Plays Well With Others

Pre-Pregnancy For All…

According to our government, since most women are nothing but potential baby carriers, women should live in a state of “pre-pregnancy” between the time of their first menstrual cycle to the point of menopause, whether or not they plan on ever giving birth.

Tags: , , , ,

7 Responses to 'Pre-Pregnancy For All…'

  1. personal avatar
    Nic | 17 May 2006

    Gross!


  2. personal avatar
    Greg | 17 May 2006

    Yeah, I had a feeling you’d like this one.


  3. personal avatar
    Bill J. | 17 May 2006

    I don’t see anything here justifying much of a fuss at all, much less ridiculous claims like “the government considers every woman a baby-production factory.” This is basic, simple, inexpensive public health stuff that could actually make a difference if given a little support and attention.

    Don’t forget the study a couple weeks ago that ranked the US second-worst in the entire industrialized world in infant mortality rates. At first glance, the whole arrangement sounds like a pretty decent deal to me.


  4. personal avatar
    Greg | 17 May 2006

    I certainly am all for women having good health care and taking care of their basic needs, but there’s a problem with lumping all women—pre-pubescent to menopausal—together. Some women don’t want children and some can’t have children.

    I think the theory behind the story would be just fine had they not mentioned the whole pre-pregnancy issue and left it at upgrading basic healthcare for all women. Period. You know. Just for a healthy lifestyle altogether regardless of whether bearing children was in their future or not.


  5. personal avatar
    Bill J. | 17 May 2006

    This sounds to me like you’re arguing against yourself.

    I think this sounds exactly like the “upgrading basic healthcare for all women” you’re talking about. Improving access to care for women and increasing the fraction of healthy pregnancies will be equally realized. Naming one a “primary” benefit and the other a “secondary” one is a question of semantics.

    If discrimination based on “childbearing potential” were the goal, you’d expect to find preferential care given to women more interested/able/both in having children, which is precisely *not* the goal of this program. Am I reading you incorrectly here or something?


  6. personal avatar
    Greg | 17 May 2006

    I totally understand that by improving healthcare for all women, the side benefit would be healthier chidren being born. I was merely trying to explain “what the fuss is all about”. Basically there are a lot of women that don’t want to have chidren, nor do they want to be referred to as someone in a state of “pre-pregnancy”. So it gets those people riled up when someone pushes the “pregnancy” title on them in any way, shape or form.

    I’m with you on the theory behind the story because I think it’s something everyone—man or women—should follow. No smoking, stay fit, eat well, take vitamins. Just live a healthier lifestyle.

    Some women don’t want the healthcare system treating them for a possible pregnancy everytime they go in, just like men don’t want to be treated for possible erectile dysfunction everytime they go in. Plus, most of these people that screw up their pregnancies probably aren’t making regular doctor appointments anyhow. So how do you enforce this.

    Anyhow…


  7. personal avatar
    Bill J. | 17 May 2006

    I think I see where you’re going now. Fair enough.


3gp videos