Talk:Emergency contraception/Archive 1

message: are the United States Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists usually  referred to, simply as "groups" as in the article?
--Doldrums 09:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FDA, NIH, ACOP are "groups"? 

message: Never heard this term used, User:85.154.20.87 can you elaborate? David Ruben 20:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Emergency Birth Control

message: I made a few changes in the "Controversy related to abortion" section.  It used each of the terms at different times.  Presumably, because the pro-life side wants to emphasize the level of development at that stage, and the pro-choice side wants to downplay it.  "Fertilized egg" isn't entirely accurate, and "embryo", while technically accurate, is a bit misleading because in common usage, it usually refers to a later stage of development.  So what I did was to use the most accurate term, blastocyst, the first time and add paranthetically that that's an early embryo stage.  I later used "embryo" because most people don't know the word "blastocyst" and "embryo" is, after all, scientifically accurate.
I also removed "fertilization" from "there have likewise been some discrepancies regarding the very term "conception" (fertilization)."  The very discrepancy is over whether or not the two are indeed synonyms, so it's POV to push that they are. --Icarus 02:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fertilized egg" vs. "embryo" 

message: What needs to be done in order for everyone to be satisfied in removing the clean up tag?
:The article looks good to me.  I'll remove the tag after 24 hours.  --Uthbrian (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove clean up tag? 

message: This page uses many terms for the baby. At what stage (how many cells) is the baby in when it implants into the Uterus? Can't we just call it what it is: a BABY? 202.142.214.182 14:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zygote/Blastocyst/Embryo? 

message: I've decided that I will attempt to retain from edit warring, and try to explain my edits clearly on the talk pages, or in the summaries if I answer any questions posed to me after words. I'm not sure if this strategy will work, particularly because I doubt all other users will refrain from making reversions even if I do discuss with them, none the less I will attempt to rationalise it out.
My reason for reverting Alienus was that my addition (a rewording of content previously in the article) works towards explaining how it is hard to define pregnancy, and states briefly that pro-life and pro-choice people have varying definitions of pregnancy. I think this shouldn't be deleted, but maybe expanded a little more, and given a link to a site that explains these difference clearly. What do you think? Chooserr 04:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not hard to define pregnancy, which is defined medically from implantation. If you would like to say that the pro-life groups believe that pregnancy begins at conception rather than implantation, please do so, but do not do so without citing a reliable source for such a statement, and please be aware that if you do so, someone will likley note that the medical community defines pregnancy differently. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sort of says that in the quote making it redundant any way. Chooserr 00:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My most recent edit, the adding of infertility to the risks, is from information I gathered from ALL.org, which while pro-life does site sources. You can view a list of their sources the bottom of this page. Chooserr 00:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well David, I'm not sure what it is for each different type of emergency contraceptive, but the precentages came from a pro-choice website so I decided to add them without searching much more into it. I thought that most would agree on that. Chooserr 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did a brief check on your 'facts'. I went to the Plan B datasheet, which only applies to that particular brand of EC. However, they had nausea (23%), abdominal pain (18%), fatigue (17%), headache (17%), and menstrual changes listed, which is different from your statistics. First, you need to explain exactly what your information is in reference to, and then you need to cite the source for your statistics. However, because there are many different froms of EC, all with different side effects, I think quoting exact percentages is not helpful (unless there has been a scholarly stasticial analysis of a random sampling of different brands of EC). --Andrew c 01:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I was just going to say I could hunt down the stats if you want, and provide the website, but I would like to comment on the last part of your post which I forgot to comment on before. I don't believe it is irrelivant, because even if you would vomit due to pregnancy it still might concern people about these minor risks (I do wonder not being in the medical proffesion if you could actually throw up the pill before it takes effect) Chooserr 01:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (sorry computer crashed out, so delay in relying) The combined pill after a short while could be partially absorbed sufficiently to cause nausea & vomiting, but before enough had been absorbed to be effective at preventing pregnancy. David Ruben  Talk  03:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I got the information from aafp.org, but I found out that I got it wrong. It lists nausea at 50 percent, and vomiting at 20 percent. Chooserr 01:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You said to consult the talk page, for details, but you haven't added any new information. I'm not strictly against your version, but I do believe that we should out line the more serious risks. Chooserr 01:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You are playing word games. Compare Side effects and Contraindication. Maybe look at the Oral contraceptive page or an actual drug datasheet for more info. There is already a section on Contraindiction right above side effects. Maybe you can expand that to include some of the stuff listed under the Your Health header here or another source.--Andrew c 02:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had assumed that the emergency progesterone only contraception trialed by and recommended by the WHO was Levonorgestrel 1500mcg total dose, available under a variety of brand names around the world. So in this respect isn't EPOC a standardised product unlike Yuzpe regimen which could be achieved with either a variety of standard combined contraceptive pills (but many low-dose tablets taken at once) or specific high-dose products ? Are other progesterones used outside of UK ?  if not, then one could specify data about EPOC/Levonorgestrel 1500mcg. David Ruben  Talk  03:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good point (and you obviously know more about this than me). In the US, there is only one dedicated EC product (progesterone only): Plan B. However, the FDA has approved 20 different oral contraceptive (combined estrogen and progesterone) pills for EC use. Personally, I am content with keeping things general, but I wouldn't totally mind if someone else wants to write up the statistical analysis of side effects and specify what product they are referencing. But general is also fine with me.--Andrew c 03:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: My most recent edit - a reversion to Andrew C's version - was because David's is lacking in certain ways. Nothing extrordinarily big, but it does miss the last section on the OTC bills, and a reference to the Catholic document which it is forced contradiction with. Chooserr 00:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except your version is not verifiable (IOW - false), and is also OR. Perhaps you should go back on your "no edit warring" promise. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most recent edits 

message: Chooserr, after recently looking at the Parental Notification article, I wonder if you could add some info to  your recent addition to Emergency Contraception: There is also controversy over the Over the Counter bills considered by some states which would make it possible for a women to receive Emergency contraceptives without a prescription, or reporting a rape (if one has occurred).
*Are these bills only seeking to allow just adults to obtain EC without the need for a prescription?
*Do they seek that a Chemist has to provide a sale when clinically appropriate (ie intervals since intercourse, time within menstrual cycle) ?
**If the Chemist is allowed to personally conscientiously object, are they required to advice the woman where such a service is available from ? (this is the situation in the UK although, as I gather, this is a professional standards issue for Doctors & Pharmacists, rather than subject to specific legislation)
*Do the acts make any mention of OTC supply to minors, or is this a separate issue that allows for doctors being able to prescribe to minors? (I'm unqualified to comment on UK Pharmacy regulations in this but I gather it is similar to Doctors who need consider the minor’s maturity to make informed decision for any medical issue if seen alone, should suggest advising parents, but in principle need to respect confidentiality and be able to justify breach of confidentiality if they feel minor unable of making informed decision)
Somewhat separately, given a previous section title is "Controversy in relation to abortion", would it be better to retitle this section as "Controversies over provision of EC" (or "Controversies over legal provision") with subheadings of "Provision for rape victims" (for the previous paragraph) and "Provision as OTC sales" (for this latest paragraph) or some such similar titles? David Ruben  Talk  09:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Copied from my talk page to keep discussion in one place:
I'm currently checking (google) to make sure that is an exact quote from the Church, but in the mean time I've re-added it for even though it may be slightly repetitive I believe that an exact quote wouldn't hurt, and it would be more verifiable than Wikipedia just coming out and vaguely point in the pro-life direction saying, "this is what they believe". Chooserr 00:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be alright...the only thing is I can't seem to find it online so it maybe that there is a slight error in the text or that the user who added it had the document in hand and it isn't published elsewhere. I'm not sure. Chooserr 00:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote seems correct - its from the same document as the current reference No 13 you kindly provided (its the vatican website):  http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/documents/rc_pc_migrants_doc_2003072_salud%20reproductiva_en.html - see the 3rd paragraph of section III. David Ruben  Talk  00:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well than I have no problem re-adding it. Chooserr 00:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Church quote

message: I don't understand why "Controversy in relation to abortion" and "Controversy" are two different sections, with those names.  They should either be merged, or named in a way that distinguishes them better. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, perhaps they could be subsumed under one header, with more descriptive subheaders?  Having two controversy sections back to back, one with a totally generic name, isn't very helpful for readers. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The second more generic section seems more to deal with US legal issues than actual 'controversies' surrounding the drug itself.--Andrew c 06:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I guess that making it a subsection wouldn't harm anything it is just that I'm afraid it would confuse the reader more. Anyway I'll fix it. Chooserr 06:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There's controversies and there's controversies 

message: First of all, your attempt at a revert was sloppy. You kept in my edits, but readded the older version, thus creating two copies of nearly every sentence in that section (but maybe that was a mistake). Next, you are ignoring the rational I have put forth for my edits. Your sentence about OtC is completely vague and meaningless, and ignores the fact that there is already a section about OtC controversy under the heading International availability. If you want to reorganize that section and add a header, do that. But adding that one unacceptable sentence under a different header does not help the article. Secondly, I made a case for why your long quote not be included. I then tried to cut things down, being concise while still keeping part of the quote and linking to the two sites. I asked you twice above, and I will ask you again. What exactly is being said in the quote that isn't included in my consise version, or other parts of the article? Remember this section is about the Mass. law, not the Church's position on EC, or the argument for EC being an abortificiant (which already has it's own section). So, I can't stop you from editing (nor would I want to), but could you please try to address these concerns and make a stronger case for your edits before readding them. --Andrew c 14:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chooserr and 'lost section restoration'

message: Hey I am pro-choice for the first trimester but CLEARLY this whole article is slanted toward the pro-abortion lobby.  I think these folks are entitled to their viewpoints even if I don't agree with it 100%.  
What I wanted to know is what happens if the woman IS already pregnant and takes the pill.  She may be already pregnant, and not know it, from a previous encounter.  Will the baby be harmed?
There is so much verbage trying to justify this drug, which some consider unsafe by the way, that needed info is left out or lost in a sea of words. 
Oh, and one more thing I found odd.  In a article 3,174 words long, the word baby does not appear one single time.  Doesn't even unwanted or unplanned pregnacies involves babies??
Lets tighten this up people.
Less opinion, more facts.
--149.152.34.18 22:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon: You must have missed this part of the article Unlike forms of chemical abortion such as Mifepristone, emergency contraception does not end pregnancies and will not harm a developing embryo. Also, this article is about a form of contraception, not abortion. The condom article also does not use the word baby once. If you have information on why this drug is so 'unsafe' feel free to add it, or post a link to that info here. But otherwise, it is made clear in its own section the Contraindications and side effects, which are the same as for normal oral contraceptives because they are basically the exact same thing. If you have a specific example of where the article is pushing a POV, feel free to list it here, or remove that POV yourself. Thanks for your concern, but I'm not exactly sure we see eye to eye on this yet.--Andrew c 01:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The article says quite clearly, Unlike forms of chemical abortion such as Mifepristone, emergency contraception does not end pregnancies and will not harm a developing embryo. What part of "will not harm" is unclear? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There is some evidence that artificial estrogens and progestins, including phthalates, parabens, and oral contraceptives, can cause feminization of male fetuses (i.e. slightly smaller ano-genital distance, more risk of undescended testicles, etc.) These studies were done on women who were exposed to these chemicals every day of their pregnancy (most people in industrialized countries have high concentrations of phthalates and parabens in their blood).  While EC would carry the same type of risks, because is it just two days of exposure, taking EC carries a much smaller risk of birth defects than, for example, regular eating of microwave popcorn (which has high levels of phthalates from the coating on the paper).  Because the research on all these effects is kind of sketchy, I don't think it should be included in the article.  Lyrl 14:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 149.152.34.43 - All the drugs you reference either have known effects - with warnings on the package - or are very new.  The hormone (or hormones) in EC pills have been used by millions and millions of women for forty years.  As pills do have a failure rate, especially when not taken correctly, there have been hundreds of thousands of babies born to women on the pill during conception.  If there were any major adverse fetal effects from these hormones, they would be known by now.Lyrl 22:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you explain a little more? What exactly are you looking for? Could you point to another article that you feel adequately covers drug safety in a manner that you'd like to see done here?--Andrew c 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias against Pro-life position 

message: We had cited a paper without permission. I have since received persmission to cite it for wikipedia. I was also referred to a forthcoming updated version of the paper. For more information about this, see Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission#Emergency Contraception.--Andrew c 20:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand, why would a citation require permission? You're not copying his article, so there are no copyright issues. Obviously, there are no patent or trademark issues either. A citation is just an identification of an existing document; one does not require permission from an author to cite his work. eaolson 23:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Click on the link to the PDF in question. Read what it says at the top of the page. I, personally, have never heard of anything like this before, but I wanted to obey the author's wishes.--Andrew c 00:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation permission 

message: "Fertilised embryos naturally fail to implant some 40 to 60 percent of the time." 
does not directly relate to:
"The claim that pregnancy begins with fertilisation and not implantation is highly contested."
It could be used in another way but it doesn't work there. Darrowby 13:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, some extra text and citation has been added, but these statements still share no logical relationship. The one does not support the other. Interesting, maybe, but unrelated. Darrowby 06:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or considering the new changes, I guess I should consider these statements separate now, and say instead that the content about natural failures to implant does not relate in any meaningful way to the topic of controversy over the beginning of pregnancy. Probably misplaced and originally intended in another part of the article. Darrowby 07:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rates fertilised embryos implanting

message: There is no source for "early spontaneous abortions are generally not detected as pregnancies."  In the U.S., half of pregnancies are unplanned.  Meaning half are planned - and those women hoping to be pregnant are likely to be doing pregnancy testing, even before their period is due (some boxes of HPTs advertise "can be used 5 days before your period is due").  And a significant fraction of the unplanned pregnancy women know that they are at risk of pregnancy that cycle, and again are likely to be using pregnancy tests.  Modern home pregnancy tests are capable of detecting a pregnancy just 1-2 days after implantation (3-4 days for the cheapie tests).  Therefore, I am suspicious of the quoted statement. Lyrl 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the first month after implantation, 25% are miscarried. Al 22:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really ? 25% seems a little high for first 6 (or is that 7) weeks from LMP. I understood (and advise patients) that of established pregnancies (meaning missing the next due period - ie 4/40 from LMP), approx 20-25% will miscarry in the subsequent 8 weeks (i.e. to 12/40  weeks from LMP). This would imply that the miscarriage rate by week 6 (? 7) from LMP should be less than 20-25%. David Ruben  Talk  23:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: True. David Ruben  Talk  16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detected pregnancies 

message: Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article.  I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles 

message: Can someone explain this? I thought the edit was helpful, but having the title of the page part of the hyperlink, and the descriptive commentary not part of the hyperlink (as with a number of other EL entries). So why was it reverted?--Andrew c 18:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was helpful, too.  If you put it back, I'll support you. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 18:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  last revert re: external links 

message: There are a few quotes in Controversy over post-fertilization effects of EC that aren't cited, and I, sadly, don't have time this week to look them up. Could anyone else do that for me?
I also just changed references to "fertilized egg" to the more scientifically accurate "zygote".  --BCSWowbagger 05:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote referencing? 

message: I've made a partial revert of the recent edits in this section:
"organizations don't like the fact" sounds very unprofessional and reminds me of a childs taunt.  I've changed it back to "organizations have expressed concern" because I think it's better writing for an encyclopedia article.
I changed "some parts of the country" back to "many parts of the country" as refusals to provide EC has been documented all over the U.S. (see the reference I added).
I changed "might" to "may" because it's better grammer, and re-added "reasonable" to clarify that these organizations want EC to be readily available, not just technically available for women willing to jump through legal hoops.  I left the syntax changes to that sentence, though, as it does seem a little easier to read now.
I removed the quotation marks around women's right to medically appropriate, effective, and legal reproductive health services.  If we disagree on the wording, let's come up with an alternative.  But just putting quotes to imply that women don't actually have a right to health care - is not something I'm going to agree with.
I reworded the last sentece somewhat: "regardless" sounds more professional to me than "in spite of," and having both beliefs and convictions listed looked redundent so I deleted one.  And added the ref to the Planned Parenthood article at the end. Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   17:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States section edits (refusal clauses) 

message: In Section 3.2, International availability--United States, the first paragraph should:
#Give the final 23 to 4 vote of the committee. 
#Give the only two unanimous (28 to 0) votes of the committee (Plan B was safe as an OTC drug, Plan B was not found to substitute for regular use of other contraception.
#Cite the offical FDA meeting documents.
References:
December 16, 2003 FDA Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs Joint meeting with Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee
December 16, 2003 Final questions (PDF)
:Question No. 3: Based on the AUS (Actual Use Study) and literature review, is there evidence that non-Rx availability of Plan B leads to substitution of emergency contraception (EC) for the regular use of other methods of contraception?
:Question No. 4: Do the data demonstrate that Plan B is safe for use in the non-prescription setting?
:Question No. 6: Do you recommend Plan B be switched from Rx to non-Rx status?
December 16, 2003 Transcript (PDF)
:Question No. 3 vote: Yes:  0, No: 28, page 359, line 15
:Question No. 4 vote: Yes: 28, No:  0, page 364, line 14
:Question No. 6 vote: Yes: 23, No:  4, page 412, line 6
69.208.222.59 18:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dec. 16, 2003 Advisory Committee meeting votes 

message: In Section 1.3, ECPs-Contraindications & Interactions:
#The contraindications should be method-specific and accurate, not generalized and inaccurate. 
#The contraindication to using emergency contraception pills (combination estrogen-progestin or progestin-only) during pregnancy should say why they are contraindicated (they are not effective in women who are already pregnant) so as not to implicitly and incorrectly suggest that they have been shown to cause fetal or maternal harm.
#The contraindications to using emergency contraception pills in women with a history of heart attack, stroke, or blood clots, or patients with severe liver disease or the very rare condition of porphyria is due to the estrogen component of combination estrogen-progestin contraceptives, and does not apply to progestin-only contraceptives.
Reference:
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence (2005). Emergency contraception. Pediatrics. Oct; 116(4):1026-35. 
"Safety and Contraindications of Emergency Contraception", page 1030:
#"There are few absolute contraindications to the use of combination-hormone emergency contraception. There are no contraindications to progestin-only emergency contraception."
#"The World Health Organization has stated that the only contraindication to the combination estrogen/progestin emergency-contraception method or the progestin-only emergency-contraception method is a known pregnancy,  primarily because the treatment will not work if the patient is already pregnant." 
#"For chronic health conditions in which estrogen-containing OCs are contraindicated, combination emergency-contraception regimens may still be offered because the duration of use is extremely short. However, many providers prefer to prescribe progestin-only regimens for teens with known hypercoagulable states, such as a history of blood clots or hereditary hypercoagulopathies or thrombophilias. Because pregnancy may increase the risk of adverse outcomes in these health conditions, the contraceptive benefit and availability of combination emergency contraception may outweigh the risk of treatment."
69.208.222.59 18:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contraindications should be method-specific 

message: The study reports I have actually read have been ambiguous.  While the researchers always conclude with statements sounding like the study disproved any anti-implantation effect, if you actually read the study, other things jump out at me.  The two main points:
*EC causes luteal phase defect.  Embryos do not try to implant in the uterus until 6-12 days after fertilization (90% by 10 days) - luteal phase defect means that menstruation starts before that 10-12 day window is up, possibly washing away a viable embryo.
*The only study I've seen to explore EC's effectiveness beyond 3 days found that it had the same effectiveness taken 5 days after intercourse as when taken 3 days after intercourse.  If there was no anti-implantation effect, I would expect effectiveness at 5 days to be lower than that at 3 days.  The sample size at 5 days was actually too small to be statistically significant, so no firm conclusions can be drawn from this - but it is suggestive.
Also consider that some studies have tested for anti-implantation effects by testing for hCG, a hormone that is not detectable until after implantation.  And then say that because they did not detect this chemical in animals given EC, EC must not interfere with implantation.  The logic here escapes me.
While it is obvious EC prevents pregnancy primarily by delaying ovulation, and the article currently seems rather balanced in presenting the possibility of a secondary anti-implantation effect, many editors seem convinced that such a secondary effect has been disproved.  So I'm just trying to put some information out there to keep in mind during future edits. Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   23:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the article imply EC probably does not prevent implantation? 

message: I just reverted to restore some statistics related to the abortion rate and number of unintended pregnancies. I tend to think these are relevant to the article, since preventing unintended pregnancies is preciely the purpose behind contraception.  Abortion rates speak to the number of unintended pregnancies.  I can envision a student researching this topic and finding those stats to be useful... So I would keep them in.  Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 00:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, people want to discuss the stats (or claim they do because I think it is very telling for someone to suggest that we all sit down and talk about it as they have their way reverting the article. If you want to discuss then innitiate the discussion DO NOT just revert an edit to the version you like and then feign to be all reasonable saying "let us take this to the talk page"!) that is fine with me. The reason that I feel that the stats should be removed is that it is drawing a conclusion that lack of availablity to ECs (something I'm a bit confused about. What lack is there? Or is that just a way of pointing fingers at Hospitals who because of their morals cannot provide ECs, but don't want to close their doors because of all the other good they do) leads to higher abortion rates which either doesn't exist, or hasn't been explored properly. There are a whole product range of birth control accessible aside from ECs, why then should a million abortions be attributed to their not supposed lack of availability? So now what is the other side? Chooserr 00:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is anything wrong with reverting to the version that you, the editor, thinks is appropriate, as long as the WP:3RR rule is respected.  I think the major difference between EC and abortion, compared against other forms of birth control, is the lack of planning needed.  EC and abortion both work post-coitus, whereas other forms almost exclusively must be planned ahead of time (some unusual ones, like an IUD immediately inserted, can be used, but rarely are).  --TeaDrinker 00:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You forget though that you are an editor too, and to revert whilst maintaining that one should go to the talk page with it isn't exactly leading by example, is it? Anyways yes it doesn't require too much forethought, however to make an analogy between millions of abortions and the supposed lack of ECs is ludicrous. I'm sure many people don't use any form of contraception, and then somewhere down the road when they discover they are pregnant (long after ECs would work) they feel that the only option is abortion, and go to get one. This probably happens much more than accountable under the lack of ECs theory. Chooserr 00:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I don't have the time to debate this right now (I actually have to go out) however maybe it should be noted that less than 1% of abortions are because of rape  - you know just to shed some light on the matter. Chooserr 01:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of how people feel about these stats, can we get some sort of citation for them.  I think they are very informative but when I can't find out where stats come from they usually become suspect to me. Remember 02:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "take it to the talk page" is code for move it out of the way so no one can here it whimper as it slowly dies??? If not I'm shocked at the little discussion that has taken place here. Chooserr 02:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found citations so that should ease Remembers concerns. I also phrased a few things with qualifiers to make it a bit more NPOV. So I think most concerns have been covered. Only 2 editors wanted to outright remove it: an anon who hasn't commented here on talk, and Chooserr. If the discussion has been lacking , perhaps it is because the "other side" of the debate has been offline. So maybe we can start the discussion now. --Andrew c 02:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern isn't primarily the data, but the way the article seemed to be blaming 1 million abortions on lack of ECs and not just lack of morality. Chooserr 02:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats on abortion and unintended preg. 

message: I just have a quick questions on the failure stats of ECs presented in the box in the right hand corner. Why is it comparing the perfect use of IUDs to the typical use of ECs? Aren't they different? How can there be a "typical" use for ECs? All you have to do is take the pill right? Shouldn't that be perfect use for ECs then? Any help answering these questions would be appreciated. Chooserr 02:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the article, it states that IUDs can be used as a method of EC, in addition to "Plan B" in the states or "Levonelle" in UK. However, it is confusing that they split up the two different methods for typical vs. perfect. Also, ECPs are often 2 pills taken 12 hours apart.--Andrew c 02:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure 

message: To Andrew c.: On the Emergency contraception page, I'm afraid we can't leave the sentence you restored today as is ("ECPs are not to be confused with chemical abortion methods that act after implantation has occurred."). I understand that you retained (with heavy qualification) the "some consider ECPs abortifacient" statement a few paragraphs down, but that's not good enough. To leave intact, with no qualifier at all, a sentence that states "EC is not abortion" (which this sentence, in effect, does) is POV in the extreme. I'll wait a bit for you to tone down its "absoluteness" before doing so again myself. Thanks. Cross-posting this to your Talk. JDG 19:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See the comments above about advocacy groups vs. description. I think this is a matter of undue weight. The question is, how prevelent is the alternative definition of pregnancy/abortion? How much scientific is there to support the pre-implantation claims concerning ECPs? We mention the alternative views already in that section. Mentioning the exact same thing twice is not only redundent, but, IMO, giving undue weight. Maybe, as a compromise, we could add a footnote to the first claim, asking the reader to learn more in the controversy section. Please check out my changes.--Andrew c 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same old POV in a new form 

message: I was just reading the article and the sentence "The FDA had more pledged to rule on the application by September 1, 2005" caught my eye as it doesn't really make sense to me. The second part of the sentence isn't much better either - the present tense is used to describe something that seemed to occur last year (according to my interpretation of what the sentence is trying to say). Overall it just seems to jump from September 2005 to August 2006 without mentioning what happened in the intervening period (no pun intended).
Also I noticed the events of August 24, 2006 seem to be mentioned twice - the first time just a few sentences after the above mentioned section, and secondly at the end of the section. I don't what to touch the article myself as it seems to be a 'hot' topic so perhaps someone more familiar with this article could tidy the above and clarify what happened for the benefit of the reader. Ninja-lewis 00:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points! I also noticed 3 different people adding the same information about the OTC status. I believed I reverted one of those edits. Please feel free to take a stab at editing the article. We always welcome new users and fresh perspectives, plus, we aren't supposed to bite the newcomers.--Andrew c 01:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording, repetition in United States Availabilty section 

message: After intercourse, sperm move through the cervix and arrive in the fallopian tubes beginning 1.5 minutes after ejaculation.  All sperm that are going to do so have arrived in the fallopian tubes within 45 minutes after ejaculation.  Sperm stick to the walls of the fallopian tubes, and are released in waves over a period of several days as they wait for the arrival of an egg.
(See explanations by sperm physiologist Dr. Joanna Ellington: 
)
Because sperm are already waiting in the fallopian tubes, taking EC hours after intercourse is not going to affect sperm transport.  Taking bcp pills on a regular basis changes cervical mucus in a way that prevents sperm from ever getting into the uterus or fallopian tubes.  Again, this does not apply to post-coital use of EC, because the sperm are already in the fallopian tubes - any changes it causes in cervical mucus is closing the barn door after the horse got out, so to speak.
The theory about EC changing the tubal transport of ova/embryos would actually be a postfertilization effect - embryos don't try to implant in the uterus until 6-12 days after fertilization.  By increasing the speed at which embryos travel through the tubes, hormonal contraceptives might cause them to arrive in the uterus too soon, when they aren't ready to implant, and they just fall out of the woman. Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   14:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a second. I thought that the article already said that it is impossible for ECs to affect an already fertilised egg and, from a certain prespective, cause an abortion. I think it even went so far as to say that the only reason why there is still any doubt is because it is impossible to prove a negative(?). If hormonal contraceptive, and ECs which you say are just that except in a stronger dose, can cause an embryo to just "fall out" of a women, then shouldn't that be mentioned somewhere? Chooserr 17:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the wording to remove the implication that "not an abortifacient" had been practically proven.  The particular theory on tubal transport I thought was too obscure to include in the article. I just commented on it on the talk page because an edit had (inaccurately) made it appear that changes in tubal transport might have an anti-fertilization effect. Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   20:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the OR part. Even if you are a scientist in the field of research medicine and you know for a fact that the study proves one thing, but the conclusions and media about the study are wrong and biased, we cannot mention that in the article. We must have a source to back up all claims. If we have a reliable counter study, or media report discussing the faults of the study's conclusion, then we can mention it, but until then, publishing personal interpretations (even if they are correct) violates WP:V and WP:OR. That said, Lyrl brings up some very valid points, and we shouldn't take sides in the debate (and the debate does exist). We should keep in mind NPOV, and make it clear who is saying what. "Group A holds belief B, study C found D" etc. We need to avoid unqualified statements that do not point out where the views come from.--Andrew c 14:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EC does not change transport of sperm

message: I think something is messed up with the references. There are only 43 unique references, but when the page is rendered on my screen, it lists 84, and most of them are repeats. Some references are cited multiple times (they have superscript letters preceding them), yet most of the intrapage links are broken. I tried to fix this problem, but something is still wrong. Things look fine in the preview, so I am thinking it may be a coding or rendering problem that I can't fix. Is anyone else experiencing strange numbering things (such as the very first footnote being numbered 43?) --Andrew c 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia talk:Footnotes discusses same thing occuring on multiple pages - its therefore a metawiki programming problem, so relax whilst someone at wiki central fixes it for us.... David Ruben  Talk  22:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  references technical issues