I'm guessing here, Sue, but I think there's a general feeling that assaulting a pregnant woman is somehow worse than assaulting a non-pregnant woman, without bringing the fetus into the argument, which only complicates it further due to the religious nuts. The pregnant woman is just that bit more vulnerable

But I'm asking why it's somehow worse and why she might be considered more vulnerable, if it's not because of the fetus?

No idea what ilsa meant in her initial post, but surely if we remove the fetus (from the equation, haha), the woman is a distinct being who -- being pregnant -- is a lot more physically vulnerable (in theory) than she would have been had she not been pregnant; i.e. she is bulky and cumbersome, more easily fatigued, less able to escape a physical attack, etc. I don't know, that's my sense of it anyway. It's less a practical distinction than a philosophical one, I think.

... she is bulky and cumbersome, more easily fatigued, less able to escape a physical attack, etc.

A good description of a sizable portion of the female population.

It's less a practical distinction than a philosophical one, I think.

If so, then it's because there's a fetus.

A good description of a sizable portion of the female population.

Yes, but maybe not of her. ;-)

If so, then it's because there's a fetus.

You never heard of phantom pregnancies?

Anyway, like I said, I'm only speculating about this, and with enough of a stretch (ha ha) I almost managed to carry the original idea to term...

Having done the pregnancy thing, in addition to there being a fetus, there is also a significant amount of extra weight, more blood circulating which means easier bleeding, greater fatigue, less bladder control, loosened ligaments and joints, and more sensitivity to environmental pollutants.  In other words, you are inherently in worse physical shape for being pregnant.  

Thalia

I've done the pregnancy thing myself, so to speak. And most of the effects you mention would have no bearing on an assault upon my person.

Come on. The original statement to which I responded was:

And finally,  why can't we make it a more serious crime to assault a pregnant woman without bringing the all-holy fetus into it?

We can talk about all the physical attributes of pregnancy till the cows come home, and it won't change the fact that the only reason to make such an assault more serious is precisely that there's a fetus inside the woman.

Sue, I've never seen you this oddly stubborn before! Of course there's a fetus, but if you could reproduce all the "symptoms" of pregnancy without there being a fetus (as in, say, a phantom pregnancy), you cannot deny that a woman in that state is more vulnerable than a woman in the other. Come on. The only reason anyone is trying to "remove the fetus" (as I so indelicately put it earlier) in this discussion is so we can avoid all that predictable far right religious crap that often accompanies such discussions. I think the problem could be: you're being literal and others are being hypothetical, perhaps?

...if you could reproduce all the "symptoms" of pregnancy without there being a fetus...

I'm about 80 pounds overweight, mostly out front... my lower back is shot, I'm getting varicose veins on my legs, and I can't seem to stop eating...
If I were female, people would be asking me when I'm due.

(Maybe I'm having a baby elephant, and the trunk is showing...)

I'm not a Democrat, I'm a liberal. Democrats go to meetings...

I've just thought of something else: it's difficult to remove the protective feelings we feel toward pregnant women in general. now, this is going to get into the area of TMI possibly, but if the woman in question is your partner/significant other, your protectiveness extends to the fetus, sure, but if it's Pregnant Woman X, I persobnally can't say my protectiveness toward her extends to her fetus. Babies and kids, sure, but generic fetuses? No, my (probably instinctive) urge to protect that generic pregnant woman is simply to protect that generic pregnant woman! And this might factor into the idea that it is intrinsically worse to assault a woman who is (or appears to be?) pregnant than it is to assault a healthy non-pregnant woman. Ha, I also think this conversation's chasing its tail by now. I'm torn between making a serious case and having fun with it now.

but if the woman in question is your partner/significant other, your protectiveness extends to the fetus, sure, but if it's Pregnant Woman X, I persobnally can't say my protectiveness toward her extends to her fetus. Babies and kids, sure, but generic fetuses? No, my (probably instinctive) urge to protect that generic pregnant woman is simply to protect that generic pregnant woman! And this might factor into the idea that it is intrinsically worse to assault a woman who is (or appears to be?) pregnant than it is to assault a healthy non-pregnant woman.

That's all I've been saying.

Me too!

looks confused

I'm not being "stubborn," just logical. I understand perfectly well why some want to remove the fetus, so to speak. That doesn't change the facts here.

if you could reproduce all the "symptoms" of pregnancy without there being a fetus (as in, say, a phantom pregnancy), you cannot deny that a woman in that state is more vulnerable than a woman in the other.

Jesus Christ, man, lots of people are more "vulnerable" for boatloads of reasons. You've got your overweight, your high blood pressurers, your on and on and on.  What does that have to do with the law? Keep in mind the beginning of this thread.

True, but I don't think we have some hardwired or otherwise inherent part of us that makes us want to protect people with high blood pressure!

And the law already does make practical distinctions based on the more obvious vulnerabilities: or do you think a man who punches another man in the face is likely to get the same sentence in most courtrooms as a man who punches a child in the face... or a woman for that matter?

A pregnant woman is not necessarily any more vulnerable physically than any other of a myriad of groups. Sure, we recoil at hearing that a pregnant woman falls or that she is hit in the stomach. But why any more so than if she were not pregnant? The vulnerability of which you speak and that hardwired or inherent feeling of protection to which you refer all relate to -- guess what? :-)

Besides, I thought we had evolved in our thinking about pregnant women being somehow weak or needy of our protection or less able to continue her normal life.

So yes, we can make an assault on a pregnant woman a more serious offense, but the underlying reason to do so still rests with that "all-holy fetus," whether stated or not.

The vulnerability of which you speak and that hardwired or inherent feeling of protection to which you refer all relate to -- guess what? :-)

But I already addressed this: not for me. If it were my partner, sure, the fetus would be a factor, but if it was a stranger, my protectiveness would be 100% with the woman. I've been thinking about this issue a lot since we've been going around in circles on it (ha ha), and I even did a very unscientific straw poll of my own and everyone I asked (about five people, three men and two women) agreed with that.

Besides, I thought we had evolved in our thinking about pregnant women being somehow weak or needy of our protection or less able to continue her normal life.

We? Anyway, I certainly don't equate "vulnerable" with "weak" in this instance. I can't speak from personal experience, of course, but I'm pretty sure that being pregnant sometimes kicks the shit out of you!

the underlying reason... still rests with that "all-holy fetus,"

But on this, as enjoyable as the discussion has been -- and I do mean that this micro-debate has allowed me to think more deeply about the issue -- I think we now have to agree (very slightly, as it turns out) to disagree.

but if it was a stranger, my protectiveness would be 100% with the woman. I've been thinking about this issue a lot since we've been going around in circles on it (ha ha), and I even did a very unscientific straw poll of my own and everyone I asked (about five people, three men and two women) agreed with that.

Absolutely baffling to me. I can see that one would courteously give up a seat on the bus to a pregnant woman because she looks rather uncomfortable, being so huge and all...but then I'd hope one would do the same for others who may be obese or otherwise compromised. :-)

But why the special protectiveness for a pregnant woman who is assaulted, if not because she is....pregnant...with child...I mean, er, fetus?

So yes, we must agree to disagree.

All I can say is my wife has been pregnant twice.  Both times she was a bundle of emotions, weepy and needy, neurotic and nesting.  A woman who is pregnant craves support and understanding, and is usually emotionally weak.  But that is just my personal anecdote.  Any women here who have been pregnant could give you a take on whether they are more weak or vulnerable while pregnant.

I don't know, nmiguy, all I know is that I was fucking terrified of Ms Admit The Woods when she was pregnant.

The concept of "pre-pregnant" assumes that one day the person would be pregnant.  That is as presumptuous as it is preposterous.

New federal guidelines issued this year ask any woman capable of conceiving to treat themselves - and to be treated by their health-care provider - as "pre-pregnant" at all times.

This is what all the furor is about? I simply don't get it. Read the guidelines, if you can stay awake long enough. I think I came across "prepregnancy" a couple times towards the end. I could not find anything saying that all  women should consider themselves prepregnant, but even if I had, I would infer that that's just weird government-ese for touting preconception health.

The more thought people put into planning when to have their children and what steps might be healthful doesn't sound absurd or scary to me in the least.

We may have much to fear when it comes to losing abortion rights, but this ain't it.

I don't disagree with you Sue.  That being said, treating somebody as if they are about to conceive makes assumptions about a young woman that would not necessarily be fair.  I think peoples panties are in a bunch because it portrays women as just baby making machines, as if that is their function.  

Now I remember when I was a kid, my dad told me never to hit a girl.  And I asked why, and he explained that if you hit her then maybe someday far in the future she may never be able to have babies.  That was a good enough explanation for me as an eight year old.  But as an adult I see far more significant reasons not to hit girls or anybody for that matter.  

I think this is a result of a litigious society, doctors are told to treat all women fo child bearing age as "pre-pregnant" because no one wants to get slapped with a suit claiming "the doctor's reckless disregard made me sterile."  And it does smell like the rantings of the "morality police" and fanatical right wingers whose pro life agenda involves invading a woman's identity to influence behavior.  It's one thing to look at a woman and think "gee I'd like to put a bun in her oven" and another thing entirely to think she's pre-pregant.  Women have been defined long enough by their reproductive "uses".  Enough with the burkhas, and enough with treating women as breeding experiments!  They are people, not pre-pregnant cows.  They are not pre-pregnant, that is far too presumptuous.  Either they are pregnant or they are not pregnant.  

Sue I am surprised, I thought you would see the offense in this.  

Not only do I not see the offense but I see the benefits in everything I read in those guidelines.

Any offense taken, in my humble opinion, is misguided here.

er - maybe you're both right? I mean, the looking after yourself and avoiding known toxins thing is useful advice, and for any woman who is consciously taking the chance of getting pregnant, it's more than useful for her personally. But I think the potential offence is in the idea of mainstreaming - or officially replicating - the assumption that the stupider sort of stranger makes at the sight of any woman between 18 and 40, that she should behave in certain ways and abstain from certain indulgences because it's her destiny to get pregnant.  All my friends who have had children, or who are trying, have done the whole folic acid number and been extremely careful about what they ate (and how close they got to cats). But I don't want to have to explain to random busybodies that I am not going to have children - despite the ring on my finger making it somehow OK for you to assume I am sexually active - because I have an IUD, and whatever you think of that, mister, this here is my white lady and I paid for it.

On the other hand, that sort of busybody is probably too far gone to be encouraged or discouraged by the stance any public authority takes; and if you can't stick up for yourself sufficiently to explain that you have made a reasonably informed choice to be drinking, maybe you've had enough, love.

I suppose it's not surprising that the missing piece of advice to the "pre-pregnant" is that there are measures available that will make them effectively impregnable.

I suppose it's not surprising that the missing piece of advice to the "pre-pregnant" is that there are measures available that will make them effectively impregnable.

It's not missing at all. Even though the guidelines are concerned with preconception health (and reducing health costs related to lack thereof), they do make mention of a "reproductive life plan" (yeah, I know, more governmental-ese), which by definition would address preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Sue if the goals and guidelines are helpful in keeping people healthy, then yeah, you're right.   But in teh end, considering someone "pre-pregnant" doesn't really do that, does it?  Is that going to stop women from smoking and drinking?  Is it going to make them work out and be healthy?  No. Something else may do that.  i am all for keeping people healthy, but how healthy is it to objectify women as breeding machines to be maintained?  Well suffice it to say we see this differently, but I can respect where you're coming from.

but how healthy is it to objectify women as breeding machines to be maintained?

Where in the world are you coming up with this bugaboo? Did you read my post with the link to the guidelines? Did you read said guidelines? There's absolutely nothing in it other than typical government recommendations that are common sense to most of us but should be reiterated anyway.

You know, it wasn't too long ago that stereotypes involving female hormones, whether it was pregnancy or menstruation, were used to discriminate against females. So If anything is alarming about all of this, it is the posts I read (one of which was yours) in which two guys commiserate about how weak or needy or vulnerable or downright frightening their SOs were while pregnant. All sounds like some bad comedy routine.  

There's absolutely nothing in it other than typical government recommendations that are common sense to most of us but should be reiterated anyway.

So, why is the advice only offered to women? The implication is that men don't have to bother as much with health, because they don't have to worry about becoming pregnant.

The implication is that men don't have to bother as much with health, because they don't have to worry about becoming pregnant.

That's not an implication; it's the truth. While I have no doubt that there are some health precautions for men who want to conceive, they cannot possibly compare with those that should be recognized and adhered to by women of childbearing age. Women carry the fetus, last I knew.

Again, I think it's wise to read the guidelines, linked to in several posts here. There's nothing that even remotely suggests a conspiracy or sexism or anything other than sound medical advice. Said advice may be obvious, as a couple female posters alluded, so maybe that's why the inference that something else must be going on here. But what's obvious medical advice to many of us is less so to a significant and vulnerable number of women. Maybe this will help them; it certainly can't hurt anyone.

There are battles to be fought. I just don't see one here. What I see is a sensationalist piece whose sole purpose was to rouse the rabble against some nonexistent government plot against women.

How about pre-ill-with-the flu?

I haven't yet seen a good analogy to pre-pregnancy (a silly and unfortunate term, perhaps), this one included.  

Maybe your family doctor tells you, "Fuck it, you're invincible, go do whatever you want," and you're afraid he's going to start saying, "If you were a man, I'd say 'Fuck it, you're invincible, go do whatever you want', but since you're a woman and might have a baby, I'm going to offer you health advice."  My doctor asks me about things like alcohol consumption, smoking, exercise, diabetes risk factors.  When I was overweight, he told me to lose weight.  If I smoked, I would certainly hope that he would encourage me to quit.

Should I be mad at my doctor for treating me as though I'm pre-cancerous because he encourages me to feel my balls for lumps once a month?  Should I be up in arms because in a few years I'm going to get a couple gloved fingers up my ass annually to feel for prostate cancer?  Some health concerns are gender specific.  Pregnancy is one of those concerns.  If it's unfair that women need adequate folic acid to prevent birth defects, blame god, not the CDC.  

The concept that women should take care of themselves not because of who THEY are, but because of the potential life that they may or may not carry at some future point is absolutely horrible.

I just don't see this supposed "we don't care about you, lady, we just want your (possible) baby to be healthy" attitude anywhere.  Doctors and the medical establishment have been encouraging men and women to maintain a healthy weight, control their diabetes, moderate their drinking, quit smoking, etc for themselves for a long time.  These guidelines are not meant to replace guidelines encouraging women to be healthy for themselves, but are intended as an addition.

Is it really so awful to want to decrease the prevalence of spina bifida, fetal alcohol syndrome, and other preventable problems?

In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.

Doctors and the medical establishment have been encouraging men and women to maintain a healthy weight, control their diabetes, moderate their drinking, quit smoking, etc for themselves for a long time.

Doctors, yes.  But when we have a gummint that is entirely too interested in the rights of potential people, and not at all interested in the rights of existing people, going on about how you should take care of your health for the sake a a child that hasn't even been conceived yet, that gets just a little bit creepy.  It's sort of like looking down a long slippery slope with The Handmaiden's Tale at the bottom and thinking "Nope, don't wannna go there!"

I guess my sled just won't slide down this particular slippery slope.  Normally, when tickets go on sale for the new Ascribe Nefarious Motives to Various Government Entities event, I'm camping the ticket booth for a week in advance to get the best seats.  I'm just unable to get worked up about this particular show.

I realize that anti-abortionists have gone through all sorts of legal contortions to try put a backdoor ban on abortion.  Trying to extend "rights" to an embryo from the moment of conception is based on their assumption that an embryo/fetus is as much a legal person as a full-term baby who has just been born.  As far as that assumption goes, I find their belief in embryo/fetus rights to be logically consistent (even though I find it scientifically and philosophically unsound).  

However, I remain utterly unconvinced that these guidelines are an extension of that logic.  I also fail to see how encouraging women to take care of themselves in case they become pregnant (in addition to, not in lieu of, taking care of themselves for their own sake) is an abridgment of their rights.  I don't see the CDC advancing the cause of unborn rights or some such doctrine of the Cult of the Fetus.  I do see them advancing the cause of the health of infants (who will later be adults who may be suffering from preventable conditions they were born with).  That's an important distinction.

In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.

I guess my sled just won't slide down this particular slippery slope.

That's the idea of kicking up a fuss now.

Congratulations on being pregnant.

Gordon...You, I mean me...oh god, Gord...YOU'RE the father.  There, I said it.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

So it was you who chose the "Steve Urkel's baby" response in my poll!!!

(cue ominous descending pipe organ chords)

Tune in tomorrow, when we'll hear Steve/gordo say,

"Damn, I knew I shouldn't have bought those bulk discount condoms..."

{Insert amusing quotation here}

No, it's "Damn, I wish I knew how to quit you."

In regione caecorum, rex est luscus.

Read the Guardian regularly do you?  If you did, you'd know it is a mix of factual reportage and a fairly large amount of editorial and comment.  The two are not mixed and any fule know the difference (this is comment, in case you hadn't guessed).  

You seem to be confusing the Guardian with, well, any other UK newspaper.  Let me assure you and other non-Guardian readers here that it is among the most sober available.  Not only that but it is reliable.  This, I think, is the question that people get wrong when dismissing source material as "biased" or somehow not objective.   All I'm saying is that objectivity is the wrong question to ask - the issue is reliability. Why? well, if it's necessary to parse every fact in every news story we'd have to spend 2 months reading the Sunday papers, so we have to simply depend sometimes on the track record of our source.

Seems to me you are rejecting this source as unreliable in a roundabout way.  
I don't think the Guardian is unreliable, it has a left-wing bias but it isn't the same as being inaccurate.  Of course, you can select your information carefully but this is a newspaper that's been around for a very long time; it's unlikely they would sully their reputation by getting actual facts horrendously wrong or deliberately beating up a story where there is none. Your accusation is casual and backed by nothing more than snark.

the only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.

it has a left-wing bias but it isn't the same as being inaccurate.

Everyone knows reality has a leftwing bias.

Yes, I do read them regularly, and their reportage is generally good. Their editorials, though, and commentary, often go off the deep end in my opinion, and snark and hysteria are often the order of the day on the Opinion/Comment and G2 section. Of course, what I object in their tone could simply reflect a difference in discourse styles between the U.S. and England.

I'd be interested to know what US media you would compare  the Guardian to; in my opinion those that disguise comment as news are the most dangerous of all.  So far as I am aware, the Guardian never does that; and I am yet to see your evidence thst this opinion is founded on nothing more than a beat up. If it is indeed free of  a factual foundation, I would concede your original "objection", but I see nothing in  your subsequent post that leads me to do so.

the only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.

I'm not sure about using a blog comment as a particularly reliable source, but in any case, the blogger seems to be talking solely about drinking. The  advice referred to in the article encompasses more factors:

Women between their first menstrual period and the menopause are told to take folic acid supplements, stop smoking, stop drinking regularly, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control; not primarily for their own health but to protect any baby that they may or may not be planning to have. They're also advised to steer clear of lead-based paint and cat faeces - a problem for any "pre-pregnant" folk whose household chores include cleaning the litter tray.

This seems to be pretty consistent with current medical knowledge. While some advice may sound "Puritan" or overreaching, I would imagine it's meant to address a whole population, many of whom do better with less flexibility, especially with regard to alcohol. Individual physicians, no doubt, wink and nod at an occasional drink.