no shit. FUCK THAT!

Oh, and you forgot the no drinking alcohol thing, too....

Pass the tequila.

Well, it is the CDC, who are definitionally a bunch of busybodies.

And they are, after all, "recomendations", not regulations (though I'm sure there are more than a few public health types who would happily make them so, along with everything else that might make anyone healthier, ever).

On the lighter side, I notice that they don't care if I wear a uranium codpiece 24/7. Hah!

I really don't understand the freaking out over this.

The CDC makes all kind of busy-body intrusive recommendations. You seem to be pissed about this one only because it's exclusively directed at women.

Duh. Only women get pregnant. It's not that hard a concept.

The CDC sees its duty as increasing the sum total health of the nation and making sure that health care resources are as efficiently used as possible. Pregnancy, from a health care perspective, is a resource intensive activity. The CDC empirically believes that certain practices prior to being pregnant will make a woman's pregnancy less complicated (thereby increasing health and reducing cost). Likewise, while some women will never have a child, most do, and a lot of women end up having one without necessarily intending as such earlier in life (biological clock phenomenon, and all that).

So, your problem is what, exactly?

If you don't like the CDC being a busybody, it seems peculiar that you would only get up in arms over this particular episode.

The CDC makes all kind of busy-body intrusive recommendations. You seem to be pissed about this one only because it's exclusively directed at women.

The thing that set people off was the language in the WaPo piece which Ilyka cited--being treated as "pre-pregnant" and guiding all of your activities accordingly regardless of pregnancy plans has that hint of "you breeders" about it.

Interestingly, Amanda Marcotte researched the guidelines and provided some additional context that countered the spin of the WaPo wording.

If you don't like the CDC being a busybody, it seems peculiar that you would only get up in arms over this particular episode.

Well, there's the fact that this particular episode was the one that was...in the news. Ilyka's on record with her general views vis-a-vis an overweaning government:

That's what states do (and by "states," I do not mean specifically these united ones but governments in general), the more power you give them. It is difficult for states to manage large numbers of people; it is impossible for them to manage large numbers of people who are independent, self-motivated, and active. When you clamor for states to exhibit more of those qualities themselves--be more active on our behalf! Do more without having to be told! Decide what's best without all that dithering and filibustering!--you necessarily decrease those qualities in the populace. So help me, I didn't make that rule. It just is.

Be more active on our behalf! means you empower government to decide what "your behalf" is.

Do more without having to be told! means you empower government to take action without first seeking your input.

Decide what's best without all that dithering and filibustering! means you empower government to ignore opposing viewpoints and conflicting data.

This is what you wanted. This is what you get.

But I'm sure that perspective is just shaped by some of the subject people being women. Or something.

The thing that set people off was the language in the WaPo piece which Ilyka cited--being treated as "pre-pregnant" and guiding all of your activities accordingly regardless of pregnancy plans has that hint of "you breeders" about it.

Oh gads, man, I appreciate it and all (especially that you quoted me because how flattering is that?), but really, don't bother arguing with Russell.

I mean, you remember Russell, don't you? Russell's the dude who suggested I "calm down" in response to this post, you know, the post that reads as though it's written by someone who not only wants to put her readers to sleep, but is in fact already half-asleep herself? If I'd been any calmer I'd have needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation to snap out of it.

Powers of observation are not among those in Russell's superhero kit.

The lesson we can all take from this is, of course, never to name your son "Russell." That like DOES things to a dude.

(As for Amanda's excellent refutation: I get it, and she's right that the WaPo did, well, what journalist hacks have been doing to studies for decades--but at the end of the day I gotta lean on the Twisty side of the fence about the whole thing.)

Is the CDC going to recommend that guys keep their peckers in their pants & loose the beer bellys?

rosethornblack,

They already do, in their own way.

It is a funny site only because it is so true. You guys are insane and lack a sense of humour. That is normal for the maniacal left, though.

As for this recommendation, while I don't agree with government being involved in health care at all - as long as they aren't putting a bullet in your babykilling heads, I don't see what the big hubbabaloo is about.

I mean, these recommendations are so obvious if you have done any research on the issue at all. I had already decided on taking folic acid supplements.

"being treated as "pre-pregnant""

Well, unless you sterilize yourself, you do have the potential of getting pregnant. That is what the word 'pre-pregnant' means. If women/girls aren't pre-pregnant, then why all the paranoia about pregnancy? Why support sex education at all?

"and guiding all of your activities accordingly regardless of pregnancy plans has that hint of "you breeders" about it."

Um, everybody is a potential 'breeder'. I mean, DUH!

This is the classic example of looking for offense where none exists.

It makes perfect sense for all people (yes, men too) to prepare for a child that may or may not come into existence. It might even be considered *wise*.

Your problem is that you don't want to be reminded of the existence of a prenatal human being. You don't want to be reminded of a responsibility that MOST people of child bearing age (both men and women) will have.

If you don't like the recommendation, then ignore it. You'll probably kill the kid anyways. Knowing you folks, you might even consider it a political statement after this recommendation.

What if you were to decide to give birth to the kid? Wouldn't you be kicking yourself in the ass if he has spina bifida because you insisted on refusing the recommendation?

Or maybe you won't. After all, it's your body and since it's your body, the child can just go fuck himself, right?

"Why support sex education at all?"

Knowing that you will prob. flock on this question like a bunch of flesh-eating birds, yes, I know about STDs. Take the question in its context please. Why support pregnancy prevention?

Feministing.org visitors who'd like to see what actually funny web sites look like are invited to check out Something Awful, Jay Pinkerton, Jim Treacher, Hubris, or any of hundreds of other sites that bother to first scope out what they're parodying in order to parody more effectively.

OK, so only parody sites that refrain from goring any of your sacred cows are funny. Got it.

Typical, humorless feminist.

Man, I was wondering when you fellows were gonna drop me a line! Y'all hang out here 20, 30 minutes, and not a peep until today. That really hurts a gal, you know?

Seriously, though, thank you for taking the time. I appreciate it. I'll start with you, Grump, 'cause you went first:

It is a funny site only because it is so true. You guys are insane and lack a sense of humour. That is normal for the maniacal left, though.

See, my problem is, it ISN'T "so true." Neither Amanda nor the Feministing gals nor any of the mainstream feminist bloggers I'm reading go hog-wild on the "y" thing. Feministe doesn't discuss "womyn," it discusses "women" (and race, and gender, and class, but you get my point). If you're gonna mock a thing you have to know what that thing looks like and you have to move beyond the superficial prop comedy of just spelling Amanda's name "Amynda."

This is actually why I think _I_ suck at parody, and thus seldom attempt it: It's a lot of work! You spend about 90% of your time on the research and only 10% of the time crafting the jokes. I'm lazy; I HATE research.

As to the "maniacal left" thing, I'm currently a registered Republican. Presidential election votes since 1992 have been Perot (I know--look how well that turned out), Dole, Bush, and Bush again.

As for this recommendation, while I don't agree with government being involved in health care at all - as long as they aren't putting a bullet in your babykilling heads, I don't see what the big hubbabaloo is about.

I mean, these recommendations are so obvious if you have done any research on the issue at all. I had already decided on taking folic acid supplements.

I agree that the recommendations in themselves are common sense for anyone planning to become pregnant. I don't agree that they're necessary for anyone who is NOT planning to become pregnant.

What I dislike is the subtle assumption--and I should add that this comes mainly from the Post article, not the CDC guidelines themselves; the response to the guidelines would have been much more measured without that idiotic, sensationalistic Post article--that pregnancy is a woman's default biological state. No, it isn't. Some women have had uterine or ovarian cancer; they're not pre-pregnant. Some women have undergone early menopause; they're not pre-pregnant. Some women are infertile; they're not pre-pregnant. Etc. It's a blanket recommendation to a diverse group of human beings. Of course that's gonna make me twitch.

Finally, I object to plenty the government does that does not involve "putting a bullet in my babykilling head." So do you, probably. If government-bullet-in-the-head is our litmus for objecting to governmental actions and policies, well, we'd better ALL shut up, and so much for our free republic, huh?

Why support sex education at all?

My personal reason for supporting sex education is that I've known too many women who didn't have access to it at home. I don't believe you educate people about sex so that they can be empowered to go fuck like bunnies; to be blunt, these women already WERE fucking like bunnies, so you can't blame sex education for that.

What sex ed might have done for them, though, was, gosh, EDUCATE THEM. Ignorance is not really bliss when you're standing next to a guy you meant to break up with three weeks ago but now that he's knocked you up, you're marrying him. I think it's fair to say that if you care about women and families at all, you'd like them to get the best possible start and not the worst. A shotgun wedding is seldom the best start.

More specifically, if sex education included a bit about preconception care being of marked, demonstrated benefit to the fetus, I wouldn't have any problem with that. It's a good thing to know.

Um, everybody is a potential 'breeder'. I mean, DUH!

Everyone's a potential everything. See here. How many of those recommendations would you support?

Your problem is that you don't want to be reminded of the existence of a prenatal human being. You don't want to be reminded of a responsibility that MOST people of child bearing age (both men and women) will have.

Here you're just being malicious. I don't see this level of outrage directed at deadbeat dad or absentee fathers or at the guys who've racked up 2 or 3 or 4 "babymamas" before they're 25.

I'm fine with the existence of human beings, prenatal or otherwise.

If you don't like the recommendation, then ignore it.

Listen, I'm gonna ignore the hysteria that follows this suggestion in order to focus on it very painstakingly, okay? So do me a favor and pay attention:

First: Most women of childbearing age who are pregnant, planning to be, or are already mothers are already SCARED WITLESS of doing something that might hurt the baby. Read any pregnancy message board on the internet. You will see women attack each other for choosing not to breastfeed because That Could Damage Your Child! You will see women fret over whether to co-sleep, over whether to feed organic baby food, over when to start potty-training, over which diaper service is best, over EVERY SINGLE ASPECT OF THEIR CHILDREN'S DEVELOPMENT. This is what mothers and mothers-to-be DO. They agonize, they obsess, they read, they research, they do their best and their reward is a society that can't tell them often enough how they fell short.

Oh, but hey, they do get that one day a year when hubby brings home a $1.99 card from the Wal-mart, right? So it's all good.

I'm not knocking mothers or pregnant women; I'm saying we don't treat them right and the last thing I want as someone who, I guarantee you, will never be pregnant herself, is to start dumping that boatload of anxiety and guilt on women EARLY.

I want any health guidelines for women to be directed at keeping women healthy because they are valuable to society inherently, not as potentially pregnant mammals. This has the happy side effect of making it more likely that any babies born to them will be healthy, I might add, so the net result does not contradict the intended result of the CDC guidelines as written.

Whew. I hope that's clear.

Knowing that you will prob. flock on this question like a bunch of flesh-eating birds, yes, I know about STDs.

Do me a favor, okay? Please don't assume how I'm going respond or what I'm going to say. It's a habit of commenters I find really grating is all. I don't mind taking the time to respond to ya, but if you've got a crystal ball that spells the future out for you already, why should I bother, right?

Thanks again for taking the time to comment.

Whoops--I shouldn't have said "fellows," maybe? Grump, you said you were taking folic acid so I dunno. Um, if you're not a fellow, my apologies.

OK, so only parody sites that refrain from goring any of your sacred cows are funny.

Dude, have you READ Something Awful?

Feministing.org is funny.

You're just a dimwitted spoiled brat.

Learn to cook, bitch!

The domain of modern feminism is a bottomless pit of parody ammunition. What’s sad is that you cant see how ridiculous the movement has become.

Middle aged men? What kind of point is that? Middle-aged men’s opinions are worthless? Oh right you are a feminist I forgot. I am in my mid twenties and I think the movement has become a sad hypocritical faceless farce of true feminism.

Right now feminism still benefits from its roots or its good rep, but the world is waking up slowly to the modern movments questionable direction.

As far as your point about traffic, real feminist blogs are hard to compete with for their parody value, I often laugh more and harder when it is on a real feminist site and the posters are unaware of the ridiculous double standards or insane double speaking logic.

Aptly named you are, Shouting, because you seem to think you can convince people of a thing merely by insisting it's so.

Well, I insist you're a bed-wetter. And it's my blog, chuckles, so I win. Any further comments from you will be edited to reflect the truth as I see it.

Which, in case you needed reminding, is that you're a bed-wetter.

Hujo: "As far as your point about traffic, real feminist blogs are hard to compete with for their parody value, I often laugh more and harder when it is on a real feminist site and the posters are unaware of the ridiculous double standards or insane double speaking logic."

Ah, yes, I know that kind of "laughter": The forced, crazy/angry laugh of the bitter, twisted introvert, who screams in the face of the world, demanding the love he feels owed, which he can never receive to his satisfaction.

Admit it: The last time you were with a woman, you blamed your impotence on Hillary, didn'tcha?

Um no, I am a liberal.

The problem with western feminism is its absolute capitalist nature, it likes to view the world; men, women and races selectively and in generals. It does this in order not to invoke change or resistance from the patriarchy (or those in power for the non feminists) but create demagogy in order to bolster its market/government funding, as well as create general empathy of women and scorn of men.

The man could not be happier that in our pursuit for unity we have become dived along lines of gender and race thanks in part to feminism.

Oh sorry I am generalizing, only certain kinds of feminists with power or influence and then only from certain waves and then only certain branches or schisms within the wave itself and to be fair only certain schisms of each branch within the wave and still only from certain individuals or groups form whatever branch and wave they happen to apply or relate to and some in the media as well.

Feminism does benefit from this shared responsibly and inability and refusal to define itself it becomes blamless for any wrong course of action.
Aspects of feminism are good and needed but western modern feminism has been perverted.

I disagree with conservative social ideals, but I am no fan of wasting taxpayers money on needless unfair programs. This is contradictory to my claim of being liberal but so is censoring dissenting opinions because they disagree with your views.

Yes then there is the whole issue of regarding gender as a one-sided coin in the mainstream blogsphere or media, censoring debate is so very progressive.

And ilyka, if you are going to choose an alt ID such as JD, Than I recomend you choose an email adress without your mild mannerd egos name on it.

ilyka@knows.it

And ilyka, if you are going to choose an alt ID such as JD

Hujo, I don't sockpuppet. If I have something to say to you, I'll say it to you directly. That's a promise.

And, as you seem to have thought things through in a bit more depth than some of the other feministing.org'ers, here, I'll probably respond to your comment before tomorrow. Right now, though, I have to work.

"JD" is someone of my acquaintance who likes his privacy and doesn't want to share his email address; thus, "ilyka@knows.it." It lets me know it's him (and not some other, anonymous JD) and keeps casual visitors from harassing him via email, never even mind the spam problem nowadays.

"Neither Amanda nor the Feministing gals nor any of the mainstream feminist bloggers I'm reading go hog-wild on the "y" thing."

You see, that's not exactly the point. Since it's a parody, necessarily you can't take everything so literally. What I meant - chick - is that you folks get offended over the most ridiculous things.

That 'y' thing only illustrates the point that you folks are paranoid about the 'patriarchy' and women's so-called oppression. Your reaction to these 'federal guidelines' are a case in point. It is comical that you actually believe that these guidelines define you by your reproductive organs.

"As to the "maniacal left" thing, I'm currently a registered Republican."

There is some disagreement as to whether the Republicans are actually a right wing party among classical liberals. Some have observed that they are steadily moving leftward with their domestic and social policy.

I don't know that for certain myself, since I don't keep an eye on it - but, I do know that if I were President - I would work towards:

cutting out income and prop. tax
destroy government funded education and health care (including those federal guidelines, btw)

"I don't agree that they're necessary for anyone who is NOT planning to become pregnant."

And yet how many millions of women a year have unplanned pregnancies? There is nothing wrong with contingency plans. This is why I said that we are all potential breeders, unless you want to be celibate or sterilized.

"that pregnancy is a woman's default biological state. No, it isn't."

You are right. A woman's default biological state is not to be pregnant. I agree with you on that. The only assumption that is made is that we *can* get pregnant and it is wise to make contingency plans.

As for these other women that you refer to - the ones that aren't pre-pregnant -

ilyka, don't make too much of a generalization. It's usually a *given* that there are exceptions to the rule.

Gotta get going..I'll get back to you later.

"Learn to cook, bitch!"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Jesus Fuck. That's like the blue-collar-working-wife-beater-wearing-tiny-dick-sporting equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" Or the even more progressive teenage version of "Oh yeah? SO?"

Christ, if you're going to disagree with Ilyka, at least insult her PROPERLY. Don't make some of us get all ready to defend her and offer up Hamburger Helper when we're looking for steak tartare.

Of course, you are probably quite familiar with the Help your Hamburger, so I'll be nice to you.

Um, everybody is a potential 'breeder'. I mean, DUH!

I mean, DUH, you kinda missed the point. The general "breeder" question is whether you view women (and/or men) as solely breeders or as all-around human beings. I've got three kids; I'm down with breeding as a general activity.

And this is fucking awesome:

If you don't like the recommendation, then ignore it. You'll probably kill the kid anyways. Knowing you folks, you might even consider it a political statement after this recommendation.

...especially when it so closely follows cautioning against "looking for offense where none exists."

You see, that's the problem. You don't know us folks. The whole point of the Feministing attempt at satire and the comments here seems to be to project arguments and sentiments that no one has expressed.

By all means continue beating away at the straw men, though, while Ilyka might be spending her afternoon whipping up a nice meal after having sex with her boyfriend.

You have learned your ABCs, however, and for that I congratulate you, and thank the presumed presence of folic acid across the generations.

Hubris: "By all means continue beating away at the straw men, though, while Ilyka might be spending her afternoon whipping up a nice meal after having sex with her boyfriend."

Good ancilliary point for the "learn to cook, bitch" dude: Ilyka does post a fair amount about what she's been cooking lately. (As for the accusation that I'm her sock puppet, you can see us disagreeing about food here. If I'm Ilyka's puppet, she was mighty prescient in creating me before the fucktards showed up.)

I'd also like to add, I might have contributed more to the argument yesterday if I hadn't been busy having sex with my girlfriend. With my penis. It was just too nice a day.

My comments were more adressing the update, and a general crituqe of the state of the feminist movemnt. It was thought spamming, just curious to see what you strangers think.

Cheers

I hate to be a fun-killer, but could everyone kinda "piling on" here dial it back a notch? Don't get me wrong, you're entertaining the hell out of me, esp. "with my penis," which wins my Most Effective Use of Italics award for 2006, definitely, but, ah, um, the only guy who really bugged me in this thread was Shouting, and I don't think he's coming back. Hujo's been all right and Grump's not even that bad if you consider she kind of warned me about her demeanor right there in her handle.

I feel like an asshole even saying this, but I dunno, I guess I'm just not in the mood for a flame war today. Too nice a day, to lift a phrase off JD.

Okay, I'm going to go make a tossed salad...with my penis.

The problem with western feminism is its absolute capitalist nature, it likes to view the world; men, women and races selectively and in generals.

I would agree, I think, with some of that last, but I'm not getting the "absolute capitalist nature" part. Usually when someone complains about feminism to me it's associated with dirty dirty communism, or at best socialism. Could you explain what you meant by capitalist?

But as for using generalizations, sure. Any -ism eventually winds up doing that. I'm fine with it so long as people remember that behind every generalization about race, class, and gender are individual human beings who may or may not conform to one's generalizations about them.

It does this in order not to invoke change or resistance from the patriarchy (or those in power for the non feminists) but create demagogy in order to bolster its market/government funding, as well as create general empathy of women and scorn of men.

Well, that would be news to most of the feminists of my acquaintance. Can you give me examples? I hate to be retarded but this is a difficult thing to discuss without specifics.

The man could not be happier that in our pursuit for unity we have become dived along lines of gender and race thanks in part to feminism.

I have some sympathy with this, but it breaks down when you look at the demagoguery of Rush Limbaugh or other prominent antifeminist polemicists. Sure, THEY blame feminism for creating an artificial divide, but it's just as likely to be a divide of their own creation, propped up with extremely negative, loaded terms like "feminazi."

Oh sorry I am generalizing, only certain kinds of feminists with power or influence and then only from certain waves and then only certain branches or schisms within the wave itself and to be fair only certain schisms of each branch within the wave and still only from certain individuals or groups form whatever branch and wave they happen to apply or relate to and some in the media as well.

Ask the feministing.org guys for a login, because THIS was funny. No, seriously. It's true that feminists do this. I do it myself. If you click here I've got a whole series of myself making more or less these arguments. "It's not ALL feminists . . . ."

Feminism does benefit from this shared responsibly and inability and refusal to define itself it becomes blamless for any wrong course of action. Aspects of feminism are good and needed but western modern feminism has been perverted.

I'd actually like to know what you think of the definitions of "modern feminism" offered in the comments here. (Caveat: I don't agree 100% with all of them myself.) I would say that modern feminism spends so much time delineating what it is not (a way to kill babies, a way to emasculate men, etc.) that it's not always easy to clarify what it IS. But that just begs the question: Why does modern feminism have to spend so much time defending itself? Is it an inherently defensive idea, or are there just that many people attacking it?

Given the increasingly reactionary trends in my own country, I tend to think the latter. But then, I'm biased, aren't I?

I disagree with conservative social ideals, but I am no fan of wasting taxpayers money on needless unfair programs.

I don't wanna out you or anything but I suspect you have a different perspective partly because of our different locations in the world. What are some needless unfair programs you object to?

You understand, I'm in a country in which one state's already banned abortion almost full-stop, with only the skimpiest life-of-the-mother exception. So I'm probably not seeing as many "needless unfair programs" as you are, you know?

This is contradictory to my claim of being liberal but so is censoring dissenting opinions because they disagree with your views.

Right. Well, I'm not down with that. I'll censor people who are a persistent pain in my ass but I do try not to just pound on folks for disagreeing with me.

Yes then there is the whole issue of regarding gender as a one-sided coin in the mainstream blogsphere or media, censoring debate is so very progressive.

If you're talking about some of the mainstream feminist blogs here, I get that. What I've realized through years of reading them, though, is that they tend to attract, and debunk, the same objections to feminism over and over. Then they get tired. Then they wind up adopting a sort of scorched-earth policy. It's hard for me to blame them, because few activities are as monotonous as repeating oneself.

I can afford to spend more time in my own comments because I'm an itty-bitty blog. But I can see how if I were getting 5000 hits a day I might get a bit freer and easier with that "delete" button.

Okay, I'm going to go make a tossed salad...with my penis.

Have you gone plumb loco?

Heck yeah.

"The general "breeder" question is whether you view women (and/or men) as solely breeders or as all-around human beings."

If that is the point, then I didn't miss it at all. Again, I find this totally comical.

You will not find - even among the most ardent fundamentalist Christian preacher - very many people in the West who view women as anything less than human beings.

What you ignore is that it's the woman who carries the child. It is perfectly reasonable to make minor changes in order to prepare for an unplanned event. Instead of taking it that way, though, you *choose* to get offended. That is hilarious, and feministing.org did well to mock Ilyka for it.

"...especially when it so closely follows cautioning against "looking for offense where none exists.""

I've given up seriously arguing with abortion supporters, so I'm not really bothered by any little error I have made. I'm not exerting any effort at all in this, but I shall try to be nice for now on, k?

Reality is this: if the unborn child isn't human enough for legal protection and parental responsibility, why should it be human enough for you to want to do anything but abort it if it's defective?

After all, you don't wish for anyone to even insinuate that it might be wise to make minor changes in your life in preparation for even the possibility!

If they insinuate it, all of a sudden you aren't human anymore!! Oh, no!!! Scaaaary!!

"whole point of the Feministing attempt at satire and the comments here seems to be to project arguments and sentiments that no one has expressed."

No, it is to make fun of you. And yes, all of the things feministing.org refers to has been expressed (perhaps not by you personally, but they have to keep up with the general theme of their site).

Ex: 1. There *are* feminists who insist on using 'y'
2. There *are* feminists who blame the world's problems on men in general.
3. There *are* feminists who believe that if women have a night of drunken sex and regret it later, that they have been raped.
4. The basis for supporting abortion among feminists *is* all about 'bodily autonomy' (see the violinist analogy) which doesn't make a whole lot of sense once you throw out the assumptions and examine it more closely.

"You don't know us folks."

No, I don't know any of you personally, but I have been involved in many debates with abortion supporting feminists and feminists in general. I've read the editorials, the commentaries, the press releases, PP, NOW, NARAL, etc.

Their rhetoric, smears, and presumptuousness matches yours perfectly, but it makes total sense for you guys to mimic their paranoia; it's much easier to get one's supporters hyped up by casting the opponent as some women-only-exist-to-breed nutcases.

As long as you cast us in that light, you will have no reason to take any of us seriously. Such methodology by PP et.al. is perfect because it stops their supporters from thinking critically and (possibly) prevents them from abandoning the cause.

Forgive me if you are all prolifers. I doubt it, though.

"By all means continue beating away at the straw men"

Might as well have a little fun with you folks, since serious argument will go nowhere.

Ilyka,

'piling on' is fun. ;)

Ilyka, as I recall - recommendations *do* exist (perhaps not from the government but I've heard it from MADD) for those who plan on consuming alcohol.

Some of those recommendations do not even make sense.

For example, a non-smoker going on a 'stop smoking' regime?

Well, did I not say that these recommendations should not involve celibate women?

I doubt that folks were thinking about nuns when they constructed their little recommendations. It's much easier to avoid pregnancy if you aren't having sex. Similarly, it's much easier to avoid getting drunk or addicted to cigarettes if you don't start it to begin with. For these reasons, the analogy is false. Nice try, Ilyka.

"I don't see this level of outrage directed at deadbeat dad or absentee fathers or at the guys who've racked up 2 or 3 or 4 "babymamas" before they're 25."

That level of outrage exists because deadbeat dads and absentee fathers aren't killing their kids.

"I'm fine with the existence of human beings, prenatal or otherwise."

Good. Do you agree that parental responsibility extends prenatally? Or do you support abortion rights?

"This is what mothers and mothers-to-be DO. They agonize, they obsess, they read, they research, they do their best and their reward is a society that can't tell them often enough how they fell short."

Yes, when the child is wanted (or even when they are just thinking about what to do with a pregnancy). When it's not, they simply do not care. I've read *other* messageboards, Ilyka. Some almost made me want to throw up, since *some* women abort fully knowing that their baby *is* a baby. They abort because they are desperate and feel trapped and because they feel as if they 'have no other choice'. I'd feel sorry for them if such desperation didn't result in a dead baby.

"I'm not knocking mothers or pregnant women; I'm saying we don't treat them right and the last thing I want as someone who, I guarantee you, will never be pregnant herself, is to start dumping that boatload of anxiety and guilt on women EARLY."

Look, I agree with you on that, but putting together some recommendations isn't dumping anything on them. It is informing women who don't (or can't) take the time to research it for themselves.

"I want any health guidelines for women to be directed at keeping women healthy because they are valuable to society inherently, not as potentially pregnant mammals."

Most health guidelines for women *are* directed at keeping them healthy. You got upset merely because of one freakin' guideline involving fetuses/embryos. Women are valuable in society for a number of reasons. Part of that value originates in their ability to procreate offspring - just as that is part of the value for men in society. This should be obvious, but since it's not I will make an even more obvious point to you.

Society and civilization would collapse without children. Children are necessary for its continuation.

"Whew. I hope that's clear."

It was from the get-go. That was why I was making fun of you.

If that is the point, then I didn't miss it at all.

You actually did, with your unfortunately enthusiastic "DUH" comment, which stated a purported refutation of something no one was arguing.

You will not find - even among the most ardent fundamentalist Christian preacher - very many people in the West who view women as anything less than human beings.

You missed the "all-around" qualifier. Hell, I can throw a rock six feet and hit someone who doesn't view women (or men) in that way.

I've given up seriously arguing with abortion supporters, so I'm not really bothered by any little error I have made.

That's a refreshing attitude that must significantly lessen work in making comments. I'll have to try it.

Their rhetoric, smears, and presumptuousness matches yours perfectly, but it makes total sense for you guys to mimic their paranoia; it's much easier to get one's supporters hyped up by casting the opponent as some women-only-exist-to-breed nutcases.

I'd be curious as to where I've smeared anyone. I pointed out the problematic tone of the WaPo article, and cited someone's position as to why the guidelines were NOT problematic. My only smear was to imply that you're an idiot; I should specify that I'm speaking to your argumentation, not your position vis-a-vis the CDC guidelines, on which I think reasonable people could disagree. There are sensible people who hold positions similar to yours; apparently, they're just not around today.

"You actually did, with your unfortunately enthusiastic "DUH" comment, which stated a purported refutation of something no one was arguing."

If you folks understood what it means to be a 'potential breeder', then you would have had no problem with the recommendations (or at least, not as much problem with them as you would any other nosy government suggestions). I do not wish to connect the dots for you again, though. So, I will let you dangle in mid-air. I don't really care enough to repeat myself.

"You missed the "all-around" qualifier."

No, I did not.

Dictionary.com: "

all-a·round (ôl-round) also all-round (ôlround)
adj.
Comprehensive in extent or depth"

Yes, most people in the Western world do recognize women as 'all-around' human beings (if you insist on the 'qualifier').

The qualifier doesn't change what I was saying. You have erected mythical monsters with mythical beliefs to justify your reactions to such things as this.

"That's a refreshing attitude that must significantly lessen work in making comments. I'll have to try it."

It doesn't make sense to expend effort on a hopeless cause. I know that may offend you since you've prob. never commented to me directly before, but...I'm battle weary. Surely, you can understand. I only post to let out steam.

"I'd be curious as to where I've smeared anyone."

You were not the only one I was directing my post to.

The smear is this: "The general "breeder" question is whether you view women (and/or men) as solely breeders"

That is a smear, since hardly anyone in their right minds (even most of the outspoken conservatives) believes that women (and/or men) are solely breeders. To imply that of whoever constructed these 'guidelines' (whether it was the CDC or 'the tone of the WashPo article') is the smear.

And yes, I have read the article. I read it again just to be sure and I say it again that I see nothing in the article that treats women as 'solely breeders'. It is a common sense piece about preconception care.