I believe the children are our future
I am deeply disturbed by the high rate of C-section deliveries in the US and the high rate of fertility treatments and etc. It seems clear to me it is driven in part by social trends which include "women's lib" trends -- aka women getting paid jobs, having children later, having fewer children, etc.
We have already LOST a wealth of "common knowledge" about how to effectively foster a healthy pregnancy which used to be baked into our heteronormative culture that expected women to default to "wife and mom" as their primary role. I do not foresee going back to those norms nor do I think it is desirable to actively discourage women from having careers and actively encourage them to have a lot of children as the norm, though this is NOT a criticism of anyone who DOES currently live that way.
I only have two children, but I was a full-time wife and mom for a lot of years. I think we need to put the war between homemakers and feminists behind us and I write about that somewhat regularly elsewhere.
Getting divorced to save my life and the lives of my children forced me to try to develop a career and try to figure out how to support myself and my special-needs sons. It's a mistake to think that living as a homemaker means you will NEVER need to have an income of your own.
People who pit these two groups against each other are part of the problem. It is NOT "pro women's rights" to expect a woman to EITHER be a feminist OR a devoted mother.
It is a hostile position that assumes that a career like a man is the only path to financial success. It should not shock the world that asking women to force-fit their lives to being "successul like a man" OR de facto chattel property of some man is a paradigm that actively causes problems for women.
Current trends are moving us towards a world where it is getting increasingly difficult to have a healthy pregnancy or give birth to a healthy baby. Privileged women often put off having a child and this frequently puts them in a position of requiring medical intervention to conceive and "geriatric" pregnancies -- aka having your first baby past a certain age -- are higher risk pregnancies that increase the risk of birth defects.
Yet having a baby too soon can trap you in life-long poverty. There seems to be no GOOD options left these days.
I would LIKE to see a world in which we make it possible for women to do things like have one or two children in their twenties and attend college seeking a DEGREE part-time while raising their child or children. This is what I did and I have written about that elsewhere.
Unfortunately, some aspects of reproductive rights, such as abortion, are currently very hot button topics and being fought out in courts and the legal system. For that and other reasons, I have hesitated to write about this at all.
MOST people are PRO "right to choose" and ALSO "anti abortion" at the same time. MOST people think it should be a LAST RESORT because you were raped or something, NOT "Oh, I can't be arsed to buy condoms."
I am absolutely average in this regard: I am PRO right to choose and ALSO anti-abortion at the same time. That means I think abortion should be legal.
I am FOR having healthier babies and I believe strongly that a child who is WANTED will be better cared for. I see no clear, bright line between reproductive rights and best practices for helping produce a healthy "next generation" (physically, psychologically, socially, et cetera).
And the reality is you CANNOT put out USEFUL pro-pregnancy info without at the same time lefthandedly telling women who want to terminate their pregnancy how to do that as well.
Initial research suggests innocuous items like RAW eggs are potential abortifacients. One would hope no one is so deranged as to try to outlaw the sale of raw eggs in the name of being "anti abortion."
A few links I found in my initial quick and dirty research into these topics. Please do NOT view this as "vetted" info. At one time, someone was forwarding me research articles on fertility issues. If you WANT to have a baby and hope to do so WITHOUT medical intervention for fertility, a little known trick if you are your typical North American "You can NEVER be too rich or too thin" type is:
I've created a label for this post -- And Baby Makes Three -- so theoretically I will write more about this because it really bothers me how NORMAL it has become to SCHEDULE a C section and ACCEPT that babies with birth defects because you didn't have a baby until you were 35 is FINE and NORMAL.
The last time I looked up info on this (about 7 months ago), I concluded that 32 percent of US deliveries (are C-section deliveries) but only 17 percent of deliveries are an emergency C-section. The rest are scheduled.
I can readily find verification for that 32 percent figure. I am failing to readily find a breakdown of emergency C-section versus scheduled.
This is not just an issue in the US. According to the WHO, C-Section deliveries continue to rise globally and in some countries account for more than half of all deliveries.
The WHO piece linked above advocates for making sure women have access to a C-section if necessary but also indicates that:
The WHO has programs aimed at trying to reduce medically unnecessary C-sections. I would like to see that as well, plus I have other goals for trying to foster the birth of healthy babies generally.
C-Section is known to be associated with health problems for the child and this is understood to be in part due to denying the baby exposure to the mother's vaginal microbiome. While it can also reduce exposure to some diseases -- such as when the mother goes into labor while she has an active herpes outbreak -- medically unnecessary C-sections can cause lifelong health issues for both mother and child.
It should not be viewed as a "convenience" for a career woman who has a packed schedule and can't wait for the child to show up when it feels like it.
We have already LOST a wealth of "common knowledge" about how to effectively foster a healthy pregnancy which used to be baked into our heteronormative culture that expected women to default to "wife and mom" as their primary role. I do not foresee going back to those norms nor do I think it is desirable to actively discourage women from having careers and actively encourage them to have a lot of children as the norm, though this is NOT a criticism of anyone who DOES currently live that way.
I only have two children, but I was a full-time wife and mom for a lot of years. I think we need to put the war between homemakers and feminists behind us and I write about that somewhat regularly elsewhere.
Getting divorced to save my life and the lives of my children forced me to try to develop a career and try to figure out how to support myself and my special-needs sons. It's a mistake to think that living as a homemaker means you will NEVER need to have an income of your own.
People who pit these two groups against each other are part of the problem. It is NOT "pro women's rights" to expect a woman to EITHER be a feminist OR a devoted mother.
It is a hostile position that assumes that a career like a man is the only path to financial success. It should not shock the world that asking women to force-fit their lives to being "successul like a man" OR de facto chattel property of some man is a paradigm that actively causes problems for women.
Current trends are moving us towards a world where it is getting increasingly difficult to have a healthy pregnancy or give birth to a healthy baby. Privileged women often put off having a child and this frequently puts them in a position of requiring medical intervention to conceive and "geriatric" pregnancies -- aka having your first baby past a certain age -- are higher risk pregnancies that increase the risk of birth defects.
Yet having a baby too soon can trap you in life-long poverty. There seems to be no GOOD options left these days.
I would LIKE to see a world in which we make it possible for women to do things like have one or two children in their twenties and attend college seeking a DEGREE part-time while raising their child or children. This is what I did and I have written about that elsewhere.
Unfortunately, some aspects of reproductive rights, such as abortion, are currently very hot button topics and being fought out in courts and the legal system. For that and other reasons, I have hesitated to write about this at all.
MOST people are PRO "right to choose" and ALSO "anti abortion" at the same time. MOST people think it should be a LAST RESORT because you were raped or something, NOT "Oh, I can't be arsed to buy condoms."
I am absolutely average in this regard: I am PRO right to choose and ALSO anti-abortion at the same time. That means I think abortion should be legal.
I am FOR having healthier babies and I believe strongly that a child who is WANTED will be better cared for. I see no clear, bright line between reproductive rights and best practices for helping produce a healthy "next generation" (physically, psychologically, socially, et cetera).
And the reality is you CANNOT put out USEFUL pro-pregnancy info without at the same time lefthandedly telling women who want to terminate their pregnancy how to do that as well.
Initial research suggests innocuous items like RAW eggs are potential abortifacients. One would hope no one is so deranged as to try to outlaw the sale of raw eggs in the name of being "anti abortion."
A few links I found in my initial quick and dirty research into these topics. Please do NOT view this as "vetted" info. At one time, someone was forwarding me research articles on fertility issues. If you WANT to have a baby and hope to do so WITHOUT medical intervention for fertility, a little known trick if you are your typical North American "You can NEVER be too rich or too thin" type is:
Gain five pounds.You need to have 25,000 "stored calories" -- aka calories carried as FAT -- for your body to believe you are capable of successfully bringing a baby into the world. Women who suffer from Anorexia can cause their menstrual cycle to stop entirely.
I've created a label for this post -- And Baby Makes Three -- so theoretically I will write more about this because it really bothers me how NORMAL it has become to SCHEDULE a C section and ACCEPT that babies with birth defects because you didn't have a baby until you were 35 is FINE and NORMAL.
The last time I looked up info on this (about 7 months ago), I concluded that 32 percent of US deliveries (are C-section deliveries) but only 17 percent of deliveries are an emergency C-section. The rest are scheduled.
I can readily find verification for that 32 percent figure. I am failing to readily find a breakdown of emergency C-section versus scheduled.
This is not just an issue in the US. According to the WHO, C-Section deliveries continue to rise globally and in some countries account for more than half of all deliveries.
The WHO piece linked above advocates for making sure women have access to a C-section if necessary but also indicates that:
...not all the caesarean sections... are needed for medical reasons. Unnecessary surgical procedures can be harmful, both for a woman and her baby.I share this concern.
The WHO has programs aimed at trying to reduce medically unnecessary C-sections. I would like to see that as well, plus I have other goals for trying to foster the birth of healthy babies generally.
C-Section is known to be associated with health problems for the child and this is understood to be in part due to denying the baby exposure to the mother's vaginal microbiome. While it can also reduce exposure to some diseases -- such as when the mother goes into labor while she has an active herpes outbreak -- medically unnecessary C-sections can cause lifelong health issues for both mother and child.
It should not be viewed as a "convenience" for a career woman who has a packed schedule and can't wait for the child to show up when it feels like it.
