9 days) will implant in the uterine wall, where it will reside over the course of 9 months.

I made this image, and I would like to add it to this page. Let me know your thoughts.

--Ttrue12 (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please fix the link for Cit. 84.

The Citation 84: ^ "Prenatal exposure to flame-retardant compounds affects neurodevelopment of young children". Sciencedaily.com. 19 January 2010. Retrieved 25 November 2011. is broken, however I can not fix it (due to being locked). Here is the proper URL for the reference. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100119121434.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatfulbread (talk • contribs) 22:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

grammatical errow

"When used properly, pregnancy is rare when using birth control pills or an intrauterine device (IUD) however, if it does occur, it's more likely to be ectopic."

Maybe...'Pregnancy is rare when birth control pills or an intrauterine device (IUD)is properly used, however, if it does occur, it's more likely to be ectopic.' 67.5.176.247 (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Watermelon mang (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

IVF

The bit about IVF that you're edit warring is biased. You're presenting it as the only two ways to achieve pregnancy, which it isn't. You leave out, for example, the various sorts of artificial insemination as well as all of the non-IVF artificial options, such as GIFT.

I don't think this is hugely important to address there, but if we're going to address it, then let's not have such a narrow notion of the options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I reworded to say "can" rather than edit war, but I don't see that the content is clearly accurate or needed. I'm happy to remove it all.(olive (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC))

I linked the segment to Assisted reproductive technology/fertility treatment, availing those interested in the topic to find further examples there. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Effect of cannabis

Regarding cannabis, I find it appropriate to mention the decreased birth weight found by Fergusson 2002, as I find it to be a careful use of WP:PRIMARY of a topic of which I've found no secondary sources. On the other hand, regarding the previously mentioned apparent absence of effect on perinatal mortality or perinatal morbidity, I agree with Whatamidoing that such a study may not be of sufficient quality to justify mentioning that point, since there may be an effect but the study may be too small (albeit 600 subjects makes it rather large). Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should remove all of the "single study" claims in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WhatamIdoing about removing all single study claims. Gandydancer (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I pulled three bad sources from that section. It's someone else's turn. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Parity

The definition for parity in the article is wrong. It is not the number of successful life births but the number of times that she has given birth to a fetus with a gestational age of 24 weeks or more, regardless of whether the child was born alive or was stillborn. please check it. Thank you. Gloryndeliverance (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I fixed it. Gandydancer (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I made some small changes, because "counting multiple births as one" sounded like ten separate pregnancies might be counted as one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Pseudo-pregnancy

Please mention and describe pseudo-pregnancy or False pregnancy (do not confuse with Miscarriage) in article body. Wakari07 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Strange and clumsy wording in Diagnosis section

It begins "The beginning of pregnancy may be detected in a number of ways, either by a pregnant woman without medical testing, or by using medical tests with or without the assistance of a medical professional."

The bit between the two commas is not a "way" of detecting the beginning of pregnancy. It's a "who". And we aren't told what "way" that pregnant woman does it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Changed further Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

ADDITIONS TO PHYSIOLOGIC CHANGES

Progesterone has noticeable effects on respiratory physiology, increasing minute ventilation by 40% in the first trimester. HeatherLogghe (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor correction in section 3: Diagnosis

There is a minor error in the fourth paragraph of section three... "giving less false negatives" should be "giving fewer false negatives." I would do it myself, but I am new and the page is semi-protected. Thanks :) Caffeinated42 (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC) hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.43.94 (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Rename article to Pregnancy (human)

See also: Talk:Pregnancy_(mammals) § Should_this_article_be_renamed_to_Pregnancy.3F

Since human pregnancy is not the only meaning of the word pregnancy (which more generally refers to pregnancy in various mammal species), I think this article should be renamed to Pregnancy (human). Then, the article titled Pregnancy should be redirected to pregnancy (mammals), which is the most general sense of the word "pregnancy". (Many articles incorrectly link to this page when they are referring to pregnancy in the most general sense of the word, as opposed to human pregnancy. It would be less counter-intuitive for the article Pregnancy in mammals to be renamed to Pregnancy, while this article would be renamed to Pregnancy (human).) Jarble (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2012‎ (UTC)

A couple of people have pushed for this for years now (or is it the same person over and over?). The answer is always no.

We do not have a rule that titles reflect the most general use. The goal is for the majority of readers who are looking for something called pregnancy will find what they're looking for on the first try. More readers are looking for human pregnancy than for non-human pregnancy. Therefore this page is called plain pregnancy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

My main concern is that the article's title would be potentially confusing: there seems to be no agreed-upon naming convention for articles that are specifically about humans (with titles that suggest otherwise). The article about human eyes follows the opposite convention: it is called Human eye, while the article about eyes (in the general sense of the word, in all types of animals) is simply called eye. Meanwhile, this article's title does not reflect its anthropocentric focus at all, and may be misleading to users who are wikifying the word pregnancy in an article that discusses pregnancy in the general sense of the word (instead of referring to human pregnancy specifically). Perhaps it would be better if this article served as a disambiguation page for Pregnancy (mammals) and Pregnancy (human), since it is likely that a user would be searching for either of those two things. Jarble (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

All articles are typically about humans unless stated otherwise. Yes I know we are a self centered species and like to write about ourselves but we are not changing our 26,000 medical articles to "Gout in humans" "Type 2 diabetes mellitus in humans" etc. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Leave the article titled Pregnancy. There's no need for disambiguation of this article's title, as it is not believably arguable that most people will not be looking for an article about human pregnancy; for those who are not looking for human pregnancy specifically, the Pregnancy (mammals) article is linked at the top of the article. A very important fact is that "pregnancy" is the WP:COMMONNAME. But what I think about article moves of this type can be found in this move discussion at the Vulva article, some of which I also stated at the Vagina article.

I also just signed Jarble's first post in this section, so that people will assuredly know who made that comment without checking in the edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Stem cell collection

Two different types of stem cells can be collected before childbirth: amniotic stem cellsand umbilical cord blood stem cells.

The collection of amniotic stem cells is part of the process of amniocentesis. Umbilical cord blood stem cells can be stored in both public and private cord blood banks, The first private amniotic stem cell bank in the US was opened by Biocell Center in October 2009 in Medford, Massachusetts.

No really due weight. Who cares if some private center is collecting stem cells in the USA? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but that trivial fact only applies to the removal of the last sentence. Should any of the rest be kept? (I can't think of any good reason to keep it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Exercise copyright

Has anyone checked the ===Exercise=== subsection for copyright violations? Most of it has that odd formatting that is common in cut-and-paste problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Could probably use rewriting regardless. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Where to place info on birth control?

The intro currently has a paragraph on rates of unplanned pregnancies and birth control, specific to the US/UK. It's good info, but does it belong in this article at all? If so, where? (Birth control isn't mentioned anywhere further in the article, which means it shouldn't be mentioned *only* in the intro/summary.) I suggest the paragraph be removed, but would be happy with *some* reference/link to birth control (since people might visit this page when they actually want info on birth control, but don't quite know what to search for?) not-just-yeti (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a weird thing to lead with, and I suspect that it reflects the unconscious biases of our editors' demographics. Single young men tend to be more focused on preventing pregnancy than on achieving it. It would make more sense to lead with statistics about global fertility rates, the percentage of women who ever get pregnant, rates of infertility, the percentage of pregnancies that end in miscarriage, intentional abortion, premature births or full-term births, or things like that.

It's reasonable to discuss unplanned vs unwanted, but perhaps that should be under ==Society and culture==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge may be needed

These two articles overlap alot

1. Neuromechanical adaptations to pregnancy
2. Maternal physiological changes in pregnancy

The second already links to the first and thus IMO does not need to be added here as a see also section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

1. I read through the medical MOS, and I think it should be revised to explain WHY the see-also is not needed - which I think is because, see-also's for medical topics could range into dozens of articles, so templates that are centrally agreed upon do that job much better.
2. That said, instead of reverting the see-also addition, it would have been better to cite the MOS and the reasoning from the start, perhaps coming here to the talk page to explain why. I was going to revert until I read the MOS in detail and then sorted out why.
3. We should consider adding the Neuromechanical adaptations page to {{Pregnancy}}, since it is an orphan and adding it to the template seems to make sense.
4. If you want to propose a merge (I'm not sure if you are proposing that), that should be proposed on those pages, and then the discussion notified here and elsewhere. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested that the two be merged. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed an orphan article and linked it into a couple of "pregnancy" pages, to attract attention of experts, since I am not. Therefore I became a bit agitated when my "microspam" was reverted on formal grounds. While I do understand the reason for the policy of no-see-also, my purpose was to increase the visibility of the orphan, so that an expert may see it and handle it properly. I didn't expect that proper handling was delinking. The strength of wikipedia compared to paper books is high degree of cross-linking.

That said, I support either merging or adding the title to a template. At the same time, from my experience I would suggest to consider a two stage process: (a) merge, to remove overlaps, and then (b) split, since to my uneducated eye the subject "neuromechanical adaptations" is a reasonable subtopic of a more general one, "Maternal physiological changes in pregnancy".

By the way, to my another uneducated eye, the latter title is a bit tautological: "maternal ... in pregnancy". If it is not, then where is the article about "physiological changes in pregnancy" which are not maternal? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Have merged the two pages into one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to mention why it's "maternal..." - it's the differentiation from fetal, although the corollary for this in the fetus is development, not change. And the term maternal is used to indicate the woman in the time after birth. That's how so many pairings of maternal and pregnancy arise. Hildabast (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Immune tolerance

This completely removed the concept and link to Immune tolerance in pregnancy from the article. I don't think this is a good idea. I'm not wild about these specific two sentences (for one thing, the second incorrectly implies that miscarriage is largely immunological rather than developmental), but I think that we should include something about this. Does anyone have any good ideas about how to work it in? I'm thinking that what's important about this is the concept (permits a non-self organism to exist) and the effects on the mother (widely blamed for mothers' increased problems with influenza and other infections during pregnancy). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping he'd respond. I know he's been quite busy with other projects. I can't imagine why he removed it. I support a return. Gandydancer (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I see the section was moved to Maternal physiological changes in pregnancy. However, I agree it deserves some mention here as well, so I made a summary in the Pregnancy#Physiological_changes section. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)