Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
JanetL
Published Letters: 126 Editor's Choice: 10
Let's get something straight here: the difference between "hate speech" and obnoxious speech. "Hate speech" is explicitly or implicitly threatening. Obnoxious speech is just....obnoxious. "Fuck this place," while rude and obscene, is not a threat. "Fuck [insert group or person of your choice]" is.
I'm leery of censorship even when it concerns hate speech, but I think hate speech does differ from simple obnoxiousness in the same way the burning a cross on someone's lawn differs from simple vandalism.
You know what bothers me most about Derbyshire's puerile blathering -- even more than the sexism? It's the assumption that his opinion is a fact, that everyone really secretly agrees with him, but some are just anable to accept reality. What a jerk.
As others have pointed out, this is not really a new scam. Even the quoted article says so:
Valenzuela said it's not unheard of for women to use this argument to try to use the carpool lane, but it's very rare.
"The dummy in the car is more common than this," he said.
Shouldn't that be "radical cleric Pat Robertson"?
Like a lot of pregnant women, I found that my hair got noticeably thicker and my skin looked fresher and rosier while I was pregnant. I got lots of compiments on my looks while I was pregnant (more than I ordinarily do) and chalked them up to these factors. I also had a relatively easy pregnancy, so I never felt very uncomfortable, even at 8+ months, and this may have contributed: when people see a large, pregnant woman who looks cheerful and light on her feet, they tend to be impressed.
Part of a standard medical history is to ask if the patient is sexually active, and if so, with men or women or both -- because, of course, this information is relevant to various health risks. So even if your GP doesn't ask point blank if you're gay or straight, s/he will generally know.
None of which excuses the nurse's behavior, which if nothing else was incredibly unprofessional.
But the state's Catholic Church leaders recently decided that the medication can't be dispensed in their four hospitals -- if a woman has already released an egg that could have been fertilized.... this supposed compromise doesn't make sense from, like, a biological standpoint. What's the point of giving out the pill if it can't prevent an unwanted pregnancy?
The point is that in most cases Plan B prevents ovulation, not implantation of a fertilized egg. So if the woman hasn't ovulated yet, the pill will prevent her from ovulating and thus conceiving. Sperm can live in the female reproductive tract for several days, so it's possible to conceive days after the sperm are introduced.
Don't get me wrong -- it's an idiotic rule. I just think it's extremely important to be clear about how Plan B works, since there's so much confusion and misinformation about it.
First of all, promotion of circumcision by doctors began in the 19th century because of the supposed benefits of hygeine and discouraging masturbation. The history of circumcision is well-documented and has nothing to do with a conspiracy of Jewish doctors (who were less numerous before WWII than now, due to discrimination and quotas).
I gave birth vaginally in the US a few months ago. No episiotomy (the hospital where I gave birth has a policy of trying to reduce the number of episiotomies). No complications other than a slight perineal tear that has healed well (note that there are ways to reduce the risk of a tear, such as going slowly during the pushing stage). No bladder problems that couldn't be fixed with a few Kegel exercises. I was half expecting to have a c-section because of my age (42) and the fact that I'm diabetic, both of which increase the risk of needing a c-section, so I'm certainly not against them. I had pain meds, but I know plenty of women who have given birth without them and were happy with their decision.
C-section is sometimes medically necessary. It's also a relatively low-risk surgery, and my only concern about elective c-section, as with any elective surgery, is that the patient gives informed consent. But I think it's very odd that people have such exaggerated views of the risks of vaginal birth. Yes, some women do have serious complications of vaginal birth, and I don't want to dismiss anyone's suffering. But there are risks and complications of c-section, too. And most births, as our midwife poster has said, go just fine.
There's a lot of moralizing in both directions, which I think is misplaced. There is no perfect solution.
Where I am it ain't April first yet. Grumble...Nor where Salon is (note date stamp).
I understand your concern, theglimmering, but a lot of what you say is standard just isn't, at least not where I live. (These things do vary from region to region and hospital to hospital.) My baby is four months old, and even with a doubly high-risk pregnancy (42 years old, type 1 diabetes) I didn't have most of the interventions you describe. I knew going in that I'd have an IV and fetal monitoring -- with diabetes, it would be stupid not to -- and I eventually requested an epidural. But that's it -- nobody even mentioned forceps or vacuum extraction, even though the pushing stage was pretty protracted (over two hours). No cameras, no episiotomy. As far as I know, shaving and enemas have not been common practice for at least 10 years. My baby was at my breast less than 10 minutes after she was born; I don't know anybody who was kept from her baby for longer than that unless she had had a c-section. And I didn't have to insist on any of this, even though my own OB wasn't able to be there, and I didn't have a birth plan -- because none of these interventions are standard at the hospital where I gave birth.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
