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

"Marina" wrote in message
...
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, "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:


Someone mentioned "The Handmaid's Tale" on another thread. This somehow
made me think of that novel again. ;o/

How strange, it made *me* think of it too.

Tweed

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, "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.


Me too! They make the assumption that women who aren't pregnant want to
achieve that state as the crowning moment of their lives, and ASAP, or
that they SHOULD want this.(Maybe that's why the Right Wing is so wiggy
on the topic of Abstinence Only sex ed--subconsciously, they want women
to start having babies and fast.) I too am a current human being and
not a walking potential incubator, thanks very much.

I don't want to knock motherhood, I just believe the best reason to
have children is because you very much WANT children. Women who want
children and can't or have troubles conceiving have my sympathy. I
just don't happen to want a child, and I don't consider myself either
"Pre-Pregnant" or as an unfeminine person because I'm not currently
seeking motherhood. Pass the Tequila, Monique!

Melissa

On 2006-05-27, Enfilade penned:

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.

My mom was told by two doctors that she wouldn't be able to have any
more kids. Then one day, my parents were at a fish market and mom got
sick. Instantly, she said, forget about buying a boat, I'm pregnant!

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

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

On 2006-05-27, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) penned:

What's your objection to folic acid?

I can't speak for Jill, but my objection is against being told I
should do something for a non-existent and undesired fetus, rather
than for myself.

It also seems to start pushing people in the "it's a baby" direction.
With abortion being such a touchy subject in the US, I don't want any
kind of official pronouncements that seem to encourage a thought
process that would make abortion illegal.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

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

Shiral wrote:

Me too! They make the assumption that women who aren't pregnant want to
achieve that state as the crowning moment of their lives, and ASAP, or
that they SHOULD want this.(Maybe that's why the Right Wing is so wiggy
on the topic of Abstinence Only sex ed--subconsciously, they want women
to start having babies and fast.) I too am a current human being and
not a walking potential incubator, thanks very much.

I don't want to knock motherhood, I just believe the best reason to
have children is because you very much WANT children. Women who want
children and can't or have troubles conceiving have my sympathy. I
just don't happen to want a child, and I don't consider myself either
"Pre-Pregnant" or as an unfeminine person because I'm not currently
seeking motherhood. Pass the Tequila, Monique!

Melissa

I think public attitude is a little better WRT that than thirty years
ago. People just assumed something was wrong with you if you didn't
have children by the time you were 35. No one ever gave any regard to
the fact that some women didn't *want* children, and were wise enough
not to have them for that reason.
I hope it is better now. My daughter doesn't have children; I don't
think she ever will. I'm glad she is confident of herself enough to
know what she wants. I never mention it to her. I've seen women my age
absolutely *hound* their daughters because they want grandchildren.
That is so wrong.
As a side note: I took offense to the cat-litter portion of that
article. For goodness sakes, they didn't even mention gloves and masks
and being careful. It left the impression that *no* woman of
child-bearing age should change the cat litter. How silly!


Sherry

On 2006-05-27, Cheryl Perkins penned:
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.

That's why Canadian doctors are moving to the more lucrative US,

The ones I've known have moved (a) to get advanced training before
coming home (b) to earn enough money to pay off a chunk of their
student loan debt before coming home or (c) to get personally rich.

(c) is easier in the US, paricularly in certain specialties, because
US medical professionals are highly paid by comparison to those in
other countries.

This is where I get the impression that people in, say, Canada, aren't
willing to pay the taxes. What I mean by that is, if Canada paid its
doctors a competitive wage, most of them would presumably stay in
Canada. As the wages presumably come from taxes, I get the impression
that Canadians don't want to pay (enough) for medical care.

As I think about it, there's a problem in the opposite direction. I
knew a Canadian at my old job who said he and his wife had left Canada
because the taxes were so high already ... he said as they didn't plan
on having children any time soon, they wouldn't benefit from the more
liberal approach to maternity leave etc, and it was a drain on their
finances.

and it takes weeks or months to get tests done.

It depends on the test. I have gotten routine blood tests done in
days (mainly because I didn't want to bother to have the blood drawn
the same day), and back in anywhere from hours to weeks, depending
on the degree of urgency.

It just seems like I've heard a lot about tests that require
specialized, expensive equipment being hard to come by in various
countries. That seems to me to loop back to my point about not paying
enough.

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.

What???? The Canadian/US tax thing comes up periodically. It is
*extremely* difficult to do an accurate comparison, but it seems
likely that for *most* people, when you compare *similar* situations
(city size, income levels, income source (from employment) etc),
their tax rates would be similar, although not identical. When you
see a report claiming that Canada has far higher tax rates, check to
see if the US figures include property tax (typically much higher in
the US than Canada), and other local and state taxes. Often, they
don't. Sales taxes should also be included on both sides, as well as
state/provincial and federal income taxes. And make sure whoever's
reporting it isn't comparing the highest tax area of Canada to the
lowest tax area of the US, or vice versa.

And once you've got a reasonably accurate comparison, you can start
to consider what's covered by the amount you pay - health care? For
the US, add that in. Garbage collection? Highway maintenance? And so
on, but the big one is of course health care.

The whole thing is complicated, which is why people who want to go
south to get the big bucks should generally get professional advice
from tax lawyers, accountants or financial advisors who specialize
in such issues.

All of your points are good. All I'm really trying to say is, it
seems to me (uneducated as I am, and not embedded in the system) that
to get the kind of health care to which I am accustomed in a
socialized system, a whole lot more taxes would have to go to the
medical system than already are in places that do have that system. I
base that on a variety of comments I've seen here about the difficulty
of finding doctors who are taking new patients in the UK and Canada,
the ability to get an MRI promptly, etc. Granted I am picking and
choosing the scenarios that sounded worst to me. Granted a lot of
people in the US would be happy to have the kind of coverage available
in the UK or Canada vs. the nothing they have right now.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

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

On 2006-05-27, Marina penned:
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'm perfectly willing to pay the taxes for our universal health
care. Or did you mean that Americans are not prepared to pay the
taxes?

See my post in response to Cheryl ... my feeling (primarily based on
posts over the last couple of years on this group, so granted not a
great and unbiased source) is that countries with socialized medicine
don't pay *enough* taxes to get the kind of coverage I can get in the
US via my insurance payments plus what I pay out of pocket.

Although I'm about ready to do something violent to the execs at my
insurance company. Once again they have refused to pay for something
on the grounds that they're not sure I don't have other insurance. So
I get to call again. I am so ****ed off about this. Eventually they
will pay. I'm pretty sure they are confused because they are my
primary (and only) medical insurance, but my secondary dental, and
they can't tell their buttholes from a hole in the ground. Because
they're my secondary for dental, they can't get their heads around the
fact that they're my primary for medical.

Or maybe they're just f'ing with me.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

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

On 2006-05-27, Karen penned:

Oh for God's sake. Why don't you just wrap us up in tissue paper and
not allow us to do anything "workplace hazards" "cat feces". So, the
bottom line is impose as many limitations as possible on any woman
because she MIGHT at SOME POINT get pregnant. This is SOOOOO
incredibly Big Brother I can barely keep from throwing up.

Bingo.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

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

jmcquown wrote:
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:
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!

I have no objection to folic acid, but this article is recommending anyone
who is of age to become pregnant needs to start taking it immediately. Why?
And who is going to pay for it? IMHO, most supplements are *very* expensive
and aren't covered by insurance (assuming you have insurance). If my doctor
recommends folic acid, I'll be happy to take it. Otherwise, my point is,
the government isn't going to tell me I must take it.

Jill

These are just recommendations though. No different from the
recommendation that we have yearly mammograms, pap smears, don't smoke,
eat right and exercise. No one's going to throw you in jail for not
taking folic acid. At least, not yet. :-)

Sherry

On 2006-05-27, penned:

These are just recommendations though. No different from the
recommendation that we have yearly mammograms, pap smears, don't
smoke, eat right and exercise. No one's going to throw you in jail
for not taking folic acid. At least, not yet. :-)

Of course it's different. They recommend yearly mammograms and pap
smears for *your* health. Not just in case you get pregnant. Same
for the others.

And with the way this country is going, I'm afraid I'll have a chance
to throw your "not yet" comment back in your face in a few years =/

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

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