You can probably guess at the general reaction to this.
If you're not pregnant, you're "pre-pregnant". No other ways about it.
Well this is interesting.
Re: Well this is interesting.
ambrosia wrote:
You can probably guess at the general reaction to this.If you're not pregnant, you're "pre-pregnant". No other ways about it.
Maybe it's just cuz I'm a guy but I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with this. It's just saying keep yourself as healthy as you would be if you were pregnant or planning on it. One of the articles implies that over half of pregnancies are unplanned so it just seems like good, preventative medicine to me.
Are you reacting (or rather implying that others are reacting) to the idea or the wording?
I'm fairly ambivalent because, for the most part, this has no real effect on me whatsoever.
Girls that don't intend to have children and the strongest of the feminists are upset because the nomenclature implies that they are classified based on the status of their uterus, and that there are only two options: "pregnant", and "about to become pregnant".
Also, I've seen it mentioned that this will potentially affect whether certain medications or surgeries can be freely prescribed to women. And that taking contraceptives would be harmful to a fetus (or, you know, "pre-fetus").
ambrosia wrote:
I'm fairly ambivalent because, for the most part, this has no real effect on me whatsoever.Girls that don't intend to have children and the strongest of the feminists are upset because the nomenclature implies that they are classified based on the status of their uterus, and that there are only two options: "pregnant", and "about to become pregnant".
Also, I've seen it mentioned that this will potentially affect whether certain medications or surgeries can be freely prescribed to women. And that taking contraceptives would be harmful to a fetus (or, you know, "pre-fetus").
I can see what you're saying.. and I certainly wouldn't agree with planning certain medical procedures around such a notion but simply taken as health advice I don't see much harm in it -- in much the same way as the four food groups and lowering your cholesterol and not smoking.
I honestly can't fathom someone getting bent out of shape simply over the notion, though: just in case you *do* get pregnant.. wouldn't you want to be in as good health as possible so as to provide a good environment for the gestation of your pre-baby?
On its face is just doesn't seem all that onerous.. I'd say it having an effect on available health care is about as likely as a hospital denying a patient heart surgery because he eats red meat. Which is not to say that it won't happen but rather that it's not a case of the medical/insurance industry targetting women.
ambrosia wrote:
Also, I've seen it mentioned that this will potentially affect whether certain medications or surgeries can be freely prescribed to women. And that taking contraceptives would be harmful to a fetus (or, you know, "pre-fetus").
There's someone on my LJ friends list who can't get certain medications for her epilepsy because she's a "woman of childbearing age." Never mind that she doesn't want another child (she already has a daughter) or that the epilepsy medicines she does take have side effects from hell (including catastrophic weight loss) - and this was before the whole "pre-pregnant" thing. She's asked about getting the medications prescribed and been refused because "you might become pregnant." She can't have the medicines she needs because they could hypothetically damage a hypothetical fetus. She's understandably livid about the whole "pre-pregnant" thing.
tww1fa wrote:
There's someone on my LJ friends list who can't get certain medications for her epilepsy because she's a "woman of childbearing age." Never mind that she doesn't want another child (she already has a daughter) or that the epilepsy medicines she does take have side effects from hell (including catastrophic weight loss) - and this was before the whole "pre-pregnant" thing. She's asked about getting the medications prescribed and been refused because "you might become pregnant." She can't have the medicines she needs because they could hypothetically damage a hypothetical fetus. She's understandably livid about the whole "pre-pregnant" thing.
Wow. Yeah, I'd be pissed. There's no sense in denying somebody necessary treatments now, based on an arrogant supposition that at some undetermined time in the future that individual may or may not conceive a child. These kinds of decisions should be left up to the patient concerned. Some women will opt to be as cautious as possible, and some will feel this sort of thing is going too far. And there's nothing wrong with either course.
As to Buster's point about the healthiness of the advice, I couldn't agree more. Everyone should really being eating and doing the healthiest things possible for their own sake. And, in the event that a woman may decide she wants a baby in the future, it's never a bad time to start taking things like folic acid, upping the exercise, and cutting out the smoking and drinking. But, that decision is her's to make. Some will make it, others won't. That's life.
So, yeah, I can see why some people are really up in arms and afraid that the government will try to take this thing too far, just like they've been trying to with abortion ever since the dawn of time. However, I'm sure the public and activist groups will stay informed enough about things like this to keep them at arms length. Also, lets hope the one forum poster was incorrect about President Bush being pre-dictator-for-life. :roll:
Marg
If anyone's interested on my LJ friend's words on the subject, you can see them at http://shadesong.livejournal.com/2871261.html
You don't think that this, in our minds, associates women as primarily baby-making factories?
And, just for the record, I'm kind of curious how people managed to stay alive for more than 3 weeks way back when we didn't have supplement pills or governments like this to legislate our personal lives for us.
Another aside, consider the effect of working on the assumption that you're about to have a baby on a 9 year old's mind. Cause some girls menstruate that early, or earlier.
Consider as well the effect on a senior woman who is post-menopausal. Do these people just become even more irrelevant and ignored because they're no longer of any use to society? Cause you know, what this world needs is more babies, and less life experiences and wisdom.
Yeah, we're chock full of wisdom here.
Anyway, this legislation is preposterous and offensive, on the grounds that the government is presuming WAY TOO MUCH to FORCE someone to live what they consider a "healthy" lifestyle, because, as has been proven so many times before in the past, the government is PERFECTLY objective, and the people who have the most money never influence what gets pushed on us or not. If you doubt me, just go check out this article http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48458
The idea that
if ONLY you had a law preventing lightning from striking a falling meteorite, causing it to explode into a thousand pieces, 12 of which killed off your entire family when they struck exactly the right vulnerable structural parts of your home, causing it to collapse and breach the gas line JUST as you were lighting the flambe that you spent 4 hours preparing, then you would have been SAFE from that, and you would never have had to go through the TRAUMA of living life and dying death!
is completely stupid.
I mean, yes, all I do is play WoW where I die 598259028 times a day and laugh each time it happens because I know it's not for real---but life is NOT a game, I *realize* that. Shit fucking happens in life, and you can't resurrect at a fucking graveyard so GET THE FUCK OVER IT and go out and take some risks, maybe you'll find that you'll fucking ENJOY breathing non-sterile air, drinking non-bottled water, walking down non-sidewalked paths where you might trip and fall, talking to non-scripted people who might offend you or worse yet, DISAGREE WITH YOU /gasp
IF YOU TRY TO CREATE A UTOPIA, and make no mistake that is *exactly* what the USGov is trying to do, YOU WILL INEVITABLY CREATE A DYSTOPIA.
The greater the homogeny, the worse off we'll be. We cannot grow without diversity and adversity. The only way to deal with opposing or simply different viewpoints is not to neutralize or limit them, but to embrace them, incorporate them. How fucking boring would it be to live in a world populated only by yourself?
Jon
i am a bit shocked. everything i've seen in medical school regarding women's health indicates that if a woman needs medication that is potentially harmful for a fetus if she gets pregnant, the woman gets option of taking the medication if she agrees to avoid getting pregnant. for example, accutane is an acne medication that is very teratogenic. teens put on accutane for severe acne get a talk about not getting pregnant, and contraceptive options generally are discussed. they don't just suffer with their acne for the potential child they may or may not want. if a woman has epilepsy and cannot tolerate other meds, the meds that are potentially harmful for a fetus but could help her should be considered after appropriate discussion to confirm that she understands the potential risks associated with becoming pregnant while on the medication. i understand that some docs may be afraid of the legal liability of prescribing a teratogenic medication that could result in a deformed or otherwise harmed baby if the woman gets pregnant, but... what about the potential lawsuits of refusing to appropriately medicate? why can't they just document that the patient understands the risks and agrees to try not to get pregnant or something like that?
*grumble*
as for the basic idea of wanting better women's health in general, i am all for that, but this "pre-pregnancy" thing seems to be trying to go towards a good idea but for the wrong reasons. women should avoid smoking because it's good for their own health, not for some hypothetical currently nonexistant child's health.
Joined: 2006-05-20