Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 75.73.1.89 - "→Nulliparity - Why change to breast CA risk: " |
|||
Line 25:
The big question about that section is why is it even here. First, it is so far human only (whereas this article is about biology in general). Second it seems likely that it may duplicate other articles (e.g. [[childlessness]]). If it is to become a section, then it really needs balance. Silly to talk about small risks like breast cancer without talking about large risks, like maternal mortality. [[User:Zodon|Zodon]] ([[User talk:Zodon|talk]]) 07:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
===humans only what???===
''...humans only...'' [insert next clause of sentence at this point].
===childless ≠ nulliparous===
Childlessness is quite distinct from nulliparous. Childlessness means you don't have a child. Men can be childless. It is nonsensical to talk about "nulliparous men". There are a lot of reasons for being childless: e.g. you gave the baby you just had (i.e. you are very much not nulliparous) away for adoption. So it is here because it fits in the context of a discussion of pregnancy outcomes. As far as I know, it is quite possible for other animals to be nulliparous as well. None of my (neutered) female dogs never were pregnant, so it is quite possible for non-humans to also have never had a baby or other outcome of pregnancy to report.
On the other hand, I don't know of any laws which prohibit birth because you are nulliparous. So a woman could have multiple children and still be nulliparous. Heck, even a guy can have children.
The '''only''' relationship is that nulliparity is one of the causes of childlessness, and many, if not most, nulliparous women don't have children.
| |||