Postponing Motherhood may be good for Busy Women but not for their Children

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 17th, 2014

Week in Review

Once upon a time I was having a conversation with a consultant.  He was bald.  And not in the best of shape.  He looked older than he was.  He started a family later in life.  And one of the worst days of his life was when a waitress said how cute his grandson was.  Because he looked like a grandfather.  Even though he was only a father.

I had a coworker who died from a heart attack while on vacation.  Running around with his grade-school-aged children.  Another father who started his family later in life.  It was not a problem for him.  For men don’t have a biological clock ticking.  So they can start a family as late as they want to in their life.  But they may not live to see their children graduate from high school.  Which is a horrible thing for a child.

This was something women were spared.  Because they have a biological clock ticking.  And couldn’t put off becoming a mother until they were ‘grandmother age’.  Until now, that is (see Later, Baby: Will Freezing Your Eggs Free Your Career? by Emma Rosenblum posted 4/17/2014 on BloombergBusinessweek Technology).

LaJoie fits the typical profile of an egg freezer: They’re great at their jobs, they make a ton of money, and they’ve followed all of Sheryl Sandberg’s advice. But the husband and baby haven’t materialized, and they can recite the stats about their rapidly decreasing fertility as a depressing party trick. For LaJoie, now 45, it was demoralizing to see friend after friend get married and have kids, while she was stuck at the hospital without romantic prospects.

“You feel bad about yourself, like you’re the odd man out, and somehow you’ve messed up on your path,” says Sarah Elizabeth Richards, who spent $50,000 freezing several rounds of eggs in 2006 to 2008 and wrote a book about the experience, Motherhood, Rescheduled: The New Frontier of Egg Freezing and the Women Who Tried It. “By freezing, you’ve done something about it. You’re walking taller; your head is held higher. And that can pay off in both your work and romantic lives.” Richards, now 43, is dating someone promising and says she’d like to thaw her eggs in the next year or so. She’s also at work on a new book and plans on finishing it before she tries to get pregnant. “Egg freezing gives you the gift of time to start a family, but it’s also, like, here’s how many years I actually have left for my other goals—what can I do with them?”

LaJoie got married soon after she froze (she told her husband about it on their very first date: “I was upfront and said, ‘This is my plan.’ He was, like, ‘OK!’ ”) and had her first baby naturally at 39. A few years later, after briefly trying fertility drugs, she thawed her eggs. The implantation worked, and her second son is 2 years old.

This is great news for women who want to conveniently work in the burden of being a mother somewhere in their busy schedules.  But when you have a child at 43 you will be 51 at that child’s high school graduation.  Old enough to be a grandmother.  While the grandmother may be in a nursing home.  Who may only see her grandchildren on holidays when they reluctantly visit her.  For nursing homes are not places children want to be.

And you could be dead by your child’s graduation.  For a lot of health issues can plague you by the time you turn 51.  Especially when you’re having your children in your 40s.  The risk of breast cancer increases with age.  The risk of hypertension and pre-eclampsia/eclampsia increase with age.  The risk of gestational diabetes increases with age.  The risk of heart disease increases with age.  As does the risk of other cancers, lupus, diabetes, pancreatitis, etc.  Things not that common for women in their 20s and 30s.  But more common for women over 40.

And babies have risks, too, when their mothers give birth when over 40.  The risk of stillbirths and miscarriages increase with age.  As does the risk for birth defects.  So it’s all well and good for the mother to postpone motherhood but it’s not the best thing for her children.  Who deserve young and healthy parents.  Who can run with them while on vacation.  And they deserve healthy grandparents to spoil them.  Things you may not be able to do if you postpone motherhood until after you’re 40.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Feminists want no Restrictions on Abortion unless a Woman Aborts a Boy because she wants a Girl

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 1st, 2014

Week in Review

Conservatives and liberals see abortion differently.  Conservatives sees it as killing a human life.  Liberals don’t.  To them a fetus is not a human life.  It’s just an inanimate lump of cells.  With a heartbeat. That’s why liberals, and feminists, say a woman can do anything she wants to this blob of tissue.  Because it’s her body. Unless, of course, that blob is being aborted solely because it will become a baby girl (see DOMINIC LAWSON: This is the liberal legacy: killing baby girls in the womb, no questions asked by Dominic Lawson posted 1/20/2014

Ministers were much more exercised about last week’s revelations by The Independent about sex-selective abortions. A spokesman for the Department of Health told the newspaper: ‘Abortion on the grounds of sex selection is against the law and  completely unacceptable…’

What we are seeing here is an echo of the much wider ‘gendercide’ that has been taking place on the subcontinent. Over the past 20 years it is estimated that about ten million female embryos have been selectively aborted in India…

The fact that a form of anti-female discrimination is involved in such terminations has led many self-professed feminists to denounce this practice and claim it is illegal. Their argument can be summed up as follows: abortion is a woman’s absolute right and concerns her alone — but not if the reason for termination is that she wants her next child to be a boy…

Their original position had been that it is ridiculous to ascribe intrinsic value to the life of the unborn child, unless it is ‘wanted’. But if he or she has no moral status during the temporary period of total dependency on the mother, why should one reason for termination be any more legal or illegal  than another..?

That’s what pro-choice means, however much those who framed the law might seek to distance themselves from the consequences. Meanwhile, the Department of Health will continue to deliver lectures on the wickedness of smoking or drinking while pregnant — just in case any harm should be done to the unborn child.

This is more of that imaginary logic liberals use to justify their beliefs and policies when they make no sense.  Liberals oppose any restrictions on abortion.  While at the same time liberals are vehemently opposed to ‘gendercide’ and want to restrict it.  A woman should be able to have an abortion if she just doesn’t feel like having a baby.  But if the fetus is female the government should force her to carry her to term.  This makes no logical sense.  Unless, of course, you use their imaginary logic.

In their convoluted world it would be okay for a mother to abuse her unborn baby by drinking, smoking and doing heroin as long as she chose to have an abortion before the child was born.  But it would be wrong for a woman to abort her baby if it was a girl because she wanted a boy.  Which is probably why they don’t want to discuss this settled issue (thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court making law) anymore.  Because it makes no sense even to them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Michigan considering making Women pay Extra for Abortion Insurance

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 7th, 2013

Week in Review

If you buy a car you buy auto insurance.  And only after buying a car would you ever buy auto insurance.  Ditto for house insurance.  If you bought a boat or an airplane you would buy insurance for those things.  But you wouldn’t buy insurance for a boat or a plane if you didn’t own a boat or a plane.  For you only insure things that leave you exposed to a financial loss should something happen to those things.  Straight forward, yes?  And it’s the way insurance has worked since its inception.  Except for health insurance.

Today, thanks to the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare) people have to buy insurance for things they have no exposure to.  For example, a gay man has to include coverage for prenatal care in his health insurance policy even though a gay man will never be pregnant.  Nor is it likely he will ever be married to someone who can get pregnant.  Which somehow doesn’t seem to be fair.  Just like it doesn’t seem to be fair to make people pay for the morning-after ‘abortion’ pill who have no intention of getting an abortion.  Or who can’t even get pregnant.

Those on the left say too bad.  Everyone must pay for these because we can’t discriminate against those who need this coverage by charging them more.  So we must charge everyone more.  Making health insurance more expensive than it has ever been before.   Causing people who had insurance they liked and wanted to keep to lose that insurance.  And some people are even losing the doctors they wanted to keep, too.  When those on the left are forced to buy something against their will, though, it’s a whole different story (see Michigan Lawmakers To Consider Separate Insurance For Abortion by Courtney Subramanian posted 12/2/2013 on Time).

Michigan lawmakers are set to consider a controversial proposal that would require women to buy additional health insurance specifically to cover abortions…

The proposal prohibits all public and private health insurers from offering abortion coverage in policies. A separate rider would needed to be purchased, which means people would have to preemptively purchase the rider without knowing if they’ll ever need it. The rider could not be purchased after getting pregnant, including in cases of rape or incest.

Being forced to buy something that they don’t know if they will need?  Could be worse.  They could be forced to buy something that they will never need.  Like many are being forced to do.  As men everywhere have to pay for policies that cover women’s health issues.  Even though they are men and don’t have women’s health issues.  Raising their insurance costs so much that some can no longer afford to even have insurance.

If men have to pay for prenatal insurance coverage then why shouldn’t women pay for an abortion rider?  For unlike a man a woman can get pregnant.  And have an abortion.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Court orders Spanish Doctor to pay Child Care after Botched Abortion allows Baby to be Born

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 26th, 2012

Week in Review

An interesting court case in Spain places the responsibility of a child not on the parents who conceived the child.  But on the doctor who failed to abort the child.  Odd.  For in the birth of that child the doctor is only an accessory after the fact of coitus (see Spanish doctor ordered to pay for upkeep of child after failed abortion by Giles Tremlett posted 5/25/2012 on The Guardian).

A Spanish doctor has been ordered to pay for the upkeep of a child after a failed abortion operation meant the boy’s mother was obliged to see her pregnancy through to the end…

The boy was born in October 2010, six months after his mother had gone for an abortion at the city’s Emece clinic. The operation had been performed when the mother was almost seven weeks pregnant. The doctor told her two weeks later that a scan proved she was no longer pregnant…

She did not return to the clinic for three months, and only after becoming convinced she must have become pregnant by mistake once more.

A fresh scan revealed, however, that this was the same pregnancy. She was already into her sixth month and past the 22-week limit for abortions in Spain. “I sought advice and was told that it would be a crime to abort at that stage,” she said.

The woman, who had hidden her pregnancy from her family out of fear at their reaction, was forced to confront her parents with the news. She and the child now live with them. Despite the fact that a suction technique had been used to try to remove the embryo, the boy was born healthy.

The mother sued the doctor for damages, with the court awarding her €150,000 (£120,000). It also decided the doctor and his insurer should pay maintenance of €978 a month for 25 years, or a further €293,000.

“I am living off my parents now, and it shouldn’t be like that,” the mother said…

“I am OK now, because I have had to accept things. There is no other option. I’m happy with my son,” she said. “When I have to explain all this to him, I’ll try to make sure that he feels OK about it. It was back then that he was not wanted, not now.”

I have one question.  Where’s the father?  Why isn’t he paying child support for his child?  I can understand the penalty for the botched abortion but child support?  The doctor didn’t make that baby.  He only failed to abort it.

Okay to abort within 22 weeks.  But a crime to abort after 22 weeks.  Okay at 5 months.  But not at 6 months.  Makes you scratch your head and think about the argument over when life begins.  At conception?  Or after 22 weeks.  Sounds rather arbitrary, 22 weeks.  Especially when you can hear a heartbeat at 8 weeks.

You hear some people joke about not being a planned baby.  About being an accident.  I imagine if one thinks about that too much it could make one question one’s purpose in life.  And question how much of an unwanted burden one was on one’s parents.  But surviving an abortion?  I don’t think that’s something a person should ever learn.  What possible good could come from that?  If mother and child bond and grow up loving each other why take a chance on ruining that?  It’s bad enough the mother has to live with this memory.  The child doesn’t.  In time perhaps the mother will feel it unnecessary to explain this unpleasant fact about his prenatal life.

But once again, where’s the father?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FT119: “To save American jobs the Left tries to keep out low-priced Mexican imports but does little to keep out low-priced Mexican labor.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 25th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

The Left opposes Cheap Mexican Labor in Mexico but they like having it in the U.S.

One of the more interesting things about the political left is their inconsistency about their opposition to free trade.  They opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) because they said all the good manufacturing jobs would go south of the border.  They said Mexicans work too cheap.  And that was unfair to the American worker.  For the American’s generous wage and benefit packages could never compete with the Mexicans who are willing to work for so much less.  With NAFTA rich American capitalists would just screw their American employees and move their operations to Mexico.  Where they would exploit the poor hapless Mexican workers.  Forcing them to work at a fraction of the American wage and benefit package.

Of course that’s not the way the poor hapless Mexican workers see it.  They loved those manufacturing jobs.  Because those jobs had some of the most generous wage and benefit packages available in Mexico.  They flooded those factories.  And the lucky few to get those jobs did quality work.  The things they made in these Mexican plants were as good as anything in the U.S.  And they cost less.  Allowing the American consumer to buy more.  Which raised the standard of living for everyone.  The American consumer.  And the Mexican consumer.  The only ones who lost were the few working in those U.S. plants that closed.  Who became bitter.  And demanded the government impose tariffs on those low-cost imports.  To save American jobs.  While lowering the standard of living for the American consumer.  And the Mexican consumer.

So the Left opposes this cheap Mexican labor.  In Mexico.  They don’t seem to mind it so much, on the other hand, when it’s in the U.S.  The Left opposes building a wall on the border.  They oppose asking for proof of citizenship from anyone who looks Mexican in a region with a high concentration of illegal aliens.  They oppose requiring a photo I.D. to vote.  They oppose deportations of illegal aliens who’ve been living and working in the U.S.  While they are in favor of blanket amnesty for those here illegally.  And providing them a fast-track to U.S. citizenship.  Which is rather odd considering the way the Left feels about that cheap Mexican labor.  So why are they opposed to imports manufactured by low-cost labor while they are in favor of bringing that low-cost labor into the United States.  For either way it will displace a higher-paid U.S. worker from a job.

The Lost Tax Revenue from Abortion and Birth Control comes to about $155 Billion per Year 

 Yes, that is a good question, isn’t it?  Some, I’m sure, will say once those illegals become legals they’ll join unions.  Which would make them no longer cheap labor.  Perhaps.  But with the decline in U.S manufacturing there aren’t a lot of union jobs anymore.  It is more likely that they will go to where there are good manufacturing jobs.  In the nonunion South.  So it is likely they would add further pressure on those high union wages and benefits.  So why, then, would the Left want to grant citizenship to those here illegally while at the same time opposing cheap Mexican labor?  Two reasons.  Abortions.  And birth control. 

As it is in most things in life it’s about the money.  The Left likes to tax and spend.  Well, not so much like but love.  It’s what they live for.  They want to spend money to provide pensions.  Health care in retirement.  And now health care before retirement.  They want to spend money to end poverty.  They want to spend money to give everyone a college education.  They want to spend money to subsidize green energy.  They want to spend money for school lunches, childcare, art, public television/radio, birth control, abortions, etc.  If it’s something they can spend money on they want to spend money on it.  Of course to spend all of this money you need what?  That’s right.  Money.  And two of the Left’s defining issues have actually reduced the available money to spend.  Birth control and abortion.

According to Public Agenda the number of abortions increased during the Seventies until they totaled approximately 1,300,000 by the end of the decade.  They stayed at or above this level for a little over a decade and then started falling in the late Nineties.  Let’s take one year of these numbers and crunch some numbers.  If 1.3 million abortions didn’t happen and the women carried these babies to term and they earned the median income of $46,000 (and paid $7,530 in federal income taxes) today that would have come to an additional $8.4 billion in tax revenue per year.

According to the Guttmacher Institute there were 62 million U.S. women in their childbearing years (15-44) in 2010.  Approximately 62% of these women were currently using birth control.  Bringing the number of women using birth control in 2010 to 38,440,000.  If birth control was unavailable let’s assume 50% of these women would have stopped having sex.  And let’s assume the women who continued to have sex became pregnant and carried their pregnancy to term.  Bringing in 19,220,000 new babies into the world.  Based on the median salary of $46,000 they would have contributed another $145 billion in tax revenue.  Added to the lost tax revenue from abortion that comes to a grand total of $155 billion in lost tax revenue per year.  Over a decade that comes to $1.5 trillion.

Granting Amnesty to Millions of Illegal Aliens can make up for Lost Tax Revenue due to Birth Control and Abortion 

During the Obamacare debates the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the cost of Obamacare over a 10-year period at $940 billion.  They have since revised that up to $1.76 trillion.  The opponents of Obamacare say it is too costly.  With a national debt of already $15.7 trillion we simply can’t afford to pay for Obamacare.  The proponents of Obamacare have been using questionable accounting practices to get that number down.  Such as collecting new taxes before paying any benefits in some of those years in that 10-year projection.  But the interesting thing to note here is that these discussions would be moot had it not been for birth control and abortion.  Which has cost the nation in tax revenue what Obamacare will cost.

These numbers are only crude calculations.  A more detailed mathematical analysis would have produced a far greater number in lost tax revenue.  Because the population would have also been expanding.  So the numbers used as constants in the 10-year projections above would have been growing larger in each year of that 10-year projection.  And producing larger amounts of tax revenue in each of those 10 years.  This is why Social Security worked so well for the first few decades.  There was a growing population.  And there was always far more new workers entering the workforce than leaving it.  What changed that was birth control and abortion.  And people choosing to have smaller families.  Not a bad thing in itself.  But this decision to have smaller families has doomed Social Security and Medicaid.  For they created those programs based on larger population growth rates.  That simply no longer exist.  And the only way to fix that is by having a lot more babies quickly.  Or for the baby boomers to die off quicker.  Which critics of Obamacare say Obamacare will help do via death panels.

Or you could try something else.  You can jumpstart the population growth rate by granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.  To make up for lost tax revenue due to birth control and abortion.  And what makes the illegals from Mexico so attractive to the Left is that many of them are devout Catholics.  Thanks to the Catholic Spanish Empire who brought their language, culture and religion to the New World.  And Catholics frown upon the use of abortion and birth control.  But this can be a risky bet for those on the Left.  Yes, they could really boost the population growth rate.  And they may get these new citizens’ votes in the early years out of gratitude.  But eventually the Left’s attacks on religion may eventually make these people vote Republican.  So they may get a large increase in tax revenue to spend.  Just as they lose power in Washington.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Study links Breast Cancer to Birth Control and Abortion

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 11th, 2012

Week in Review

We live in a very sexualized world.  And a very liberated world.  Women are encouraged to enjoy their sexuality.  And they are.  They have bought a fortune of sexy lingerie from Victoria’s Secret.  Even watch their annual lingerie show celebrating the female body.  Yes, even the ladies watch this fashion show.  Because both women and men are buying their products.  Including the Miracle Bra.  To showcase their breasts.  Which women like to showcase.  And men like to window shop at these showcases.  For men like breasts.

So in this sexualized and liberated world we empower women by letting them get sexy to please men.  Not really sure how that empowers them but it does.  I heard women say so.  I’m not complaining, mind you.  I mean, who doesn’t enjoy window shopping?  But as it turns out breasts have another purpose besides pleasing men.  They have a physiological purpose.  They’re part of a system that produces milk for babies.  A pretty complex system.  That goes through a metamorphosis when a woman gets pregnant.  Biological changes.  Changes at the cell level.  Complex stuff for a complex system.  But in the modern era of birth control and abortion, that process is getting interrupted.  Or prevented from happening.  And apparently for the human body to remain healthy this process needs to happen.  For when it’s not allowed to something bad happens.

Research has shown that babies who are breast-fed have fewer allergies than babies who are bottle-fed.  Which could, perhaps, explain an explosion in allergy problems.  But mothers who don’t become mothers are apparently doing even more harm to themselves.  Women who don’t have babies, who have babies late in life, women who have abortions and women who bottle-feed their babies have higher incidences of breast cancer.  Apparently due to the prevention or interruption of that biological metamorphosis.  Stopping that change in cells mid-change.  Leaving an unnatural cell.  And apparently a cell susceptible to cancer.

As women who have children at a younger age and don’t have abortions have lower incidences of breast cancer this will be a very contentious issue.  (As breast feeding is back in vogue that part of the study shouldn’t prove to be contentious).  The science will be challenged and challenged again.  For if these findings are proven true, they say a healthy woman is a mother.  Raising a family.  Which many in the political debate will find unacceptable.  So read the study (see The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling and Forecasts Based on Abortion and Other Risk Factors by Patrick S. Carroll posted on jpands.org).  Discuss it with your doctor.  And get other medical opinions.  Just be informed.  And be aware of all the information out there.  Even the information that proves not to be popular.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,