This piece of lunacy slipped by me last week.

New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon.

There is so much to say about this--and so little time--, I'm not sure where to begin. First, I would remind the CDC that males are pre-impregnators and deserve a diet of their own. Our job is to provide healthy sperm--and lots of it. Impotence effects one in ten males; male infertility is involved in 40% of all infertile couples. No more briefs instead of boxers, give up smoking and drinking, and no mountain biking.

Second, not only is this a quiet nod to the anti-choice folks, but--framed as it is-- this strikes me as tied to an implicit social darwinist agenda that treats women as essentlially reproductive machines whose ultimate value is wrapped up in bearing children. Reproduction is certainly a biological function of the normal human organism (both male and female), but it needn't be definitive of female personhood specifically or human value generally. While it is a significant part of evolutionary change that populations maintain a certain successful reproduction rate, that is not a requirement for every individual in the population. Many human beings (men and women) are successful in other endeavors and certainly valuable individuals even though they may be infertile or have decided not to have children.

Now the CDC hasn't said that women are to be thought of as essentially baby-makers. But why introduce the "pre-pregnant" label and invite the characterization? Why not come out with health advice for women (and men) insofar as they are pre-astronauts, pre-Senators, pre-farmers, and pre-teachers? Why not address the specific concerns of women (and men) who are planning to have children?

Forever Pregnant

TrackBack