If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
[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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Pre-pregnant? I think I'm gonna pre-puke
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Pre-pregnant? I think I'm gonna pre-puke
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] Pre-pregnant? I think I'm gonna pre-puke
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Pre-pregnant? I think I'm gonna pre-puke
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] Pre-pregnant? I think I'm gonna pre-puke
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] Pre-pregnant? I think I'm gonna pre-puke
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] Pre-pregnant? I think I'm gonna pre-puke
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Pre-pregnant? I think I'm gonna pre-puke
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cat Puke | Rachel | Cat health & behaviour | 2 | March 8th 06 05:34 AM |
[OT] Why we love children - humor | CatNipped | Cat anecdotes | 9 | November 28th 05 03:27 AM |
is cat really pregnant? | Calvin Rice | Cat health & behaviour | 20 | August 8th 05 01:17 PM |
[OT] Yowlet Update 30th March 5am | Yowie | Cat anecdotes | 15 | April 4th 04 02:39 AM |
When is it ok to fix a pregnant Queen? | Mike Romain | Cat health & behaviour | 14 | October 10th 03 05:10 AM |