|
By Janet Evans
Wednesday, Apr 23 2008, 05:42 PM
 (CBS)
I have to admit, I just don’t get it.
All of these young parent-to-be’s who bolt to the obstetrician to get that first ultrasound and then make that decision as to whether they want to know if the baby is a boy or a girl.
First, I don’t understand the reasoning of every pregnant woman having this ultrasound in the first place. I called and spoke to an ultrasound tech at an OB-GYN’s office today and asked what was up with all of these ultrasounds that are given routinely now. See, I had heard that they are just too routine, and may not actually be as safe as once thought. She told me that they are a standard of care now at 20 weeks. But, of course, if everything is going well, they could be refused.
She said at 20 weeks, abnormalities could be seen, so it is beneficial. I asked what types. Any digits missing, malformed organs (hear, lungs, kidneys, intestines), Downs Syndrome (even though there is a blood test for that). Basically the growth and development of the baby is observed. Some medical issues can be taken care of before the baby is born.
One of the greatest joys in the delivery room as a parent, I think, is the moment your child is born and you ask, “Is it a boy or a girl?”
I know, “Oh, but I have to get the nursery ready…it has to be pink or blue.” And “I have to get those baby clothes ahead of time.” “I have to pick the perfect name…it’s too difficult to choose one for each gender.”
I just don’t know how we managed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There have always been ideas about how you could determine whether you would have a boy or a girl.
Times Online calls some of them Old Mother’s Tales:
— The mother-to-be must pick up a single key. If she lifts it up by the handle her child will be a boy, by the other end, a girl, and by the middle, she will have twins
— A wooden spoon or pair of scissors placed under the bed, or a pink bow under your pillow, will result in a girl
— Eat only the ends of loaves of bread for a boy. For a girl, eat only the middles
— Eating salty foods, meat and cheese is supposed to produce a boy. Eating sweet food and fruit is said to result in a girl
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now studies have found that nutrition is playing an important part in whether a woman will have a boy or a girl - and specifically, that cereals and proteins, especially for breakfast, will most likely produce a boy.
“In the quest to select a baby’s sex, success could depend on breakfast cereal and better nutrition, according to a new study that may offer some women another reason to eat their Wheaties. Mothers-to-be who skip breakfast and eat less are more likely to give birth to girls, while moms who consume more calories and a wider range of nutrients — including, specifically, those from breakfast cereal — are more likely to deliver sons.
That’s according to new research by British scientists that provides what they say is the first-ever evidence that a mother’s diet at conception may determine her baby’s sex. “
Read the rest of the article at MSNBC Mom’s Diet May Influence Baby’s Sex – Study Says à here
With this news coming out, I’m sure more women will stop skipping breakfast when they want to think about having a baby.
That’s a good thing.
Then there will be those that over do it and stock up on cereal and protein to try to have the boy. I just hope some women don’t start starving themselves before they become pregnant in hopes of having girls.
|
By Janet Evans
Tuesday, Mar 25 2008, 06:35 AM
To vaccinate or not to vaccinate...
For someone like me, who took my babies to a pediatrician (not a family practitioner), read all the books, listened to the advice of others, and followed the "rules," vaccinating my children was a no brainer.
If I had to do it again, I would make the same decision.
It used to be parents who objected to vaccinations did so mainly for religious reasons.
Not so anymore.
There is the big "A" word out there....
Autism.
I agree, it's scary...It's a mystery....The unknown can make us make hard choices.
But in my opinion, as horrible as autism is, it is not proven that it is caused by vaccinations.
Until it is, I would never risk the chance of my child getting a complication, or risking death, from one of the diseases that vaccinations cover.
I would also never risk infecting others with a disease because I made, what I believe is a selfish choice, to not vaccinate my child.
I have never had a child who suffers with autism, nor suffered as a parent of a child with autism.
But, with all of the chemicals we are exposed to in our lives, in our food, in our water, etc. we can't be sure vaccines are the culprit.
"The parents who objected to their children being inoculated are among a small but growing number of vaccine skeptics in California and other states who take advantage of exemptions to laws requiring vaccinations for school-age children.
"The exemptions have been growing since the early 1990s at a rate that many epidemiologists, public health officials and physicians find disturbing.Children who are not vaccinated are unnecessarily susceptible to serious illnesses, they say, but also present a danger to children who have had their shots — the measles vaccine, for instance, is only 95 percent effective — and to those children too young to receive certain vaccines.
"Measles, almost wholly eradicated in the United States through vaccines, can cause pneumonia and brain swelling, which in rare cases can lead to death. The measles outbreak here alarmed public health officials, sickened babies and sent one child to the hospital"
Read the entire article from the New York Times
Public Health Risk Seen As Parents Reject Vaccines í here
|
By Janet Evans
Sunday, Mar 9 2008, 08:55 AM
In April my daughter will be getting married.
My dad won't be coming to her wedding.
He is recovering from prostate cancer and isn't up to it.
Her wedding day will be 20 years to the day that my mother died of pancreatic cancer.
That’s the same cancer that Patrick Swazye has been diagnosed with and given five weeks to live.
20 years ago, in March, my mom went into the hospital to have her gall bladder removed.
I sat in the waiting area with my dad and one of my sisters.
After 20 minutes, the doctor came out.
Gee, I thought, 20 minutes? Something’s wrong. And it was.
The doctor said my mother had pancreatic cancer.
He said it had spread to all surrounding organs and there was nothing that could be done.
She would have six weeks to live.
Until that operation, my mom really didn’t complain of any pain, except for gall bladder-like pain.
She was only 63 years old.
She had just gotten over a hip replacement and finally was just beginning retirement.
The only other symptom she had was she had recently started acting differently.
Just not herself.
The doctors said chemotherapy would be of no benefit for my mom.
He told me that straight out.
My mom did not want to die.
She put herself through that awful chemo to try to live, instead of living her final days in peace.
Four weeks later, as a side effect of the chemo, she had a stroke.
I watched my mom slowly suffocate – turn blue – from the tips of her toes to her chest, as a result of the stroke, while in her hospital room.
I never really got to say goodbye.
And I will never do that again…watch a loved one die in a hospital room.
My brother died the week after 9-11 at the age of 53, of esophageal cancer.
I found out he had it one week before....
Again, I did not get to say goodbye.
I don’t like funerals.
Life, and death are hard.
This is about cancer.
We constantly see the "pink ribbons" representing breast cancer.
Until an actor or other famous person, or someone close to you dies, we never really pay much attention to the other diseases out there.
There are too many different colored ribbons.
Why not just one ribbon?
How about a white ribbon for all of the cancer out there?
Why is any one cancer more important than another?
Ask that of a person dying of cancer.
|
By Janet Evans
Monday, Nov 26 2007, 08:25 PM
Why can't we have Green Burial Cemeteries like this in Franklin?
Mourners gather around a natural pine casket at a green burial.
US funeral homes each year put nearly 1 million gallons of embalming fluid into the ground along with the departed, wrap them in tons of metal and concrete—and charge a fortune for it. All of which makes “green burial” a sensible and fast-growing alternative. Green burial sites replace tree-cleared cemeteries with woodlands, eliminate embalming, and use simple pine caskets. Traditional funeral directors complain that makeup is difficult to apply for viewing without embalming, which also prevents spreading of disease. But picturesque headstone-free eco-cemeteries, now in many states, are increasingly popular. Grave markers are usually flat stones natural to the area, and the money spent on plots is used to fund a trust to preserve the land.
Markers for "green burials" are flat and simple,
chosen from naturally occurring stones in the area.
Galisteao River Basin Preserve Green Cemetery  ◄Green Burial Council
"Unglued?" .... only when my cheap pine casket falls apart on the way to the cemetery. Actually I want to be cremated, but they say my "fillings" will let off too much mercury pollution .... You would think I would be dead by now if I had that much mercury in my filliings! Go figure ....
What do you think?
Would you want a Green Burial?
"Green burial provides us with a way of getting in sync with the natural process of death, decay, and regeneration, rather than having to stave it off, as conventional deathcare demands."
|
By Janet Evans
Friday, Nov 23 2007, 09:59 AM
Meet the women who won't have babies -
because they're not eco friendly
“Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy. But the very thought makes her shudder with horror. Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.”
Read the full story here from the Daily Mail ◄
Quotes from another Enviro-nutcase in the article, Sara Irving:
"I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do." What I consider mad are those women who ferry their children short distances in gas-guzzling cars."
_______________________________________________
What is WRONG with these women?
Aborting your baby to save the planet? Right ....
You made a big difference, didn't you, Toni?
Maybe your baby would have been the next great scientist.
Fine if you don't want to have any more children in the future.
It's probably better for the world that YOU are not a parent in the first place.
I have heard of many reasons to abort a child, but this one really has me "Unglued."
"When I tell people why I don't want children, they look at me as if I was planning to commit murder. "
You Toni are either fooling yourself, or you are a selfish freak of the environment you want to protect . . . .
A baby is not a disposable item for the environment . . . .
Alright ... so go back up and read the article if you didn't.
Then, let's get ready for the DEBATE.
I know there will be one.
WHAT DO YOU THINK???????????
|
By Janet Evans
Friday, Nov 16 2007, 11:55 AM
Rubber Band Shooter
Year's Most Dangerous Toys According to World Against Toys Causing Harm (W.A.T.C.H.)
Well, the LIST is out ...
The list of the year's 10 most dangerous toys according to W.A.T.C.H.
And after seeing the list and looking over some of the toys, including the one pictured above,
yeah, that one, I have to ask,
"What were the manufacturers of these toys THINKING?"
We've got the Rubber Band Shooter (above.) W.A.T.C.H. says that rubber bands should never be sold as toys. But Simple Toys LLC, the manufacturer, states on the box that the Rubber Band Shooter is for "Family Fun" and "Simple Fun." They also state that this toy is "for target practice only" and "Do not aim at people."
Well, I'm JUST a little bit "unglued" about this. Exactly what child, given a gun that shoots rubber bands, is NOT going to aim it at another child?
Oh, wait ... let me go find my "target."
"Mommy, where is my target?"
"Can you find my target?"
"No?"
"Guess I'll just aim this rubber band shooter at my STUPID LITTLE BROTHER THEN."
Duh!
Sticky Stones
Oh, boy. IT GETS WORSE ...
Sticky Stones, made by GeoCentral, is a “powerful magnetized iron ore ” that is sold as a toy for children. For what purpose, I'm not sure. But, if more than one magnet is swallowed, they can attach inside the body, potentially causing intestinal perforation, infection or blockage which can be fatal. There is an in-store warning to consumers: “Swallowed magnets can stick together across intestines causing serious infections and death....” The pre-packaged stones available to Internet shoppers provide no such warning.
I just saw something like this on one of the medical shows this week, or last week (who knows, I have TIVO, I think maybe it was House or Grey's Anatomy) and the magnets the child swallowed migrated through the intestine and were going to perforate the intestine wall. They were moving up and down the intestine attaching to each other. Maybe the writers for the show got the idea by toy shopping and seeing the warning on the box of STICKY STONES!!!
Well, these are my Top 2. There are 8 more for you to take a look at. It's really unbelievable what these manufacturers get away with. They should be required to take each toy home and try it out not on their own children, but on themselves for a month before they send it out to consumers.
10 Most DangerousToys List 2007
What do you think about crappy, dangerous toys?
|
More Posts
|
|
