Talk:Birth control

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Birth control has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 19, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
June 8, 2013 Good article reassessment Delisted
September 6, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Early history and Birth control movements[edit]

I just wanted to clarify the edits I made to this page, which were all included in the "History" section. I added some more details and examples of early birth control to the "Early history" subsection, specific to Medieval Europe, as I thought it was lacking and could use some more examples, particularly on the history of condoms. In the "Birth control movement" subsection, I added some more information about Margaret Sanger, including the location of the first birth control clinic, and her involvement in what is now known as Planned Parenthood. I also added information on the efforts of Presidents Johnson and Obama to further birth control access, as well as the FDA approving the first oral contraceptive, known as Enovid.

Aqcamps33 (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


Have restored "The are unlikely to affect implantation.[1]" which states "The evidence strongly supports disruption of ovulation as a mechanism of action. The data suggest that emergency contraceptives are unlikely to act by interfering with implantation"


  1. ^ Leung, Vivian W. Y; Levine, Marc; Soon, Judith A (February 2010). "Mechanisms of Action of Hormonal Emergency Contraceptives". Pharmacotherapy. 30 (2): 158–168. doi:10.1592/phco.30.2.158. PMID 20099990. The evidence strongly supports disruption of ovulation as a mechanism of action. The data suggest that emergency contraceptives are unlikely to act by interfering with implantation 

This is better than a product insert IMO that says "Prescribing information: Ella; 12.1 Mechanism of action" (PDF). Silver Spring, Md.: FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). pp. 4–5. When taken immediately before ovulation is to occur, ella postpones follicular rupture. The likely primary mechanism of action of ulipristal acetate for emergency contraception is therefore inhibition or delay of ovulation; however, alterations to the endometrium that may affect implantation may also contribute to efficacy... The pharmacodynamics of ulipristal acetate depends on the timing of administration in the menstrual cycle. Administration in the mid-follicular phase causes inhibition of folliculogenesis and reduction of estradiol concentration. Administration at the time of the luteinizing hormone peak delays follicular rupture by 5 to 9 days. Dosing in the early luteal phase does not significantly delay endometrial maturation but decreases endometrial thickness by 0.6 ± 2.2 mm (mean ± SD)."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree... I also removed source based on non-MEDLINE indexed journal article from a journal associated with the "Catholic Medical Association" (?) as non-MEDRS. Zad68 16:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


Moved here

Extended content

Birth control can provide many benefits. Birth control promotes safe sex because it can prevent unwanted pregnancies and make people more aware of what consequences can come from it. It also comes with some health benefits. Birth control can make periods lighter, reduce cramping [1], clear up acne [2], and it has even been proven to reduce the risk of certain cancers [3]. Birth control can also help reduce the teenage pregnancy rate. After the IUD came out the teen pregnancy rate in Colorado alone was cut in half within 5 years [4]. There are definitely some drawbacks to using birth control. It can cause users to gain weight[1], it can increase the possibility of having a stroke [5], and it can increase the chance in getting blood clots [6]. Because there are so many different forms of birth control, it can make it safer for different women if they can find one that does not effect their health in a bad way. Birth control is just like any other medicine because it provides services, but it also has possible side effects.


  1. ^ a b "Birth Control Info For Teens | Does It Make You Gain Weight?" Control Info For Teens | Does It Make You Gain Weight? Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc., 2016. Web. 13 July 2016.
  2. ^ Sheehy, Jessica. Pill: Still Safe, Effective, And Threatening After All These Years." Humanist 70.5 (2010): 4-5. Humanities Source. Web. 13 July 2016.
  3. ^ "Control Pills May Cut Women's Odds for Uterine Cancer | HealthyWomen." N.p., 4 Aug. 2015. Web. 13 July 2016.
  4. ^ McCLAIN, DANI. Contraception Makes Teen Pregnancy Rates Plummet. So Why Are Some Women Still Skeptical? The Nation November 16, 2015
  5. ^ McCLAIN, DANI. (above)
  6. ^ Toto, Christian. "Turns 50." Insight On The News 17.42 (2001): 31. Regional Business News. Web. 13 July 2016. (also see Interview with Nancy Gibbs, Executive Editor, Time Magazine; May 9, 2010)

Not sure what is with that first link? Also the rest of this is poorly referenced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Is the sentence about family planning and culture necessary in the first paragraph?[edit]

It's supposed to be a straightforward explaination of what birth control is, not a definition and then references to 3 tangential articles relating to it. Dvalentine (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article should not merely contain "a straightforward explanation of what birth control is." Given the great variation in cultural attitudes towards birth control, and the implications of that variation, it seems eminently appropriate to mention that, and so provide context, within the opening paragraph. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is good to start with some general definitions.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Birth control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Catholic Church on Contraception[edit]

Hello, the article at present only says the Church only accepts natural family planning but the Church also condemns artificial birth control as can be seen from reading humanae vitae. So I'll add this but if you have issues say on talk page

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're finally discussing it here. On the other hand, see WP:EVASION. Your block was short and it may be best to wait until it expires instead of possibly incurring other sanctions because of evasion. Your last edit has a typo but I'll let it stand for now for other editors to look at. My impression is that "The Roman Catholic Church officially only accepts natural family planning" already says "officially only accepts". When looking at the source, they do seem to disagree about the use of artificial birth control methods (they have various possible issues claims), but I see no unequivocal threat or punishment about it. It is also obvious that today many Catholics do use such methods in many countries and do not get excommunicated (that may still occur in some cases perhaps). — PaleoNeonate — 16:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Humanae vitae is we call a WP:PRIMARY source. You are interpreting it. That is not OK to do in WP, per WP:OR. Wikipedia is built by summarizing high quality secondary sources. If you want to see more content about the RC hierarchy's views on birth control, please propose such content here, and please cite the high quality, reliable sources that support the content. Please also be aware of WP:WEIGHT with regard to the article overall. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, sorry I should've cited a secondary Catholic source on this. As for not getting excommunicated, I dont think murderers are excommunicated (at least in the latin rite). Just because an offense doesnt lead to excommunication it doesnt mean its not a big sin (if your interested — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

OK this is done. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
"gravely immoral" is not needed "immoral" is enough. Gravely means deathly which in this case it is not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)