[OT] Pre-pregnant? I think I'm gonna pre-puke

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...500875_pf.html

I am *not* pre-pregnant. I am human. If I'm going to worry about
alcohol consumption, proper weight, and vitamins, it will be because
of *my* health, not some hypothetical baby. It's insulting. It's
demeaning. As a blog I found somewhere said, reading this makes me
want to down 20 shots of tequila and throw myself down the stairs.

I am not a baby factory. I am on birth control for a reason. Even if
I weren't, I would still find this kind of patronizing, "We know what
you want better than you do and don't trust you to figure out the
right end of a condom" bull**** infuriating.

Here's a quote from the WP article:

"We know that women -- unless you're actively planning [a pregnancy],
.. . . she doesn't want to talk about it," Biermann said. So clinicians
must find a "way to do this and not scare women," by promoting
preconception care as part of standard women's health care, she said.

Now, that is scary. They're advocating that physicians not make the
distinction between treatments that are good for a woman and ones that
might be good for a hypothetical fetus.

*kicks Bush administration in the nads, hard*

This one really scares me, although apparently it's ongoing and only
tangentially related to the article ... a woman claims she can't get
access to the majority of epilepsy medications because she's female
and therefore potentially could get pregnant, even though she is
asking desperately to try different meds:

http://shadesong.livejournal.com/2871261.html

What an odd moment for me. In the past week, the wives of two of my
male friends gave birth. Certainly healthy babies are on my mind.
But don't call me pre-pregnant. What a crock.

I do find one poster's suggestion (somewhere; I've been googling
around and don't remember all the places I went) that all men should
be advised to start a "pre-child support" account amusing.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

I forgot to mention that the cat litter issue reared its ugly head
again: they recommend that all women between onset of menstruation and
menopause refrain from cleaning litterboxes, you know, just in case.

Aaargh.

After reading some more articles, I can sort of almost see that they
mean well, but the term "pre-pregnant" still makes me want to retch.

The other thing I meant to mention is, this dovetails nicely with the
issue of tax-supported health care. Do we really think the problem
with infant mortality in this country is due to well-off individuals
refusing to take their folic acid, or could it possibly be the large
number of women who don't have access to good medical treatment or
contraceptive information?

I still do want the perks available through corporate health
insurance, but I also want to see everyone in the US cared for. The
problem IMO is that the socialized medicine countries got it wrong --
no one's willing to pay the taxes. That's why Canadian doctors are
moving to the more lucrative US, and it takes weeks or months to get
tests done. In order to get medical coverage with anything near the
responsiveness of our current system with govt-supported health care,
we would need to spend big bucks on taxes. And I just don't see that
happening. If Canadians aren't willing to shell out big tax bucks to
get medical service as prompt as that available in the US under an
insurance system, I just can't see USians doing it.

Sorry if this comes across as more inflammatory than I meant it to be
-- I'm pretty tired, but I wanted to post this. Tomorrow I guess I'll
find out if it was a good idea or not.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...500875_pf.html

I am *not* pre-pregnant. I am human. If I'm going to worry about
alcohol consumption, proper weight, and vitamins, it will be because
of *my* health, not some hypothetical baby. It's insulting. It's
demeaning. As a blog I found somewhere said, reading this makes me
want to down 20 shots of tequila and throw myself down the stairs.

I am not a baby factory. I am on birth control for a reason. Even if
I weren't, I would still find this kind of patronizing
(snippage)

I have known since I was 16 years old I didn't want to have children. 30
years later I'm still taking measures to prevent it. I agree with you, this
is patronizing as hell and implies any woman who is fertile will act with
casual disregard for not only their own health but the health of a child who
does not yet exist. I started menstruating at age 13; does that mean I
should have been taking folic acid since then? I don't think so! And I
sure as hell wasn't drinking alcohol or having sex at that age. Maybe they
need to narrow their focus group a bit to concentrate on those "kids" who
are having sex and babies one after the other.

We all know there are some teens who are likely to be doing these things at
that young age. But to target all women who are still likely to conceive is
patently ridiculous. I'm a grown, responsible woman. Even though I'm
peri-menopausal and my LLL, John, had a vasectomy *years* before I met him
(see? he knew he didn't want children, too!), I still use birth control.

For some government official report to tell me I need to keep up my folic
acid supplements is patently ridiculous. If my doctor thinks I need this,
I'll talk with him about it. But absolutely not because some federal
guidelines tells me I have to... unless, of course, they are going to pay
for them in FULL.

And yes, I drink wine; and yes, I smoke (sorry folks, no lectures, I know
it's bad for me, okay?). I'm not going to stop just because some jackass on
Capitol Hill says I shouldn't because I'm "pre-pregnant". I'm not going to
get pregnant. As it stands now, just because I menstruate (on occasion,
every few months! LOL) doesn't mean I will get pregant, never mind the IUD
and John's vasectomy. So screw off and leave my body alone!

Jill

"Cheryl Perkins" wrote in message
...
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

I still do want the perks available through corporate health
insurance, but I also want to see everyone in the US cared for. The
problem IMO is that the socialized medicine countries got it wrong --
no one's willing to pay the taxes.

I am willing to pay taxes for my medical care. I expect most Canadians
are.


Same in the UK. The National Health Service is something most Brits hold
dear to their hearts. The general view is that medical care should be given
on the basis of medical need, not on the basis of your individual purse. All
the political parties make big play about how the Health Service is 'safe'
with them, and privatisation is usually strongly resisted, although our
current government is allowing more and more privatisation (and a pox on
them for it!)

"Monique Y. Mudama" wrote in message
...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...500875_pf.html

I am *not* pre-pregnant. I am human. If I'm going to worry about
alcohol consumption, proper weight, and vitamins, it will be because
of *my* health, not some hypothetical baby. It's insulting. It's
demeaning. As a blog I found somewhere said, reading this makes me
want to down 20 shots of tequila and throw myself down the stairs.

I am not a baby factory. I am on birth control for a reason. Even if
I weren't, I would still find this kind of patronizing, "We know what
you want better than you do and don't trust you to figure out the
right end of a condom" bull**** infuriating.

Here's a quote from the WP article:

"We know that women -- unless you're actively planning [a pregnancy],
. . . she doesn't want to talk about it," Biermann said. So clinicians
must find a "way to do this and not scare women," by promoting
preconception care as part of standard women's health care, she said.

Now, that is scary. They're advocating that physicians not make the
distinction between treatments that are good for a woman and ones that
might be good for a hypothetical fetus.

*kicks Bush administration in the nads, hard*

This one really scares me, although apparently it's ongoing and only
tangentially related to the article ... a woman claims she can't get
access to the majority of epilepsy medications because she's female
and therefore potentially could get pregnant, even though she is
asking desperately to try different meds:

http://shadesong.livejournal.com/2871261.html

What an odd moment for me. In the past week, the wives of two of my
male friends gave birth. Certainly healthy babies are on my mind.
But don't call me pre-pregnant. What a crock.

I do find one poster's suggestion (somewhere; I've been googling
around and don't remember all the places I went) that all men should
be advised to start a "pre-child support" account amusing.


This is rpca, Mo. WTF are you thinking. You'll have everyone taking an extra
Xanax. Or dey widdle heads will howt from the strain of a thought or two
being provoked. Motrin all the way around.

It you are going to post in the pussy groups, it might be best to stick with
your usual "my bike seat hurts" or "i have to go to the dentist, purrs,
please!" bull****. Or of course, the pussies you may or may not have, you
know, the one(s) that were not too inconvenient to keep.



Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

I do find one poster's suggestion (somewhere; I've been googling
around and don't remember all the places I went) that all men should
be advised to start a "pre-child support" account amusing.

That one gets MY vote! (Especially for the low-life creeps
who bail out if their girl-friend finds herself with an
unplanned pregnancy!)

jmcquown wrote:

I have known since I was 16 years old I didn't want to have children. 30
years later I'm still taking measures to prevent it. I agree with you, this
is patronizing as hell and implies any woman who is fertile will act with
casual disregard for not only their own health but the health of a child who
does not yet exist. I started menstruating at age 13; does that mean I
should have been taking folic acid since then? I don't think so!

What's your objection to folic acid? I didn't read the
article, but I was well past child-bearing age when a
nutritional specialist M.D. I consulted put me on folic
acid. He said there were studies that appeared to show that
generous doses of folic acid (I take 2400mcg daily) prevent
uterine cancer. I never much cared whether I reproduced or
not - it didn't happen, but I just figured "that's life".
However, I see no reason NOT to take supplements that may be
beneficial, just because they prescribe them for pregnant
women, as well!

Agreed. I don't want children either.

I'm a bit overweight, but I'm trying to eat less fat (I don't care for
sweet things, but crave meat and cheese in nasty amounts...) and more
veggies and exercise more for MY own good, not for some potential baby
I hope I never have.

My mom didn't know she was pregnant with me until she was 4 months
along since she was told she would not have children by the doctor.
Oops! She was drinking during that time, too, but there's been no
noted effect on me.

--Fil

Cheryl Perkins wrote:

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:


I still do want the perks available through corporate health
insurance, but I also want to see everyone in the US cared for. The
problem IMO is that the socialized medicine countries got it wrong --
no one's willing to pay the taxes.


I am willing to pay taxes for my medical care. I expect most Canadians
are.

And I suspect a majority of USAians would be, too, if we
were given the opportunity! (Especially the large
percentage of families who don't qualify for welfare, but
have no coverage where they work.) When it's a choice
between food and shelter or health insurance, which are they
supposed to choose? At least that way our tax money could
be seen to be doing SOME good.

Our members of Congress don't have to worry - once in
office, they get very good medical coverage (for life, I
think). I think extending those same benefits to the people
who elect them is only reasonable and just, don't you? But
instead of providng care for everyone, they are even
whitling away at the "veterans' benefits" that used to be
available to anyone who had served his/her country in the
military!

Enfilade wrote:
Agreed. I don't want children either.

I'm a bit overweight, but I'm trying to eat less fat (I don't care for
sweet things, but crave meat and cheese in nasty amounts...) and more
veggies and exercise more for MY own good, not for some potential baby
I hope I never have.

My mom didn't know she was pregnant with me until she was 4 months
along since she was told she would not have children by the doctor.
Oops! She was drinking during that time, too, but there's been no
noted effect on me.

--Fil

My mom was told by her doctor to have a couple of glasses of wine at night
to "calm her nerves" (she already had two rambunctious boys, one age 7 and
one age 4). Shows you how times have changed, eh? I don't think I've been
marred by it at all. And I *know* they weren't recommending folic acid as a
supplement back then.

Jill