should healthcare be solely about possible future babies?
June 7, 2006 7:12 AM Subscribe
if you are one of the 62 million U.S. women of childbearing age, you are pre-pregnant--a vessel. You are a future fetal incubator. --the CDC and changing our health system to focus on Preconception Health (abortion not mentioned, of course)
This post was deleted for the following reason: posted before
As Omiewise noted in the last discussion:
As far as I can see from the CDC document, pre-pregnant is a term only applied to people who are actually planning to get pregnant. I found all uses using CTRL-F. Reading the abstract, the document doesn't imply that all women are baby factories, it just recognizes that we can improve healthcare for women who may be planning a pregnancy or may get pregnant inadvertently (which happens quite frequently). Indeed, one of four reasons for developing these guidelines have to do with couples who've had poor pregnanceies in the past.posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:16 AM on June 7, 2006
Fascinating. Does this mean that as a living human, I'm pre-dead?
posted by jonmc at 7:20 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by jonmc at 7:20 AM on June 7, 2006
As far as I can see from the CDC document, pre-pregnant is a term only applied to people who are actually planning to get pregnant.
That's the media's term. The CDC document uses 'pre-conception' quite readily, regardless of a woman's plans.
it just recognizes that we can improve healthcare for women who may be planning a pregnancy or may get pregnant inadvertently (which happens quite frequently).
That sounds minor until you realize, as the report itself notes, that all fertile women can get pregnant inadvertantly. And thus, the recommendations are for nearly all women between puberty and menopause. The report doesn't mention choice of course.
That rubbed some people the wrong way since some of the "healthcare improvements" are things like stop drinking and reduce anti-seizure medication dosages. But the "stop drinking in case you inadvertantly get pregnant" recommendation was the one that people took notice of most.
posted by adzuki at 7:33 AM on June 7, 2006
That's the media's term. The CDC document uses 'pre-conception' quite readily, regardless of a woman's plans.
it just recognizes that we can improve healthcare for women who may be planning a pregnancy or may get pregnant inadvertently (which happens quite frequently).
That sounds minor until you realize, as the report itself notes, that all fertile women can get pregnant inadvertantly. And thus, the recommendations are for nearly all women between puberty and menopause. The report doesn't mention choice of course.
That rubbed some people the wrong way since some of the "healthcare improvements" are things like stop drinking and reduce anti-seizure medication dosages. But the "stop drinking in case you inadvertantly get pregnant" recommendation was the one that people took notice of most.
posted by adzuki at 7:33 AM on June 7, 2006
Paging Margaret Atwood...
posted by anarcation at 7:35 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by anarcation at 7:35 AM on June 7, 2006
Paging Margaret Atwood...
Indeed. Page Dan Savage as well: straight Americans should become aware there is a war being waged by the GOP against (hetero)sexual freedom, where the so-called "Defense of Marriage" amendment to the US Constitution should really be discussed in terms of how it is intended to return women to the role of procreative subjugates in the relationship, let alone its discrimination against gays and lesbians.
posted by Mr. Six at 7:42 AM on June 7, 2006
Indeed. Page Dan Savage as well: straight Americans should become aware there is a war being waged by the GOP against (hetero)sexual freedom, where the so-called "Defense of Marriage" amendment to the US Constitution should really be discussed in terms of how it is intended to return women to the role of procreative subjugates in the relationship, let alone its discrimination against gays and lesbians.
posted by Mr. Six at 7:42 AM on June 7, 2006
In biology, an organism is often considered "dead" if it loses the ability to reproduce, whether its a male or female. The growth and development of both sexes is geared towards producing a reproductively capable organism...
The Bush's administration stance on a myriad of women's issues is faulty at best, but that doesn't change the fact that when treating people it could be useful to keep in mind the universal human imperative of reproduction.
posted by rosswald at 7:49 AM on June 7, 2006
The Bush's administration stance on a myriad of women's issues is faulty at best, but that doesn't change the fact that when treating people it could be useful to keep in mind the universal human imperative of reproduction.
posted by rosswald at 7:49 AM on June 7, 2006
We'll all be much better off when children gestate in artificial wombs and are raised to the age of 21 by robots before being released into society as functioning humans.
posted by slatternus at 7:52 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by slatternus at 7:52 AM on June 7, 2006
rosswald writes "In biology, an organism is often considered 'dead' if it loses the ability to reproduce, whether its a male or female. "
No it isn't. Don't be an idiot.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:55 AM on June 7, 2006
No it isn't. Don't be an idiot.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:55 AM on June 7, 2006
that doesn't change the fact that when treating people it could be useful to keep in mind the universal human imperative of reproduction.
Should citizens lose the right to access the same quality of healthcare (leaving aside all the other healthcare inequities enforced by government fiat) simply by deciding not to reproduce?
posted by Mr. Six at 7:56 AM on June 7, 2006
Should citizens lose the right to access the same quality of healthcare (leaving aside all the other healthcare inequities enforced by government fiat) simply by deciding not to reproduce?
posted by Mr. Six at 7:56 AM on June 7, 2006
rosswald - So all post-menopausal women are dead? Does that mean it's okay for me to shoot them in the head if they come shambling towards me now?
posted by longbaugh at 8:00 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by longbaugh at 8:00 AM on June 7, 2006
What bothers me the most (well, maybe not the most, but a lot) is that here we are, sitting on a planet of six billion people, many whom are starving, and there is all this talk of reproductive health.
I'm not saying making sure women are healthy and survive childbirth is a bad thing - but shouldn't we be focused on making LESS babies?
posted by [insert clever name here] at 8:06 AM on June 7, 2006
I'm not saying making sure women are healthy and survive childbirth is a bad thing - but shouldn't we be focused on making LESS babies?
posted by [insert clever name here] at 8:06 AM on June 7, 2006
...universal human imperative of reproduction...
is pretty strong. I am, presumably, human and don't have a desire to reproduce, nor does my wife. Now if you mean 'imperative' as in a duty or obligation I'll just laugh at you some more. Silly, silly.
Dr. Helen Caldicott jokingly advocated for the introduction of birth control and aphrodisiacs to the water supply. So birth rates would go down and people would have fun accomplishing this task.
posted by edgeways at 8:06 AM on June 7, 2006
is pretty strong. I am, presumably, human and don't have a desire to reproduce, nor does my wife. Now if you mean 'imperative' as in a duty or obligation I'll just laugh at you some more. Silly, silly.
Dr. Helen Caldicott jokingly advocated for the introduction of birth control and aphrodisiacs to the water supply. So birth rates would go down and people would have fun accomplishing this task.
posted by edgeways at 8:06 AM on June 7, 2006
Heathcare should be advocated for all, pregnate, pre-pregnate, pre-dead, alive, etc.
posted by edgeways at 8:09 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by edgeways at 8:09 AM on June 7, 2006
Rosswald's statement is true only of evolutionary biology. There, once you are done reproducing (and rearing your offspring for you A strategists out there) you are out of the game.
I see no danger of the folks who championed this document endorsing ANYTHING from the realms of evolutionary biology.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 8:10 AM on June 7, 2006
I see no danger of the folks who championed this document endorsing ANYTHING from the realms of evolutionary biology.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 8:10 AM on June 7, 2006
No it isn't. Don't be an idiot.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:55 AM CST on June 7
Ouch. Well thanks for the lively debate, and after long considering your post, I've come up with a rebuttal:
Now I'm no population geneticist, but if an organism is no longer able to pass on its genes for whatever reason, that organisms genes are "stranded". It's genes will never end up in the population.
Is the organism "dead"? Obviously not, but from the view of the larger population its existence is at best slightly helpful to others (altruistic behavior, shared parental responsibility across a group, etc.) and at worst detrimental to the population as a whole (resources). And the worst cases far outweigh the best. In general, mother nature only cares for those organisms who can make her into a grandmother.
In short, no, your an 1Di0t
posted by rosswald at 8:13 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by mr_roboto at 9:55 AM CST on June 7
Ouch. Well thanks for the lively debate, and after long considering your post, I've come up with a rebuttal:
Now I'm no population geneticist, but if an organism is no longer able to pass on its genes for whatever reason, that organisms genes are "stranded". It's genes will never end up in the population.
Is the organism "dead"? Obviously not, but from the view of the larger population its existence is at best slightly helpful to others (altruistic behavior, shared parental responsibility across a group, etc.) and at worst detrimental to the population as a whole (resources). And the worst cases far outweigh the best. In general, mother nature only cares for those organisms who can make her into a grandmother.
In short, no, your an 1Di0t
posted by rosswald at 8:13 AM on June 7, 2006
What bothers me the most (well, maybe not the most, but a lot) is that here we are, sitting on a planet of six billion people, many whom are starving, and there is all this talk of reproductive health.
I'm not saying making sure women are healthy and survive childbirth is a bad thing - but shouldn't we be focused on making LESS babies?
Sure, but that won't automatically generate better health and less starvation worldwide.
posted by scratch at 8:16 AM on June 7, 2006
I'm not saying making sure women are healthy and survive childbirth is a bad thing - but shouldn't we be focused on making LESS babies?
Sure, but that won't automatically generate better health and less starvation worldwide.
posted by scratch at 8:16 AM on June 7, 2006
Note these horrible "measures" being suggested:
The recommendations are 1) individual responsibility across the lifespan, 2) consumer awareness, 3) preventive visits 4) interventions for identified risks, 5) interconception care, 6) prepregnancy checkup, 7) health insurance coverage for women with low incomes, 8) public health programs and strategies, 9) research, and 10) monitoring improvements.posted by Karmakaze at 8:18 AM on June 7, 2006
Actually, the article points out something I didn't see before: the CDC report does not mention birth control at all.
Reliable birth control is an essential part of both women's health and children's health, since unplanned pregnancies are bad for mothers and babies, including unnecessary abortions. The first step to making sure women have healthier babies is helping them to NOT have babies until they are ready to.
This is a flawed report.
posted by jb at 8:20 AM on June 7, 2006
Reliable birth control is an essential part of both women's health and children's health, since unplanned pregnancies are bad for mothers and babies, including unnecessary abortions. The first step to making sure women have healthier babies is helping them to NOT have babies until they are ready to.
This is a flawed report.
posted by jb at 8:20 AM on June 7, 2006
rosswald, he didn't call you an idiot, he counseled you against being one: he said "don't be an idiot" because he rightly considered you to be pre-idiocy.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:21 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:21 AM on June 7, 2006
rosswald - So all post-menopausal women are dead? Does that mean it's okay for me to shoot them in the head if they come shambling towards me now?
posted by longbaugh at 10:00 AM CST on Jun
My point was just that, for those of us who reject creationism, the only reason you are here is because of a long long long line of ogranisms screwing.
Imagine life as a race, our species got here because they were better at popping out babies then the other species competing for the same resources.
Should we kill people who cant reproduce, from a moral standpoint I would say no. But from a health care standpoint it would be almost negligent to ignore the fact that WE ARE BABY MAKING MACHINES, MALE OR FEMALE. Evolution put a lot of pressure on our bodies to be the best reproductive machine possible.
You CANT really argue that keeping these facts in mind wont help treat people effectively.
//sorry for the possible thread jack, just the science nerd in me
posted by rosswald at 8:23 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by longbaugh at 10:00 AM CST on Jun
My point was just that, for those of us who reject creationism, the only reason you are here is because of a long long long line of ogranisms screwing.
Imagine life as a race, our species got here because they were better at popping out babies then the other species competing for the same resources.
Should we kill people who cant reproduce, from a moral standpoint I would say no. But from a health care standpoint it would be almost negligent to ignore the fact that WE ARE BABY MAKING MACHINES, MALE OR FEMALE. Evolution put a lot of pressure on our bodies to be the best reproductive machine possible.
You CANT really argue that keeping these facts in mind wont help treat people effectively.
//sorry for the possible thread jack, just the science nerd in me
posted by rosswald at 8:23 AM on June 7, 2006
Now I'm no population geneticist, but if an organism is no longer able to pass on its genes for whatever reason, that organisms genes are "stranded". It's genes will never end up in the population.
Is the organism "dead"? Obviously not, but from the view of the larger population its existence is at best slightly helpful to others (altruistic behavior, shared parental responsibility across a group, etc.) and at worst detrimental to the population as a whole (resources). And the worst cases far outweigh the best. In general, mother nature only cares for those organisms who can make her into a grandmother.
I understand what you're trying to say, but that's about the dumbest argument I've ever seen. You seem to be arguing for both an aggregate worth and a genetic worth, while misunderstanding how human societies function.
In short, no, your an 1Di0t
Ironic response, but somehow appropriate.
posted by bshort at 8:23 AM on June 7, 2006
Is the organism "dead"? Obviously not, but from the view of the larger population its existence is at best slightly helpful to others (altruistic behavior, shared parental responsibility across a group, etc.) and at worst detrimental to the population as a whole (resources). And the worst cases far outweigh the best. In general, mother nature only cares for those organisms who can make her into a grandmother.
I understand what you're trying to say, but that's about the dumbest argument I've ever seen. You seem to be arguing for both an aggregate worth and a genetic worth, while misunderstanding how human societies function.
In short, no, your an 1Di0t
Ironic response, but somehow appropriate.
posted by bshort at 8:23 AM on June 7, 2006
But from a health care standpoint it would be almost negligent to ignore the fact that WE ARE BABY MAKING MACHINES, MALE OR FEMALE. Evolution put a lot of pressure on our bodies to be the best reproductive machine possible.
No one is ignoring that. What people are objecting to is only considering people as baby-making machines.
Don't be an idiot.
posted by bshort at 8:25 AM on June 7, 2006
No one is ignoring that. What people are objecting to is only considering people as baby-making machines.
Don't be an idiot.
posted by bshort at 8:25 AM on June 7, 2006
he rightly considered you to be pre-idiocy.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:21 AM CST on June 7
Noted. Two people now who didn't post anything other than to call me stupid. Whatever man, either join the debate or shut up.
// stick a fork in me, cause I'm done
posted by rosswald at 8:26 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:21 AM CST on June 7
Noted. Two people now who didn't post anything other than to call me stupid. Whatever man, either join the debate or shut up.
// stick a fork in me, cause I'm done
posted by rosswald at 8:26 AM on June 7, 2006
I'm not predead I'm postpreexistence.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:27 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 8:27 AM on June 7, 2006
Noted. Two people now who didn't post anything other than to call me stupid. Whatever man, either join the debate or shut up
The 'debate' is you flailing around like a coked up octopus.
posted by atrazine at 8:32 AM on June 7, 2006
The 'debate' is you flailing around like a coked up octopus.
posted by atrazine at 8:32 AM on June 7, 2006
I think the word they're looking for is Gebärmaschinen.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:41 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:41 AM on June 7, 2006
But we have eliminated many of the environmental population controls that would act to keep human population levels in check. From a pure biological sense we may be baby machines, but to a certain degree we have transcended that, for good, or ill. We can no longer responsibility think of our selfs in this manner.
Nor can you single out any species and say it's pure function is to make babies. They also can serve the function of being food for other species, or otherwise promote the existence of other species, I'm sure there must be other examples. It's that interconnectedness thing, no species can exist without other species to support it. To suggest that women of childbearing age deserve healthcare while others not so much, tap into the false notion that we can be selective. Men of childbearing age need healthcare as well, the lifestyle of a man prior to insemination can affect embryonic development, not to mention fathers need to play some role in child rearing and so should be heathy. In fact, in this society older adults (grandparents) have taken on increased child rearing tasks, so they need healthcare. Children need healthcare too, as they may one day produce babies.
So, even if you take the baby-centric imperative as being valid (I do not) you can not limit who should be entitled to heath care and who is not.
posted by edgeways at 8:41 AM on June 7, 2006
Nor can you single out any species and say it's pure function is to make babies. They also can serve the function of being food for other species, or otherwise promote the existence of other species, I'm sure there must be other examples. It's that interconnectedness thing, no species can exist without other species to support it. To suggest that women of childbearing age deserve healthcare while others not so much, tap into the false notion that we can be selective. Men of childbearing age need healthcare as well, the lifestyle of a man prior to insemination can affect embryonic development, not to mention fathers need to play some role in child rearing and so should be heathy. In fact, in this society older adults (grandparents) have taken on increased child rearing tasks, so they need healthcare. Children need healthcare too, as they may one day produce babies.
So, even if you take the baby-centric imperative as being valid (I do not) you can not limit who should be entitled to heath care and who is not.
posted by edgeways at 8:41 AM on June 7, 2006
I know what you're saying rosswald and was being a wee bit cheeky - the problem is that the argument you used itself is one that could be used to say that we should execute all homosexuals or old women. Old women and homosexuals probably do serve an evolutionary purpose in the grand scheme of things (though I am loathe to enter into that conversation because it shouldn't make a bit of difference to how we act towards our fellow humans).
posted by longbaugh at 8:43 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by longbaugh at 8:43 AM on June 7, 2006
From Monty Python:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
posted by EllenC at 8:45 AM on June 7, 2006
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
posted by EllenC at 8:45 AM on June 7, 2006
Meanwhile, in post-Soviet Russia...
"Experts foretell the grim prospect of a Russia that can no longer man its factories, field a decent hockey team, or defend its borders. "I think Putin's main concern is a lack of future soldiers," says Yury Levada, head of the Levada Center, an independent polling agency."
posted by Mr. Six at 8:45 AM on June 7, 2006
"Experts foretell the grim prospect of a Russia that can no longer man its factories, field a decent hockey team, or defend its borders. "I think Putin's main concern is a lack of future soldiers," says Yury Levada, head of the Levada Center, an independent polling agency."
posted by Mr. Six at 8:45 AM on June 7, 2006
Paging Margaret Atwood...
She's probably in Canada, not being pre-pregnant.
posted by oaf at 8:49 AM on June 7, 2006
She's probably in Canada, not being pre-pregnant.
posted by oaf at 8:49 AM on June 7, 2006
That, and she is possibly reaching the end of the time where she would be anyway, but it's really indelicate to speculate about that.
posted by oaf at 8:50 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by oaf at 8:50 AM on June 7, 2006
And the worst cases far outweigh the best. In general, mother nature only cares for those organisms who can make her into a grandmother.
Mother nature can go fuck herself. What about gays and lesbians who might never contribute to the gene pool? The whole point of being human is that we don't sit around looking to nature to validate our existence.
posted by slatternus at 8:52 AM on June 7, 2006
Mother nature can go fuck herself. What about gays and lesbians who might never contribute to the gene pool? The whole point of being human is that we don't sit around looking to nature to validate our existence.
posted by slatternus at 8:52 AM on June 7, 2006
Well, this is one way to make a dupe interesting. Rosswell, that's really the most baffling thing I've read. I'll donate $10 to a charity of your choice if you can find a textbook or peer reviewed article that calls sterile organisms dead. In the meantime, I think I'll go bother my wife the biologist, and the biology staff on campus to see what they think about your notion.
posted by boo_radley at 8:52 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 8:52 AM on June 7, 2006
I'm an hour late to the pissing match, but isn't this just an extreme reframing of the discussion that pushes the theory of when life begins back from the first trimester, far beyond the moment your parents decided to move to the back seat, all the way to when Adam lost his rib?
Also, once the baby machines stop spitting out eggs and bleeding all over the muslin every month, they're truly disposable. You know, it's amazing we ever let them vote.
(Oh, and just to fit in: someone's an idiot.)
posted by chicobangs at 8:57 AM on June 7, 2006
Also, once the baby machines stop spitting out eggs and bleeding all over the muslin every month, they're truly disposable. You know, it's amazing we ever let them vote.
(Oh, and just to fit in: someone's an idiot.)
posted by chicobangs at 8:57 AM on June 7, 2006
(Oh, and just to fit in: someone's an idiot.)
I was trying to keep it on the DL, man.
posted by jonmc at 9:00 AM on June 7, 2006
I was trying to keep it on the DL, man.
posted by jonmc at 9:00 AM on June 7, 2006
rosswald writes "Is the organism 'dead'? Obviously not..."
Which is why saying that "In biology, an organism is often considered 'dead' if it loses the ability to reproduce, whether its a male or female" is idiotic. It's obviously false. No biologist would ever say such a thing.
Last post.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:01 AM on June 7, 2006
Which is why saying that "In biology, an organism is often considered 'dead' if it loses the ability to reproduce, whether its a male or female" is idiotic. It's obviously false. No biologist would ever say such a thing.
Last post.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:01 AM on June 7, 2006
rosswald - So all post-menopausal women are dead? Does that mean it's okay for me to shoot them in the head if they come shambling towards me now?
Longbaugh - you made me spit out my lunch!
posted by msali at 9:01 AM on June 7, 2006
Longbaugh - you made me spit out my lunch!
posted by msali at 9:01 AM on June 7, 2006
Do we not delete double posts anymore?
Isn't Metatalk a better place for these comments?
posted by Mr. Six at 9:03 AM on June 7, 2006
Isn't Metatalk a better place for these comments?
posted by Mr. Six at 9:03 AM on June 7, 2006
Look, this story has been going around for awhile, and everytime it comes up, people attack the CDCs report for treating women like "vessels" "factories" etc.
My only point was that scientifically there might be some merit to this point of view, despite the friction it generates with the modern women's movement.
posted by rosswald at 9:03 AM on June 7, 2006
My only point was that scientifically there might be some merit to this point of view, despite the friction it generates with the modern women's movement.
posted by rosswald at 9:03 AM on June 7, 2006
Look, this story has been going around for awhile, and everytime it comes up, people attack the CDCs report for treating women like "vessels" "factories" etc.
My only point was that scientifically there might be some merit to this point of view, despite the friction it generates with the modern women's movement.
posted by rosswald at 9:03 AM on June 7, 2006
My only point was that scientifically there might be some merit to this point of view, despite the friction it generates with the modern women's movement.
posted by rosswald at 9:03 AM on June 7, 2006
msali - it wasn't a delicious lunch of "braiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnssssssss" was it?
I'm keeping my shotgun handy just in case.
posted by longbaugh at 9:07 AM on June 7, 2006
I'm keeping my shotgun handy just in case.
posted by longbaugh at 9:07 AM on June 7, 2006
Isn't Metatalk a better place for these comments?
posted by Mr. Six at 11:03 AM CST on June 7
Oh, I'm sorry. Am I "derailing" a thread that is sure to be deleted?
I'm quite certain that you wouldn't have make that asinine comment if someone else would have said it.
posted by dios at 9:08 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by Mr. Six at 11:03 AM CST on June 7
Oh, I'm sorry. Am I "derailing" a thread that is sure to be deleted?
I'm quite certain that you wouldn't have make that asinine comment if someone else would have said it.
posted by dios at 9:08 AM on June 7, 2006
The sad thing is I stopped trusting the CDC after the whole bird flu thing. It was so obviously just an excuse to shuffle millions of dollars to the makers of tamiflu, which Rumsfeld used to work for.
Any new stuff that comes out of the CDC is just bullshit misinformation like the stuff that comes from every other level of this government.
posted by 517 at 9:10 AM on June 7, 2006
Any new stuff that comes out of the CDC is just bullshit misinformation like the stuff that comes from every other level of this government.
posted by 517 at 9:10 AM on June 7, 2006
1) individual responsibility across the lifespan
Given the government's recent trend to blame the victim, the phrase individual responsibility has actually become bothersome to me. There is no one out there who does not have an unhealthy habbit or two. In the current cimate, if having a heart attack were national news then the pundits would be condeming the patient for holding down a daily job in lieu of bicycling 30 miles a day (cut to stock footage fo the prez on mountain bike) before the ambulance got him to the hospital.
2) consumer awareness
Again, is this really published by the same government who recently revised the acceptable limit for selenium discharges? Awareness doesn't look like their long suite either.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:10 AM on June 7, 2006
Given the government's recent trend to blame the victim, the phrase individual responsibility has actually become bothersome to me. There is no one out there who does not have an unhealthy habbit or two. In the current cimate, if having a heart attack were national news then the pundits would be condeming the patient for holding down a daily job in lieu of bicycling 30 miles a day (cut to stock footage fo the prez on mountain bike) before the ambulance got him to the hospital.
2) consumer awareness
Again, is this really published by the same government who recently revised the acceptable limit for selenium discharges? Awareness doesn't look like their long suite either.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:10 AM on June 7, 2006
(abortion not mentioned, of course)
And in order to keep things fair, we should specify that all these women are pre-abortion, too. Just so everyone knows what the next logical step is.
posted by namespan at 9:11 AM on June 7, 2006
And in order to keep things fair, we should specify that all these women are pre-abortion, too. Just so everyone knows what the next logical step is.
posted by namespan at 9:11 AM on June 7, 2006
Butt out, dios, were persecuting rosswald here.
Wait your turn.
posted by Floydd at 9:12 AM on June 7, 2006
Wait your turn.
posted by Floydd at 9:12 AM on June 7, 2006
Pre-last post.
posted by NationalKato at 9:13 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by NationalKato at 9:13 AM on June 7, 2006
Note: Item one in the previous is not an endorsement for being truculent and sitting on the couch eating cheetos 37 hours a day except for Saturday when you drink a 5th of Jack Daniels and do heroin.
Only and idiot would suggest that it is.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:13 AM on June 7, 2006
Only and idiot would suggest that it is.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:13 AM on June 7, 2006
Does this mean I get a wage? If my baby has a higher IQ or looks like Shiloh Brangelina, will I be in a higher tax bracket?
'Cause that would really demonstrate that the state truly cares about the unborn. Motivation, people!
posted by DenOfSizer at 9:16 AM on June 7, 2006
'Cause that would really demonstrate that the state truly cares about the unborn. Motivation, people!
posted by DenOfSizer at 9:16 AM on June 7, 2006
My only point was that scientifically there might be some merit to this point of view, despite the friction it generates with the modern women's movement.
Foolishness. We don't base healthcare policy on evolutionary biology. Nature might be amoral, and evolution might only 'care' about reproducers, but why does that matter?
posted by atrazine at 9:18 AM on June 7, 2006
Foolishness. We don't base healthcare policy on evolutionary biology. Nature might be amoral, and evolution might only 'care' about reproducers, but why does that matter?
posted by atrazine at 9:18 AM on June 7, 2006
Did they call menstrual discharge post-consumer pre-fetus?
posted by Captaintripps at 9:19 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by Captaintripps at 9:19 AM on June 7, 2006
Look, this story has been going around for awhile, and everytime it comes up, people attack the CDCs report for treating women like "vessels" "factories" etc.
My only point was that scientifically there might be some merit to this point of view, despite the friction it generates with the modern women's movement.
But the decision to treat women as walking wombs has absolutely nothing to do with science. Those attacks are based on the worth of a person, and the idea of human worth is not a question for science.
I mean, I could decide that the purpose of people is to shit, and the person who produces the biggest pile has the best life, but I wouldn't say this idea has scientific merit simply because defecation is biological.
posted by adzuki at 9:19 AM on June 7, 2006
My only point was that scientifically there might be some merit to this point of view, despite the friction it generates with the modern women's movement.
But the decision to treat women as walking wombs has absolutely nothing to do with science. Those attacks are based on the worth of a person, and the idea of human worth is not a question for science.
I mean, I could decide that the purpose of people is to shit, and the person who produces the biggest pile has the best life, but I wouldn't say this idea has scientific merit simply because defecation is biological.
posted by adzuki at 9:19 AM on June 7, 2006
My only point was that scientifically there might be some merit to this point of view
Cite one scientific study that considers sterile lifeforms "dead." I dare you.
posted by Zozo at 9:22 AM on June 7, 2006
Cite one scientific study that considers sterile lifeforms "dead." I dare you.
posted by Zozo at 9:22 AM on June 7, 2006
"the problem is that the argument you used itself is one that could be used to say that we should execute all homosexuals or old women"
No it can't. I wasn't saying if you can't reproduce you don't deserve to live. I was saying that since so much of biology is in someway linked to reproduction, it would be useful to consider this in TREATING people medically. Society has its own system/values for determining the worth of a person, and I WASN'T saying the biology's views trumps that of society. I was saying the due to biological priorities, reproduction is a considerable part of human health.
"if you can find a textbook or peer reviewed article that calls sterile organisms dead"
I can't because they don't exist, so what you said is HALF true. A sterile organism is not conisdered dead by anyone, its just considered sterile. I just used the term dead to point out its genes are effectively out of the game. Any gene that improves the health/success of a sterile organism by definition dies with it. Its not dead, it just doesn't contribute directly to the evolution of the species. Because of this, its reasonable to think that reproduction and health are linked. Am I wrong?
posted by rosswald at 9:25 AM on June 7, 2006
No it can't. I wasn't saying if you can't reproduce you don't deserve to live. I was saying that since so much of biology is in someway linked to reproduction, it would be useful to consider this in TREATING people medically. Society has its own system/values for determining the worth of a person, and I WASN'T saying the biology's views trumps that of society. I was saying the due to biological priorities, reproduction is a considerable part of human health.
"if you can find a textbook or peer reviewed article that calls sterile organisms dead"
I can't because they don't exist, so what you said is HALF true. A sterile organism is not conisdered dead by anyone, its just considered sterile. I just used the term dead to point out its genes are effectively out of the game. Any gene that improves the health/success of a sterile organism by definition dies with it. Its not dead, it just doesn't contribute directly to the evolution of the species. Because of this, its reasonable to think that reproduction and health are linked. Am I wrong?
posted by rosswald at 9:25 AM on June 7, 2006
Do we not delete double posts anymore?
flag it/ take it to MeTa/ look for some other SSRN link to post on the front page
posted by matteo at 9:29 AM on June 7, 2006
flag it/ take it to MeTa/ look for some other SSRN link to post on the front page
posted by matteo at 9:29 AM on June 7, 2006
I'm quite certain that you wouldn't have make that asinine comment if someone else would have said it.
Please read below the comment section:
note: Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand
posted by Mr. Six at 9:31 AM on June 7, 2006
Please read below the comment section:
note: Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand
posted by Mr. Six at 9:31 AM on June 7, 2006
You don't like my question about whether we delete double posts? Flag it or take it to MeTa.
posted by dios at 9:32 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by dios at 9:32 AM on June 7, 2006
I can't because they don't exist, so what you said is HALF true. A sterile organism is not conisdered dead by anyone, its just considered sterile. I just used the term dead to point out its genes are effectively out of the game. Any gene that improves the health/success of a sterile organism by definition dies with it. Its not dead, it just doesn't contribute directly to the evolution of the species. Because of this, its reasonable to think that reproduction and health are linked. Am I wrong?
Yes. Bees. Worker bees are sterile, but the genes that make them worker bees contribue to reproduction and the health of the species as a whole.
posted by adzuki at 9:33 AM on June 7, 2006
Yes. Bees. Worker bees are sterile, but the genes that make them worker bees contribue to reproduction and the health of the species as a whole.
posted by adzuki at 9:33 AM on June 7, 2006
Its not dead, it just doesn't contribute directly to the evolution of the species.
Indeed, an organism that isn't contributing directly to the evolution of the species is just consuming environmental resources that reproductive members of the same species need to be competing over. Why not classify non-reproductive individuals as cancerous, and terminate them?
posted by slatternus at 9:33 AM on June 7, 2006
Indeed, an organism that isn't contributing directly to the evolution of the species is just consuming environmental resources that reproductive members of the same species need to be competing over. Why not classify non-reproductive individuals as cancerous, and terminate them?
posted by slatternus at 9:33 AM on June 7, 2006
Fine, so that particular combination of genes has reached an evolutionary dead end. Got it.
posted by kittyprecious at 9:35 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by kittyprecious at 9:35 AM on June 7, 2006
An Ode To Bees
Flying! Yellow and black,
fear the honey gathering hordes,
using stealth (and stingers),
they persist in buzzing,
in peoples faces,
causing motorway pile ups.
Bees! Bastards! Killer bastards!
Hewing through the innocent drivers,
stabbing with their stingers,
they have an electrical charge,
to steal pollen.
Thieving bastard killer bees!
Bees make honey, sometimes.
They dance the boogaloo,
communicating through ritual movements,
like, I don't know, Greek people,
though mostly they just fly around a bit.
- longbaugh (age 12)
posted by longbaugh at 9:39 AM on June 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
Flying! Yellow and black,
fear the honey gathering hordes,
using stealth (and stingers),
they persist in buzzing,
in peoples faces,
causing motorway pile ups.
Bees! Bastards! Killer bastards!
Hewing through the innocent drivers,
stabbing with their stingers,
they have an electrical charge,
to steal pollen.
Thieving bastard killer bees!
Bees make honey, sometimes.
They dance the boogaloo,
communicating through ritual movements,
like, I don't know, Greek people,
though mostly they just fly around a bit.
- longbaugh (age 12)
posted by longbaugh at 9:39 AM on June 7, 2006 [1 favorite]
You don't like my question about whether we delete double posts? Flag it or take it to MeTa.
Your question has nothing to do with any issue, topic, or fact at hand in this thread. You have probably been here long enough to know to either flag a thread or start one in Metatalk. I am not going to derail further wasting more time on this with you.
posted by Mr. Six at 9:39 AM on June 7, 2006
Your question has nothing to do with any issue, topic, or fact at hand in this thread. You have probably been here long enough to know to either flag a thread or start one in Metatalk. I am not going to derail further wasting more time on this with you.
posted by Mr. Six at 9:39 AM on June 7, 2006
Adzuki
Bees still evolve, reproduce, and evolution still acts on the sterile worker bees. I made exceptions for these kinds of cases (of which there are many) when I said:
"(altruistic behavior, shared parental responsibility across a group, etc.)"
What you said in no way rebuffs my argument.
"Why not classify non-reproductive individuals as cancerous, and terminate them?
posted by slatternus at 11:33 AM CST on June 7"
Ya, cause thats exactly what I said. Thanks for the paraphrase.
posted by rosswald at 9:41 AM on June 7, 2006
Bees still evolve, reproduce, and evolution still acts on the sterile worker bees. I made exceptions for these kinds of cases (of which there are many) when I said:
"(altruistic behavior, shared parental responsibility across a group, etc.)"
What you said in no way rebuffs my argument.
"Why not classify non-reproductive individuals as cancerous, and terminate them?
posted by slatternus at 11:33 AM CST on June 7"
Ya, cause thats exactly what I said. Thanks for the paraphrase.
posted by rosswald at 9:41 AM on June 7, 2006
Is it even possible to derail a double?
Me, I always thought the primary goal of any species was self-propagation, so- MMRPH! [Becomes engulfed by a swarm of straw-men]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:46 AM on June 7, 2006
Me, I always thought the primary goal of any species was self-propagation, so- MMRPH! [Becomes engulfed by a swarm of straw-men]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:46 AM on June 7, 2006
Ya, cause thats exactly what I said. Thanks for the paraphrase.
You did appear to suggest that non-reproducing human beings are not worthy of the same consideration where healthcare access is concerned:
...but that doesn't change the fact that when treating people it could be useful to keep in mind the universal human imperative of reproduction
posted by Mr. Six at 9:50 AM on June 7, 2006
You did appear to suggest that non-reproducing human beings are not worthy of the same consideration where healthcare access is concerned:
...but that doesn't change the fact that when treating people it could be useful to keep in mind the universal human imperative of reproduction
posted by Mr. Six at 9:50 AM on June 7, 2006
This is ridiculous.
Things like women of childbearing age making sure they get their B vitamins are not oppressive or an effort of The Patriarchy to push women back to the dark ages.
I know people who have given birth to babies with cleft palates, and with spina bifida. In some cases (not all, I'm sure) this sort of thing can be headed off by having enough of a particular vitamin (I forget which one right off the top of my head). And having given birth three times-each time becoming pregnant even while using birth control-and having an ultrasound done by a technician who was pregnant and got that way while on the pill, it is simply common sense to do certain things to stay healthy just in case.
And if it truly does not apply to you (if you are lesbian or if your partner has had a vasectomy or if you already know you would abort an unplanned pregnancy) then just chill out-because there are a ton of women out there that this sort of thing can and does benefit. Many women lack education on this sort of thing, and NEED THIS INFORMATION.
posted by konolia at 9:55 AM on June 7, 2006
Things like women of childbearing age making sure they get their B vitamins are not oppressive or an effort of The Patriarchy to push women back to the dark ages.
I know people who have given birth to babies with cleft palates, and with spina bifida. In some cases (not all, I'm sure) this sort of thing can be headed off by having enough of a particular vitamin (I forget which one right off the top of my head). And having given birth three times-each time becoming pregnant even while using birth control-and having an ultrasound done by a technician who was pregnant and got that way while on the pill, it is simply common sense to do certain things to stay healthy just in case.
And if it truly does not apply to you (if you are lesbian or if your partner has had a vasectomy or if you already know you would abort an unplanned pregnancy) then just chill out-because there are a ton of women out there that this sort of thing can and does benefit. Many women lack education on this sort of thing, and NEED THIS INFORMATION.
posted by konolia at 9:55 AM on June 7, 2006
In biology, an organism is often considered "dead" if it loses the ability to reproduce,
. . .
I can't because they don't exist, so what you said is HALF true. A sterile organism is not considered [sic] dead by anyone, its just considered sterile.
Just admit you fucked up rather than trying to defend an incorrect statement.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 9:55 AM on June 7, 2006
. . .
I can't because they don't exist, so what you said is HALF true. A sterile organism is not considered [sic] dead by anyone, its just considered sterile.
Just admit you fucked up rather than trying to defend an incorrect statement.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 9:55 AM on June 7, 2006
Is that tallywhacker pierced monju? It appears to have some sort of barbell through the helmut area. Is it perchance a Prince Albert?
posted by longbaugh at 9:56 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by longbaugh at 9:56 AM on June 7, 2006
At worst you can accuse me of poor word choice. Nothing I said was incorrect.
posted by rosswald at 9:57 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by rosswald at 9:57 AM on June 7, 2006
oooh - konolia - you know who else likes vitamins?
Tom motherfucking Cruise.
That's like a Scientologist Godwin. And swearing.
posted by longbaugh at 9:58 AM on June 7, 2006
Tom motherfucking Cruise.
That's like a Scientologist Godwin. And swearing.
posted by longbaugh at 9:58 AM on June 7, 2006
I put quotes around dead for a reason: I didn't mean it literally. I was implying something, stretch your brain for a second and try and figure out what.
posted by rosswald at 9:59 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by rosswald at 9:59 AM on June 7, 2006
To all you naysayers:
I recommend you to encorouge every female you know under 30 who isn't planing on getting pregnant to smoke, drink, eat tuna, work in a benzene factory and eat only fast food
Every baby born, (which statistically is a lot) will hopefully be less retarded than all of you.
posted by rosswald at 10:08 AM on June 7, 2006
I recommend you to encorouge every female you know under 30 who isn't planing on getting pregnant to smoke, drink, eat tuna, work in a benzene factory and eat only fast food
Every baby born, (which statistically is a lot) will hopefully be less retarded than all of you.
posted by rosswald at 10:08 AM on June 7, 2006
And if it truly does not apply to you (if you are lesbian or if your partner has had a vasectomy or if you already know you would abort an unplanned pregnancy) then just chill out-because there are a ton of women out there that this sort of thing can and does benefit.
I know lesbians who have decided to have children. Why do they not qualify for the same information?
posted by Mr. Six at 10:11 AM on June 7, 2006
I know lesbians who have decided to have children. Why do they not qualify for the same information?
posted by Mr. Six at 10:11 AM on June 7, 2006
Personally, I'd much rather see information about how I, as a female not planning on reproducing, can keep myself healthy to live a long, active, and happy life; and be made aware of treatments, etc . . . that might not be the best option for those considering children. At least the option would be nice.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:14 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:14 AM on June 7, 2006
I just used the term dead to point out its genes are effectively out of the game.
Words have meanings. Learn them and use them so that we all know what the hell you're talking about.
posted by bshort at 10:17 AM on June 7, 2006
Words have meanings. Learn them and use them so that we all know what the hell you're talking about.
posted by bshort at 10:17 AM on June 7, 2006
Meh. The reproductive system takes up a big part of the bodies of women. Might as well try to keep all that stuff working. Really I don't see this as such a big deal.
It's not like they're talking about doing things that would sacrafice a woman's health for her potential babies'
posted by delmoi at 10:19 AM on June 7, 2006
It's not like they're talking about doing things that would sacrafice a woman's health for her potential babies'
posted by delmoi at 10:19 AM on June 7, 2006
I want you to be healthy insert.
But if you read the report, the majority of women have children even if they didnt originally plan on it. Knowing this, health workers have an obligation to ensure that these babies aren't exposed to every carcinogen under the sun.
Statistically, it makes sense to push this health outlook to protect the thousands of yet to be concieved babies.
I dont nescesarily agree with it in entirity, but you have to admit its a compelling argument.
posted by rosswald at 10:20 AM on June 7, 2006
But if you read the report, the majority of women have children even if they didnt originally plan on it. Knowing this, health workers have an obligation to ensure that these babies aren't exposed to every carcinogen under the sun.
Statistically, it makes sense to push this health outlook to protect the thousands of yet to be concieved babies.
I dont nescesarily agree with it in entirity, but you have to admit its a compelling argument.
posted by rosswald at 10:20 AM on June 7, 2006
Do we?
posted by boo_radley at 10:25 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 10:25 AM on June 7, 2006
Words have meanings. Learn them and use them so that we all know what the hell you're talking about.
posted by bshort at 12:17 PM CST on June 7
Oh come on, Im not your fucking nanny. I made an argument, you chose to attack one word in the entire post, not the argument. If you read what I wrote, its pretty clear that I was saying that sterile organisms are no longer part of the gene pool. I didnt say that sterile organisms are dead in some metaphysical sense, the literal sense, or whatever stupid way you want to take it. I was just stressing the importance of reproduction in human physiology.
posted by rosswald at 10:29 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by bshort at 12:17 PM CST on June 7
Oh come on, Im not your fucking nanny. I made an argument, you chose to attack one word in the entire post, not the argument. If you read what I wrote, its pretty clear that I was saying that sterile organisms are no longer part of the gene pool. I didnt say that sterile organisms are dead in some metaphysical sense, the literal sense, or whatever stupid way you want to take it. I was just stressing the importance of reproduction in human physiology.
posted by rosswald at 10:29 AM on June 7, 2006
Personally I'd like to see the government start taking responsiblity for the things that are within its purview that directly relate to prenatal health and reduction of birth defects. Like maybe stop bending over for industrial lobbyists and degrading water quality standards for heavy metals and other toxins and mutagenics. They can move on to getting preachy about women's wombs once they're doing their own jobs.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:30 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:30 AM on June 7, 2006
is this thread "dead" yet?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:30 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by pyramid termite at 10:30 AM on June 7, 2006
Do we?
posted by boo_radley at 12:25 PM CST on June 7
I dunno, but personally, I would recommend at least ruminating on the idea.
posted by rosswald at 10:31 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 12:25 PM CST on June 7
I dunno, but personally, I would recommend at least ruminating on the idea.
posted by rosswald at 10:31 AM on June 7, 2006
"They can move on to getting preachy about women's wombs once they're doing their own jobs."
Thats a great tactic when dealing with health issues: encourage a stalemate so that nothing gets done.
Are you right? Ya I think so. But that doesn't invalidate the health benefits of THIS idea.
posted by rosswald at 10:33 AM on June 7, 2006
Thats a great tactic when dealing with health issues: encourage a stalemate so that nothing gets done.
Are you right? Ya I think so. But that doesn't invalidate the health benefits of THIS idea.
posted by rosswald at 10:33 AM on June 7, 2006
If you read what I wrote, its pretty clear that I was saying that sterile organisms are no longer part of the gene pool.
That's not what you said. You made a claim about biology that was obviously wrong.
posted by bshort at 10:35 AM on June 7, 2006
That's not what you said. You made a claim about biology that was obviously wrong.
posted by bshort at 10:35 AM on June 7, 2006
"Every living creature has ancestors, but only a fraction have descendants. All inherit the genes of an unbroken sequence of successful ancestors, none of whom died young and none of whom failed to reproduce"
Richard Dawkkins (found via http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/dawkins_explains_evolution/)
My orginal plan was to find several of these, but I was just called to lunch, and you dumb so I dont really care. Either way, what I said seems to at least have some merit.
posted by rosswald at 10:43 AM on June 7, 2006
Richard Dawkkins (found via http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/dawkins_explains_evolution/)
My orginal plan was to find several of these, but I was just called to lunch, and you dumb so I dont really care. Either way, what I said seems to at least have some merit.
posted by rosswald at 10:43 AM on June 7, 2006
The CDC report is basically harmless.
But when you frame your posts like this, with headlines like "Should healthcare be solely about possible future basis?", then you can feel outraged !
Should healthcare be solely about possible future babies?
No.
Okay.
posted by fugitivefromchaingang at 10:43 AM on June 7, 2006
But when you frame your posts like this, with headlines like "Should healthcare be solely about possible future basis?", then you can feel outraged !
Should healthcare be solely about possible future babies?
No.
Okay.
posted by fugitivefromchaingang at 10:43 AM on June 7, 2006
Many women lack education on this sort of thing, and NEED THIS INFORMATION.Yes, but they need the vast majority of this information for the sake of their own health, not the health of any possible future babies that they may or may not have. That's why this is so insulting: the state of healthcare in this country is abysmal. 1 in 6 Americans has no healthcare coverage, and of those who do, many have coverage that, when matched with their income, still does not allow them access to basic (let alone preventative) care.
While access to care declines, the rates of chronic disease continue to climb, and women, a traditionally underserved population suffer most significantly from illnesses that can be prevented, can be easily detected and easily treated when they do have good care. And now, instead of focusing on fixing health care and creating policies that focus on improving women's health because all women need and deserve good health, money is spent and the focus is limited to worrying about us based not upon us and our needs, but on the babies we may or may not have.
posted by Dreama at 10:43 AM on June 7, 2006
If you read what I wrote, its pretty clear that I was saying that sterile organisms are no longer part of the gene pool.
That's not what you said. You made a claim about biology that was obviously wrong.
It's also a second false statement anyway. I pointed that out, but apparently there was an exception to his own statements somewhere.
Genes progagate, but they don't have an opinion on whether or not a specific carrier lives or dies, so long as they propagate in someone else. Genes promoting group behavior -- including that which we see in humans, as well as bees -- protect their status in the gene pool even through those that are sterile.
You are not your genes, and your genes are not only yours. This idea that people's contribution to the species is encapsulated by their genetics is not science; it's eugenics.
posted by adzuki at 10:51 AM on June 7, 2006
That's not what you said. You made a claim about biology that was obviously wrong.
It's also a second false statement anyway. I pointed that out, but apparently there was an exception to his own statements somewhere.
Genes progagate, but they don't have an opinion on whether or not a specific carrier lives or dies, so long as they propagate in someone else. Genes promoting group behavior -- including that which we see in humans, as well as bees -- protect their status in the gene pool even through those that are sterile.
You are not your genes, and your genes are not only yours. This idea that people's contribution to the species is encapsulated by their genetics is not science; it's eugenics.
posted by adzuki at 10:51 AM on June 7, 2006
Scientist have recently discovered that women can, in fact, have babies.
Protests are spreading around the world.
posted by spazzm at 10:53 AM on June 7, 2006
Protests are spreading around the world.
posted by spazzm at 10:53 AM on June 7, 2006
No, that they will in fact have babies.
I won't.
Look, this isn't a huge issue for me, nor is it a huge outrage. But I do see the implications within as frightening and part of the larger effort to define women as baby-making machines. A small part, but a part nonetheless.
posted by agregoli at 10:57 AM on June 7, 2006
I won't.
Look, this isn't a huge issue for me, nor is it a huge outrage. But I do see the implications within as frightening and part of the larger effort to define women as baby-making machines. A small part, but a part nonetheless.
posted by agregoli at 10:57 AM on June 7, 2006
I know lesbians who have decided to have children. Why do they not qualify for the same information?
Now look here you disingenuous nitpicker, Konolia mentioned specifically women who get pregnant accidentally. Like, you know, by accident. Now, maybe I just don't know enough about lesbian biology, but I imagine that when they have have biological children, they plan it.
So, the only time they could be considered pre-pregnant is when they're already planning to conceive and thus presumably already taking their multi-vitamins.
posted by atrazine at 10:59 AM on June 7, 2006
Now look here you disingenuous nitpicker, Konolia mentioned specifically women who get pregnant accidentally. Like, you know, by accident. Now, maybe I just don't know enough about lesbian biology, but I imagine that when they have have biological children, they plan it.
So, the only time they could be considered pre-pregnant is when they're already planning to conceive and thus presumably already taking their multi-vitamins.
posted by atrazine at 10:59 AM on June 7, 2006
We love to get bogged down in linguistic minutia while the real issue (access to decent health care) walks right by us, don't we? Spend too much time looking at the plankton and you miss the whale, folks.
posted by jonmc at 11:03 AM on June 7, 2006
posted by jonmc at 11:03 AM on June 7, 2006
« Older Who said the world of chess was boring! | Bob haven't you got work to do or do you find that... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by grabbingsand at 7:13 AM on June 7, 2006