PDA

View Full Version : pre-pregnant?



Sunny
05-18-2006, 10:03 AM
...

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875_pf.html

Tizzalicious
05-18-2006, 10:11 AM
I thought this would be about abortions. All it does is confirm my opinions.

Also, I made a neat word while drunk and watching Cider House Rules. Abortionage.

- WCM

HornyPope
05-18-2006, 11:25 AM
Ah, but does it work for women who are a little bit pregnant?

Betty
05-18-2006, 11:37 AM
Ha!

"...refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control."

Apparently this is unecessary if not "pre-pregnant"?

Rag Doll
05-18-2006, 11:43 AM
I really dislike being treated as an incubator.

Sunny
05-18-2006, 12:38 PM
I really dislike being treated as an incubator.

pshh, what's with you crazy feminists thinking you have the right to choose what you want to do with your body? think of the BABIES! BAY-BEEZ!

Vera
05-18-2006, 01:09 PM
This is so insensitive! Some people can't even get pre-pregnant. :mad:

JohnnyNemesis
05-18-2006, 01:20 PM
pshh, what's with you crazy feminists thinking you have the right to choose what you want to do with your body? think of the BABIES! BAY-BEEZ!

Hey hey hey wait a miniute! You better show me some testosterone if you think you're allowed to speak, babyfactory!

Mota Boy
05-18-2006, 02:32 PM
I actually support this. I mean, as long as they're guidelines and not laws, what's to complain about? As it says, half of all pregnancies are unplanned, and children often end up suffering the consequences of actions taken by the mother. In order to reduce this, your doctor is now going to recommend that you take folic acid and treat your body well if you're engaging in sexual activity. It's not a mandate; it's simple advice you have the choice of following that could end up being enormously beneficial if you get knocked up.

I figure this is how the government should work for many issues that affect their own health - ensure that the public has as much access as possible to potentially life-saving information and then let them make the choice themselves.

clokey43
05-18-2006, 03:24 PM
When put like that it actually sounds like a good idea. Guidelines should be ok, it's still your choice if you follow it or not. However, it is a little insensitive to those unable to conceive naturally or at all.

Nicole
05-19-2006, 01:55 AM
I have mixed feelings about this.

The ideas behind the health measures they're pushing for such as not smoking, not doing drugs, eating right, managing asthma and diabetes... hasn't this been done to death? Aren't these health issues reguardless of being male, female, pregnant or not?

The infant mortality rate and low birth weight issues aren't going to be solved by throwing the same facts around over and over. Most of these issues come from people of low SES background who can't afford to have adequate health care. Having doctors treat women like baby-factories won't bridge the huge gaps in the US health system.

It's a valid point but so not the right way to handle it.

Sunny
05-19-2006, 09:36 AM
Mota, my problem with this isn't the actual guidelines. sure, people should give up smoking, keep their diabetes/asthma under control and treat themselves well. we can all agree on this one. it's the reasoning behind it that bothers me.

first, it basically puts women on the level of baby-making machines that should be kept well-oiled for the purpose of successfully making said babies. defining a every woman's state as "pre-pregnant" is just plain offensive. as RD already said, it essentially describes us as incubators that should keep their insides nice and ready for the baby. how about dealing with women's health (asthma, diabetes) for the sake of the WOMAN's wellbeing?

what about homosexual women? are they pre-pregnant too, or should they let their asthma and diabetes run wild?

perhaps a doctor should ask if the woman is planning (or willing) to ever have a baby, and if so, define her state as pre-pregnant and give her those guidelines.

Little_Miss_1565
05-19-2006, 01:22 PM
Sunny's right. It's not the guidelines themselves, because being healthy is never a bad idea, but the idea of "pre-pregnancy" implies that it is part of the job of being a woman that we HAVE to reproduce--which many women don't want to do at all. The idea is incredibly insulting, not to mention demeaning.

Mota Boy
05-19-2006, 01:33 PM
Again though, from the article, half of all pregnancies are unplanned. It doesn't matter whether or not you want to get pregnant, you still might. And if you got pregnant and decided to keep it, wouldn't you want the very best for your child? The government's telling you how to provide that. I think of the logic behind it being to aid in your own happiness as well as protect potential future life, not rolling back the definition of a woman.

And in regard to lesbians, they can just laugh. As can nuns when they get a check-up. They are also going to be told to seek help about medical problems - doctors have been telling people to do something about serious medical issues prior to this announcement and they'll continue to do it afterwards. They're just throwing in some additional knowledge. "Pre-pregnant" is a bit of a silly term and brings to mind images of women as little factories, so the terminology might need to be reevalutated, but I think the reasoning behind it is sound.

If I went to the doctor and he said "By the way, you should try to take folic acid supplements. That way, your sperm will be healthier and, if you accidentally impregnate a woman, there will be less of a chance that the child will be born with serious health problems." I wouldn't think "Screw you, breeder. I'm not a pre-impregnator!" I'd think "Hmmm, I wonder if Centrum has folic acid in it."

Again, I think it's perfectly fine as long as you're not coerced into anything. The government has an interest in the general health of the public, and it's doing its job by providing us with the best possible information, then allowing us to make our own decisions.

JohnnyNemesis
05-19-2006, 02:29 PM
True enough, Mota, but I agree wholeheartedly with Sam, Sunny, and 1565. Regardless of the intentions, language is powerful, and the whole thing does imply that women are incubators just because they're capable of having children. There really are other ways to go about this, but this right here is completely insulting towards women. I'm pretty pissed off about it, actually.

Rag Doll
05-19-2006, 02:38 PM
how about dealing with women's health (asthma, diabetes) for the sake of the WOMAN's wellbeing?

Exactly. It's like, if you're not capable of popping out some kids, fuck you! No one cares about you! We only care about BABIES! And women that can produce BABIES! Whether they want them or not.

T-6005
05-19-2006, 08:52 PM
Exactly. It's like, if you're not capable of popping out some kids, fuck you! No one cares about you! We only care about BABIES! And women that can produce BABIES! Whether they want them or not.
Are you saying you don't love babies? You horrible person.

Little_Miss_1565
05-19-2006, 09:54 PM
Again though, from the article, half of all pregnancies are unplanned. It doesn't matter whether or not you want to get pregnant, you still might. And if you got pregnant and decided to keep it, wouldn't you want the very best for your child? The government's telling you how to provide that. I think of the logic behind it being to aid in your own happiness as well as protect potential future life, not rolling back the definition of a woman.

It's not the government's job to tell me how to aid my happiness. It is supposed to protect the country and provide social security. Government is not supposed to be a big brother telling me what to do with my reproductive capability.

How about the Bush administration make it not impossible for all women to have equal access to contraception? Then, men wouldn't have to worry about our "unplanned pregnancies" so much.

Mota Boy
05-19-2006, 11:41 PM
Why not? Doctors already tell fat people that they need to be less fat. Every once in a while, fat people sue those doctors for being insensitive to their happiness. It's not that the doctors are being insensitive, it's that they're dispensing medical advice. This advice might make you uncomfortable, but it's still medical advice that doctors, as doctors trying to ensure public health, should dispense.

Again, government as big brother tells you that driving drunk is bad. Tells you that venereal diseases exist and how to avoid them (through condom usage or abstinence, depending on the administration, but I know my parents sure as hell didn't sit me down and give me that talk). Tells you that drinking to excess is bad. Tells you that smoking crack while you're pregnant with a child is bad.

Yes, the Bush administration should make contraceptives more available, but that's a seperate argument. And even so, no contraceptive is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. I know two people that were doing everything "correctly", and still ended up pregnant. And sometimes you don't even know how you'll react until you see two lines on the EPT. Fuck, I know of men that accidentally impregnated women that couldn't get them to abort when they tried.

Once again, one in two of all pregnancies are unplanned. It's not a simple world where people that don't want to have babies don't have them and people that want to have them do.

And once more, not everyone has access to this information, and I really do not like the idea that it should be withheld because it makes people uncomfortable. I don't like the government telling me to do many things with my body. But I think the government has a responsibility to make sure that I know exactly what the consequences are for my actions. Yes, the idea that your own actions perpetuated against yourself could somehow affect future offspring is a bit uncomfortable and slightly Orwellian in that it's an attempt at getting you to change your lifestyle for the greater sake of society, but we're talking scientific fact here. If it makes millions of women uncomfortable, but saves one life, I'm all for it. I'm from the Mill...ian(?) school of thought, where you can't measure psychological damage, but you can quantify physical trauma. If this information could save a life or two, or prevent one child from becoming mentally retarded, then scream it from the tops of the mountains. Even if I do not like it, I sure as hell am not going to repress it for that reason if I see its possible benefits to others.

Mota Boy
05-19-2006, 11:50 PM
Ha! To cite "Overheardinnewyork.com" (a website that all of you, 'specially Miss '65, should check out)


Man on cell: Good morning! How are you?
Man: Tell me the bad news...
Man: No, really... Tell me the bad news
Man: You're PREGNANT? How did that happen?
Man: I know how it happened...but I mean...I thought you were on the pill!
Man: Well, what are we going to do about this? [pause] I can't have a kid with you. [pause] I'M MARRIED!

--47th & Avenue of the Americas

sKratch
05-20-2006, 12:38 AM
I'm fully with Mota. I thought I was crazy for not seeing much anything wrong with the article until he replied. I'm going to have to go ahead and call shenanigans for shitting on it because of semantics. If you're arguing about the language used, don't somehow blanket the effectiveness of the plan under it.

Little_Miss_1565
05-20-2006, 07:07 AM
Saying people shouldn't be fat doesn't single out women, though. This does. I can't even explain how infuriated I am that my PCP would consider me "pre-pregnant." Saying people shouldn't be fat, or shouldn't smoke, doesn't single out a particular set of people, and it doesn't require those people to be medically considered as incubators. This throws a bizarre overlay over what it means to be a woman in America, and apparently you have to be a woman to understand it, which I didn't think the case would be.

And many of the people doing all the psychotropic drugs that fuck up kids don't have access to regular medical care, anyway. Is the Bush Administration going to make sure that all the drug addicts in New York can get to a doctor so they can get their pre-pregnancy treatment?

As for your Overheard in New York clip, Mota Boy, I'm willing to bet that smartass businessman didn't use condoms in his affairs. The Pill isn't enough, if his girlfriend was even taking it. I really dont' think access to contraception is a separate issue--if the Bush Administration's idea behind this is to prevent fucked-up kids from being born, then they should be concentrating on helping those fucked-up kids from not being conceived in the first place. I *shouldn't* fuck up my body with shit, but the bottom line is I and any other human being *can*, and I should not be being singled out just because I have the capability in the distant future to bring forth children.

Rinoa
05-20-2006, 07:29 AM
It just sounds like something a parent of a teenager would say. "Don't do this, don't do that. It's bad for you. Blah blah blah."

I'm certainly not going to stop having a fun-filled life just incase I one day get pregnant. Booze, take-aways, smoking, drugs... FTW!


As you can probably tell I'm really not into having kids. But if it's just guidelines then that's fine, as I'm sure there'll be plenty of women out there who want to stay healthy for themselves and their future kids. As long as it doesn't turn into a law then I'm happy.

JohnnyNemesis
05-20-2006, 08:55 AM
If you're arguing about the language used, don't somehow blanket the effectiveness of the plan under it.

There are ways to carry out the same or similar plans with language that isn't blatantly damaging and horribly insulting. You shouldn't brush language off, as it is crucial in defining worlds.

sKratch
05-20-2006, 10:05 AM
It's just that you guys seem to be like "holy fucking shit this is a terrible idea, look at what it's doing to the status of our poor women!" Really, though, it's just encouraging women (with the implication that they are sexually active with a male partner) to be healthy because as Mota has harped on, FIFTY PERCENT OF ALL PREGNANCIES ARE UNPLANNED. Our government wants healthy babies (they're delicious, and if we don't dine on them they might grow up to be great soldiers too). I agree that the language is questionable. I just see the majority of your reactions as some weird sort of knee-jerk like "zogm save teh minrioryty!" when there's an honest-to-goodness proactive plan to improve the wellbeing of our nation's women and their children. I'm interested in what kind of language you'd like to see. Pre-pregnang is, besides the connotation you guys have pointed out, a pretty safe phrase. It's concise.

HeadAroundU
05-20-2006, 10:06 AM
Saying people shouldn't be fat doesn't single out women, though. This does. I can't even explain how infuriated I am that my PCP would consider me "pre-pregnant." Saying people shouldn't be fat, or shouldn't smoke, doesn't single out a particular set of people, and it doesn't require those people to be medically considered as incubators. This throws a bizarre overlay over what it means to be a woman in America, and apparently you have to be a woman to understand it, which I didn't think the case would be.

And many of the people doing all the psychotropic drugs that fuck up kids don't have access to regular medical care, anyway. Is the Bush Administration going to make sure that all the drug addicts in New York can get to a doctor so they can get their pre-pregnancy treatment?

Hahaha...so feministic! :)
What would women do if they didn't have something to fight for?

You should be happy about it and fuck the drug takers.
*don't kill me please*

Mota Boy
05-20-2006, 11:41 AM
Saying people shouldn't be fat, or shouldn't smoke, doesn't single out a particular set of people... and apparently you have to be a woman to understand it, which I didn't think the case would be.
Yeah. I, too, am amazed that we're at such a fundamental level of disagreement about this. Incubators aside, though, the medical profession already treats us differently. I'm assuming that you don't get your prostate checked every few years and I know that they sure gave me some weird looks when I showed up at the gynecologist (long story). We do have different physiologies, and our healthcare system should, and does, reflect that. Yes, it's singling a group out, but it's sound reasoning.

When I was last in New York, there was an ad campaign out targeting gay men (and I saw it a lot, as I stayed in Chelsea [again, long story]), warning them of the dangers of crystal meth and sex, as it was causing HIV to spread. It was targeting a very specific minority, and it was knowledge that was useful for everyone, but the fact is that AIDS continues to spread faster in the gay community than the straight one, and the campaign reflected this reality.


Is the Bush Administration going to make sure that all the drug addicts in New York can get to a doctor so they can get their pre-pregnancy treatment?... I really dont' think access to contraception is a separate issue--if the Bush Administration's idea behind this is to prevent fucked-up kids from being born, then they should be concentrating on helping those fucked-up kids from not being conceived in the first place.
So you would have less of a problem with this if they were?



As for your Overheard in New York clip, Mota Boy, I'm willing to bet that smartass businessman didn't use condoms in his affairs. The Pill isn't enough, if his girlfriend was even taking it. I really dont' think access to contraception is a separate issue--if the Bush Administration's idea behind this is to prevent fucked-up kids from being born, then they should be concentrating on helping those fucked-up kids from not being conceived in the first place.
What I find utterly fascinating is that this is the exact same argument the anti-abortion crowd often uses. "If you're doing everything correctly (and depending on the person, that could either mean abstinence or protection), then access to abortion shouldn't be an issue." Yet while both are true in perfect worlds, the world is far from perfect, and we need our medical system to reflect it. Yes, this administration fails in this task on several fronts, but I think this time they actually get it right.

Betty
05-20-2006, 01:47 PM
My mom smoked and drank and partied AND drank AND partied before she got pregnant for me, and continued to drink in low moderation during the pregnancy, and look how I turned out: child prodigy.

But seriously, I feel the need to chime in here, as the only woman dissenter thus far. I'm really feeling like this is taking feminism too far. Many good points have been brought up, but I'll just add another little rant.

Maybe I'm a little conservative in the fundamental sense of the word, or maybe I'm a little too scientific-minded. But seriously, WOMEN CAN GET PREGNANT AND HAVE BABIES. The continuation of life is based on reproduction. If the majority of women did not have kids, humanity would cease to exist. Sure one doesn't HAVE to have kids, but it is a FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF LIFE. We eat, sleep, and reproduce. Why must it be looked at in such a negative light? The ability to carry children, the ability to pass on one's genes? Sure females are singled out, but males and females ARE DIFFERENT. They're not suggesting that all women take cooking and cleaning classes, for fuck's sake. Honestly, I totally understand the feminist point of view here, I understand the problem with the situation, but quite frankly I feel that my stance of not overreacting and being what I believe to be more sensible will make much greater strides for women's equality. People will see me and think "Now THAT's a sensible woman, she can rule my country anyday."

Little_Miss_1565
05-20-2006, 11:08 PM
Hahaha...so feministic! :)
What would women do if they didn't have something to fight for?

You should be happy about it and fuck the drug takers.
*don't kill me please*

Please kill yourself. What would women do if we didn't have something to fight for? Fucking chill on the couch with a fucking beer like you lot.


I'm assuming that you don't get your prostate checked every few years and I know that they sure gave me some weird looks when I showed up at the gynecologist (long story). We do have different physiologies, and our healthcare system should, and does, reflect that. Yes, it's singling a group out, but it's sound reasoning.

But you aren't treated as pre-butt baby because you have a prostate. Different treatment because our bodies are different is separate from labelling one body as inferior and thus in need of special watchdogging.


When I was last in New York, there was an ad campaign out targeting gay men (and I saw it a lot, as I stayed in Chelsea [again, long story]), warning them of the dangers of crystal meth and sex, as it was causing HIV to spread. It was targeting a very specific minority, and it was knowledge that was useful for everyone, but the fact is that AIDS continues to spread faster in the gay community than the straight one, and the campaign reflected this reality.

But that's AIDS awareness--not treating every gay homo as "pre-AIDS." Imagine the uproar if the latter was the case.



So you would have less of a problem with this if they were?

Yes.


f the majority of women did not have kids, humanity would cease to exist. Sure one doesn't HAVE to have kids, but it is a FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT OF LIFE. We eat, sleep, and reproduce. Why must it be looked at in such a negative light? The ability to carry children, the ability to pass on one's genes? Sure females are singled out, but males and females ARE DIFFERENT.

All true--but just wait until we go to take a drink, and it's a bunch of nagging of "Oh, look out, you could get pregnant at some point in the future." It's not a matter of mere physiology here--the government thinks it can tell a set of people how to live their lives. Having babies is wonderful and I plan to have several. When that time comes, I will take those precautions and take care of myself. But that time is at least 10 years in the future and I"ll be goddamned if anyone tries to say a fucking word to me about what to do with myself because I could be having a baby at any time in theory.

the_GoDdEsS
05-20-2006, 11:54 PM
The only person that made any sense in this topic whatsoever is Mota. Seriously, you are all overreacting. Incubators, what the fuck??

Sin Studly
05-21-2006, 12:16 AM
This is absolutely pathetic. So your womynly feelings are hurt because of some guidelines. Well, I hate to break this to you ; but you all live in Western societies. The kind of societies that coddle the lowest denominator. The kind of societies where some dumb bitch gets away with sueing McDonalds because she scalded her vagina with hot coffee. The kind of societies where liquor stores lose their licenses for selling alcohol to drunk people. The kind of societies where milk-bleeding cheese is illegalised because it makes the occasional person sick. Where sales contracts are considered fraudulent if not written in language easily understandable to persons of semi-retarded comprehension skills. And this is actual legislation enforced by the law ; not mere guidelines.

I mean ; if you managed to go this far without having your intelligence vastly insulted by everyone putting you on the same level as retards and cripples, you don't have the right to complain about guidelines like this. Look at it logically, a lot of women are dumb drunk sluts who manage to get themselves knocked up and then refuse to have their alcoholically-retarded foetus scraped because omg the baby! There are idiots out there who have a 50% chance of spitting out some horribly deformed congenital mutant, and still spit out four or five mongaloid subhumans doomed to live agonising lives ; horribly deformed mistakes that in a civilised society would be drowned at birth.

Mota is right. The Goddess Spirits of a million womyn don't compare at all to the possibility that these guidelines might prevent just one more crackbaby or duckbilled progeria-ridden freak being shat out into the world. Incubators, pfft, the government already treats you all like idiotic children who can't manage your own lives, what does it matter if they point out the very real fact that once in a while women can damage a foetus beyond repair ; a foetus they never knew that they had ; and a foetus they have the right to keep.

Soak it up.

Mota Boy
05-21-2006, 02:29 AM
But you aren't treated as pre-butt baby because you have a prostate. Different treatment because our bodies are different is separate from labelling one body as inferior and thus in need of special watchdogging.
Do you honestly think that, because women are the incubators of our future generations, that makes you inferior? Hell, I look at this as raising the importance of women. Think about it this way - they sure as hell aren't telling men to take care of their bodies. I could get insulted by this! I could say "Look at the government! They want women to be healthier than men!" They're reminding women that they alone have a special role to play. It's different, but that doesn't automatically mean it's demeaning. Hell, this could be interpreted as raising the status of women. I could totally make the case that I'm pissed the government's paying special attention to women and not to me.

But really, that's besides the point. The point isn't whether women are inferior or superior to men by their totally awesome baby-makin' capacity, it's that they're different. And that doesn't necessarily imply that one gender is better than the other, it just implies that they're different, and that our country needs to treat them as such, IMHO.


Yes.
Alright then. I didn't see the connection, and I take back my claim that these are two separate issues.

Random note that really doesn't pertain too much to the discussion! I met a chick from Vassar tonight that majored in Women's Studies and Queer Studies and she agreed with me (and I actually played devil's advocate about "pre-pregnancy" and "incubators"). Then she, and my female friend with me, fucking kicked my ass in darts. Girl power sucks.

Vera
05-21-2006, 02:30 AM
I think it's worded very badly and I was in full agreement with 1565 and Sunny etc before I read the whole article.

Basically, they're not giving a shit about women, they're giving a shit about babies and infant mortality rate which is really high in the US - even when it's an industrialized country. It was something like 3 times what Japan's infant mortality rate is and 2.5 of Finland's and Iceland's. Without knowing the exact figures, you could say something needs to be done about this.

The thing I oppose about this is that it basically makes it out like women are fucking idiots and also makes it seem that if you have a vagina you could get pregnant AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT (which is kind of insulting because some women have been well aware of birth control methods even before they began having seX). But hey, most of the population kind of are fucking idiots, so it's not necessarily singling out women who can't take care of themselves. Most men, can't either. The biological difference, as Betty said, is that men don't carry babies. The only thing that they do is seed and unless the sperm count and sperm cell, er, activity drops rapidly then the men are, in a way, "off the hook".

So basically the woman's health affects the baby more than the man's.

I think the reason why it's so damn annoying is because you girls are one of the smarter ones. I think what this project is trying to do is that it's trying to cover ALL women so that it can reach out to the worst cases - teenage mothers, ghetto mothers, poor people, basically people who don't have this information and thus haven't cared. These are probably the people among whom the infant mortality rate is the highest in the States.

I sort of understand both sides in this one, like Betty, but I think that their focus is on babies. Not all women have babies. Women are much more than baby machines. But babies come out of women - fact. And they're trying to take care of the babies through women.

HeadAroundU
05-21-2006, 07:03 AM
Please kill yourself. What would women do if we didn't have something to fight for? Fucking chill on the couch with a fucking beer like you lot.

*dead*

Be nice! :)
Put "pre-pregnant" instead of Moderatrix. It's always hilarious to read conversations between you and Mota. You are both very cute! So much respect to each other but totaly different opinions.

sKratch
05-21-2006, 07:50 AM
The thing I oppose about this is that it basically makes it out like women are fucking idiots and also makes it seem that if you have a vagina you could get pregnant AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT (which is kind of insulting because some women have been well aware of birth control methods even before they began having seX).
...
I sort of understand both sides in this one, like Betty, but I think that their focus is on babies. Not all women have babies. Women are much more than baby machines. But babies come out of women - fact. And they're trying to take care of the babies through women.
I'm still not sure how this point is being argued in the face of the fact that 50%/one half/one out of every two pregnancies is unplanned.

Vera
05-21-2006, 07:54 AM
Argued by who, exactly?

Sin Studly
05-21-2006, 07:59 AM
Vera's not arguing it, she's just saying it's somewhat insulting. That's perfectly reasonable, there are plenty of rules I agree wholeheartedly with that nevertheless insult the intelligence of everyone who isn't a mongaloid.

Basically, people (Rag Doll, 1565, Sunny, JohnnyNemesis), you gotta soak it up and stop crying. So you feel insulted, who the fuck cares?

http://members.lycos.nl/progeria/hpbimg/progeria.jpg

Preventing more of these abominations ranks slightly (by which I mean massively) above the hurt feelings of a few oversensitive crybaby women.

Little_Miss_1565
05-21-2006, 08:12 AM
Want a more effective way to prevent such abominations? No one is going to stop anyone from boning, just as no one is going to stop anyone from doing massive amounts of drugs that like fucking up the development of the average fetus. So how about access to free contraception? Then people on drugs, etc. could bone away and not have it affect anyone but themselves. Depo-Provera is rad, one shot every 3 or 4 months and over 99% effective.

But, the Bush Administration doesn't want to give people access to contraception. They're slowly but surely chipping away at our rights to control our bodies--and yes, that means abortion rights. If federal guidelines are to treat all women as pre-pregnant, what's to stop the argument that if all women are pre-pregant, then that means America sees women as babymakers, and thus who are they to abort the fruit of one stupid night? Call it farfetched, whatever, but the Supreme Court has ruled on flimsier grounds. Those of you who are international can't really understand the anti-abortion climate of this country.

Sin Studly
05-21-2006, 09:15 AM
First paragraph, irrelevent. The fact that your government is anti-contraceptive doesn't mean it's not a good idea for doctors to reccomend women take care of themselves just in case they get knocked up. Yes, they're loosely related, but the fact that you don't get free contraceptives doesn't change the fundamental good sense of reccomending women avoid cigarettes and alcohol in case they get inseminated whilst engaging in their free-spirit goddess rights.

I mean, look at this logically. Basically you're saying that doctors shouldn't reccomend women take a little extra care of their bodies so as to prevent fucking up any unexpected foetii beyond repair because it's kind of insulting to women who don't plan on having kids. Even with the outrageously high percentage of unplanned pregnancies left out of the debate, this is insanely reactionary and ridiculous. With all your emotionally subjective phrasings like "incubators" and "babymachines" put aside, what the hell are you trying to say? That by the same token we should tell doctors not to recommend people drink only in moderation because it's insulting to people who don't intend on getting blind drunk every night? That it insinuates all people are alcohol-to-urine-machines? And don't start with the "it singles out women" shit, men don't have babies. Nature, not the government, decided you have wombs instead of us ; and any government that decides the simple fact that "boys have a penis, girls have a vagina" should be ignored in a medical context would be insane.

Second paragraph, yeah ; I'd call it farfetched. In fact, it puts a lot of conspiracy theorists to shame. The slippery-slope argument has always been a pet hate of mine. It's basically saying "you're right, that's a good idea ; but we shouldn't do it in case it goes too far." Get your paranoia in check, doctors giving advice that could prevent the occasional outbreak of mutantspawn is as much of an assault on civil rights as an old-fashioned guy opening a car door for a lady.

In fact ; if you're trying to claim abortion rights and subsidised contraception are the key issues here, why don't you go campaigning for abortion rights and subsidised contraception and not complain about stuff that's actually a good idea?

Little_Miss_1565
05-21-2006, 09:45 AM
Get your paranoia in check, doctors giving advice that could prevent the occasional outbreak of mutantspawn is as much of an assault on civil rights as an old-fashioned guy opening a car door for a lady.

In fact ; if you're trying to claim abortion rights and subsidised contraception are the key issues here, why don't you go campaigning for abortion rights and subsidised contraception and not complain about stuff that's actually a good idea?

If it were only DOCTORS recommending it, sure--but it's not just doctors, it's the government. This administration has proved nothing if not that we have damn good reason to be paranoid of what they're up to. If it were just a matter of recommending not drinking or smoking because of future risk to fetuses, it might be different from the classification of "pre-pregnant." It's a new classification, it's not just an awareness campaign as you say. I think I'm more upset that it's the Bush Administration saying "pre-pregnancy" than anything else. Those people have no business saying anything about my or anyone else's uterus, because they are incapable of saying anything about it without having ulterior motives.

I love how the only person who argues against me without attacking me is Mota.

the_GoDdEsS
05-21-2006, 10:00 AM
What about population growth and health of your people? I think those guidelines might be also to ensure that you don't get old and sick population. I know the future of your race/country/people might not interest you but maybe it interests them, maybe they want to publish some guidelines you get so wound up about because of your rights. But no one's telling you it's a must. People are stupid and guidelines won't harm anyone.

Sin Studly
05-21-2006, 10:23 AM
If it were only DOCTORS recommending it, sure--but it's not just doctors, it's the government. This administration has proved nothing if not that we have damn good reason to be paranoid of what they're up to.

This is no different from the billion other guidelines the government has made concerning health. It is, however, nothing close to what the government has done in regards to OH&S regulations, tobacco marketing regulation, banning smoking in certain types of private establishments regardless of the wishes of the owner, banning bleeding cheese, enforcing physical education in schools, revoking liquor licenses for selling to drunks, etc. etc. etc.

I mean, these are actual laws and restrictions. Why are simple guidelines so much more important? Oh right, because these guidelines apply only to women. Again, men don't have wombs.


If it were just a matter of recommending not drinking or smoking because of future risk to fetuses, it might be different from the classification of "pre-pregnant." It's a new classification, it's not just an awareness campaign as you say. I think I'm more upset that it's the Bush Administration saying "pre-pregnancy" than anything else.

"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."

Hey, look. It's not a new classification. It's a reccomendation that women treat themselves under an old classification they don't necessarily fit into, just in case they need it.


Those people have no business saying anything about my or anyone else's uterus, because they are incapable of saying anything about it without having ulterior motives.

They're the government. They own you ; they own your uterus. When they start deciding they're going to tell you how and when you should acutally use your uterus, then you have a grounds for complaint. Until then, stop making a huge dramascene over something this sensible and rational.


I love how the only person who argues against me without attacking me is Mota.

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your opinions. Because they're fucking stupid.

Sin Studly
05-21-2006, 10:27 AM
What about population growth and health of your people?

And yeah, I dunno about America but I'm sure it suffers the same aging population problem as the rest of the western world.

More than ever, society needs you babymachines to get back to work. You're letting down the species.

Little_Miss_1565
05-21-2006, 10:49 AM
They're the government. They own you ; they own your uterus. When they start deciding they're going to tell you how and when you should acutally use your uterus, then you have a grounds for complaint. Until then, stop making a huge dramascene over something this sensible and rational.

No, they don't, I've read the constitution, the sole document upon which this country's government is based. I'm angry, and this is a *message board*, the conversation is in one topic, I'd hardly call it a "huge dramascene." And way to ignore the part where I said why I was upset about this particular administration.

Sin Studly
05-21-2006, 11:20 AM
the constitution, the sole document upon which this country's government is based.

I know you're not that stupid and naive.

As for ignoring why you're upset...

"This administration has proved nothing if not that we have damn good reason to be paranoid of what they're up to."

or

"I think I'm more upset that it's the Bush Administration saying "pre-pregnancy" than anything else"

Which one do you mean? And why do you think either are valid points?

Little_Miss_1565
05-21-2006, 02:20 PM
As for ignoring why you're upset...

"This administration has proved nothing if not that we have damn good reason to be paranoid of what they're up to."

or

"I think I'm more upset that it's the Bush Administration saying "pre-pregnancy" than anything else"

Which one do you mean? And why do you think either are valid points?

I mean both--the Bush Administration is out for Christian dominion. Them saying "pre-pregnant" upsets me more than anyone else saying it, because they are a woman's worst enemy. Everything they do when it comes to anything involving reproduction has the ulterior motive of, down the line, chipping away at/destroying access to legal and safe abortions, not to mention access to contraception. They are holy terrors, literally.

Sin Studly
05-21-2006, 08:11 PM
.... right. If you're going to argue this with such a female level of logic and rationality, I'd do the same.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20040916/450progeriaXX_thekiss.jpg

OHNOEZ THE BABIES!

Little_Miss_1565
05-22-2006, 08:31 AM
OHNOEZ THE BABIES!

Use a condom, ya fuckin' whore!

BTW, progeria is a genetic disorder and not preventable by good prenatal health.

Sin Studly
05-22-2006, 08:39 AM
I can't find an AFS pic with a big enough duckbilled face to be viscerally appalling, and crackbabies look just like regular crying brats in stills, so I figured irrationally posting progeria kids would appeal more to the feminine sense of logic.

After all, your entire argument boils down to "I don't like this because the Bush Administration did it and the Bush Administration are evil and horrible and hate women. And we should get free contraception."

Oh, and condoms are for niggers in Africa.

Little_Miss_1565
05-22-2006, 08:42 AM
After all, your entire argument boils down to "I don't like this because the Bush Administration did it and the Bush Administration are evil and horrible and hate women. And we should get free contraception."

Who gives a fuck? All I've been saying in this thread is "I don't like this." Clearly you're not going to change my mind trying to bully me into not "being like a woman." Why don't you just shut up already?

Sin Studly
05-22-2006, 08:54 AM
Oh come now, I'm not trying to bully you into changing your mind. You were perfectly happy to argue the points with me (and everybody else) until you completely ran out of arguments with the barest appearances of rationality. And now that it's happened, you're telling me to 'shut up already, you big bully, nobody gives a fuck'.

But while we're on the topic of shutting up already, if all you were saying in this thread was "I don't like this".... well, I'm sure you get my point.

Little_Miss_1565
05-22-2006, 08:57 AM
Baby, you're the one who kept repeating I was being a woman.

Sin Studly
05-22-2006, 09:19 AM
There's not really much more I can do if your only argument is that "Bush is a bad bad man". I mean, seriously ; what is the problem here?

You don't like the term "pre-pregnant"? But nobody is calling you pre-pregnant. They're simply suggesting you treat your body as if you were pre-pregnant, just in case.

I'm struggling to understand ; what is offensive about this?

Little_Miss_1565
05-22-2006, 10:02 AM
I really don't have any idea how to explain it to you, since you can't fathom why it might be offensive in the slightest.

Sin Studly
05-22-2006, 10:21 AM
Okay, just answer me this one question.

1. A man walks into a doctor's office.
2. He mentions he works at night, in the rain a lot, but doesn't want to catch a cold.
3. The doctor reccomends he wears warm clothes.
4. And also reccomends he drinks lemon tea and eats garlic, just in case.

1. A woman walks into a doctor's office.
2. She mentions she is sexually active, but doesn't want to have a baby.
3. The doctor reccomends she uses contraceptives.
4. And also reccomends she takes folic acid and maintains a healthy diet, just in case.

What's the difference?

Little_Miss_1565
05-22-2006, 11:41 AM
Didn't you already ask me this?

Sin Studly
05-22-2006, 11:57 AM
Yes. And you ignored my question, and instead asked why I ignored your comments about how evil the Bush administration was, and made a comment about the constitution that was so insanely naive that I know that you don't believe it for a second.

So... care to answer now? How is it different?

Sunny
05-22-2006, 12:08 PM
Okay, just answer me this one question.

1. A man walks into a doctor's office.
2. He mentions he works at night, in the rain a lot, but doesn't want to catch a cold.
3. The doctor reccomends he wears warm clothes.
4. And also reccomends he drinks lemon tea and eats garlic, just in case.

1. A woman walks into a doctor's office.
2. She mentions she is sexually active, but doesn't want to have a baby.
3. The doctor reccomends she uses contraceptives.
4. And also reccomends she takes folic acid and maintains a healthy diet, just in case.

What's the difference?


It's quite obvious that the first one deals with preventing the cold (wearing warm clothes) and then GETTING RID of the problem. the second one doesn't - it deals with prevention and then nurturing the unwanted fetus.

the second one would be comparable if the doctor recommended she uses contraceptives.. and then gave her a number to an abortion clinic just in case the prevention method fails.

Sin Studly
05-22-2006, 01:17 PM
No, the lemon tea and garlic example were pre-cold preparations, in case that unwanted cold comes along it won't be quite as bad as it could be, because the immune system is already boosted or whatever. You can't just get rid of a cold by clicking your fingers, but you can minimise the damage if worst comes to worst ; ie, if the woman gets knocked up and isn't prepared to have an abortion.

If the hypothetical woman doesn't get pregnant, fine. If she ends up pregnant and decides to abort, fine. If she ends up pregnant and decides to keep it, also fine. Both are very very possible conclusions, since a large amount of women who weren't planning on having children at the time would keep theirs if they got knocked up.

So where is the harm in reccomending folic acid? Seriously?

Little_Miss_1565
05-22-2006, 02:59 PM
Justin, you don't get it, you aren't going to get it, and it honestly seems to me like you're dead set against trying to get it. I'm bored. Next.

Sunny
05-22-2006, 03:37 PM
Quite frankly, i don't think we could make it ANY clearer that OF COURSE there is no harm in recommending folic acid, nor is it somehow evil or offensive to suggest a patient keeps her diabetes under control.

But just because I like making a broken record out of myself, I'll quote what Ricky said - which sums it up quite nicely.


There are ways to carry out the same or similar plans with language that isn't blatantly damaging and horribly insulting. You shouldn't brush language off, as it is crucial in defining worlds.

On another note, I'm having a hard time responding to anyone whose arguments include calling me a crybaby, telling me to "soak it up" or "stop overreacting". Why don't you call me a hairy-legged dyke feminazi while you're at it?

Little_Miss_1565
05-22-2006, 04:26 PM
On another note, I'm having a hard time responding to anyone whose arguments include calling me a crybaby, telling me to "soak it up" or "stop overreacting". Why don't you call me a hairy-legged dyke feminazi while you're at it?

Next week, we can be hairy-legged dyke feminazis in Brooklyn together maybe? :cool:

Sin Studly
05-22-2006, 04:30 PM
Believe me, I want to get it. I'm trying very hard to get it. But you're giving me nothing to get. I'm gonna go through this slowly, and piece-by-piece, so you can please just point out the part where I seem to be going wrong.

- As far as I can figure the phrase "pre-pregnant" is the problem.

- Pre-pregnant a medical phrase referring to a woman attempting and expecting to get pregnent in the near future. It's a status, much like "post-op" or "ambulatory" or "NFR", helping medical staff to assess the situation of the patient, and dispense the most appropriate treatment and/or guidance.

- This is not offensive to women in any way (right? Or have I missed something already?)

- With the status of pre-pregnancy, doctors naturally advise women to take extra precautions for the health of their incoming foetus.

- The idea of the government classing all sexually-active women as pre-pregnant is offensive. I understand that part.

- But the government has only decided it would be a good idea for doctors to suggest all sexually active women voluntarily treat themselves as pre-pregnant, and request the same levels of medical care afforded to pre-pregnant women, so that if an unexpected surprise comes up and the woman decides to keep it, there'll be less risk of birth defects.

That's it. Nobody's calling you pre-pregnant. They're just suggesting you take the same precautions an actual pre-pregnant woman would. Please, for the love of God, just point out where exactly you think my reasoning has gone astray?

And Sunny, on that note ; I know you shave your legs, aren't homosexual, and aren't a feminazi. My other points remain.

Sunny
05-22-2006, 04:32 PM
omg srsly. we can braid our pit hair and pray to the goddess!

and yay for Brooklyn, for it's the land of other man-hating, pussy-eating, latte-drinking, yoga-practicing, animal-loving bleeding heart liberals. ;p

on a more serious note, when do you get here? <3

Sin Studly
05-22-2006, 04:41 PM
C'mon, just tell me where I've gone wrong. I'll work backwards from there.

Little_Miss_1565
05-22-2006, 06:32 PM
omg srsly. we can braid our pit hair and pray to the goddess!

and yay for Brooklyn, for it's the land of other man-hating, pussy-eating, latte-drinking, yoga-practicing, animal-loving bleeding heart liberals. ;p

on a more serious note, when do you get here? <3

Let's take your dog to doggy yoga! I start work next Tuesday. w00t for moving to The City What Smells Like Pee!

Sin Studly
05-23-2006, 01:49 AM
Is this totally random and pathetic co-affirmation a sign that you really can't justify why you're crying about this?

Sin Studly
05-23-2006, 03:50 AM
"Pre-pregnancy" is so pregnant a phrase that its use ought to be confined to such women as have expressly displayed a wish to get pregnant, & have started to act in accordance (no contraception, pregnancy tests etc)...

It is. They're just suggesting other sexually active women take the same health precautions as pre-pregnant women.

That's why I can't understand how anyone could possibly be offended by this shit if they weren't deliberately searching for things to complain about, and clutching at straws when they couldn't find anything worthwhile.

Little_Miss_1565
05-23-2006, 08:12 AM
Is this totally random and pathetic co-affirmation a sign that you really can't justify why you're crying about this?


Justin, you don't get it, you aren't going to get it, and it honestly seems to me like you're dead set against trying to get it. I'm bored. Next.

Good lord, Justin, I know you can read. I'm not taking your bait.

Sunny
05-23-2006, 11:10 AM
But the government has only decided it would be a good idea for doctors to suggest all sexually active women voluntarily treat themselves as pre-pregnant

This is where you're wrong.

"Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements"

No mention of sexual activity here. Not a mention of heterosexuality, either, and it's quite a key component in baby-making, right? They want ALL females capable of conceiving a child to treat themselves and BE TREATED as pre-pregnant.
I'm sure you know that many women begin their menstrual cycle at the age of 12.


experts say it's important that women follow this advice throughout their reproductive lives

ahem.

Justin, what you have so far managed to ignore are the government's former actions towards women and their reproductive rights. You can choose to view this instance as an isolated case; however, it is not, and it needs to be viewed in context.
Perhaps Sim isn't quite aware of this either, as she was surprised by the "incubators" comment. Point is, the government has been trying hard to reduce us to such. Incubators don't get choose whether they want to carry a fetus, do they?

The current administration has attempted to limit women's reproductive rights to the best of their ability. If you are not familiar with this issue, I suggest you look it up. For instance, pharmacists now can refuse to give a woman birth control IN THE NAME OF THEIR BELIEFS. This includes morning-after pills, when time is of the essence.

"There are pharmacists who will only give birth control pills to a woman if she's married. There are pharmacists who mistakenly believe contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to prescribe it to anyone"

See the problem yet? Also, am I crying now? Hardly. I'm married. I get pumped chock full of hormones every 3 months and no one says a word.

Then, are you aware of the proposed bill that aims to "ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child."?

And the fact that abortions have been banned in the state of South Dakota? NOT including exceptions for rape or incest victims OR when the health of the woman is in danger?
And the legislation that restricts access to abortions in Missouri?

And the proposed bill where a woman must report her miscarriage within first 12 hours of it occuring... or she's committed a crime?

Treating all menstruating females as pre-pregnant fits into the current agenda. You can attempt to make it look benevolent and caring, but honestly, how can you tell me with a straight face that this administration cares about the health of the woman? The "incubator" comment is still relevant. Stay healthy for the baby, get impregnated (through incest or rape, who cares), stay impregnated, take your supplements for the baby.. and don't you dare lose the precious fetus without reporting it.. let alone attempt to get rid of it.

If every time someone brings up an issue of this sort and you accuse them of "crying", well, don't be surprised that Sarah doesn't feel like responding. Other people in this thread could manage disagree with us in an eloquent way without bringing up "overreacting", "crying" "womyn" or "the goddess". In fact, it was only you and Simona that resorted to those arguments, and frankly, I am disappointed. Not surprised, though.

Sin Studly
05-23-2006, 06:20 PM
Okay, my mistake. It's not for sexually active women only, it's for all capable of being impregnated. Which is fair enough also, on the off chance a woman decides to keep a rapebaby.

And as for all the crap about what the Bush government is doing, I agree that it's bad. Letting pharmacists dispense contraceptives only if they believe in it is a bad thing, but it's hardly original, or even the worst thing of it's kind. Over here hospital nurses can refuse to administer opiate narcotics if it's against their beliefs. While you think those beliefs might not exist amongst nurses, many use it as an excuse not to give morphine to terminal patient, just in case they die, there's an inquest and they have to write down a 2-paragraph statement.

The law is fucked up in so many ways it isn't funny. This law pre-pregnant law isn't one of those ways, no matter what the 'ulterior' motives are. Complain about something worthwhile.

Little_Miss_1565
05-23-2006, 06:37 PM
Big words coming from the man who whinges about Amnesty calling yet another country lax on violence against women. Try again.

Sin Studly
05-23-2006, 06:40 PM
Do you guys have a single argument that's actually pertinent to the case at hand?

"This law is bad because other laws are bad"

"That argument is bad because your other argument is bad"

etc.

It's not that I don't understand why the other things Sunny mentioned would be considered grossly offensive. But this just... isn't.


edit ; and Amnesty was complaining about a lot more than that. Why is it you focused immediately onto the violence against women part?

Little_Miss_1565
05-23-2006, 06:46 PM
Because that's the part I remember that they say about everyone.

Justin, I'm really tired of repeating myself to you. Aren't you tired of repeating yourself?

Sin Studly
05-23-2006, 06:53 PM
I guess I'm still hoping for a real reason that this is offensive.

Betty
05-23-2006, 07:17 PM
This thread is getting pretty ridiculous.

But seriously, looking at an issue in itself is different than looking at it in addition to other circumstances. Both have been done here, but doing the latter detracts from the credibility of the argument for the prior.

JohnnyNemesis
05-23-2006, 08:35 PM
But seriously, looking at an issue in itself is different than looking at it in addition to other circumstances. Both have been done here, but doing the latter detracts from the credibility of the argument for the prior.

Acting like things occur issue by issue makes no sense because the world simply doesn't work that way.

Betty
05-23-2006, 08:45 PM
The world doesn't work that way? Just like god works in mysterious ways? I don't believe that is an adequate refute.

Issue #1: No

Issue #2: No

Issue #3 alone: Yes

Issue #3 if #1 and #2: No

OR

If A makes statement #3: Yes

If B makes statement #3: No

Umm... I've never formally done logic, but I feel there is a flaw.

Sure, it could affect your feelings. You could feel more accumulated anger and bitterness and what have you. But cold hard reason? Non merci. An issue is an issue.

EDIT: Reply was done extra bitchy style before Ricky's edit. Which I should have quoted, I suppose.

Little_Miss_1565
05-23-2006, 08:52 PM
Logic like in philosophy classes is not foolproof outside the classroom.

Betty
05-23-2006, 08:54 PM
Ha, well as soon as somebody refuses to play by logic, it's like I'm arguing with Linda.

JohnnyNemesis
05-23-2006, 08:59 PM
That post didn't seem too bitchy to me. I'm not offended, anyway...

But what 1565 means is that ... well, come on, you already know that the collective world doesn't actually work within logic learned in philosophy classes. To remove the human factor...well, it's doing exactly what I said in my last post.

Sin Studly
05-23-2006, 09:10 PM
The "I'm an illogical woman, so whatever I say is right" defence is not an adequate enough one to be used in debates, Ricky.

And the 'logic from philosophy classes' isn't needed here, it can be expressed in plain simple english.

Ban Abortions : Bad Idea

Restrict Contraceptives : Bad Idea

Recommend Folic Acid : Good Idea

Recommend Folic Acid if Ban Abortions and Restrict Contraceptives : Bad Idea

OR

If Democrats recommends Folic Acid : Good Idea

If Republicans recommends Folic Acid: Bad Idea



So the question now is ; are we completely abolishing the use of logic in this discussion?

Betty
05-23-2006, 09:10 PM
Well, I don't even mean it in the philosophical sense. Perhaps "reason" would be a better word? Although in that sense, they can be fairly synonymous.

JohnnyNemesis
05-23-2006, 09:15 PM
The thing is, far too many people rely on "reason" as the end all be all of everything, as if the power of argument alone could possibly take into account the way the people most affected by a given policy actually FEEL about something.

There's an intense desire by so many people to remove that part of it all for convenience, but removing that part makes no sense because it ignores the very REALITY of the situation: how people affected feel. Telling people they shouldn't feel a certain way doesn't change how they feel. Whether that's a good or bad thing is one thing, but simply telling someone to feel different isn't productive.


So the question now is ; are we completely abolishing the use of logic in this discussion?

Nah; just not relying on it as the end of it all.

Betty
05-23-2006, 09:35 PM
That's all well and good Ricky. But then this whole issue would not amount to what is logically best, it would amount to how people "feel".

Personally, I try to control my feelings by logic. And if they're not very logical, I'll be the first to admit it. "I know it doesn't make sense, but that's just how I feel!" But I would never try to win an argument that way. Yes, it is important that women feel offended. But logically, they shouldn't.

Sin Studly
05-23-2006, 09:39 PM
Okay Ricky. I accept your point, 100%.

But is the fact that some people are going to be offended by this without any logical reason to be enough to outweigh the fact that this is a good idea, and should be implemented?

Little_Miss_1565
05-23-2006, 09:43 PM
Why can't you just accept that you cannot apparently understand why any kind of discussion of any woman's reproductive capacity is inherently charged with all kinds of emotional and political context that you can't seem to get your head around? Why can't you just leave it at that? I'm trying really hard to understand why you like being a broken record.

JohnnyNemesis
05-23-2006, 09:45 PM
But is the fact that some people are going to be offended by this without any logical reason to be enough to outweigh the fact that this is a good idea, and should be implemented?

That's the key question with all of this stuff, and that question is partly the reason I stepped a bit away from the actual issue here...it's loaded and I definitely am not qualified to/can't answer that question definitively, especially because I have a strong opinion one way and am definitely biased as a result. I'm all for others continuing though.

Sunny
05-23-2006, 09:56 PM
There is logic as in "common sense" and there is logic as in "learned in Philosophy 101 at my local community college".

I'd love for us to start using the former.

No offense to community colleges or anything, of course.

JohnnyNemesis
05-23-2006, 09:57 PM
I'm with Sunny on this one.

Sin Studly
05-23-2006, 10:23 PM
Why can't you just accept that you cannot apparently understand why any kind of discussion of any woman's reproductive capacity is inherently charged with all kinds of emotional and political context that you can't seem to get your head around? Why can't you just leave it at that? I'm trying really hard to understand why you like being a broken record.

I'm trying to understand. Honestly, I am. I'm here, asking you exactly where the problem is. So far the responses have not been adequate. They've been completely irrelevent, or have no actual bearing to the law in question. I'm trying to understand. Help me.


I stepped a bit away from the actual issue here...it's loaded and I definitely am not qualified to/can't answer that question definitively, especially because I have a strong opinion one way and am definitely biased as a result. I'm all for others continuing though.

Who is qualified? Economists specialising in the negative population growth, obsetricians and gynaecologists, women's interest groups? I'm sure all of the above would have a strong opinion one way or the other.


There is logic as in "common sense" and there is logic as in "learned in Philosophy 101 at my local community college". I'd love for us to start using the former.

*sighs*

Just when you feel you're making progress. Just when you feel you're coming to some form of a compromise, a conclusion. "Okay, we agree on this, this, and this, but not this." And then suddenly "WHAM!" Back to square one.

I seriously don't get this. You know I'm completely uneducated and think philosophy courses are as worthless as classics or arts degrees. What exactly is your statement supposed to mean? Aside from Betty's formula I've seen nothing that could be described as 'philosophy 101' logic ; and even that seems like good old common sense when you take away the algebraic shit and replace it with the issues at hand, to describe your reasoning. Obviously I'm completely clueless in such matters as 'learned logic', so maybe I'll need it spelled out to me.

And Sunny, where exactly have you displayed any kind of logic here, either the former or the latter.

Anyways, it truly is a shame Ricky seems to be stepping out of this, as he's the only one against me who is actually giving sound reasonings to back up his opinion. Rickybabes, since you agree with Sunny's statement and are capable of articulation on such matters, care to explain it to me?

Paint_It_Black
05-23-2006, 11:25 PM
Wow. I've only read a few of the most recent pages of this, but I must say it's very enjoyable watching people have an intelligent discussion about something, without resorting to anything I could really call an insult. I especially enjoyed reading Rick's opinion regarding logic. Very enjoyable. I'm tempted to read this thread from the beginning, but I have a feeling it may have started off in a less admirable fashion. There's no way I could make a particularly informed opinion on all this, but I kinda just wanted to say I'm finding it all pretty entertaining. In a good way.

Betty
05-23-2006, 11:38 PM
You don't have the desire to bang your head repeatedly against a wall? I'm sure I'm not too far off in saying most of us in this discussion feel that way.

But yes, it's pretty much all been "admirable."

Paint_It_Black
05-23-2006, 11:40 PM
Nope, no head-banging for me. Probably because I'm simply an entertained observer.

XYlophonetreeZ
05-23-2006, 11:52 PM
I've been reading it too, and I just find it frustrating. I don't even get what people are arguing about, and I feel that little to no progress seems to have been made. I'll just say this: whoever came up with the term "pre-pregnant" is an irresponsible moron. To me, it seems like the sheer semantics of it are creating the only problem. I really don't understand how the proposal in itself is offensive. Sexually active women should be prepared for the possibility of unplanned pregnancies anyway.

Sure, the term "pre-pregnant" implies the treatment of women as baby factories. But in execution, it seems that the new guidelines exist because the women are factually capable of having children, not because they're necessarily expected to do so. If a woman can admit to herself that she may possibly become pregnant, then I don't think she's got much of a reason not to take care of herself, or at least keep it in the back of her mind and put in a little effort. Of course I don't expect everybody to quit smoking or lose or gain weight to get into their recommended weight range. And even getting frequent reminders about it from doctors, folic acid supplements, etc., could be a valuable enough reminder to women to use caution, and this new measure may even prevent some unwanted pregnancies. So that's a potential benefit of this whole thing.

I don't expect the guidelines will do much anyway. But don't get me wrong, I'm pissed off as anybody here about the terminology of it.

By the way, that article's title, Forever Pregnant, was a little dramatic I thought. It's probably putting some unfair spin on the whole thing.

Sin Studly
05-24-2006, 12:34 AM
Waaaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait, Mr. Treez.

I agree that classing all women capable of bearing children as pre-pregnant is offensive, but....


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

Treat themselves. Not call themselves. Be treated. Not be called.

So yeah, where's the problem? I'm seriously trying to get it, I seriously can't.


I'll just say this: whoever came up with the term "pre-pregnant" is an irresponsible moron.

Why? They came up with the term to refer to women who were expecting to get pregnant in the near future. Just like they came up with the term 'ambulatory' to refer to people who needed an ambulance, post-operative to refer to people who just had an operation, etc. etc.

Sin Studly
05-24-2006, 02:53 AM
The problem is that there are stupid people who get insanely indignant before bothering to read exactly what the article says?

Duskygrin
05-24-2006, 03:11 AM
Yeah, ppl like you.

nanana "to be treated as pre-pregnant".

Where do we go from here? So am I pre-pregnant just because I'm sexually active & many births are unplanned? And, being (considered) pre-pregnant, have I to keep taking vitamin supplements (which should be used parcimoniously, at early pregnancy & in pre-natal phases, not all life long), to care about a baby which I have no intention of getting in the first place?

Folic acid is vital for the baby's healthy condition lest it develop spina bifida. It should be taken by the mother who doesn't get ENOUGH of it as supplements, especially during pregnancy, although she may not know she is pregnant yet.

The gvt's plan of action is wrong. Taking vitamin supplements all your life when your diet is already well-balanced (in the case of folate, comprises enough leafy veggies) is wrong & may lead to disturbing side-effects. Just like taking too much vitamin C leads you to piss it all off & eventually getting a carence in that precise vitamin. The gvt isn't omniscient, & therefore I wish it weren't so ubiquitous & didn't intrude in women's private lifes & private parts. Of course, women in the lower social classes, whose diet is made up more of french fries than veggies, & whose percentage of unplanned births is much higher, should be more aware of this, but by a fatality known by all, they are the least likely to be affected by this plan of action.

The fact remains that ALL women shouldn't be treated as though they were pre-pregnant, merely because all of them aren't. One shouldn't bend facts to ideas, it's the first step towards totalitarianism. I'm all for encouraging a healthy diet, but, by taking care of this, I would center on women, not on their babies-to-be.

Sin Studly
05-24-2006, 04:16 AM
So am I pre-pregnant just because I'm sexually active & many births are unplanned?

God no. You're not. Nor are you even considered pre-pregnant. They're just saying it's a good idea to act as though you were.

This is what I'm trying to get through to people. Nobody is saying you're pre-pregnant. Nobody is saying you should be classed as pre-pregnant. They're saying doctors should suggest you act as though you were, just in case.

As for your reservations concerning the actual benefits of folic acid etc, I'm really not knowledgable to comment on it. Bella's (usually unwanted) medical info would be quite helpful right about now.

edit ; I'd also like to point out that those concerns are the first valid reasons to be against this that anybody has mentioned.

Duskygrin
05-24-2006, 04:49 AM
... I do take folate supplements (but only because sometimes I only eat every other day).

Science evolves in a strange way. As far as we stand, they say "you can't take too much of folic acid"; but so they said about vitamin C, & further studies have proved them wrong. It wouldn't surprise me if, 5 years from now, they should begin to raise some objections against an excessive intake of folic acid. Such is life.

Sin Studly
05-24-2006, 06:13 AM
Agreed entirely on that. Every five years they decide all their previous advice on what to eat was wrong and causes cancer or alzheimers or the plague, and you should instead start eating what they decided caused ulcers and hepatitus and tuberculosis fifteen years ago. This in itself has given me reason to re-evaluate my opinion on the matter. Is it right for the government to set down any health guidelines whatsoever, unless they're things that have been conclusively proven without a shadow of a doubt? (ie; tobacco, alcohol, heavy metal)

If I paid any attention to my diet I'd probably be dead of stress and worrying by now.

XYlophonetreeZ
05-24-2006, 08:56 AM
They came up with the term to refer to women who were expecting to get pregnant in the near future.No, they didn't. As you quoted yourself, the term refers to any woman who is capable of getting pregnant.



I agree that classing all women capable of bearing children as pre-pregnant is offensive
How can you think this, yet disagree with this?:

whoever came up with the term "pre-pregnant" is an irresponsible moron.

Look, I don't even think the whole thing is that big of a deal. I'm just slightly concerned about the potential social repercussions of the whole "pre-pregnant" thing. And I don't really see what the hell the difference is between being "treated as" or being "called" pre-pregnant. It's not like people are gonna say in everyday conversation "Hey, you're pre-pregnant, when are you gonna get knocked up?" But the fact is, being treated as pre-pregnant could lead to a social movement in which all women are thought of as pre-pregnant and expected to reproduce. And who knows? It might not even happen. Odds are, this'll do nothing. It was just a stupid idea to say "pre-pregnant" because it could do some damage.

Sunny
05-24-2006, 09:10 AM
It also doesn't mean "any sexually active woman". In fact, I recently quoted the article... and it said "any woman between her first period and menopause".


But the fact is, being treated as pre-pregnant could lead to a social movement in which all women are thought of as pre-pregnant and expected to reproduce. And who knows? It might not even happen. Odds are, this'll do nothing. It was just a stupid idea to say "pre-pregnant" because it could do some damage.

exactly. god help me, i have no idea what about this concept is so difficult to grasp.

No one was saying it was a huge deal, either. Or "crying", for that matter.

Sin Studly
05-24-2006, 10:16 AM
As you quoted yourself, the term refers to any woman who is capable of getting pregnant.

No. The term doesn't refer to them. It refers only to women who are expecting to get pregnant. The women of child-birthing capabilities are simply being recommended to act the same way as pre-pregnants iin a medical context.

Pre-pregnant was not thought up to refer to all women in regards to this law, for fucks sake. It's a medical term. I understand google is now packed with people raving about this crap, but if you search back a little...

Last Revised December 2005. (http://www.llu.edu/llumc/sweetsuccess/info.html?PHPSESSID=fdc15ebc7f4d520704fc41b12461)

Okay? Pre-pregnant is a medical term no different from ambulatory or post-op, and it's been used for a long time before this. Now, nobody is asking the women to be treated socially as pre-pregnant, simply medically. If they were to write out "suggesting women take folic acid suppliments, maintain a healthy diet and weight, refrain from alcohol and smoking and keep all chronic conditions such as asthma or diabetes from getting out of hand" every time they said it they'd run out of paper. Those are simply the definitions of pre-pregnancy care.

Look, just come up with a term to define 'health precautions taken by pre-pregnant women' that overworked doctors and nurses can scribble down in a hurry during hand-over, and that won't be considered offensive, and I'll concede the entire argument.

XYlophonetreeZ
05-24-2006, 12:57 PM
Pre-pregnant was not thought up to refer to all women in regards to this law, for fucks sake. It's a medical term.


OK, fair enough. I hadn't really realized that. But still, there's the matter of this applying to all women and not just sexually active ones. In that regard, there are still implications of the mentality that all women are intended to reproduce.

But I still hope people don't get too pissy about this whole thing, unless their beef is only with being called "pre-pregnant" when they aren't (and yes, there is a gray area of possible implication of being CALLED, rather than merely treated as pre-pregnant). The best way to deal with this will be for the individuals to simply go "whatever" to their doctors when they want to.

Paint_It_Black
05-24-2006, 03:19 PM
So, I just read the article and this entire thread. Now I understand why this has been described like banging your head against a wall. Not so entertaining anymore. Actually it's really quite annoying. Damn.

sKratch
05-24-2006, 04:09 PM
Holy moly... I don't even know how to reply here any more. I'm unclear about whether or not most people oppose this because of the language, or because of the guidelines themselves. It's an honest to goodness GOOD set of guidelines. I hadn't realized the term "pre-pregnant" already existed. It's an excellent point. You want to get into the wording? Well Justin has pointed out that women are to be "treated as pre-pregnant", not called pre-pregnant. I tried really hard to understand what the big deal is and I just don't see it.

Sin Studly
05-24-2006, 09:29 PM
But I still hope people don't get too pissy about this whole thing, unless their beef is only with being called "pre-pregnant" when they aren't (and yes, there is a gray area of possible implication of being CALLED, rather than merely treated as pre-pregnant).

Yeah, I think I've finally understood why everyone is getting so pissy. They must have all thought 'pre-pregnant' was some new phrase invented solely for this, and it applied to all women. That never even crossed my mind.

You guys should learn to read before your form opinions.