According the babycenter.com Wenesday is the most popular day for a baby to be born. Why is this so interesting?
Because apparently Autumn sincerely dislikes Tuesdays. Last Tuesday was so horrible and uncomfortable that I was asked, "Are you in labor?" and my honest to God response was, "I don't know. If it gets worse I guess we'll know!" By Wednesday I was fine. Thursday she was no longer engaged/dropped at my appointment.
This morning, another Tuesday, at 6am I had some fluid leaking that does not resemble pee. But it's not enough to be a gush and leaves me perplexed. I've had fluid leakage before, but not like this. Although I've had the feeling that over the weekend she had dropped again, this morning she was sure to let me know that as I walked around or sat in bed and the pressure "down there" has only increased! A lot. However, I don't believe I've had any real contractions...so I continue on with my day. My Tuesday. What is doomed to be an awful Tuesday with uncomfortableness & another night at the bowling alley with people houding me about when I'm having this child. Ugh.
Also, this is interesting because if this IS it...the big moment...and labor lasted forever, that would mean my child could very well be born on a Wednesday. The most popular day of the week to be born. Which is also my Mom's birthday - she would have been 60. Which is the same day that I've been telling everyone since DAY ONE that she would come. And I've called birth dates before - ask my best friend. If I have this child tomorrow I swear I'm going into the "baby pool" business - I'd make a fortune!
Showing posts with label in the news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label in the news. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Quick read articles...
Some articles I found this morning related to pregnancy & pregnancy health.
C-section rates around globe at ‘epidemic’ levels
Longer nursing may aid kids’ mental health
Mother’s gum disease linked to infant's death
Breastfeeding may curb heart, diabetes risk
More women choose do-it-yourself births (Fear not...this will NEVER be an option in our future. But to each her own!)
Busy and baffled, new moms hire baby planners (I have a wonderful bff who served as my expert baby planning helper!)
C-section rates around globe at ‘epidemic’ levels
Longer nursing may aid kids’ mental health
Mother’s gum disease linked to infant's death
Breastfeeding may curb heart, diabetes risk
More women choose do-it-yourself births (Fear not...this will NEVER be an option in our future. But to each her own!)
Busy and baffled, new moms hire baby planners (I have a wonderful bff who served as my expert baby planning helper!)
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
PPD article from my Bradley class
Can I just say how awesome my Bradley instructor is? I mean, she goes beyond teaching the basics and takes time to send out e-mails on interesting articles she has read and deems relevant. Totally cool!
So, here's a copy from what she sent in regards to post-partum depression & fathers.
From the New York Times, 12/07/09
Postpartum Depression Strikes Fathers, Too
By RICHARD A. FRIEDMAN, M.D.
The pregnancy was easy, the delivery a breeze. This was the couple’s first baby, and they were thrilled. But within two months, the bliss of new parenthood was shattered by postpartum depression.
A sad, familiar story. But this one had a twist: The patient who came to me for treatment was not the mother but her husband.
A few weeks after the baby arrived, he had become uncharacteristically anxious, sad and withdrawn. He had trouble sleeping, even though his wife was the one up at night breast-feeding their new son. What scared her enough to bring him to my office was that he had become suicidal.
Up to 80 percent of women experience minor sadness — the so-called baby blues — after giving birth, and about 10 percent plummet into severe postpartum depression. But it turns out that men can also have postpartum depression, and its effects can be every bit as disruptive — not just on the father but on mother and child.
We don’t know the exact prevalence of male postpartum depression; studies have used different methods and diagnostic criteria. Dr. Paul G. Ramchandani, a psychiatrist at the University of Oxford in England who did a study based on 26,000 parents, reported in The Lancet in 2005 that 4 percent of fathers had clinically significant depressive symptoms within eight weeks of the birth of their children. But one thing is clear: It isn’t something most people, including physicians, have ever heard of.
At first, my patient insisted that everything was just fine. He and his wife had been trying to conceive for more than a year. He was ecstatic at the prospect of fatherhood, and he did not acknowledge feeling depressed or suicidal.
Suspicious of his rosy appraisal, I pushed a little.
It turned out that he had just taken a new high-pressure job in finance six months before the birth of his son. Though he was reluctant to admit it, he clearly had more than a little concern about his family’s financial future.
And he was anxious about his marriage and his new life. “We go out a lot with friends to dinner and theater,” he said wistfully, as I recall. “Now I guess that’s all going to end.”
He had spent the nine months of pregnancy in a state of excitement about being a father without really registering what a life-transforming event it was going to be.
Unlike women, men are not generally brought up to express their emotions or ask for help. This can be especially problematic for new fathers, since the prospect of parenthood carries all kinds of insecurities: What kind of father will I be? Can I support my family? Is this the end of my freedom?
And there is probably more to male postpartum depression than just social or psychological stress; like motherhood, fatherhood has its own biology, and it may actually change the brain.
A 2006 study on marmoset monkeys, published in the journal Nature Reviews Neuroscience, reported that new fathers experienced a rapid increase in receptors for the hormone vasopressin in the brain’s prefrontal cortex. Along with other hormones, vasopressin is involved in parental behavior in animals, and it is known that the same brain area in humans is activated when parents are shown pictures of their children.
There is also some evidence that testosterone levels tend to drop in men during their partner’s pregnancy, perhaps to make expectant fathers less aggressive and more likely to bond with their newborns. Given the known association between depression and low testosterone in middle-aged men, it is possible that this might also put some men at risk of postpartum depression.
By far the strongest predictor of paternal postpartum depression is having a depressed partner. In one study, fathers whose partners were also depressed were at nearly two and a half times the normal risk for depression. That was a critical finding, for clinicians tend to assume that men can easily step up to the plate and help fill in for a depressed mother. In fact, they too may be stressed and vulnerable to depression.
And there is the child to think about. Research has clearly shown that maternal postpartum depression can impair the emotional and cognitive development of infants. A father could well buffer the infant from some of the adverse effects of maternal depression — but that is a tall order if he too is depressed.
Dr. Ramchandani, who also followed children for three and a half years after birth, reported that they were affected differently depending on which parent was depressed. Maternal postpartum depression was associated with adverse emotional and behavioral effects in children regardless of sex; depression in fathers was linked only with behavioral problems in boys. (The study did not report on possible effects when both parents were depressed.)
As for my patient, he recovered within two months with the help of psychotherapy and an antidepressant. Afterward, he summed up the situation in just 10 words: “And I thought only women get this kind of thing.”
All too many doctors think so too.
Richard A. Friedman is a professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College.
So, here's a copy from what she sent in regards to post-partum depression & fathers.
From the New York Times, 12/07/09
Postpartum Depression Strikes Fathers, Too
By RICHARD A. FRIEDMAN, M.D.
The pregnancy was easy, the delivery a breeze. This was the couple’s first baby, and they were thrilled. But within two months, the bliss of new parenthood was shattered by postpartum depression.
A sad, familiar story. But this one had a twist: The patient who came to me for treatment was not the mother but her husband.
A few weeks after the baby arrived, he had become uncharacteristically anxious, sad and withdrawn. He had trouble sleeping, even though his wife was the one up at night breast-feeding their new son. What scared her enough to bring him to my office was that he had become suicidal.
Up to 80 percent of women experience minor sadness — the so-called baby blues — after giving birth, and about 10 percent plummet into severe postpartum depression. But it turns out that men can also have postpartum depression, and its effects can be every bit as disruptive — not just on the father but on mother and child.
We don’t know the exact prevalence of male postpartum depression; studies have used different methods and diagnostic criteria. Dr. Paul G. Ramchandani, a psychiatrist at the University of Oxford in England who did a study based on 26,000 parents, reported in The Lancet in 2005 that 4 percent of fathers had clinically significant depressive symptoms within eight weeks of the birth of their children. But one thing is clear: It isn’t something most people, including physicians, have ever heard of.
At first, my patient insisted that everything was just fine. He and his wife had been trying to conceive for more than a year. He was ecstatic at the prospect of fatherhood, and he did not acknowledge feeling depressed or suicidal.
Suspicious of his rosy appraisal, I pushed a little.
It turned out that he had just taken a new high-pressure job in finance six months before the birth of his son. Though he was reluctant to admit it, he clearly had more than a little concern about his family’s financial future.
And he was anxious about his marriage and his new life. “We go out a lot with friends to dinner and theater,” he said wistfully, as I recall. “Now I guess that’s all going to end.”
He had spent the nine months of pregnancy in a state of excitement about being a father without really registering what a life-transforming event it was going to be.
Unlike women, men are not generally brought up to express their emotions or ask for help. This can be especially problematic for new fathers, since the prospect of parenthood carries all kinds of insecurities: What kind of father will I be? Can I support my family? Is this the end of my freedom?
And there is probably more to male postpartum depression than just social or psychological stress; like motherhood, fatherhood has its own biology, and it may actually change the brain.
A 2006 study on marmoset monkeys, published in the journal Nature Reviews Neuroscience, reported that new fathers experienced a rapid increase in receptors for the hormone vasopressin in the brain’s prefrontal cortex. Along with other hormones, vasopressin is involved in parental behavior in animals, and it is known that the same brain area in humans is activated when parents are shown pictures of their children.
There is also some evidence that testosterone levels tend to drop in men during their partner’s pregnancy, perhaps to make expectant fathers less aggressive and more likely to bond with their newborns. Given the known association between depression and low testosterone in middle-aged men, it is possible that this might also put some men at risk of postpartum depression.
By far the strongest predictor of paternal postpartum depression is having a depressed partner. In one study, fathers whose partners were also depressed were at nearly two and a half times the normal risk for depression. That was a critical finding, for clinicians tend to assume that men can easily step up to the plate and help fill in for a depressed mother. In fact, they too may be stressed and vulnerable to depression.
And there is the child to think about. Research has clearly shown that maternal postpartum depression can impair the emotional and cognitive development of infants. A father could well buffer the infant from some of the adverse effects of maternal depression — but that is a tall order if he too is depressed.
Dr. Ramchandani, who also followed children for three and a half years after birth, reported that they were affected differently depending on which parent was depressed. Maternal postpartum depression was associated with adverse emotional and behavioral effects in children regardless of sex; depression in fathers was linked only with behavioral problems in boys. (The study did not report on possible effects when both parents were depressed.)
As for my patient, he recovered within two months with the help of psychotherapy and an antidepressant. Afterward, he summed up the situation in just 10 words: “And I thought only women get this kind of thing.”
All too many doctors think so too.
Richard A. Friedman is a professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Car safety
Link to story HERE
1 - yes, I'm bias. I have a Toyota & I love it. It's an older model, so I admit I know nothing about 2010 models, but I've had Toyotas for most of my driving life and love them.
2 - I do believe Toyota should have paid attention and gone ahead and "flagged" which cars they wanted tested if they were told ahead of time that not every car would get tested
BUT I do have some issues with this system:
1 - if ever car is NOT tested, then there very well could be cars out there that are safer than the ones listed, but no one would know otherwise because they didn't have the "time" to test them
2 - the reason they have a time constraint this year was because of the ONE new safety test (roof strength) that they added. If ONE test is going to put you on a time constraint, either don't add it until you have enough time to make sure all models can be tested OR hire more people (it'll be good for the economy) to get the job done on time and test all the vehicles
3 - the new test is for roof strength and surprisingly a boat-load of SUVs made the list. I'm not saying regular cars don't flip over and shouldn't have decent roof strength, BUT SUVs have more of a tendency to flip over - their center of balance is way different than a regular mid-size or compact car - so I would expect them to be made differently in regards to roof strength. I think the test is a little biased towards SUVs.
But that's just my opinion. For now, Autumn and I are sticking with our Toyota.
1 - yes, I'm bias. I have a Toyota & I love it. It's an older model, so I admit I know nothing about 2010 models, but I've had Toyotas for most of my driving life and love them.
2 - I do believe Toyota should have paid attention and gone ahead and "flagged" which cars they wanted tested if they were told ahead of time that not every car would get tested
BUT I do have some issues with this system:
1 - if ever car is NOT tested, then there very well could be cars out there that are safer than the ones listed, but no one would know otherwise because they didn't have the "time" to test them
2 - the reason they have a time constraint this year was because of the ONE new safety test (roof strength) that they added. If ONE test is going to put you on a time constraint, either don't add it until you have enough time to make sure all models can be tested OR hire more people (it'll be good for the economy) to get the job done on time and test all the vehicles
3 - the new test is for roof strength and surprisingly a boat-load of SUVs made the list. I'm not saying regular cars don't flip over and shouldn't have decent roof strength, BUT SUVs have more of a tendency to flip over - their center of balance is way different than a regular mid-size or compact car - so I would expect them to be made differently in regards to roof strength. I think the test is a little biased towards SUVs.
But that's just my opinion. For now, Autumn and I are sticking with our Toyota.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Vaccine Overload
Seriously, the more this is brought up the more it makes me want to lose my mind. Flu vs. H1N1 vaccine. Flu AND H1N1 vaccine. I'm pregnant. It's "recommended" that I get both; therefore, I should just do it, right?
What ever happened to following gut instinct? I'm sorry, but even before studies came out, before official recommendations, before it was even officially available, my instinct said NO WAY to the H1N1. I'm sorry if anyone out there think that's wrong or stupid, but that's my feeling on it. This pandemic just hit last year and there's already a vaccine out for it? That can be good - we have a REALLY impressive vaccine health system working OR That can be bad - little time to do serious testing and run the numbers. I know...I know...one of the reasons it came out so fast was because it was made the same way, with a lot of the same ingredients as the regular flu vaccine. I guess it helps when a new pandemic is related to vaccines you already have out there. But still - it's not EXACTLY the same, which means more testing should really be done. And I also know that every year the regular flu vaccine is actually "new" too because they pick and choose which strain they think will be most likely to show up. Even my midwife said yesterday, "Last year the did a great job on picking the strain, but the year before the did a really sucky job." And she was actually trying to encourage me to get the vaccines. What, exactly, about that is encouraging? Taking a 50/50 chance to begin with the the "smart health people" picked the right vaccine in the first place? Fabulous.
I have yet to pick this book up, but I've heard lots of wonderful things about Dr. Sears Vaccine Book. It's unbiased and basically just gives you the facts, letting each person decide what is right for his or her own child. Here's an article from Sept about Dr. Sears opinion on the H1N1. (Note: If someone knows of a more recent article, I'd be very happy to read and update any conclusions I've come to). Overall, I think IF I ALREADY HAD A CHILD I would feel better about getting the vaccines. But I'm pregnant. And there is NOTHING in the article that makes me feel better about getting the vaccine while I'm carrying a child.
Here's what I am up against: I'm pregnant, so I'm more likely to get sick with a weakened immune system AND if I do get sick there's a bigger chance of it becoming serious. I work with two young children who attend school facilities. And I attend classes five days a week. Basically - I'm out and about in germ-infested areas.
I've never had the flu. I've never gotten the shot. I worry that getting the shot to begin with will actually end up getting me sick (which I've heard happens in many cases) and although this wouldn't be the contagious flu because it's only a result of the vaccine, I would still most likely be out of work, be out of school, and God only knows how bad it would hit me and what it would do to my pregnancy.
The last part is the most serious. That's why everyone encourages me to get both shots - because I'm pregnant. I'm sorry, but during pregnancy aren't women constantly told NOT to put things into their system? Don't drink alcohol, don't do drugs, don't smoke, don't have too much coffee or soda, don't take anything but tylenol, don't eat hot dogs. And WHY are we told not to take in all these things? Because TESTING has proved that too much of any of this could be a risk to the baby. So, instead you're telling me to put something into my system that MIGHT keep me healthy (there is NO GUARANTEE...need I really remind people of this?), but it also has had little testing done in pregnant women, so you have very little clue as to what it might do to my child. Something here seems back-asswards here!
This is what it comes down to....do I (and only I) feel comfortable putting something into my system that I will have NO idea how it affects my baby until I give birth in another 14-17 weeks? Can I live another 3-4 months, after a vaccine, wondering if I've picked the right choice? This isn't about me, this is about my baby. For the first time, I'm making a decision that my baby has no say in and I don't know what the right answer is. WELCOME TO PARENTHOOD, NANCY! I can feel my mother chuckling over this.
I do not know what I'm going to do. And everyday this battle in my head goes back and forth, back and forth. At the LEAST, I'm waiting it out a few weeks to see how people, especially other preggos, are affected by the vaccines before I even go looking to have it done.
Shawn and I both believe that asking questions and thinking about things thoroughly before making a decision is a good thing. And that's what we intend to do. Question & research. And no decision will be made before the two of us are satisfied.
What ever happened to following gut instinct? I'm sorry, but even before studies came out, before official recommendations, before it was even officially available, my instinct said NO WAY to the H1N1. I'm sorry if anyone out there think that's wrong or stupid, but that's my feeling on it. This pandemic just hit last year and there's already a vaccine out for it? That can be good - we have a REALLY impressive vaccine health system working OR That can be bad - little time to do serious testing and run the numbers. I know...I know...one of the reasons it came out so fast was because it was made the same way, with a lot of the same ingredients as the regular flu vaccine. I guess it helps when a new pandemic is related to vaccines you already have out there. But still - it's not EXACTLY the same, which means more testing should really be done. And I also know that every year the regular flu vaccine is actually "new" too because they pick and choose which strain they think will be most likely to show up. Even my midwife said yesterday, "Last year the did a great job on picking the strain, but the year before the did a really sucky job." And she was actually trying to encourage me to get the vaccines. What, exactly, about that is encouraging? Taking a 50/50 chance to begin with the the "smart health people" picked the right vaccine in the first place? Fabulous.
I have yet to pick this book up, but I've heard lots of wonderful things about Dr. Sears Vaccine Book. It's unbiased and basically just gives you the facts, letting each person decide what is right for his or her own child. Here's an article from Sept about Dr. Sears opinion on the H1N1. (Note: If someone knows of a more recent article, I'd be very happy to read and update any conclusions I've come to). Overall, I think IF I ALREADY HAD A CHILD I would feel better about getting the vaccines. But I'm pregnant. And there is NOTHING in the article that makes me feel better about getting the vaccine while I'm carrying a child.
Here's what I am up against: I'm pregnant, so I'm more likely to get sick with a weakened immune system AND if I do get sick there's a bigger chance of it becoming serious. I work with two young children who attend school facilities. And I attend classes five days a week. Basically - I'm out and about in germ-infested areas.
I've never had the flu. I've never gotten the shot. I worry that getting the shot to begin with will actually end up getting me sick (which I've heard happens in many cases) and although this wouldn't be the contagious flu because it's only a result of the vaccine, I would still most likely be out of work, be out of school, and God only knows how bad it would hit me and what it would do to my pregnancy.
The last part is the most serious. That's why everyone encourages me to get both shots - because I'm pregnant. I'm sorry, but during pregnancy aren't women constantly told NOT to put things into their system? Don't drink alcohol, don't do drugs, don't smoke, don't have too much coffee or soda, don't take anything but tylenol, don't eat hot dogs. And WHY are we told not to take in all these things? Because TESTING has proved that too much of any of this could be a risk to the baby. So, instead you're telling me to put something into my system that MIGHT keep me healthy (there is NO GUARANTEE...need I really remind people of this?), but it also has had little testing done in pregnant women, so you have very little clue as to what it might do to my child. Something here seems back-asswards here!
This is what it comes down to....do I (and only I) feel comfortable putting something into my system that I will have NO idea how it affects my baby until I give birth in another 14-17 weeks? Can I live another 3-4 months, after a vaccine, wondering if I've picked the right choice? This isn't about me, this is about my baby. For the first time, I'm making a decision that my baby has no say in and I don't know what the right answer is. WELCOME TO PARENTHOOD, NANCY! I can feel my mother chuckling over this.
I do not know what I'm going to do. And everyday this battle in my head goes back and forth, back and forth. At the LEAST, I'm waiting it out a few weeks to see how people, especially other preggos, are affected by the vaccines before I even go looking to have it done.
Shawn and I both believe that asking questions and thinking about things thoroughly before making a decision is a good thing. And that's what we intend to do. Question & research. And no decision will be made before the two of us are satisfied.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Water Birth Video
We're hoping to do this at the birth center if all goes well:o)
VIDEO (note: somewhat graphic...what do you expect?)
VIDEO (note: somewhat graphic...what do you expect?)
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Pregnancy Weight
So I've been doing research on this because I do think it's important. It's on the mind of every preggo woman out there - am I gaining too much weight? Not enough? Am I gaining it too fast, in which case I need to slow down? Am I not gaining it fast enough? ETC.
According to this site: http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20090528/pregnancy-weight-gain-new-guidelines and my BMI pre-pregnancy (http://www.webmd.com/diet/calc-bmi-plus): I am a woman of normal weight and I should gain anywhere between 25-35 lbs.
I also read someone where during the first trimester (up to 13 weeks) a normal weight person should gain anywhere from 3-5lbs and then approx 1lb/week...making that range 30-32lbs.
At 15 1/2 weeks I had gained approx 5.5 lbs. I have no idea what my weight is at right now because we don't keep a scale at home, but I feel like I'm going to be able to stay in my healthy zone. My guilty pleasure is fast food, which I must avoid, or at least try to eat more salads and less burgers from those places. And I need to remember to incorporate more fruits & veggies ( I do love my carbs!!!)
Overall, I think it's important that EVERYONE (not just us preggos) realize that everyone's body starts out different and that will completely determine how you will gain weight and how much you will gain overall. I despise people who suggest that pregnant women have gained too much or too little weight and DONT take into consideration their natural body, metabolism, etc. As long as your doctor/midwife says that you're doing well and you seem to be within the recommended guidelines, everyone else should just shush:o)
According to this site: http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20090528/pregnancy-weight-gain-new-guidelines and my BMI pre-pregnancy (http://www.webmd.com/diet/calc-bmi-plus): I am a woman of normal weight and I should gain anywhere between 25-35 lbs.
I also read someone where during the first trimester (up to 13 weeks) a normal weight person should gain anywhere from 3-5lbs and then approx 1lb/week...making that range 30-32lbs.
At 15 1/2 weeks I had gained approx 5.5 lbs. I have no idea what my weight is at right now because we don't keep a scale at home, but I feel like I'm going to be able to stay in my healthy zone. My guilty pleasure is fast food, which I must avoid, or at least try to eat more salads and less burgers from those places. And I need to remember to incorporate more fruits & veggies ( I do love my carbs!!!)
Overall, I think it's important that EVERYONE (not just us preggos) realize that everyone's body starts out different and that will completely determine how you will gain weight and how much you will gain overall. I despise people who suggest that pregnant women have gained too much or too little weight and DONT take into consideration their natural body, metabolism, etc. As long as your doctor/midwife says that you're doing well and you seem to be within the recommended guidelines, everyone else should just shush:o)
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Produce Health
Article from Baby Guide 2009 that I received from the Birth Center.
Produce Highest in pesticide residue:
- Peaches
- Apples
- Sweet Bell Peppers
- Celery
- Nectarines
- Strawberries
- Cherries
- Lettuce
- Grapes (imported)
- Pears
- Spinach
- Potatoes
So...that's just about everything I really enjoy eating when it comes to produce. Awesome.
Produce Lowest in pesticide residue:
- Onions
- Avocados
- Sweet corn (frozen)
- Pineapples
- Mangoes
- Sweet peas (frozen)
- Asparagus
- Kiwi
- Bananas
- Cabbage
- Broccoli
- Eggplant
Produce Highest in pesticide residue:
- Peaches
- Apples
- Sweet Bell Peppers
- Celery
- Nectarines
- Strawberries
- Cherries
- Lettuce
- Grapes (imported)
- Pears
- Spinach
- Potatoes
So...that's just about everything I really enjoy eating when it comes to produce. Awesome.
Produce Lowest in pesticide residue:
- Onions
- Avocados
- Sweet corn (frozen)
- Pineapples
- Mangoes
- Sweet peas (frozen)
- Asparagus
- Kiwi
- Bananas
- Cabbage
- Broccoli
- Eggplant
Monday, June 1, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Teen Birth Video
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30845658?GT1=43001
I haven't seen the whole video. Supposedly it's very graphic. After being taken down from YouTube it's supposedly back up, so feel free to go search for it. My opinion? I give them kudos for letting the teens make the decisions on how to film it/direct it since it was directed towards their peers. But I think it's extreme. I get the point, "it's not what you expected," but I don't think it's realistic either. It's saying, "if you get pregnant, you're giving birth on a football field and that is just tragic and horrifying." I'm sure most people will have the common sense to realize that a situation like that happening in real life is slim. Sure, people have given birth in cars when it's been quick labor...and teens have given birth at a prom in a toilet stall...but generally, for the most part, if/when any woman goes into labor there is usually some commen sense around that will help that woman get the medical attention needed. I doubt she'd be left stranded on a football field. I understand they don't want flyers or lectures from adults because it's too "preachy," but how about lectures/videos of teen moms who are living it in real life. The hardest part about parenting, especially teen parenting, isn't the labor...I think the focus needs to be more on the life after labor.
The article also mentions sex ed in school as young as elementary. Now, I consider elementary grades K-4/5. I'm sorry, but this is too young for a school to be teaching sex ed. Those are what ages? as young as 4 to as old as 10? That's too young. Parents shouldn't have a problem with their 10 years old, or younger, having sex because at that age your child shouldn't be anywhere or with anyone that would put them in that sort of situation. As they get older and are allowed to go roaming around town and head off to whoever's friends houses...sure...talk with them about it then. But at 10 years old there should still be a RESPONSIBLE adult somewhere in the vicinity of children that can keep an eye on behavior. Common freakin sense. I think it's important for parents to be honest with their children and teach them certain things - like what is ok and not ok to do with your bodies, but a full blown sex ed class in school. No. I wouldn't be ok with that. I would prefer to hold that off until middle-school age.
But that's just my opinion.
I haven't seen the whole video. Supposedly it's very graphic. After being taken down from YouTube it's supposedly back up, so feel free to go search for it. My opinion? I give them kudos for letting the teens make the decisions on how to film it/direct it since it was directed towards their peers. But I think it's extreme. I get the point, "it's not what you expected," but I don't think it's realistic either. It's saying, "if you get pregnant, you're giving birth on a football field and that is just tragic and horrifying." I'm sure most people will have the common sense to realize that a situation like that happening in real life is slim. Sure, people have given birth in cars when it's been quick labor...and teens have given birth at a prom in a toilet stall...but generally, for the most part, if/when any woman goes into labor there is usually some commen sense around that will help that woman get the medical attention needed. I doubt she'd be left stranded on a football field. I understand they don't want flyers or lectures from adults because it's too "preachy," but how about lectures/videos of teen moms who are living it in real life. The hardest part about parenting, especially teen parenting, isn't the labor...I think the focus needs to be more on the life after labor.
The article also mentions sex ed in school as young as elementary. Now, I consider elementary grades K-4/5. I'm sorry, but this is too young for a school to be teaching sex ed. Those are what ages? as young as 4 to as old as 10? That's too young. Parents shouldn't have a problem with their 10 years old, or younger, having sex because at that age your child shouldn't be anywhere or with anyone that would put them in that sort of situation. As they get older and are allowed to go roaming around town and head off to whoever's friends houses...sure...talk with them about it then. But at 10 years old there should still be a RESPONSIBLE adult somewhere in the vicinity of children that can keep an eye on behavior. Common freakin sense. I think it's important for parents to be honest with their children and teach them certain things - like what is ok and not ok to do with your bodies, but a full blown sex ed class in school. No. I wouldn't be ok with that. I would prefer to hold that off until middle-school age.
But that's just my opinion.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
If you're having a boy...
"Circumcision reduces the risk of genital herpes, HPV infection"
Another article from Carolina Parent May 2009. I just found it interesting. According to an article in New Englad Journal of Medicine heterosexual men who have a circumcision significantly reduce their risk of getting HSV-2, which causes gential herpes, and HPV, which can cause cancer and gental warts. The article also states that earlier studies done show that circumcision also reduces the risk of a heterosexual man getting HIV by more than 50%.
For more information there was a link http://www.niaid.nih.gov/
Another article from Carolina Parent May 2009. I just found it interesting. According to an article in New Englad Journal of Medicine heterosexual men who have a circumcision significantly reduce their risk of getting HSV-2, which causes gential herpes, and HPV, which can cause cancer and gental warts. The article also states that earlier studies done show that circumcision also reduces the risk of a heterosexual man getting HIV by more than 50%.
For more information there was a link http://www.niaid.nih.gov/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)