User talk:Peter A. Lipson/contraception: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter A. Lipson No edit summary |
imported>Peter A. Lipson No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Would you suggest a renaming?--[[User:Peter A. Lipson|Peter A. Lipson]] 19:32, 3 May 2007 (CDT) | :Would you suggest a renaming?--[[User:Peter A. Lipson|Peter A. Lipson]] 19:32, 3 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
::Not sure. But it would enable, for example, "abstinence" to be discussed without the conceptual problem accompanying the fact that it is not really contraception (since no sex is occurring, presumably). But it seems to me that abstinence is not conceptually problematic as a form of birth control. Just some thoughts. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 19:43, 3 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
:It gets very complicated, in that the only true form of abstinence-as-contraception is the so-called rhythm method. Abstinence itself isn't really birth control, as getting pregnant isn't even a risk...there is nothing to prevent. But it's a tough one. | |||
Latest revision as of 20:04, 3 May 2007
I've always felt "birth control" is the more catch-all phrase to enable every type of it to be discussed. Stephen Ewen 19:31, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
- Would you suggest a renaming?--Peter A. Lipson 19:32, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
- Not sure. But it would enable, for example, "abstinence" to be discussed without the conceptual problem accompanying the fact that it is not really contraception (since no sex is occurring, presumably). But it seems to me that abstinence is not conceptually problematic as a form of birth control. Just some thoughts. Stephen Ewen 19:43, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
- It gets very complicated, in that the only true form of abstinence-as-contraception is the so-called rhythm method. Abstinence itself isn't really birth control, as getting pregnant isn't even a risk...there is nothing to prevent. But it's a tough one.