Gynopedia needs your support! Please consider contributing content, translating a page, or making a donation today. With your support, we can sustain and expand the website. Gynopedia has no corporate sponsors or advertisers. Your support is crucial and deeply appreciated.

Translations:Vietnam/7/en: Difference between revisions

From Gynopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Importing a new version from external source)
 
(Importing a new version from external source)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Birth control is legal and widely accessible in Vietnam. It is estimated that 73%-75% of Vietnamese women (of reproductive age) use some form of birth control.<ref>[http://www.dktinternational.org/country-programs/vietnam/ DKT International: Vietnam]</ref> Typically, you'll be able to find oral contraceptive pills, IUDs, injectables (Depo Provera) and Implanon. The most commonly used forms of modern contraceptives tend to be IUDs and condoms. However, it is estimated that approximately 54% of Vietnamese women use modern methods of birth control; the remaining percentage use older methods, like withdrawal, the rhythm method or periodic abstinence.<ref>[https://www.guttmacher.org/about/journals/ipsrh/2002/12/accessibility-and-use-contraceptives-vietnam Accessibility and Use of Contraceptives in Vietnam]</ref>
Since 1963, Vietnam has had some form of population control. This began under the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam), when the government advocated capping families at two to three children. After reunification of Vietnam in 1975 under the communist government, family planning policies extended throughout the country. Ultimately, a 2-Child Policy was implemented in 1983. During the 1980s, the Vietnamese government provides incentives for those who followed the policy, like contraceptive availability, and those who did not, like enforcing penalties. The government also took cue from the Chinese government's stance by encouraging its citizens to get married later and to space out children 3-5 years apart. This policy is currently being reconsidered but seems to remain in place.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-child_policy Wikipedia: Two-child Policy]</ref>

Latest revision as of 17:50, 21 September 2017

Information about message (contribute)
This message has no documentation. If you know where or how this message is used, you can help other translators by adding documentation to this message.
Message definition (Vietnam)
Since 1963, Vietnam has had some form of population control. This began under the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam), when the government advocated capping families at two to three children. After reunification of Vietnam in 1975 under the communist government, family planning policies extended throughout the country. Ultimately, a 2-Child Policy was implemented in 1983. During the 1980s, the Vietnamese government provides incentives for those who followed the policy, like contraceptive availability, and those who did not, like enforcing penalties. The government also took cue from the Chinese government's stance by encouraging its citizens to get married later and to space out children 3-5 years apart. This policy is currently being reconsidered but seems to remain in place.<ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-child_policy Wikipedia: Two-child Policy]</ref>

Since 1963, Vietnam has had some form of population control. This began under the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam), when the government advocated capping families at two to three children. After reunification of Vietnam in 1975 under the communist government, family planning policies extended throughout the country. Ultimately, a 2-Child Policy was implemented in 1983. During the 1980s, the Vietnamese government provides incentives for those who followed the policy, like contraceptive availability, and those who did not, like enforcing penalties. The government also took cue from the Chinese government's stance by encouraging its citizens to get married later and to space out children 3-5 years apart. This policy is currently being reconsidered but seems to remain in place.[1]