Smith117
Posts: 1447
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: abytchgoddess4u
To address a couple of your points...
I believe women join the military for much the same reasons men do...such as : b/c they are brainwashed into believing they are 'saving' their country and it's people from the 'evil' of other countries and the 'threat' that supposedly exists to do harm to the above. To get out of poverty and gain an education. B/c they never really believe that war is as bad as it is. To be viewed as a hero, to win accolades, and to create a better life for themselves and their children. And finally; b/c they are proud of someone else who has served, father/uncle/etc. and want to 'do them proud'.
It has nothing to do with 'trying to be men'...which you DID say, btw...in post #67, since you seem to have forgotten you did so.
IMHO, many women work after the birth of their UMs in the US b/c they do not have a choice. They may be able to afford to raise the UM, but not the medical costs involved in having it. The US has an EXTREMELY high rate of premature birth...average cost ranging from $15,000-65,000...and that doesn't even factor in the cost of the infant's health care in the first year after discharge. The average uncomplicated vaginal delivery; in hospital, is about $8800...not counting prenatal or postpartum care. C-sections average around $11,000, once again, not counting prenatal and postpartum care. In case you were wondering, the average cost of a home birth is $2500...including all prenatal and postpartum care until 6wks.
Most employers do not give maternity leave and if they do, it's an average of 6wks...which leads to not breastfeeding and an increase in illnesses in the first year. Considering the piss-poor maternal and infant death rating the US has...almost nothing to do with birth in your country can be attributed to 'medical miracles'.
Besides, only 1% of newborn infants need extensive resuscitation measures at birth. Approximately 90% of newborns need no assistance, 9% need some...a little rub up or some PPV breaths, maybe a bit of O2 blow-by. Apart from that, they're fine...that has nothing to do with science, it just is. Only 1 out of every 8 pregnancies survive until term...that stat hasn't really changed since all these supposed 'medical miracles' came into common usage. Just so's ya know, approximately 50% of stillbirths are from unknown causes...which means no reason was found upon autopsy.
In addition, you seem to give ultrasound FAR more credit than it deserves. 30-40% of congenital anomalies are undetected by ultrasound. Nor does it pick up metabolic disorders (neither does amniocenticis, btw). 5% of twins are only discovered at birth. U/s is only considered 'accurate' for dating and size in the first trimester...in the third, it can be up to two weeks AND two pounds off.
Finally, u/s is linked with lefthandedness...which is to say, more babies are born lefthanded if they have received u/s scanning in pregnancy, there are also very strong theories of it being correlated with autism. There has never been a longterm randomised control trial (the gold standard) done on the possible related effects of u/s. I wish there were.
Blind faith in anything is dangerous.
Wow, I'm truly impressed. 90% of this reply had absolutely NOTHING to do with anything I said.
1) I was talking women in combat, not the military (post #44). There are hundreds if not thousands of non-combat roles that women can do, yet they still seem to be upset they can't go off and get shot at.
2) Post #67 said the following:
"Actually, I belong to the faction that's fed up with insecure women trying to be men just to 'prove their strength.'
The fact is, BOTH sexes have their own strengths and their own weaknesses. Women seem to be insecure about theirs and thus seek to do what men do simply for some type of schoolyard bragging rights. When, 50 years ago, staying in the home and raising a family and running the household while then man was away was a feat that surpasses what women try to do today. This is evidenced by the fact that many women simply don't do it anymore. And that's why our youths are idiots. Because the parents rush off back to work and let the TV raise the kids.
Any idiot can HAVE a kid. Only a REAL, STRONG parent can raise a good one. "
All of that goes to what I said about women being 'in the suck.' You see "the suck" is what combat conditions are typically referred to, which goes back to my original (post #44) statement of women wanting to be in combat.
3) The vast majority of your diatribe about the medical complications is just wonderful...except for the fact that it makes no difference to anything that's been discussed thus far. Nothing you put forth in your medical care ramble can be stopped or in ANY way affected by a "strong" woman doing "natural childbirth."
And now we come to 4) It's wonderful that you list all the expenses surround child birth. But I find it funny that my comment was (as in post #97):
"This is references many many times by a local talk show host here. He has a main point, on which I agree: if you can't afford to have and to raise the kids, then don't have them.
You're right, I am not married with kids. And I don't intend to be. It's come to my attention, being very traditionally minded that I won't find a girl I see fit to marry. Even if I did I, at this point in my life, feel that kids are just not going to happen. I know that what I will do is make damned fine money. Money enough to support me and, if needed, a wife (assuming the necessary pre-nuptial agreement doesn't turn her off to the idea). I do not expect, with the rising cost of, well, everything that I will make enough to support a family. Therefore, I'm not even planning to try."
You see, call me crazy, but I think that the costs associated with childbirth count towards the "cost to have and to raise the kids" that I referenced in that post. I guess, the way you seem to separate the two, that you don't? I don't have $65,000 lying around to pay for the birth of a child, nor do I have the hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to raise one until college age. I know this. And because I know this, kids are not on the agenda, they're not even a consideration. According to about 3 seconds of internet research, I learned the following:
In 2006, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $48,201.00.
There's also a graph on that same page (that I can't post all of in a message board post) that indicated the average annual household income is $66,997 for those with a bachelor's degree. You said the average cost of a a birth can go from $15,000 to $65,000, which tells me that, in this day and age, even a working couple (where both have decent jobs and bachelor's degrees) can't afford to have a child. Yet millions seem to just pop them out regularly like they have no worries at all. Let's not forget that you have to lump in (with the birthing costs) the cost to raise the child. On an msn money website, it's stated that the cost to raise a child to college age (not even counting college tuition) can vary from $124,800 to $249,180. So, with birthing costs added in, we're looking at $139,800 to $314,180, VERY hard to do even on an average, dual-working-parent bachelor's degree income of $66,997, wouldn't you say?
What *I* will say, is that all of that little ramble only supports what I originally said. (Actually to be accurate, I indicated in post #97 that a local talk show host said it, but that I agreed with him.) And that is: if you cannot afford to have and raise the child, then you should not.
Of course none of ANY of these long-winded diatribes address the one thing I have repeatedly made reference to (in posts #74, #80, and #97). And that is: a woman can make male-bashing generalizations and no one bats an eyelash. One man makes a few female-bashing generalizations to counter the original ones and to highlight the danger or generalizations and you'd think he just walked into the room and peed on the tablecloth.
Why is that, do you think? Why has no one addressed the original generalizations (post #24) that sparked this whole back and forth? Something to think about...
< Message edited by Smith117 -- 2/25/2008 1:20:36 AM >
|
RE: tampons - 
Profile
) 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread