PRE-pregnant? Excuse me?!

[janey]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/05/16/pre_pregnant/index.html

New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon.

Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control.

Since when did the US government have the right to tell women what to do?

Those recommendations are commendable, in fact, ideal and obviously common sense, but ridiculous if this is all because of the belief that women are baby making machines. There are women out there such as myself who aren't interested, who take every precaution not to be pregnant (condom, pill, morning after pills, abortions, etc.) and what? The CDC is telling health care professionals that they should treat us like we're baby making machines? Does that mean that if I need some meds that are like an FDA category B/C/D/X (meaning studies have shown that there is damage to the fetus in animals or humans, or they don't know enough about the drugs to say whether or not it's safe, so for the exception of the category X drugs (like thalidomide), it's up to the doctor and the woman to decide if the benefits outweigh the risks) I can't get it cause there's a huge potential that I might have a baby and in turn the meds might harm the fetus? WHAT THE HELL?!(well, some doctors already do that, but usually they'll give in if you're willing to go on birth control and be careful and all...)

It would be nice if the CDC didn't couch everything in terms of my reproductive capability. And maybe gave a s*it about the other half of whats involved in a pregnancy (the guy). Cause that matters just as much, and they're practically ignoring it there.

It's not just that the CDC said that either, it's combined with everything else this administration has been trying to do for womens reproductive rights, etc. that's making me disgusted. This is seriously bringing back memories of The Handmaid's Tale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid's_Tale).

[blackfox]

I guess I should be considered "pre-ejaculatory" - handle with care...

This is odd...does the "twinkle in my eye™" deserve constitutional protection?

WTF?

[Jaffa Cake]

~snip~Calm down... getting so angry can't be good for the baby you're not carrying. ;)

[mactastic]

And maybe gave a s*it about the other half of whats involved in a pregnancy (the guy). Cause that matters just as much, and they're practically ignoring it there.
Not to mention the life AFTER the womb for the kid. Sure would be nice if the conservatives who go on and on about how sacred pre-born life is would put the same level of enthusiasm into post-born life.

[zimv20]

Since when did the US government have the right to tell women what to do?
i have to wonder when you thought certain segments of the population have stopped trying.

how long do you think until we see a serious challenge to roe v wade? i'm starting to think that the proposed amendment to ban gay marriage has the dual purpose of getting people used to the idea that the constitution is amendable in ways to remove rights. after all, we've had only 2 amendments in the past 35 years.

[janey]

Calm down... getting so angry can't be good for the baby you're not carrying. ;)
*sigh*. I'm an unwoman. The last couple of times I got laid was with a chick and not a guy.

[rockthecasbah]

Since when did the US government have the right to tell women what to do?


I'd like to mention first of all this reaction has nothing to do with gender :)

I think you're over-reacting a little bit. The Federal government does this all the time, NOT just to women. Look at the food pyramid, say-no-to-drugs programs, the list goes on and on. This particular issue is not a requirement, it's an advisory note to women on healthier lifestyles about their bodies and the life of a "potential baby." They aren't forcing, but reccommending what is considered the healthiest according to their studies and whatever. If you disagree, don't listen to them and go on your previously merry little way, but don't get angry at information or the idea of receiving information that could be beneficial to others in the public.

Just my thoughts.

[janey]

i have to wonder when you thought certain segments of the population have stopped trying.
I know, it's depressing. I never thought they stopped, but still...

[vniow]

*sigh*. I'm an unwoman. The last couple of times I got laid was with a chick and not a guy.


See, thats the key. If only the government would encourage more homosexual behaviours, then they wouldn't have to waste resources on crap like this.

Its a win-win situation.

[mactastic]

See, thats the key. If only the government would encourage more homosexual behaviours, then they wouldn't have to waste resources on crap like this.

Its a win-win situation.
More homos = fewer abortions, eh?

But then you'll get all uppity with your 'agenda' and your 'lifestyle'. Can't be having that.

[Ugg]

Is this a new recommendation? If it is, then you've got a right to be concerned, especially with the use of pre-pregnant.

The advice is of course, based on sound science and I think you'd find few people who could argue against it, whether or not a woman is even capable of getting pregnant. Unfortunately, a substantial portion of the US is without medical insurance and likely rarely sees a doctor. Too bad the CDC can't issue a warning that the US medical system is hazardous to a substantial percentage of the population merely out of ignorance.

[Lau]

That really is outrageous. I have no problem of a woman doing that personally - I have a (surprising) number of friends who got pregnant by mistake and are now having or have had a baby.

What really gets me (and reading that really has my back up for some reason), is the assumption, as you say, that women are considered baby-making machines. I'm well aware that if I was to get pregnant now, my lifestyle would not be the ideal start for a wee 'un, but as you say, I take an awful lot of precautions not to be pregnant. I know nothing is 100%, but it's very unlikely. If, by some crazy thing, I did get pregnant, I would have an abortion. It would be unpleasant, but that's what I'd do. I'm 26 now, and have no desire for kids. It may kick in later, but I really doubt it.

So I see no reason at all, why I should be considered pre-pregnant. It's bad enough to be overlooked for jobs because you might run off and have kids, but worse to be denied to make your own health choices because of something that some guy in Congress (or whatever) thinks.

[skunk]

More homos = fewer abortions, eh?

But then you'll get all uppity with your 'agenda' and your 'lifestyle'. Can't be having that.All that grooming would drive me crazy...:)

[skunk]

That really is outrageous. I have no problem of a woman doing that personally - I have a (surprising) number of friends who got pregnant by mistake and are now having or have had a baby.

What really gets me (and reading that really has my back up for some reason), is the assumption, as you say, that women are considered baby-making machines. I'm well aware that if I was to get pregnant now, my lifestyle would not be the ideal start for a wee 'un, but as you say, I take an awful lot of precautions not to be pregnant. I know nothing is 100%, but it's very unlikely. If, by some crazy thing, I did get pregnant, I would have an abortion. It would be unpleasant, but that's what I'd do.

So I see no reason at all, why I should be considered pre-pregnant. It's bad enough to be overlooked for jobs because you might run off and have kids, but worse to be denied to make your own health choices because of something that some guy in Congress (or whatever) thinks.How dare they stand between you and your Higher Consciousness!

;)

[janey]

I think you're over-reacting a little bit...
Hey, they can go do that without telling women it's for the benefit of a nonexistant child. I think the information is good, personally, but the way in which they're discussing that information is ridiculous. It makes me feel like a baby making machine! I mean for crying out loud, I've done a lot of the stuff in that article (the vitamins, the not seriously drinking or drugs, trying to manage the asthma), but not in that particular frame of creating babies.

You haven't seen the CDC propose that guys should be treated the same because guys have just as big of a part as women do in this whole pregnancy deal.

The US government has been funding abstinence-only programs in the US, and pushing for abstinence in countries. Ever hear of the global gag rule? Why is it that any country getting funding from USAID can't mention or provide abortions to women for fear of losing the aid money/goods? Abstinence only education is proven not to work. Teenagers who take abstinence pledges have been SHOWN to have sex earlier and with less safe sex. In fact, they engage in riskier activities, such as oral and anal sex, without any protection because they didn't LEARN that there was such a thing. And now the CDC telling me that I should follow some recommendations PURELY because I have the potential for carrying a fetus..what?! No! That's preposterous! The recommendations themselves are fine, but not the way the CDC presented and recommended them.

Not that a lot of women can even afford good prenatal care (and if it's free, then they really don't often realize that it's free), let alone pre-pregnancy care. Wait, some of them don't even have doctors they regularly visit...


Edit: okay, let me make it clear, it's because this exists in combination with the other things that the government has been doing lately. alone by itself without that language, i would be fine with it.

[zimv20]

unwoman
i've not heard this term before.

[vniow]

If you disagree, don't listen to them and go on your previously merry little way, but don't get angry at information or the idea of receiving information that could be beneficial to others in the public.

The issue I have with this is that it goes too far and assumes waaay too much. Granted there's a lot of unexpected pregnancies and it is good advice, regardless if you're going to get pregnant or not, its the fact that its recommended soley for women who are capable of getting pregnant whic implies to me that this is more of a reproductive rights issue than the legislators actually being concerned about the health of women in this country.
Also it assumes that women are sleeping with someone that can get them pregnant, as janey here proves otherwise. What about lesbian women who by their definition can't generally get pregrant by their partner? Is this advice going to apply to them?

The part that bugs me the most about it is that it assumes that (as mentioned above) baby making machines. This advice isn't for their health, its for that baby which isn't even in their fracking womb. It also assumes that the woman would want to keep the baby in the chance she got pregnant.

Waste of ****ing resources.

[janey]

i've not heard this term before.
it's from the handmaid's tale book. an unwoman is a woman who can't conceive (sterile or just too old) or doesn't want to/can't conceive by definition without.. (lesbians), among other things.

[Lau]

How dare they stand between you and your Higher Consciousness!

;)

Exactly. Bastards! <opens another beer>




I have less of a problem with being told that my lifestyle sucks. What annoys me is that this type of control would only be over women. I have no intention of having kids. I've had the biological urges kick in, but rationally I really don't want them, which overrides, and so I won't get pregnant. Therefore, I would resent being told to alter my lifestyle for reasons that aren't relevant to me, for the same reason I would resent not being given a job because all women around 30 are going to have kids soon, right? :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

it's from the handmaid's tale book. an unwoman is a woman who can't conceive (sterile or just too old) or doesn't want to/can't conceive by definition without.. (lesbians), among other things.
interesting. logically, then, the definition of womanhood is centered around conception. what of femininity? is that now disassociated from being a woman?

[iBlue]

The issue I have with this is that it goes too far and assumes waaay too much. ...

The part that bugs me the most about it is that it assumes that (as mentioned above) baby making machines. This advice isn't for their health, its for that baby which isn't even in their fracking womb. It also assumes that the woman would want to keep the baby in the chance she got pregnant.

Waste of ****ing resources.
totally agree.

It's nice to feel like a walking uterus, isn't it? <sigh>

to quote Bill Maher: "Let's put the fetus on the one dollar bill."

How much more can american government press their thumbs on the control button of our lives? This is a free country, right? :rolleyes:

[janey]

interesting. logically, then, the definition of womanhood is centered around conception. what of femininity? is that now disassociated from being a woman?
if you read the book (it's pretty good too, it's written by margaret atwood), basically the entire society is centered around a woman's ability to have a baby. it's totally disturbing, and this is reminiscent of that.

[vniow]

How come this isn't being applied to males as well, after all, they're the counterpart in getting someone pregnant so shouldn't their health be looked after too? Can't have bad genes in those sperm, no way. Of course the money used to promote these new regulations isn't going to be used for post-natal care, you're on your own for that. The government just wants to make sure that as long as you're pregnant, you're safe.

After that you're on your own.

My internal feminist is getting pretty riled up right about now. ****, and I don't even have a uterus.

[zimv20]

if you read the book (it's pretty good too, it's written by margaret atwood), basically the entire society is centered around a woman's ability to have a baby. it's totally disturbing, and this is reminiscent of that.
thanks for the recommendation.

now... where are my CDC guidelines for making me more virile? and will the CDC recommend that i marry before following their guidelines? maybe they want me to get a vasectomy, then have it reversed after my bachelor party.

[IJ Reilly]

i've not heard this term before.

You just unheard it.

[mactastic]

And of course, if you're white you need to get off your duff and make some babies (http://mediamatters.org/items/200605120006) so we're not overrun by brown folks -- or so says FOXNews' John 'Whitey Rulez' Gibson.

[pseudobrit]

You haven't seen the CDC propose that guys should be treated the same because guys have just as big of a part as women do in this whole pregnancy deal.

Not really, though. I mean, men provide the semen, but fertilisation and gestation are out of their hands. At most the CDC could remind men that unless they've had a vasectomy they should assume a state of fecundity exists.

[janey]

Not really, though. I mean, men provide the semen, but fertilisation and gestation are out of their hands. At most the CDC could remind men that unless they've had a vasectomy they should assume a state of fecundity exists.
It's known that alcohol, among other substances, affects sperm development (sperm takes several weeks to develop) in less than ideal ways...sperm fertilizes the egg...sperm contains an x/y chromosome and hence contributes about half of the genetic material.

Men may not have control over gestation, but still they play a big part in all of this.

[jsw]

Well, for what it's worth, the gov't has also just announced a recommendation for all men to consider themselves pre-paternal. All men between the ages of puberty and death are encouraged to begin saving money for child support, to practice their listening skills, to wake up randomly at night so as to learn to share with potential child issues, etc.

[eva01]

I do have to say it is a good thing to do (the folic acid, etc. etc.) anyway even thou they are going about it the wrong way.

[thedude110]

How come this isn't being applied to males as well

Because it's a foregrounding of pre-existing bias.

The parallel governmental action would be "Men, make sure you only impregnate white women with large breasts."

I think it's right to be outraged at something as outrageous as this. But we also need to be outraged at the source of the bias and not lose sight of the larger cultural discrimination this suggests ...

[devilot]

Thanks Janey for bringing this up, I hadn't heard of this yet. And no, I do NOT think you were over-reacting.

I wish I had more to say, but I think the basics have already been covered:

government telling individuals how to live/ treat their bodies
society as a whole still viewing women's major role as baby-makers
unequal treatment-- the lack of initiative demanded of men

My internal feminist is getting pretty riled up right about now.:D Mine, too.

[FFTT]

Hey I was born PRE-Cancerous!

In this world, it's a freekin crap shoot thanks to poor regulations of big corporate industry.

[solvs]

Also it assumes that women are sleeping with someone that can get them pregnant
Do you actually expect them to think about lesbians. Have you met our government? Now, I love thinking about lesbians, or even just saying lesbians, but the government is like your Grandma. They just think it's a phase and you haven't met the right boy yet. Abortion, and even birth control, aren't even thought of in this scenario, but oddly those who can't have children are. I'm assuming those who can but are single are just thought of a needing to find a right boy or the possibility of rape and not getting an abortion. Again, this is the government we're talking about.

Seriously though, the wording and implementation are the weird parts for me. I mean, guidelines are nice and all, but why even bring the pregnancy aspect into it. At least, in that way. They don't make pregnancies sound like a possibility in some women, but more like an obligation. Maybe overreacting a bit, but maybe not. Very oddly worded. Freudian slip?

[pseudobrit]

It's known that alcohol, among other substances, affects sperm development (sperm takes several weeks to develop) in less than ideal ways...sperm fertilizes the egg...sperm contains an x/y chromosome and hence contributes about half of the genetic material.

Men may not have control over gestation, but still they play a big part in all of this.

Of course men provide half the genetic material, but there's very little chance and a very narrow window for an unhealthy lifestyle to alter his chromosomes.

The woman provides so much more than just chromosomes, and she controls the environment in which the embryo and foetus will develop.

It isn't helpful to tell men to equally change their ways when the health of the baby doesn't hinge on their actions.

[Chundles]

OK, now, there's folate in pretty much every breakfast cereal here so that's one down.

The rest of that list looks more like a common-sense thing than a women-only thing.

But if it is a women-only thing and I try to do the list, does that mean I'm a pre-pregnant male?

I hope so, cause then I can call my "study-tummy" a "baby-bump" and try to get into the tabloids.

Ah well, time for dinner, I'm eating for two now.

[mischief]

Had to share this one, accident or not it's funny as hell:

[iBlue]

Had to share this one, accident or not it's funny as hell:
quote works for me with a lot less effort. :p

[mischief]

quote works for me with a lot less effort. :p

not the post. The ad below it. Sperm bank.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

If you're a white male, ages 35 - dead (Strom Thurman), vote republican, contribute to the "party", watch fox news, refrain from reading, and are the CEO of a major multi-national corporation, then sure, they love you!

Otherwise, back of the bus.

Not to mention the life AFTER the womb for the kid. Sure would be nice if the conservatives who go on and on about how sacred pre-born life is would put the same level of enthusiasm into post-born life.

[amateurmacfreak]

Not to mention the life AFTER the womb for the kid. Sure would be nice if the conservatives who go on and on about how sacred pre-born life is would put the same level of enthusiasm into post-born life.
Probs the most awesome statement I've ever heard.

[dornoforpyros]

More homos = fewer abortions, eh?



HAHA thats the best thing I've read all day

[MarkCollette]

I find it hilarious how pissy you're all getting.

How dare the government recommend I be healthy, so that, in the event of an unplanned pregnancy coming to term, the baby will have less chance of birth defects.

What if your mom tells you to wear clean panties in case you get hit by a bus? Are you going to berate her for thinking of you only as a gastrointestinal system in white cotton gift wrapping?

[janey]

I find it hilarious how pissy you're all getting.

How dare the government recommend I be healthy, so that, in the event of an unplanned pregnancy coming to term, the baby will have less chance of birth defects.

What if your mom tells you to wear clean panties in case you get hit by a bus? Are you going to berate her for thinking of you only as a gastrointestinal system in white cotton gift wrapping?
It's not the being healthy part, which is perfectly fine. It's the government part. If the government told me to wear clean panties in case I got hit by a bus, I'd be pissed. The government shouldn't have much of a say in how I should be treated purely because I happen to not have a penis, and I'm fertile.

Also, cause, you know, there are some women who take every precaution in order to not be pregnant, find it impossible to be pregnant, don't want to be thought of as baby-making machines, choose not to have babies, and/or would more likely get an abortion than let an infant with severe birth defects be born into this world who probably don't want to be treated like their body exists purely for procreation.

[MarkCollette]

It's not the being healthy part, which is perfectly fine. It's the government part. If the government told me to wear clean panties in case I got hit by a bus, I'd be pissed. The government shouldn't have much of a say in how I should be treated purely because I happen to not have a penis, and I'm fertile.

Also, cause, you know, there are some women who take every precaution in order to not be pregnant, find it impossible to be pregnant, don't want to be thought of as baby-making machines, choose not to have babies, and/or would more likely get an abortion than let an infant with severe birth defects be born into this world who probably don't want to be treated like their body exists purely for procreation.

The government is not forcing anyone, they're just informing people. I prefer being informed of things, even if they don't apply to me, so that I can tell family and friends to whom it does apply.

They're merely asking women to take the perspective that, if they become pregnant in the future, there's prep work ahead of time, and that time may well be now. To me that's like acknowledging that we all die, and there's this pre-death time, called life, and maybe right now is part of that time. So, please have a will, and have things in place for your estate and any dependants. Yeah, it's a harsh reality to some, but it's life. Deal with it.

I think that people here are saying that they don't want to be thought of as only for procreation, when all the hypersensitivity really tells me that you guys have issues with reproduction itself, and just don't want to be reminded of it. And that's fine. I don't like being reminded that I'm too poor to buy the stuff I want, and not tall or handsome enough to date some pretty women, or smart enough to accomplish everything I'd like. And on another hand, maybe I find baseball boring, and don't want to hear about it, or find beer commercials unappealing because I don't like beer. Whatever. I recognise these are my issues, and don't blame others who bring it up. And I don't act like I'm being victimised by being exposed to information. And I'm not narcissistic enough to feel, that a public service announcement somehow determines how others think of me, are really care at all if it does.

[mactastic]

(Without presuming to speak for janey) She's sensitive to this issue because many times things intended to 'keep women in their place' have been sold on the basis of 'knowing what is best for you'.

If there wasn't such a long and storied history of misogeny in this county it might be easier to let things like this go.

[MarkCollette]

(Without presuming to speak for janey) She's sensitive to this issue because many times things intended to 'keep women in their place' have been sold on the basis of 'knowing what is best for you'.

If there wasn't such a long and storied history of misogeny in this county it might be easier to let things like this go.

Yeah, that's true. It's like, some things start as being told they're best for you, then someone says "let's encourage that", and then pretty quick it's "let's discourage not doing that", and then it's "let's make it the law".

For myself, I'd love to live in freedom to do whatever I want (to myself), but have easy access to the information that would allow me to make my own decisions. No matter how harsh that information might be. Not that things shouldn't be communicated with tact. (Lost track of the negations there)

[thedude110]

The government is not forcing anyone, they're just informing people.

They're merely asking women to take the perspective that, if they become pregnant in the future, there's prep work ahead of time, and that time may well be now.



I think the language you're forced to use both hides and reveals the bias latent in the idea.

Can I dissect?

They're (in this case government, which we can fairly define in the US as a bunch of white men) merely asking (and there's nothing mere about asking someone to change their world view) women to take the perspective that (to not have a mind of their own but rather to adopt a sensible, white male view) if they become pregnant in the future (fine on its own) there's prep work ahead of time, and that time may well be now (such that: you're not a baby factory, but you might be a baby factory, so safest to assume you are in an ongoing state of baby factorydom. And shouldn't you be in the kitchen?).

So I get playful at the end, and I don't mean to offend (I know we're all defensive about our language use and that our language is deeply personal and a tactic such as this may be somewhat hurtful). But I think it's important to recognize that what we say, and how we think, isn't received universally -- and that it may very well say things we don't intend.

And do pull apart my interpretation if you'd like, as you owe it to me.

[MarkCollette]

I think the language you're forced to use both hides and reveals the bias latent in the idea.

Can I dissect?

They're (in this case government, which we can fairly define in the US as a bunch of white men) merely asking (and there's nothing mere about asking someone to change their world view) women to take the perspective that (to not have a mind of their own but rather to adopt a sensible, white male view) if they become pregnant in the future (fine on its own) there's prep work ahead of time, and that time may well be now (such that: you're not a baby factory, but you might be a baby factory, so safest to assume you are in an ongoing state of baby factorydom. And shouldn't you be in the kitchen?).

So I get playful at the end, and I don't mean to offend (I know we're all defensive about our language use and that our language is deeply personal and a tactic such as this may be somewhat hurtful). But I think it's important to recognize that what we say, and how we think, isn't received universally -- and that it may very well say things we don't intend.

And do pull apart my interpretation if you'd like, as you owe it to me.


I have to say, I did laugh when I read your dissection :)

1. The report came from the CDC, not the house of representatives. I wouldn't say that the "government" is a bunch of white men, because the government consists of many many parts, each of which employ women to varying degrees. Plus, this paper is based on scientific medical evidence, most likely collected by nurses, who are overwhelmingly female.

2. If something has been shown to be factual, or statistically probable, then is it an imposition to ask other to take it into consideration?

3. There was no mention, in the articles, about women being subordinate. Had that been the case, then most likely the report would have been targetted to a patriarchial receiver, instead of directly to women, which implies a consensus that women are in control of their own lives.

4. I can't count how many times I've had sex in the kitchen, so clearly there is a link between conception and kitchens :)

[janey]

If you read the article(s), it's a CDC recommendation (fine on its own, how many times do I have to say this...), but they are asking health care people to treat women as if they were pre-pregnant, in addition to the garden-variety recommendation for women to take care of themselves (which is couched in terms of the woman's reproductive capabilities). That could have some serious consequences on the quality of medical care given to women just because they are women, and it's pretty bad to begin with..

Death is inevitable (well, right now, that is). Pregnancy isn't inevitable. There is a difference between an event that will happen and one that may happen. Planning for a death makes perfect sense. Planning for a pregnancy-never-gonna-happen and be treated like it is going to happen anyway by the all-important healthcare professionals is infuriating.

Yeah, some people have reproductive issues, or do not want to reproduce - what are they going to be other than insanely irate if they are told to take care of their body because they're young enough to reproduce? Ooh, what do you do if you can't physically have kids? What if your partner is female and you're not interested in having a kid? What if this? What if that?... I don't want to reproduce, and I'm following most of their recommendations now anyway, but I'm not doing it based on the unlikely possibility of a pregnancy. I don't see WHY it has to be based on the possibility of a pregnancy, I think it's just obviously common sense that doctors have been telling their patients, that the government's been recommending WITHOUT MENTIONING PREGNANCY, that mothers have been passing onto their daughters, sister to sister, friend to friend, whatever ANYWAY to begin with.

Also, if the CDC had the time and put in the effort to tell all women to do those things because they have a uterus, how come they don't do anything about providing emergency contraception to rape victims? We've all heard of the dozens and dozens of stories of female rape victims who were denied, misinformed, and/or uninformed of the existence of the morning after pill, which is legal grounds for a medical malpractice suit. That is one huge issue I would like to be informed about that the american female population is grossly uninformed on and that the government isn't really doing **** about. Oh, the health of a possibly nonexistant fetus (ooooh we dont know we really dont but we think you'll have one, maybe!) trumps that of the mental and physical health of a completely extant rape victim? (oh please, of course it doesn't)


This is a patriarchal society, not so much so, but it's clear that there is a fine divide between men and women and what kind of power they hold. And the recommendation reads like I have to take care of myself because I could potentially have a kid. WHAT?!?! I will take care of myself for the sake of taking care of myself, no kid/pregnancy/fetus/infant/whatever involved, thanks.

[MarkCollette]

That could have some serious consequences on the quality of medical care given to women just because they are women, and it's pretty bad to begin with..

It's bad that they would recommend people be healthier than they normally would? :rolleyes:

Death is inevitable (well, right now, that is). Pregnancy isn't inevitable. There is a difference between an event that will happen and one that may happen. Planning for a death makes perfect sense. Planning for a pregnancy-never-gonna-happen and be treated like it is going to happen anyway by the all-important healthcare professionals is infuriating.

I wasn't focussing on the inevitability of death, but the potential for it to happen at an unpredicted time.

Yeah, some people have reproductive issues, or do not want to reproduce

Lots of people have issues where if they were to get pregnant, there would likely be complications and likely a miscarriage. My Dad's second wife had problems like that. If anything, telling those people to think of themselves as pre-pregnant, would reinforce, in those people's minds, to maintain their precautions to not get pregnant. Another example is, I've taken Accutane for years. If I were a woman, I would have to be very careful to not get pregnant, because of the high chances of birth defects. Treating me as pre-pregnant would not be wrong, because the possibility would still exist, even though the outcome would definitely not be good.

what are they going to be other than insanely irate if they are told to take care of their body because they're young enough to reproduce?

That's the crux of this discussion. The whole insanely irate bit. Personally, I think it's a good idea to take are of our bodies, regardless of which specific one of a plethora of reasons that some other people might have.

Ooh, what do you do if you can't physically have kids? What if your partner is female and you're not interested in having a kid? What if this? What if that?...

Simple. Stop being mad, get over it, and ignore it. And don't think that a public discussion, relevant to the majority, has no place due to the issues of a minority.

I don't want to reproduce, and I'm following most of their recommendations now anyway, but I'm not doing it based on the unlikely possibility of a pregnancy. I don't see WHY it has to be based on the possibility of a pregnancy, I think it's just obviously common sense that doctors have been telling their patients, that the government's been recommending WITHOUT MENTIONING PREGNANCY, that mothers have been passing onto their daughters, sister to sister, friend to friend, whatever ANYWAY to begin with.

Common sense isn't all that common. Not everyone teaches their kids properly. Not everyone passes on information at the right time. With kids being sexually active before their parents realise, that takes on even more meaning.

Also, if the CDC had the time and put in the effort to tell all women to do those things because they have a uterus, how come they don't do anything about providing emergency contraception to rape victims? We've all heard of the dozens and dozens of stories of female rape victims who were denied, misinformed, and/or uninformed of the existence of the morning after pill, which is legal grounds for a medical malpractice suit. That is one huge issue I would like to be informed about that the american female population is grossly uninformed on and that the government isn't really doing **** about. Oh, the health of a possibly nonexistant fetus (ooooh we dont know we really dont but we think you'll have one, maybe!) trumps that of the mental and physical health of a completely extant rape victim? (oh please, of course it doesn't)

Totally agree with you that more should be done in that area. Of course, that in no way invalidates this issue.

This is a patriarchal society, not so much so, but it's clear that there is a fine divide between men and women and what kind of power they hold. And the recommendation reads like I have to take care of myself because I could potentially have a kid. WHAT?!?! I will take care of myself for the sake of taking care of myself, no kid/pregnancy/fetus/infant/whatever involved, thanks.

Ahh, but not everyone respects themselves so much. Some people only start taking care of themselves because of their dependants.