Talk:Pregnancy/Archive 1

message: I hope this is submitted properly.  RE:
"Human pregnancy lasts approximately 9 months between the time of the last menstrual cycle and birth (38 weeks from fertilisation)."
I have reason to believe that "(38 weeks from fertilisation)." is correct, but "9 months between the time of the last menstrual cycle and birth" can only be /correct/ with the preceding "approximately".  More correct would be (approx.) "40 weeks between the time of the last menstrual cycle and birth".
9 months is LESS than 38 weeks, but fertilisation occurs AFTER the last cycle, so seems incorrect.  I hope this makes sense, is accurate, and is helpful.
This new article needs a lot of work, mainly summarising the sections with main articles.  This has been spun out of pregnancy, which should now focus on the general topic.  violet/riga (t) 23:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is outrageous. JFW | T@lk 21:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's hardly an actionable criticism.  What do you see as "outrageous"? violet/riga (t) 21:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, I think I see.  I've undone the moves that -Ril- did as I think (and others seemed to also) that human pregnancy should be the primary disambig for pregnancy.  Further, -Ril- had not fixed the redirects.  violet/riga (t) 21:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Are you stating your opinion that they are not allowed to read an encyclopedia?  I'm sorry but your minimalist animalist views disgust me! ;)  violet/riga (t) 08:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Yup, 15 beats/minute increase sounds more like it. Alex.tan July 5, 2005 02:14 (UTC)
The pregnancy article should create a new paragraph, on safety and health tips, to help pregnant women in self-care and to protect the health of their unborn baby. Tips and advice on physical examinations, proper nutrition, avoidance of drugs and alcohol, and what to do a premmature labor occurs. These can be helpful as a quick reference or an educational tool relating to pregnancy health. + 207.200.116.203 01:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Comments

message: The second trimiester is is the midway point of pregnancy, so most women do not feel as sick as before and not yet uncomfortable when she starts to have other aches. She begins to handle her growing belly, but can experience mood swings depending on how she is. Most pregnant women are furthermore relieved from the first 3 months, then plans to handle six more by wearing maternity or larger clothes, and emotionally set to focus on the health of her unborn baby. Sexual activity remains generally safe to mother and baby, except not advised by her doctor/OB-gyn. A large proportion of pregnant women continue normal sexual relations with their spouses. Some feel more excited during the second trimester while others do not react this way : there is no rule but a major male phantasm.+ 207.200.116.203 01:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  second trimester 

message: Some women in their third trimester experience strong heartburn, indigestion, intestinal gas, upset stomach, constipation and reports of occassional vomiting, but different from nausea or "morning sickness". Her body may be preparing for the birthing process, so she could experience symptoms related from the size of the fetus pushs onto her stomach or intestines. In 36 to 38 weeks, the position of her belly, actually the uterus "drops" as the fetus' head presses down on her cervical/pubic area. This is a natural response to deliver a baby normally unless otherwise a complication occurs. This may call for an induced labor or a cesarean section in order to easily and safely deliver the baby.+ 207.200.116.203 01:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  third trimester 

message: As a matter of style and form, I'd suggest making Andrew's vertical list into two-colums (easier to read, saves space), and moving lists down below toward the middle. (Ive just done numer 2) 
The reason for the move was that definitions arent always prerequisites for the average end user, and obstruct reading. We can make each entry a linked footnote, which will take some time.  I would do it now, but Im done for today. Sinreg, and happy editing, St|eve 19:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: The 'Colloquial' section should migrate to wiktionary 00:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: colloquial

message: I think this is link is relevant.
*'1001 About Pregnancy'
Please review it.. Thanks before
This is link is relevant and topical.  What's the reason for deleting it?
*Alan Guttmacher Institute (2005) The Implications of Defining When a Woman Is Pregnant Discussion of the political and legal background.  patsw 21:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says the AGI has the final word? Pregnancy is scientifically defined as the implantation of a zygote in the decidua. Why should it be policised? JFW | T@lk 21:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reply doesn't indicate a reason for deleting it.  Who says the AGI has the final word?  Not I and not the AGI.  The link is there for people to click or not click as they choose.  If there is another article on the definition of pregnancy and its implications that you would like to have here, please add it. patsw 21:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I changed the section on dating pregnancy to clarify a bit. I think that the section is still a bit awkward, mixing use of "age" and "date", and therefore "before" and "older". Happyharris 18:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. Some mothers may not give birth on the due date predicted by LMP OR ultrasound. --DearPrudence 07:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating apregnancy 

message: I(no expert on medecine,law or pregnancy) haven't heard of anywhere that considers a third trimester foetus "a distinct living person".
Is this really true?, in some countries there are extra legal protections for third trimesters foetus's but are they really considered a person anywhere? I thought this was pushed for (by pro-life groups)in some states of the US but not actually law. Anyone know the truth?
:You have no idea how stupid some of the conservatives are that we have to deal with here. :( --66.229.183.101 03:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please achieve some consensus on this talk page from other users before you continue to change the word, or rework the entire sentence to leave out the possibility of implying anything without relaying the information. Perhaps use "many" instead of "most" or "often." JHMM13 (T | C)   04:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I had had a lousy day (not that that's any excuse.) I didn't really pay attention to the details of what I was editing and I should have. --66.229.183.101 05:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: So a scraping of still-living skin cells are a human being? As are the countless zygotes that don't make it to implantation? Is an egg or sperm, by extension, half a human being? I'd be one of the first to say that a third-trimester fetus is human by all(or at least the vast majority) of the criteria by which we define humanity, but there's a sizeable difference between an unborn fetus and, say, a lymphocyte. At any rate, the nomenclature is the nomenclature, and the law is the law. If any laws have expressly defined third-trimester fetuses as human beings, leave the article unchanged, or maybe expand it to clarify which courts have ruled to that effect. If this is not the case, a minor edit is probably in order. 85.64.246.205 20:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All that is truly important here is that Wikipedia treat this topic with a Neutral Point of View.  An unverifiable assertion ("distinct living person") is just that -- an assertion.  Wikipedia is an encyclopdiea, not an Op-Ed page. Heathhunnicutt 22:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  third trimester is a distinct living person??? 

message: It confused me for quite some time that the picture says "monat", which I now assume is German for "month". The picture is great, but can change it to English?--Cuchullain 03:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed (not by me). Rmhermen 21:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: The excerpt "Caucasian women are more likely to have a longer pregnancy than other women...a Caucasian woman's first pregnancy lasts an average 274 days from conception (288 days from the last menstrual period)" makes an unwarranted extrapolation of the findings in the source this article cites.  The source  (  Mittendorf R, Williams MA, Berkey CS, Cotter PF. The length of uncomplicated human gestation. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:929-32. .) mentions that "uncomplicated, spontaneous-labor pregnancy in private-care white mothers is longer than Naegele's rule predicts," which simply means the private-care white women cited in the study had longer pregnancies than Naegele's rule would predict.  There is no comparison to private-care women of other groups, much less a comparison to other women who did not receive private care during their pregnancies.  I have therefore deleted the misleading passage.  Kemet 30 March 2006
:Good edit. Systemic problem with editors adding text from a single source as a definitive fact. FloNight talk 22:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Longer pregnancies in Caucasians

message: I am pretty annoyed that the stages of labour diagram was removed without any discussion.  I spent some time on making it appropriate for publication.  It was a US Government image and therefore not a copy-vio.  Can anyone explain why it was deleted plaese. Maustrauser 23:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears as if the diagrams on the government website are copyrighted. Here is the discussion from the common . I thought these were very good images. I think it would be very helpful if we could find an adequate replacement. Any ideas? Anyone an illustrator?--Andrew c 14:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peeved regarding image

message: I support moving the Trimester article into this one... if I have some support I'll do it. Joshuagross 20:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not.  As it is, people are making edits to promote pro-life points of view, and breaking this page up into a multitude of pages just gives more cracks for the Biased-Point-of-View people to sneak in through, Joshua. Heathhunnicutt 21:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Get a grip- the man was only asking- sheesh. 58.178.34.122 20:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I also do not support the merge.  Cburnett 05:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: How on earth is merging Trimester (which discusses the timeline of a pregnancy), to the section here that discusses the timeline of a pregnancy -- promoting any view, either pro-life or pro-choice?  It's simply a matter of redundancy and organization.  The first response above makes me believe s/he felt the article was about to be split up, not merged...  I support a merge.  Can we get more reasons as to why duplicate info shouldn't be merged, rather than just "I don't support it"? --Rehcsif 14:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The trimester article has no real need to discuss pro-life/choice issues, but for one thing the fetus is a developing organism that shall appear into the world. It sounds more neutral while in the avoidance of terms "baby" to promote pro-life and "not living" to the pro-choice side. I understand most pregnant mothers talks about the "baby" is moving, kicking, breathing, etc. then will rule out the "baby" hasn't officially came to life in the eyes of society and legality. Wikipedians know well the best way to solve the issue isn't approved in Pregnancy article. Let's keep the article relevant in the biological, medical and physiological discussion. Political statements left by members or anon IPs are inappropriate and shall be removed.--Mike D 26 07:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. - I support merging or redirecting the Timester article to this article or section. - Cybergoth 21:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Trimester]]

message: I move to replace the current image, "the silhouette of a pregnant woman" with one that is a little more work safe or get rid of it all together if one cannot be found. 12.205.90.191 02:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One, there's really nothing wrong with it.  Two, it's a fabulous picture.  Three, Wikipedia is not censored for those of delicate sensibilities.  Nandesuka 03:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Work safe?  Is it illegal to look up an encyclopaedia at work?  Absolutely keep! Maustrauser 05:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree to remove. What's the point of nudity? Anyone? Does it add to the usefulness of the article? Um, no. It'll offend a lot of people, which alone isn't reason to remove something, but in matters like this it's just pointless. Definitely remove. --Joshuagross 05:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is a pregnant woman offensive?  All those offended should remember that they were born of woman!  If you look up pregnancy in an encyclopaedia you expect to see a pregnant woman.  Viewer beware.  Leave as is. Maustrauser 06:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, don't be foolish. Don't you think it's a little unnecessary that her full nude body is in view? How does that add to the article? It's so dark you can't even see anything that WOULD be important - just her breasts sticking out and her belly... wow, very educational. --Joshuagross 06:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Exactly.  "It's so dark you can't see anything..."  So what is the problem.  Do you call all people who disagree with you foolish? Maustrauser 11:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe he was trying to say we should get a better-lit nude picture.  Heathhunnicutt 18:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, of course.  Can anyone arrange a better lit nude photo?  Mirasmus 03:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part 1 

message: I don't know if it's important enough to merit an edit, but I live in california and I've never heard the term "lady-in-waiting" used to describe a pregnant woman. perhaps it's more localized than just the USA? Also, "preggers" has gained popularity in chat rooms, especially in the roleplaying commmunity (I only know a few people who have never typed "my/his/her char is/was preggers", and they're the ones saying "it's barely shorter and it's AOLien and I hate it, hmmph"). Also, is the last sentance misplaced? Shouldn't it be near the top, if you were looking for alternate definitions for "pregnant", as it's not a colloquial term for pregnancy?
on another note, the information about what happens to a woman during pregnancy is rather terse. I came researching the link between symptoms of going on The Pill and symptoms of pregnancy (mostly the linkn between the same increased hormones leading to side effects) and couldn't find anything about hormones in the woman. If I knew the answer I'd embellish the article. Kuronue 00:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard artistic terms on pregnancy I feel is best described: A pregnant woman is compared to a flower buds to a fruit, as the fruit symbolizes a seed about to drop and fertilize into a new tree/flower. Many people don't like the term "knocked up" as improper and crude to make an analogy to pregnant women in an illict affair. The popularly adapted "preggers" seems cute and jovial, while another one "prego" is common in the U.S. The pregnancy article seems to enter the pro-life/pro-choice debate, as some edits deleted any reference to a fetus as a "baby" or "child". Please don't delete them to promote your POV. Please discuss abortion-related and sanctity of life issues in its' appropriate place. The pregnancy article only says what's scientific and how an expecting mother considers the unborn, the way most prefer it. --Mike D 26 07:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Colloquialistic accuracy 

message: The spanish language version of "pregnancy" articles has extra information that the English version fails to mention. The discussion of whenever or not sexual relations can continue is found in the Spanish version, despite the social mores there rule out against that, except Spain and Mexico tends to share the Western viewpoint of sexual relations during pregnancy. There's no nude photo in this one, probably the cultural rules and national laws might prohibited it. Spain and Latin America has conflicting words and meanings, so there's no single form of the Spanish language. I suggest the pregnancy article is subdivided into Castillian spanish and Latin American spanish. Spanish laws don't restrict artistic depictions of pregnancy, Mexican law up to my knowledge is otherwise tolerant, and I question more reform-minded South American laws in Chile, Uruguay and Argentina. The Spanish version pregnancy article is shorter and not well covered on information that the English version was not shy to cover. Note the U.S. Department of Health has a spanish version web link on health and physiology of pregnancy available in Spanish and other languages written/spoken in the U.S.+207.200.116.203 00:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need of translation?

message: Help is needed in cleaning up/debunking/verifying/holding to a higher standard in the article Male pregnancy.  In case the tags are removed by the guy who is adding the ridiculous content, here is a link to a good part of the [history|http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Male_pregnancy&oldid=58648335]
:Pipe links work the other way. As the guy who is adding the ridiculous content, I have to add that it'd be quite helpful in mediating this dispute if you finally told why the content is ridiculous, or what would qualify as credible, or why you seem to be ignoring the sources that have been given. --Kizor 11:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed 

message: There is an article called Beginning of pregnancy controversy. Is it possible to work this wikilink into this article somewhere? I wanted to run this by the editors here before being too bold.--Andrew c 15:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I will work it in.Ferrylodge 01:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of pregnancy controversy 

message: I'm a little lost here, can't seem to find the controversy, if someone finds the picture unsuitable, whatever the reason, can they not take it down? Or put something else there? grendel's mother 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above for info about the nude pic; one camp has that nudity is untasteful and therefore should be removed, the other camp is of the belief that the image is either a) natural and should be included due to the not-censored-for-minors policy or b) shows vital changes in the female anatomy that the covered image does not show (mostly in the breasts). I've moved the image partway down so it's beside medical and edited the caption for the second camp's b-people, left it there for second-camp a's people, and moving it will ensure that nobody will see it if they just want to read the opening paragraph to find out what pregnancy is (say, a non-native speaker), but will have to look for it and can scroll it offscreen easily if it offends or they are in an unsafe enviornment. Kuronue 22:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And then there's the third camp: those who don't feel the the picture is distasteful on its own, but do feel that it is unnecessary because it doesn't add anything meaningful to the article. Here's a thought for those who are open to other opinions: if you want to show naked breasts as an illustration of what happens during pregnancy, show a comparison picture of the same woman before (or at the very beginning of) pregnancy. That's the only situation in which the image is useful and makes sense. And it would shut me up!! -- Tim 01:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Got one? I could donate from my, ahem, personal collection, but it wouldn't be the same model ~_^ Or are you volunteering to knock someone up and take photos? Kuronue 15:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hold on, lemme check with the wife..........nope, sorry, I can't knock'er up quite yet. Guess we'll have to rely on someone else's work! -- Tim 06:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Kuronue puts his whole collection online we could go through them and pick out the ones who are pregnant. (Unless the preg. pics comprise his entire collection :)) Poweroid 12:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Kuronue puts HER entire collection online we could go through them and find that none of them are pregnant-- but if Kuronue puts both her entire collection AND the collections of her much more kinky friends online, we might have something ~_^ Check the userpage ^^ Kuronue 15:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Holy moly, I think we're on to something! Seriously, though, I think a good before-and-after picture would be fantastic. Not in a "heh-heh, boobs" sort of way, but as a real illustration of how the body changes through pregnancy. Maybe someone can come up with non-copyrighted work that fits in with this. -- Tim 15:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Damn, sorry for being too lazy to check the user page before posting, Kuronue. I was also unaware you had kinky friends. It's getting more and more interesting but I'll drag myself back to Tim's suggestion. :-) Maybe a health clinic/hospital will let us use pics they originally took for education/publicity. Poweroid 16:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In all seriousness, if my boyfriend lets me, I'd donate a picture of myself naked; however, I won't be pregnant for quite some time (*crossing fingers*) so it'd be before-only. Kuronue 16:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ha...that's a gracious offer, Kuronue, but yeah, I'm thinking that maybe a pair of clinical pictures of the same person would be slightly better accepted here than a seemingly random non-pregnant nude :) -- Tim 18:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ????