PRE-pregnant? Excuse me?!

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by janey, May 18, 2006.

  1. janey macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #1
    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

    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.
     
  2. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #2
    I guess I should be considered "pre-ejaculatory" - handle with care...

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

    WTF?
     
  3. Jaffa Cake macrumors Core

    Jaffa Cake

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    The City of Culture, Englandshire
    #3
    Calm down... getting so angry can't be good for the baby you're not carrying. ;)
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    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.
     
  5. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #5
    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.
     
  6. janey thread starter macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #6
    *sigh*. I'm an unwoman. The last couple of times I got laid was with a chick and not a guy.
     
  7. rockthecasbah macrumors 68020

    rockthecasbah

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Location:
    Moorestown, NJ
    #7
    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.
     
  8. janey thread starter macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #8
    I know, it's depressing. I never thought they stopped, but still...
     
  9. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #9

    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.
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    More homos = fewer abortions, eh?

    But then you'll get all uppity with your 'agenda' and your 'lifestyle'. Can't be having that.
     
  11. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #11
    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.
     
  12. Lau Guest

    #12
    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.
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    All that grooming would drive me crazy...:)
     
  14. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #14
    How dare they stand between you and your Higher Consciousness!

    ;)
     
  15. janey thread starter macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #15
    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.
     
  16. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #16
    i've not heard this term before.
     
  17. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #17
    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.
     
  18. janey thread starter macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #18
    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.
     
  19. Lau Guest

    #19
    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:
     
  20. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #20
    interesting. logically, then, the definition of womanhood is centered around conception. what of femininity? is that now disassociated from being a woman?
     
  21. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #21
    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:
     
  22. janey thread starter macrumors 603

    janey

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Location:
    sunny los angeles
    #22
    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.
     
  23. vniow macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    I accidentally my whole location.
    #23
    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.
     
  24. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #24
    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.
     
  25. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #25
    You just unheard it.
     

Share This Page