Attn. Women: Pre-pregnant.

[waxwing]

Pre-pregnant (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html)

Discuss. I can't help being defensive. Federal government should create guidelines referencing women's health in general without making us into receptacles.

[Ivy]

Pre-pregnant (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html)

Discuss. I can't help being defensive. Federal government should talk about women's health in general without making us into receptacles.

I'm torn. On one hand, since half of all pregnancies ARE unplanned, it does make sense to be in good health just in case. But the receptacle subtext is troubling.

[waxwing]

I'm torn. On one hand, since half of all pregnancies ARE unplanned, it does make sense to be in good health just in case. But the receptacle subtext is troubling.
And wouldn't they make a stronger case if they argued for being in good health AS A WOMAN and not as a pre-pregnant woman?

[Dr. Haight]

I think the key word in the opening thesis sentence is "ask." If and when that word changes to "mandates," then, I will share your disgust. Otherwise, it is just a federal public health program that is offensive to the non-religious citizens who have the time, and interest, in criticizing such a suggestion.

(Attention: the above statement was created by a male and therefore ignorance of women issues should be taken into account before criticizing this poor chap--god love him.)

[Ivy]

And wouldn't they make a stronger case if they argued for being in good health AS A WOMAN and not as a pre-pregnant woman?
For most of it, yes. Like the smoking, healthy weight, proper nutrition stuff. But some of it really doesn't apply unless you're pregnant-- the folic acid thing, for example. Some is necessary, but not as much as is ideal for a healthy pregnancy. And the alcohol thing-- moderate drinking is either health-neutral or good for health, depending on who you believe, but it's not so hot for developing fetuses. Personally, as someone who enjoys a nice strong buzz on occasion, I can't really foresee abstaining indefinitely because I *might* be pregnant at some point.

[waxwing]

For most of it, yes. Like the smoking, healthy weight, proper nutrition stuff. But some of it really doesn't apply unless you're pregnant-- the folic acid thing, for example. Some is necessary, but not as much as is ideal for a healthy pregnancy. And the alcohol thing-- moderate drinking is either health-neutral or good for health, depending on who you believe, but it's not so hot for developing fetuses. Personally, as someone who enjoys a nice strong buzz on occasion, I can't really foresee abstaining indefinitely because I *might* be pregnant at some point.
Educate me. Take folic acid, as you mentioned. This is vitamin B9 and is found in green leafy vegetables and liver. What would be the harm in taking more of this this vitamin for, let's say, general health of reproductive system? Would this be reasonable, or is it irrevelant? There are women who will never become pregnant (ones living in the group home where I work) who take folic acid daily.

edit: I understand what you're saying about alcohol, but I can imagine there are women out there who will take these guidelines and twist them as a way of justifying immoderate drinking. Let's say there are women who are abstaining from sex. Or, a woman who takes it upon herself to decide she will never get pregnant despite the fact that half of pregnancies are unplanned. I am simply saying that the potential for getting pregnant should not be THE reason. It's too limited and too easy to finegle.

[papertrail]

I agree with the sentiment of the article but there is something very body snatcher-pod like-soylent green about it.

[Ivy]

Educate me. Take folic acid, as you mentioned. This is vitamin B9 and is found in green leafy vegetables and liver. What would be the harm in taking more of this this vitamin for, let's say, general health of reproductive system? Would this be reasonable, or is it irrevelant? There are women who will never become pregnant (ones living in the group home where I work) who take folic acid daily.

There's no HARM in it, obviously. It's just not that beneficial at the 800mg/day level, except to prevent neural tube defects. The dose for women's health IIRC is lower. Not a huge deal to up the dose for everybody, you're right-- but it's the presumption that everyone should be on 800mg/day that kind of plays into that "receptacle" business.

[Wotton]

The problem with arguing for good health as a woman is that some of the things that make for good health for women (certain pain-killers, I'd assume, and alcohol as mentioned) would harm the potential foetus they're trying to tell doctors & women to keep in mind. The point being that even women who swear they don't want children might choose differently if faced with an unplanned pregnancy, and the things they do in the first month and a half of pregnancy--when they might not have even guessed that they could be pregnant--will still have an effect on the thing inside them.

That article seems to misrepresent the actual CDC recommendations (here (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5506.pdf), if you're interested) a bit, or exaggerates the objectionable parts. I gather it aims at making sure women of reproductive age have some sort of plan, in case they get pregnant, and that their doctor knows that plan so that they don't prescribe something dangerous to a potential embryo/foetus when the patient will carry an unintended pregnancy to term.

However: not every doctor is a good doctor. I can definitely see a lot of doctors assuming pregnancy that will lead to a child, and deciding--without letting the patients in on their reasoning--that a less effective medicine should be given to all of their female patients from ages 12-55 because it's also less likely to lead to birth defects.

[waxwing]

There's no HARM in it, obviously. It's just not that beneficial at the 800mg/day level, except to prevent neural tube defects. The dose for women's health IIRC is lower. Not a huge deal to up the dose for everybody, you're right-- but it's the presumption that everyone should be on 800mg/day that kind of plays into that "receptacle" business.
I'm assuming it's around 400 mcg because I saw that many everyday breakfast cereals contain 400 mcg which is quoted as 100% daily value. They should print on the box: Eat two bowls and consider yourself pre-pregnant.

[Shimpei]

Just an information added to the topic:

The body of a pregnant woman is programmed to serve primarily the fetus' health and well-being. The pregnant woman's health comes only next.

[waxwing]

Just an information added to the topic:

The body of a pregnant woman is programmed to serve primarily the fetus' health and well-being. The pregnant woman's health comes only next.
Please explain further.

[Shimpei]

Please explain further.

The system of a pregnant woman gives first priority to the healthy fetal development. That's why women who have terribly difficult time coping with pregnancy nausea, vomiting and weight-lost for LONG time (like months) shouldn't worry about their babies' health.
My sister-in-law lost a lot of weight due to her being constantly sick and frequent vomiting during the nine months of her pregnancy. The doctor told her not to worry about the baby's health at all.
Finally the baby was born healthy.

[booyalab]

And wouldn't they make a stronger case if they argued for being in good health AS A WOMAN and not as a pre-pregnant woman?
No. They're not arguing for good health AS A MAN. Why should women get special treatment? I'm not offended by the article. I see a high infant mortality rate as a bad thing, being PC isn't going to do dead babies any favors.

[waxwing]

No. They're not arguing for good health AS A MAN. Why should women get special treatment? I'm not offended by the article. I see a high infant mortality rate as a bad thing, being PC isn't going to do dead babies any favors.
Oh, you misunderstand me. I'm not being politically correct. I'm only suggesting that they broaden the scope from "pre-pregnant" to "woman" and make necessary revisions in order to do so. There will always be women who take these guidelines as justification for their not taking care of themselves. By ignoring the fact that half of all pregnancies are unplanned, many woman, I imagine, will say "Oh, well I'm definitely not getting pregnant, so..." I am just looking for a better reason to encourage women to maintain proper health. And yes, there is a lot said about Men's health these days.

[Lee]

I think the key word in the opening thesis sentence is "ask." If and when that word changes to "mandates," then, I will share your disgust. Otherwise, it is just a federal public health program that is offensive to the non-religious citizens who have the time, and interest, in criticizing such a suggestion.That's basically my response too.

I don't understand the problem. These are smart suggestions that women should take heed of, they are not prescriptive laws that you'll be punished for not following.

Actually, I am reminded of all the similar advice given for safe driving, much of which isn't written in law as such, but would be wise to follow if you care about avoiding being in an accident.

By pointing out the specific dangers to foetal development, they are perhaps highlighting unwanted consequences which a woman may otherwise not factor into their decision making.

[booyalab]

Oh, you misunderstand me. I'm not being politically correct. I'm only suggesting that they broaden the scope from "pre-pregnant" to "woman." There will always be woman who will take these guidelines as justification for their not taking care of themselves. By ignoring the fact that half of all pregnancies are unplanned, many woman, I imagine, will not take care of themselves. I am just looking for a better reason to encourage women to maintain proper health. And yes, there is a lot said about Men's health these days.

There are a lot of articles out there that advise people to take better care of their health "as a human being", and they're obviously not working on everyone. The "pre-pregnant" idea is a different, and therefore viable way to encourage women to maintain proper health because it's like saying "since you're not willing to take care of yourself for yourself, imagine the possibility that your actions might directly affect someone else's health"

[waxwing]

There are a lot of articles out there that advise people to take better care of their health "as a human being", and they're obviously not working on everyone. The "pre-pregnant" idea is a different, and therefore viable way to encourage women to maintain proper health because it's like saying "since you're not willing to take care of yourself for yourself, imagine the possibility that your actions might directly affect someone else's health"
We are selfish by nature.

There are women who abstain from sex. There are others who, for psychological reasons, will ignore the fact that they are capable of conceiving a child. I seriously question the average woman's ability to walk around thinking of herself as pre-pregnant (for intents and purposes, actually "pregnant"). My main problem is with the terminology, and I think the guidelines will prove ineffective for that very reason.

Here is my idea:

Take whatever it is you want women to do, and place those suggestions within a broader context so that the majority of the female population will actually do them. By likening nearly all women to pregnant women, you are really saying,

A
It won't harm you (and might even help you) to take the same vitaimins and follow the same guidelines of pregnant women.

If A is true, then there must be reason to follow these guidelines beyond the possibility that a woman could become pregnant. Tell me the reasons and I'll be more apt to follow them. If there are really no reasons besides "You might have an unplanned pregnancy," then save your guidelines for someone else. I'm not convinced there are no other reasons or else the government would be taking too great a risk.

[TelecomClone]

It's just a recommendation - like the Food Pyramid (or whatever the fuck they're using now). This is a good idea, and not something that impedes, restricts, or maligns women in any manner that I can see. It doesn't even appear to conflict with essential feminist philosophy.

[C.J.Woolf]

"Pre-pregnant", eh? We're definitely pre-menopausal, pre-old, and pre-dead.

Maybe I'll call myself pre-rich and pre-famous.

[waxwing]

Nobody is answering my objections.

Do you see that I agree that they are good suggestions? I disagree with the manner in which they are being presented. If the guidelines for pregnant women will in some way benefit non-pregnant women enough that we are being asked to consider ourselves pre-pregnant, my natural assumption is to think that there must be a reason beyond "It's possible that you will become pregnant at any time." My assumption is that these suggestion will more than NOT HARM me, but will actually benefit me. Tell me how, that's all I ask.

[papertrail]

My assumption is that these suggestion will more than NOT HARM me, but will actually benefit me. Tell me how, that's all I ask.

By reminding you why you're here...lest you forget. You are here ultimately to reproduce.

Now pop those pills, prep that body and be quiet.

[Shimpei]

By reminding you why you're here...lest you forget. You are here ultimately to reproduce.

Now pop those pills, prep that body and be quiet.

:lol:

I somehow smell, Waxwing that you feel aversion to having babies.

[Lee]

Nobody is answering my objections.

Do you see that I agree that they are good suggestions? I disagree with the manner in which they are being presented. If the guidelines for pregnant women will in some way benefit non-pregnant women enough that we are being asked to consider ourselves pre-pregnant, my natural assumption is to think that there must be a reason beyond "It's possible that you will become pregnant at any time." My assumption is that these suggestion will more than NOT HARM me, but will actually benefit me. Tell me how, that's all I ask.I have no idea what you are objecting to.

Really these suggestions are a warning that any woman may be in the early stages of pragnancy right now, so their lifestyle choices may be damaging the developing embryo, unplanned pregnancies like this may be adding the infant mortality rates.

Anybody who continues on with those lifestyle choices despite this knowledge is taking a risk, so perhaps they should reconsider their priorities. It's not going to work, but it does no harm to inform people about it.

[LongSilence]

Its a tricky business trying to be a general governmental body aiming to help society's health as a whole without appearing too strict or nannying. There's always the danger (at this thread shows) that people will be irritated by the apparent disregard for their individualism.

Ideally these should just be considered contemporary guidelines that might help most women get an idea, should they need it, of how to care for their bodies and one particular good reason they should. In the modern world the formation of 'the self' is a critical issue that many people see the need to monitor. The Western world is increasingly watchful of the care of children with more and more rules and laws to try and ensure that children are NEVER bullied, abused or have their human rights infringed in any way.

Its a complicated issue that brings up how and from what children should be protected. But it makes sense that a society that watches the actions of parents for the child's sake after the child is born will soon take an interest in their actions before the birth, and even before the conception too. Now its obvious this article might anger some people (in particular extreme feminists spring to mind) who don't want to be defined, advised or apparently "controlled" on account of their uteruses. But in the end, its all a matter of what one does with these guidelines and how you take them.

[waxwing]

I have no idea what you are objecting to.Sometimes I doubt your committment to reading.



Really these suggestions are a warning that any woman may be in the early stages of pragnancy right now, so their lifestyle choices may be damaging the developing embryo, unplanned pregnancies like this may be adding the infant mortality rates.I understand that, but I'm thinking about how we might see these guidelines implemented. You said yourself, "it's not going to work, but it does no harm to inform people," so I say, why not present the information in a way that gives non-pregnant women more relevent reasons to improve their reproductive health? I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Besides, think about the other reasons why these guidelines won't possibly be implemented by all women. It is simply not possible for every woman to afford the cost of caring for herself like she would if she were pregnant. Sure, in the long run, we might have fewer children born with birth defects, but we're also asking women do so something that society hasn't made conditionally feasible.

In sum, let's take care of "pregnant" before we take care of "pre-pregnant." There are enough women who can't afford the cost of their actual pregnancies, so we need to teach them how not to have babies until they're financially secure. These guidelines are an attempt to erase the symptoms of a problem (children born with birth defects, etc) while ignoring the deeper issues.


Now pop those pills, prep that body, and be quiet.
Thanks for the advice, but first I must pick up my welfare check. :)

[Kai]

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.

:wtf:


I don't smoke.
I exercise.
I eat lots of fruits and vegetables.
My diet is low in fat and low in sugar.
I rarely drink alcohol and don't take street drugs.
I take meds that would put a fetus at risk.
I drink water.


I am not a walking incubator and would appreciate it if the health care system didn't treat me like one. It is one thing for my doctor to recommend I eat healthy and quite another to try to ready me in case I get pregnant. :wtf: What, I'm to live my life in case I happen to get pregnant ? however remotely?

No thank you.

If the fetus has problems I'll abort. But I'm not about to stop taking my meds just because I was born with a uterus with the potential to turn into a hotel.

The article words it as treating yourself and readying yourself based on the most important concern for you as a woman -- that you are walking around as a potential incubator. That is the least of my concerns. I'll continue with a healthy lifestyle and keep popping my meds because it benefits ME not a potential fetus.

-Kai

[philonightmare]

Pre-pregnant (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html)

Discuss. I can't help being defensive. Federal government should create guidelines referencing women's health in general without making us into receptacles.
Hmm, I can see why on immediate reaction one would perceive the point being made in the article as "women are just vessels for our future generations!" However, the underlying assumption behind the guidelines is that of preventative health care --it's fact that only women can have children and that their relationship to the child pre-birth is a very direct, very critical connection. Evidently, the problem was significant enough for the government to finally acknowledge they needed to formulate a list of advice. Many women, keen on having children in the near future, STILL smoke, drink, etc up to the moment they find out they are pregnant, and even during the pregnancy, because of ignorance of matters of healthcare pre-pregnancy. It's barely stressed in 7th grade health class that a woman, if sexually active and not on birth control or using other methods of prevention, should beware of messing up her child in the very early stages of pregnancy --the most critical time.

You could argue that all men, as potential sperm donors, should watch their health as well since it would be their fault if their sperm was defunct in some way, contributing to a foetus' maldevelopment, genetically. That it's not just a woman's responsibility to ensure that these pregnancy and pre-pregnancy problems are taken care of.

[waxwing]

Hmm, I can see why on immediate reaction one would perceive the point being made in the article as "women are just vessels for our future generations!" However, the underlying assumption behind the guidelines is that of preventative health care --it's fact that only women can have children and that their relationship to the child pre-birth is a very direct, very critical connection. Evidently, the problem was significant enough for the government to finally acknowledge they needed to formulate a list of advice. Many women, keen on having children in the near future, STILL smoke, drink, etc up to the moment they find out they are pregnant, and even during the pregnancy, because of ignorance of matters of healthcare pre-pregnancy. It's barely stressed in 7th grade health class that a woman, if sexually active and not on birth control or using other methods of prevention, should beware of messing up her child in the very early stages of pregnancy --the most critical time.

You could argue that all men, as potential sperm donors, should watch their health as well since it would be their fault if their sperm was defunct in some way, contributing to a foetus' maldevelopment, genetically. That it's not just a woman's responsibility to ensure that these pregnancy and pre-pregnancy problems are taken care of.
These are all good points.

What do you think about the phrase and implications of pre-pregnant? I would like to know if what I'm saying makes sense to anyone.

I am starting from the given guidelines and working backwards.

1. The existence of these guidelines for "pre-pregnant" women implies that all women should treat their bodies as if they were pregnant.

2.Therefore, there must be something beneficial about following these guidelines, even for the women who will never actually become pregnant. Otherwise, the government would be taking too great a risk by asking all women to consider the advice.

3. Essentially, to consider yourself "pre-pregnant" is to consider yourself "pregnant."

4. Because a woman who will never become pregnant will still benefit from following these guidelines (which is my assumption), there must be a better means of motivating women to improve their health besides telling them they are forever pregnant.

I'm feeling redundant, but nobody is answering me yet. Philo, can you tell me?

[cafe]

Well, being more on the maternal end of the spectrum, I will just say that I would be more likely to do something to ensure the health of my child than I would for my own long-term health. My body is programed, as was mentioned, to sacrifice itself for the sake of my child and my mind is not far behind. I know people who have faced the decision of what to do about a fetus who had neural tube defects, which are related to low folic acid. It is/was not an easy thing for them to go through and I would not want to face that decision myself. Ever. Not every unplanned child is an unwanted child.

[attila_the_hunny]

My current well-being is ahead of a hypothetical child's.

[cafe]

Nobody is answering my objections.

Do you see that I agree that they are good suggestions? I disagree with the manner in which they are being presented. If the guidelines for pregnant women will in some way benefit non-pregnant women enough that we are being asked to consider ourselves pre-pregnant, my natural assumption is to think that there must be a reason beyond "It's possible that you will become pregnant at any time." My assumption is that these suggestion will more than NOT HARM me, but will actually benefit me. Tell me how, that's all I ask.
They could just lie and say that every woman or every man, for that matter, should take the higher amount of folic acid. Then it's not as offensive and it still does the trick. I dunno.

[In...TP]

"pre-pregnant" or pre-menopausal? My understanding is that folic acid is not for healthy post-menopausal womenhttp://www.noperiod.com/

[LongSilence]

People are far more inclined to be relaxed about their own health, because after all its our lives and we're here to enjoy them, right? Is it so bad to make the suggestion that people consider that maybe their own choices might affect others? Arguably men should be given similar guidelines but they aren't because there already is wildly publicised advice for all people when it comes to looking after the general well being of their bodies.

As it is, medically speaking men can get away with a lot more when it comes to making sure they continue to produce healthy sperm. Men can be diabetic, drink, smoke, get cancer (apart from of course testicular) and their sperm should still be basically in the state they need to be to fertilise an egg properly and healthily. Women, whether they like it or not, have the uteruses where humans spend 9 very important months of their lives. Therefore, women intrinsically have more responsibility when it comes to looking after their bodies, should they make the choice to want to raise children at some point in their lives. And almost all women get and fulfil that desire.

It might not be completely fair (and as it is men miss out on one of the most extreme and sensational experiences of life) but its the way of the world. As it is the guidelines aren't recommending that women sacrifice themselves, they only suggest that the consider the possibility that at some point they might sacrifice their own body and selfish happiness for another. And in the meantime, men can try to make sure they don't handle any radioactive materials without a lead frying pan down their pants.

[Wotton]

The purpose of preconception care is to improve the health of each woman before any pregnancy and thereby affect the future health of the woman, her child, and her family.
It mentions, among other things, better education for men and for women about reproductive risks, and making health care available for low-income women who can't afford insurance. All of which looked to me like good, common-sense things to do if you're trying to lower the infant mortality rate and raise the number of healthy births.

The actual report doesn't use the phrase "pre-pregnant". It uses "pre-conceptive care" instead--slightly less objectionable? The guidelines seem mostly aimed at a higher percentage of healthy births, given the huge percentage of pregnancies that are unintended in the US, and given the number of women who actually don't seem to know how bad smoking, drinking to excess, and risky sex while pregnant can be for their baby. The fact that a lot of the recommendations will be good for the women, also, seems to be a pleasant side-effect. (Not all of the recommendations would be good for women who aren't pregnant and plan to stay that way. Factors that put a pregnancy at risk include contraceptive pills, certain types of acne medication, and drugs for epilepsy, as well as smoking, drinking to excess, and being HIV positive.)

[philonightmare]

These are all good points.

What do you think about the phrase and implications of pre-pregnant? I would like to know if what I'm saying makes sense to anyone.

I am starting from the given guidelines and working backwards.

1. The existence of these guidelines for "pre-pregnant" women implies that all women should treat their bodies as if they were pregnant.

2.Therefore, there must be something beneficial about following these guidelines, even for the women who will never actually become pregnant. Otherwise, the government would be taking too great a risk by asking all women to consider the advice.

3. Essentially, to consider yourself "pre-pregnant" is to consider yourself "pregnant."

4. Because a woman who will never become pregnant will still benefit from following these guidelines (which is my assumption), there must be a better means of motivating women to improve their health besides telling them they are forever pregnant.

I'm feeling redundant, but nobody is answering me yet. Philo, can you tell me?
I understand exactly what you mean, it really is implied, but the fact remains that most females do want to get pregnant at some point in the future and therefore benefit from these guidelines, whether they have a functioning uterus or not.

Even if pre-pregnant preventative health measures can be intrepreted as pregnant, does not mean the measures are intrinsically strict on gender roles. The assumption is that if most women are interested in having children at some point in the future, they will benefit anyway, for themself, with or without having children. The problem of women's health is solved while attempting to solve the problem of healthy births failing to occur due to ignorance.

Of course there are many women who find this assumption ridiculously confining, but there's no way around it, MOST women desire this role --if it benefits them, who can complain about that? It's a bit of subterfuge, but it works.

[helium]

What do you think about the phrase and implications of pre-pregnant? I would like to know if what I'm saying makes sense to anyone.


I understand exactly what you're saying. If I thought for a moment that most people had the capacity that you have for abstract thought, I would march alongside you to the offices of the CDC to insist on a change of verbage.

But the blanket recommendation by the CDC is targeted at Average Jane, who likely will not heed the simple instruction, much less consider the underlying implications. Still, by making such a recommendation, the government can put its hands on its hips, wag its collective finger, and say, "I told you so."

Government is just trying to take care of its people, despite caretaking being outside the realm of proper governance, because people demand it, even though they later will claim that government is too intrusive.

Clear as mud?

For what it's worth, I agree that labeling women "pre-pregnant" borders on sexism, even though the cause is noble. I also agree that targeting women in general for such a recommendation makes more sense than targeting "pre-pregnant" women, since it does no harm to non-pregnant women, and women who do become pregnant, which likely will be the majority of women in any given generation, will not realize they are pregnant until it's too late to take all the precautions.

Yet when all is said and done, I think most women will ignore or forget the recommendation. The few who heed the recommendation will understand the nobility behind it, whether it comes across as discriminatory or it comes across as a catch-all for every woman.

And we're back at square one.

[Kai]

My current well-being is ahead of a hypothetical child's.

Agreed.

What I don't like is the subtext that if you fail to do these things it is because you are being irresponsible, I mean, your purpose is to do everything possible as a woman to ensure that you are within good breeding capacity. If only I'd known sooner that was my purpose in life! :banghead:

Man, if I fail to take folic acid, and stop drinking and whatnot, I'm a heartless individual without a care for the babies that I'm supposed to be mindful of!

Fuck this shit.

I come first. I'm not going to live my life treating myself as vessel when I could be dead tomorrow and if don't look after myself today there may not be a tomorrow. Truth is, that a lot of the meds I take can hurt a fetus. So what? A lot of things can hurt a fetus. Life is full of risks. There are certain risks I would not take once pregnant but to take while I'm not and have no intention of becoming pregnant any time soon is to be irresponsible of my own health.

This concern for political correctness, this concern that you ought to do what's best for babies as a woman just because you are a woman and capable of bearing children is not just appalling but pathetic. I will not deny my own health and not place myself first just because I could be seen as heartless and not enough of a woman if I don't.

Fuck this shit.

-Kai

[meshou]

...You seem to be ignoring the fact that men and women have different nutritional and health needs as it is. And yes, you do need to eat differently when pregnant.

[Ivy]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that men and women have different nutritional and health needs as it is. And yes, you do need to eat differently when pregnant.

Not really, if you eat well to begin with.

[Architectonic]

I'm feeling redundant, but nobody is answering me yet.

I guess it does makes the assumption, rightly or wrongly that women are less likely to ignore the guidelines due to the possibility of an unplanned pregnancy. (ie, any health guidelines for women in general)
That is, it suggests that women in general are normally more likely to look after their health after they get pregnant, (for the sake of the child) rather than before.

[Marston]

Yeah, this is about the point where "Think of the children!" starts turning into self-parody.

[Vega]

It annoys me in a lot of ways. If the rate of unplanned pregnancies is so high, then why not address that problem first? But no one cares about that and the government seems to want to increase that problem by not teaching about contraception in schools and keeping emergency contraception as unavailable as possible.

[Crazy]

The implications of the verbage, and possibly the thinking behind it, seem to paint women as baby factories. Pushed a little further, and we're back to where women can't have jobs because they need to stay home and make babies, and then take care of them. In a sense, it could be seen as a step back in the direction of the old gender roles that we are still trying to get free of. What else are they going to "suggest" women do or not do because they have the possibility of getting pregnant. Maybe they should all get married, because they might get pregnant, and thier future child needs a stable family. All women should be required to take parenting courses, because they might get pregnant someday. All women should buy gender nuetral baby clothes now, so they'll have them in case they get pregnant. All women should make sure they live near good schools, because they might get pregnant someday.

OK, maybe I carried that a little too far, but you get my point. Yes, there are benifits to it, but I can see the governments attempts to control our lives and influence our thoughts. And suddenly the thread about the Boston Church that wants everyone to be ESFJ's so they'll conform better popped into my head.

[meshou]

Not really, if you eat well to begin with.I eat well for a mild hypoglycemic who is not pregnant. I also have a couple drinks in a week, which I'd wager is less than average for women in their early twenties. I would need major changes in my diet and monitoring for pregnancy diabetes. I'd rather wait until I am pregnant for that.

[SensEye]

I'm torn. On one hand, since half of all pregnancies ARE unplanned, it does make sense to be in good health just in case. But the receptacle subtext is troubling.I'm far more disturbed about this half of all pregnancies being unplanned remark than I am about anything else in this thread (sorry ladies). Having a baby is an important decision, it shouldn't happen by accident. Society really needs to come up with a way to regulate reproductive rights.