For years I haven't given a second thought to STDs being related to 'immorality, promiscuous behavior and low social status'-but when I read that, the memories of my up-bringing flooded my mind.
First off, STDs were never talked about in our house-there was an unspoken rule that we didn't talk about sex and since STDs are directly related to sex, it was never discussed. As a result, all of my knowledge came from friends and school programs. However, the few times it happened to come up in conversation, there was no mistake that only "hussy's" contracted STDs. This of course meant that only women were affected and they were affected because they "couldn't keep their legs closed"-I know it's crude but that's how it was discussed. Honestly, I've never really understood how my family could not talk about sex and when they did it was in the crudest manner. But I suppose my family dynamic is better left to the professionals!
When I think about STDs and its effect on those with low social status; I suppose I've always agreed. As I gain wisdom with my age, I see now that STDs knows no social order. I think those with lower social status tend have a larger risk of contracting diseases due to lack of funding, information and compassion.
As a side note, I would like throw in here that I think diseases are extremely fascinating. All things taken into consideration, they are intelligent and incredible at what they do. I'm in complete awe of them; what else can you think of that has killed millions of people (men killing men doesn't count) and continues to do so. They're tiny prokaryotic cells that logically shouldn't be able to wipe out generations yet they do. Consider this; HIV is killing the most intelligent life form on the planet. Point being that I personally think we don't give viruses the credit they deserve.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Prenatal Testing
I absolutely disagree with prenatal testing; I don't believe any good comes from it and I think it takes 'natural selection' to a completely different level. Therefore, I do not think prenatal testing should be routine for pregnant women.
The woman's' body is a beautiful 'work of art' and though we are able to understand a lot (probably more than we were ever supposed to) about ourselves, the majority of the how's and why's are beyond the realm of our understanding. Our body is coded to know when it needs to abort; when something is defiantly wrong with the embryo, our body aborts it. Why should we take this power into our own hands? So what if a baby is born and it doesn't fit our societies absurd definition of normal? That's what prenatal testing is for; why else would it be critical to have the tests done within the first 18 weeks? If the flood gate is opened; where would it stop? What would prevent an insurance company refusing coverage to a newborn with Down Syndrome, for example? Who would prevent them from classifying it as a 'pre-existing' condition? The mother knew about it when she 15 weeks pregnant.
I want to clarify that I'm not confusing this issue with pro-life; I'm a firm pro-choice. However, if a woman wants to abort a pregnancy I strongly believe that it should not be based upon some absurd test that could easily be a false-positive.
We're playing with fire and eventually we're going to get burned; Mother Nature gave us natural selection but it was never supposed to be in our hands. Why must we try to control everything? We're not supposed to know everything, so why must we try?
The woman's' body is a beautiful 'work of art' and though we are able to understand a lot (probably more than we were ever supposed to) about ourselves, the majority of the how's and why's are beyond the realm of our understanding. Our body is coded to know when it needs to abort; when something is defiantly wrong with the embryo, our body aborts it. Why should we take this power into our own hands? So what if a baby is born and it doesn't fit our societies absurd definition of normal? That's what prenatal testing is for; why else would it be critical to have the tests done within the first 18 weeks? If the flood gate is opened; where would it stop? What would prevent an insurance company refusing coverage to a newborn with Down Syndrome, for example? Who would prevent them from classifying it as a 'pre-existing' condition? The mother knew about it when she 15 weeks pregnant.
I want to clarify that I'm not confusing this issue with pro-life; I'm a firm pro-choice. However, if a woman wants to abort a pregnancy I strongly believe that it should not be based upon some absurd test that could easily be a false-positive.
We're playing with fire and eventually we're going to get burned; Mother Nature gave us natural selection but it was never supposed to be in our hands. Why must we try to control everything? We're not supposed to know everything, so why must we try?
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Contraceptives
I think some one's culture/beliefs/practices plays an important, if not the biggest, role in a woman's choice of contraception.
A woman who lives in a developing country, for example, isn't going to have the opportunities and resources available to her that allows her to take an active role in her contraception decisions. They may use natural birth control methods, that a woman from the United States may consider primitive. However, that is not to say that a woman who migrates to the United States is going to adopt our methods of birth control.
Another example of influence in our society is religion (I, personally, believe this is the single, most important factor in a woman's decision about reproductive health). It is highly plausible that a woman who is a firm pro-life advocate would not use an IUD or Plan B, for example. Whereas, a woman who is pro-choice is likely to be more open to all forms of birth control methods.
Another example of influence is a woman who practices the organic, all natural approach may be more inclined to use 'fertility awareness'/withdrawal methods.
As a side note: I, personally, am open to all methods of birth control. I think it's extremely important that women have 100% control of this issue. I don't believe that a church, family and especially the government should have any control or say so.
A woman who lives in a developing country, for example, isn't going to have the opportunities and resources available to her that allows her to take an active role in her contraception decisions. They may use natural birth control methods, that a woman from the United States may consider primitive. However, that is not to say that a woman who migrates to the United States is going to adopt our methods of birth control.
Another example of influence in our society is religion (I, personally, believe this is the single, most important factor in a woman's decision about reproductive health). It is highly plausible that a woman who is a firm pro-life advocate would not use an IUD or Plan B, for example. Whereas, a woman who is pro-choice is likely to be more open to all forms of birth control methods.
Another example of influence is a woman who practices the organic, all natural approach may be more inclined to use 'fertility awareness'/withdrawal methods.
As a side note: I, personally, am open to all methods of birth control. I think it's extremely important that women have 100% control of this issue. I don't believe that a church, family and especially the government should have any control or say so.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Sex-Ed
I believe, 100% that comprehensive sex-ed needs to be taught in our schools. I think it's extremely important that our youth arm themselves with knowledge about safe sex, STD's, pregnancy, contraception and the resources available to them. I give a standing ovation to the states (Maine, California, Pennsylvania) that have rejected federal funding for their sex education programs because they didn't agree with the abstinence-only guidelines that must be followed if federal funding is used. I just wish more states would follow suite. I think the best thing we can do for our youth is arm them with knowledge (I tend to use that phrase a lot); we're turning them out when they're 18 (on average) and allowing them to join the adult population. They're going to encounter numerous things that they've never dealt with or perhaps even thought about, they may be wanting to experiment sexually and find themselves and I believe abstinence until marriage promises that may have been made in high school tend to be forgotten. Of course, I am not saying every teenager makes this choice, some really do keep that promise they made to themselves/family/God or whoever. But part of being "young and dumb" is wanting to get your feet wet and test the waters. It's not right or wrong, it just is. And if we can help them be a little less "dumb" then I think we should.
Sex was never discussed in our house. I grew up around horses and my dad used to breed a lot of racehorses. I remember walking with my mom and we came upon my dad who was in the process of breeding a mare. I asked my mom what was going on and she just shushed me and we never talked about (I later found out from my sister) but that's how it was in our house. We all knew it happened but we never brought light onto the subject. I knew that if I had had a sex-ed program that taught me about birth control, especially the pill, my life would have turned out differently. And for teenagers that grow up in houses like mine, I think it's important that they get accurate, non-religious, science-based information.
Sex was never discussed in our house. I grew up around horses and my dad used to breed a lot of racehorses. I remember walking with my mom and we came upon my dad who was in the process of breeding a mare. I asked my mom what was going on and she just shushed me and we never talked about (I later found out from my sister) but that's how it was in our house. We all knew it happened but we never brought light onto the subject. I knew that if I had had a sex-ed program that taught me about birth control, especially the pill, my life would have turned out differently. And for teenagers that grow up in houses like mine, I think it's important that they get accurate, non-religious, science-based information.
Saturday, February 3, 2007
Preventive Care
When I took the self-assessment on page 84, I was honestly surprised by the number of 'no's' I had. I believe that I take good care of myself; I see my ob/gyn once a year, I take a multivitamin/fiber/fish oil/cranberry extract, I drink in light moderation, I don't smoke, and I wear my seat belt (well, about 80% of the time). Now, for the things that I don't do; I don't get enough sleep at night (I'm in bed between 12-1am and I'm up around 6am), I get exercise but the intensity is lacking, I know I don't get enough servings of fruits and vegetables, and I take no measures to counteract my stress (it seems like just thinking about ways to de-stress adds more stress).
I know there's a lot of things that I could be doing to improve my health, it's just a matter of time. Exercising is a perfect example; when you have 2 little girls, both under the age of 4 and you're enrolled in 14 credit hours where do you steal the extra hour? If anyone as any ideas please let me know! I already struggle to take my dogs on a daily walk; it just seems like it's always something! I'm sure there are those in our class who could agree.
In terms of getting enough vegetables and fruits everyday; I just started drinking V8 (not the regular but all of their other flavors) and hopefully that helps. I also eat Luna bars; I know it doesn't count as 'fruits and vegetables' but it does help with the 'overall healthy diet'. One thing I'm having a hard time stopping is finishing what my kids don't eat. For example; we're at Wendy's and they leave a couple chicken nuggets, I'll just pop those into my mouth on the way out the door even though I'm not hungry. Or I make mac 'n cheese for lunch; I eat my serving but on the way to sink I also clean up their plates and again, I'm really not hungry. It's just impulse control!
Like parenting, I've concluded that I'm a work-in-progress when it comes to my health and the primary prevention measures that I implement in my daily routine.
I know there's a lot of things that I could be doing to improve my health, it's just a matter of time. Exercising is a perfect example; when you have 2 little girls, both under the age of 4 and you're enrolled in 14 credit hours where do you steal the extra hour? If anyone as any ideas please let me know! I already struggle to take my dogs on a daily walk; it just seems like it's always something! I'm sure there are those in our class who could agree.
In terms of getting enough vegetables and fruits everyday; I just started drinking V8 (not the regular but all of their other flavors) and hopefully that helps. I also eat Luna bars; I know it doesn't count as 'fruits and vegetables' but it does help with the 'overall healthy diet'. One thing I'm having a hard time stopping is finishing what my kids don't eat. For example; we're at Wendy's and they leave a couple chicken nuggets, I'll just pop those into my mouth on the way out the door even though I'm not hungry. Or I make mac 'n cheese for lunch; I eat my serving but on the way to sink I also clean up their plates and again, I'm really not hungry. It's just impulse control!
Like parenting, I've concluded that I'm a work-in-progress when it comes to my health and the primary prevention measures that I implement in my daily routine.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Health Care-Right or Privilege?
I believe health care is a privilege; just like I believe that living in this country is a privilege not a right.
I believe that it is up the business owners to decide if they want to offer health insurance and the government is over-stepping their boundary if they mandate it. If a business chooses not to offer coverage then it is the individuals responsibility to find their own source of insurance. If they can't afford coverage then they need to apply for programs that provide insurance at low to no cost to them and their families.
I do believe that any person who is in need of immediate life saving treatment should be provided with it, knowing that they have a responsibility to pay for what they can.
If a 'health care for all' system was put into place; I think the standard of health care that is provided would be dramatically lowered. If I am able to pay for good health insurance, why should I be forced to put my money into program that would offer, what I believe to be, a lower standard of care? Plus, I believe that if people are given free access to health care, they wouldn't have any reason to take care of themselves. If they can receive free treatment for lung cancer then why should they stop smoking? If they can receive free treatment for type 2 diabetes then why should they take the steps to help prevent it? Such as losing weight. I believe that if someone is forced to pay for something themselves, they tend to think twice about what they're doing.
As a tax payer; I don't believe that I should have to carry the burden of providing health care. We are only required to provide someone with the means to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and, I believe, health care doesn't fall under any 3 of those. I know many would argue that health care is a part of life but it's not; only food, water and shelter are need to sustain life and I (as a tax payer) already provide all 3 of those things.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Health issue(s) of concern
The number one health issue on my list is severe depression. Being treated myself, I worry about those who are effected by it yet don't receive the treatment they need. Mental health is finally getting the attention it deserves, however there is so much more that needs to be accomplished. The lack of attention that mental health receives and the rising cost of health care (the cost of living as well) many people push to the back burner. Many health insurances companies don't offer coverage, and-if-the coverage is offered it is often minimal. If you had diabetes, you would get the treatment needed; so why isn't mental health given the same amount of concern?
Another health issue that is major concern to me is sex education (or the lack there of). I've talked to many different women in my age group (young 20's) and it astounds me to hear how incomplete their "sex knowledge" is, especially STD's. I think it's so important to arm women with this knowledge; knowledge is power!
I've spoken to two women:
Diane (53 years old) main concern is blood pressure. She's having trouble finding the right combination/dosage of medication to help her high BP.
Ashby (34 years old) main concern is skin health. She hardly wore sunscreen when she was growing up and in the past 2 years she's visited the dermatologist 15 times to have things examined, removed, studied, etc. She never realized how important protection from the sun really is (SUNSCREEN, hats, etc); especially for a fair skinned blonde. She always thought it was just fine to get sunburned a few times each summer because she tanned afterwards and she believed that once she tanned she was protected from the sun-wrong!
Another health issue that is major concern to me is sex education (or the lack there of). I've talked to many different women in my age group (young 20's) and it astounds me to hear how incomplete their "sex knowledge" is, especially STD's. I think it's so important to arm women with this knowledge; knowledge is power!
I've spoken to two women:
Diane (53 years old) main concern is blood pressure. She's having trouble finding the right combination/dosage of medication to help her high BP.
Ashby (34 years old) main concern is skin health. She hardly wore sunscreen when she was growing up and in the past 2 years she's visited the dermatologist 15 times to have things examined, removed, studied, etc. She never realized how important protection from the sun really is (SUNSCREEN, hats, etc); especially for a fair skinned blonde. She always thought it was just fine to get sunburned a few times each summer because she tanned afterwards and she believed that once she tanned she was protected from the sun-wrong!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)