[QUOTE=SpoilerVirgin]
I think the OP missed the key quote from that article:It is shameful that the U.S. has such a high infant mortality rate. And the problem with confining efforts to lower that rate to women who already are pregnant, or who are planning a pregnancy, is that by then it’s often too late. So this is a good and IMHO admirable compromise. Any number of women who can be convinced to make the necessary lifestyle changes before getting pregnant, whether it’s planned or unplanned, will help to reduce infant mortality.
Of course no one has to follow the guidelines, any more than we have to eat the recommended daily allowance of vitamins. But maybe putting them out there, and giving them some publicity will prevent some tragic outcomes.
[/QUOTE]
You’re right. It is shameful. And again, it all comes back to education. But if you’re going to make a step toward educating young women in reproductive health, make it meaningful. Stop cutting funding for schools that teach more than abstinence only. Abstinence isn’t working, clearly. Parents, start having meaningful discussions with your daughters at around age 11. Because at 18, it’s too late. Make girls (and boys) as well informed as they can possibly be. Because what the CDC just did is about as effective as putting a band aid on a gangrenous finger. Too little, too late.
These guidelines are nothing more than recommendations made to HCPs regarding the best medical advice they can give their patients. My doc has always recommended to me that I take prenatal vitamins, because in his words “you can get pregnant on accident.” I appreciated the advice, because if I ever do have an unplanned pregnancy, I sure as heck don’t want to have to worry about spina bifida on top of it.
[QUOTE=SpoilerVirgin]
I think the OP missed the key quote from that article:It is shameful that the U.S. has such a high infant mortality rate. And the problem with confining efforts to lower that rate to women who already are pregnant, or who are planning a pregnancy, is that by then it’s often too late. So this is a good and IMHO admirable compromise. Any number of women who can be convinced to make the necessary lifestyle changes before getting pregnant, whether it’s planned or unplanned, will help to reduce infant mortality.
Of course no one has to follow the guidelines, any more than we have to eat the recommended daily allowance of vitamins. But maybe putting them out there, and giving them some publicity will prevent some tragic outcomes.
[/QUOTE]
Of course, most industrialized countries have some form of socialized medicine and/or don’t have their heads up their butts about sex ed, birth control and (dare I say it) abortion. All of which probably contribute to their lower infant mortality rate.
When I was actively trying to get pregnant the recommendations were
No litterbox
No smoking (don’t smoke anyway)
Exercise
Not too much exercise
Prenatal vitamins (made me vomit - can’t take them)
No steak not cooked medium (bigger toxioplasmosis risk than cats)
No gardening (if there are cats in the neighborhood)
Eat healthy
No alcohol
Yes, its damn inconvienent to live your live like you are “pre-pregnant.” And I really don’t like any insinuation that I need to protect a life I don’t want, am not planning for and doesn’t even exist yet.
Better advice from the CDC: :Newsflash: We’ve noticed Americans eat too much, drink too much, smoke too much, and don’t get enough exercise. Start living healthy, dammit - and it really doesn’t matter if you are a fertile woman or a 65 year old man."
[QUOTE=Maureen]
Meh. It may be an overreaction on my part, but to me it seems like just another step in the government telling women how to prepare for being the baby hatcher that is their sole purpose. Do I want my daughter free-basing lead paint and smoking cubans? Of course not. And yes, it’s good advice to anyone who wants to stay healthy. It’s the whole “you could be a mother someday soon!” tone irritated.
[/QUOTE]
Again, though, I’m wondering exactly how much of this attitude is from the CDC, and how much is from the person who wrote that article. I kinda suspect that this is as much a way to convince women to follow health tips they’d be getting anyway: most women (and men) do want kids at some point, and might be willing to make lifestyle changes they wouldn’t otherwise if its phrased as, “Do it for your future baby.” Short of additional information from a primary source, I think casting this as, “CDC views women as walking wombs,” is hyperbolic at best.
I do agree that a functional sex ed program would be a much better way to disseminate this information, though. But that’s a different rant altogether.
[QUOTE=The Sausage Creature]
I hope that by the time I get home from work, this thread is moved to the Pit, and I can say what I really want to say.
[/QUOTE]
You could just start a pit thread, instead of waiting?
Okay, I was pissed. Then I read (or tried to) The CDC report.
Now I’m more pissed at the reporter than the CDC. The CDC calls it “preconception” and includes contraception until conception is desired. It’s not at all as outrageous as the reporter made it out to be.
[QUOTE=FilmGeek]
Okay, I was pissed. Then I read (or tried to) The CDC report.
Now I’m more pissed at the reporter than the CDC. The CDC calls it “preconception” and includes contraception until conception is desired. It’s not at all as outrageous as the reporter made it out to be.
[/QUOTE]
Yup, Miller was quite correct, sounds like the spin came from the reporter. Doofus. (the reporter, not Miller)
Which sounds more like it’s geared toward women and couples who are actually consulting their physicians about family planning.
I do find it to be a problem when a doctor assumes that not only could I get pregnant accidentally, that this would automatically make me change my mind about going through a pregnancy and labor.
The only thing I want from my doctor if I accidentally get pregnant is the knowledge that she’ll either provide an abortion, or point me to where I can get one immediately. If my doctor ever suggested that I take prenatal vitamins, I’d be looking for a new doctor.
Reporters and doctors shouldn’t be making assumptions about what I would do if I have a birth control failure and start telling me that it would be best to live as if I could turn into a mommy tomorrow.
My doctor did not assume anything. My doctor knew that I would never consider an abortion under any circumstances, because I had discussed this with him during my first pregnancy, when he suggested I take various pre-natal tests to determine the likelihood of Down Syndrome, etc. He very well may give different advice to women with different attitudes towards abortion…I don’t know, I have never asked him. All I know is that it was very, very good advice for me, and it would be for anyone who would rather bring a heathy baby into the world (even accidentally) than have an abortion or a baby with a birth defect.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Maybe it’s my lack of a uterus talking, but I don’t really see the big deal, here. Aside from the folic acid supplement, is there anything on that list that most doctors wouldn’t encourage everyone to do, anyway? It’s not like my physician hands me a pack of smokes as I walk into his office because, hey, I’m not ever getting pregnant! Don’t drink, don’t smoke, watch your weight, don’t eat lead paint… these are pretty much standard doctor advice which we all receive and routinely ignore. “Pre-pregnant” is certainly an annoying buzzword, but I’m curious how much it’s actually being used by the CDC, and how much of it is spin from a fairly baised news article.
[/QUOTE]
No doctor has ever told me I’m not allowed to be around cats. My current career doesn’t allow cats but I fully intend to be a cat lady when I grow up and settle down, so there!
[QUOTE=FilmGeek]
Okay, I was pissed. Then I read (or tried to) The CDC report.
Now I’m more pissed at the reporter than the CDC. The CDC calls it “preconception” and includes contraception until conception is desired. It’s not at all as outrageous as the reporter made it out to be.
[/QUOTE]
I’m relieved. For a while there I thought I was going to have to cough up some pre-child support.
[QUOTE=Mr. Wiseguy]
I’m relieved. For a while there I thought I was going to have to cough up some pre-child support.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you are a pre-father after all. I think in the interest of all future offspring, that men be required to hold jobs, abstain from alcohol, smoking (2nd hand you know) any high risk activities that might impair their ability to provide a lifetime of support to any potential offspring. Since men are capable of fathering more children than any woman could, I think we should set a financial requirement as far as income where the number of potential pre-fetus’ is multiplied by the annual cost of raising a child.
While they are out slaving away and cleaning cat boxes, we can sit around and rub our pre-pregnant bellies while eating for two.
Although, the true Hell of something like this is that, quite frankly, anyone who would read and/or abide by something like a CDC warning is not the sort of person at a high, medium, moderate, or anything other than “marginal” risk for an unplanned pregnancy, are they?
If you actually stop and think about it, people concerned enough about their health to read a CDC advisory* and even contemplate abiding by it are not the sort of people running around having unprotected sex sans contraception while drinking like fish, smoking cubans and sucking down lead paint chips sprinkled on a raw steak.
*Note: I am not counting CDC emergency advisories (i.e., “Nobody drink water that hasn’t been boiled because there’s cholera in the water system!” or “There’s e. coli in the bugers at Bob’s, so don’t eat there!”)
