Amazing Kegelmaster

13 Responses

1. fenia3

   2010 Sep 04 1

   hear hear
   References :

2. Squeakeh

   2010 Sep 04 2

   I think potentially that would be a good idea.
   References :

3. Pip

   2010 Sep 04 3

   Well said. I agree that there shouldn’t be any monetary incentive to encourage adoption but on the other hand it’s a good point that if a woman has health problems due to pregnacy why shouldn’t she have medical expenses paid.
   References :

4. sizesmith

   2010 Sep 04 4

   Adoption isn’t just a service to hopeful prospective parents. It’s also a means to place a child into a home where it might have a better life. First moms don’t get pregnant to place a child for adoption (99% of the time), but rather they have become pregnant, and for whatever reasons, they cannot raise the baby and make a plan for it’s adoption. Many state laws specifically prohibit any funds like this. When we adopted, we were allowed to pay for the baby’s expenses, but was told it was against the law for us to pay the first mom’s medical expenses. It’s a shame.I was even told that it was illegal for me to buy her pretty maternity clothes and cocoa butter to rub on her belly while she was pregnant to reduce stretch marks. I did it any way, because I felt that she needed the help. I also helped her when she was pregnant with the daughter she kept, and never asked for a penny back. I enjoyed helping her, and just asked that no matter what she decided, that I’d make a good aunt, and would love to see the baby once in a while.

   The conditions you mentioned are also caused by multiple pregnancies. What age would you stop the escrow? How much should come out to help if there’d been multiple pregnancies? There’s too many what-ifs to determine this. For problems that happen during the birth of the child placed, there’s her own medical insurance, medicaid, and reasonable expenses able to be paid according to various state laws. Just like mothers who keep their children, the variants of later problems are addressed at the future dates, not in the birthing time.

   I would be more for encouraging and being able to help first moms with the psychological aspects of placing a child.
   References :

5. Rosie

   2010 Sep 04 5

   No. We pay for that stuff in our tax dollars for every woman on government assistance as it is.

   However I would like to see an adoption tax added to each transaction that funds birth control education in elementary school and maybe if the woman wants to get her tubes tied after birth, that should be an opt-in covered expenses.
   References :
   Eta: "enough" We pay for *enough* of that stuff … as it is. Or even ‘too much’ Shall we extend medical payouts for years?

   Parents of minor children should pay their children’s medical expenses. Putative fathers and the mothers should pay their own medical bills of a pregnancy. The bills should be regulated to be reasonable and affordable without insurance and within a minimum wage budget, but no one should get out of being responsible for their own actions and their own responsibilities.

6. peeples1983

   2010 Sep 04 6

   Okay, when I first saw this question I thought I would just leave it alone and not answer. Then I saw the IGNORANT response of ROSIE and just couldn’t help myself. If anyone is going to talk about government assistance be informed on what you are talking about. In America (every state) government medical assistance or Medicaid, that is given when a mother is pregnant runs out shortly after birth between 6 and 12 weeks after birth. Many of the side effects of birth don’t say "Oh her medicaid is still active let me show up while she has it". I had medicaid with my first son. During delivery my spine was injured. I did not find out until about 4 months after birth when everything else was healed and I couldn’t figure out why I was still in pain. By the time I knew what was wrong with me I had no medical insurance. Granted I kept my child so it was on me and that was fine but not everyone is in the same position. I agree if the government will let people buy children they should set up an account that can help the mother if there are lasting issues.
   ETA- Some families working at minimum wage don’t have $1 extra a week. So even if there was reform to medical expenses that doesn’t make it affordable for everyone unless it is free. Maybe if Ap’s could set up a fund for these moms the government and tax payers could pay less. Also unless a mom never works a day in her life she pays taxes toward getting that assistance!! I agree parents should have to take responsibility for their children, care for them, feed them, give them a good life, teach them. (even if the only way they can give that is to give them up for adoption as a last resort)
   References :

7. Doodlestuff

   2010 Sep 04 7

   Hey, they don’t even provide promised counseling the moment you sign the paperwork. In some cases, the medical care for the infant isn’t even paid (yes, you are responsible if the adoption agency or the a-parents don’t pay for the bill as promised).
   References :

8. Andraya - Snark's Sister

   2010 Sep 04 8

   I would be all for this! I didn’t mind the fact that my vagina was severely traumatized for my son but since I was suppose to "move on" and would" forget" about him I might as well be able to do that physically. My son’s head was in the 98th percentile when he was born 8 weeks early, I was a teeny tiny thing weighing all of 80 lbs when I got pregnant, had no hips, boobs etc. and his massive head forced them to perform a double episiotomy that pretty well ruined my vajayay. That is to say nothing of the 20+ stitches it took to close the episiotomy and repair the upward tearing. The fact that I deliver so fast, no more than 10 min of hard labour and three pushes for each was made more difficult due to all the scarring down yonder when I had both of my daughters. Since I was support to forget and move on shouldn’t I have been able to do that without each subsequent birth being negatively impacted by the amount of scar tissue left from a child I wasn’t allowed to raise?
   References :

9. drasticbarbie

   2010 Sep 04 9

   on that note, i wonder if a woman is physically wounded by the fact that her body has been getting ready for a child for 40 weeks and suddenly the baby isn’t there. i know her body knows the baby is not there, and i wonder if the body receives damage as a result of that loss.
   References :

10. monkeykitty83

    2010 Sep 04 10

    I think this should be covered for EVERY women who gives birth and is unable to afford necessary follow-up medical care herself. I see this as a women’s health issue, not an adoption issue.

    Besides which, a woman shouldn’t have to relinquish to receive this care, you know? If a woman’s bills will be covered if she relinquishes and not otherwise, for some women this may make relinquishment her only option if she can’t come up with another way to pay. I’d rather a woman be able to choose freely without the added financial pressure; she should know she’ll receive the help she needs either way, not as a condition of giving up her baby. I realize that isn’t your intention, BUT in practical terms I don’t see how it could avoid being unintentionally coercive.

    I don’t think healthcare should be handed out selectively based on whether Mom placed or parented. Anyone who needs medical care should have some way of accessing it, regardless of income or living situation.
    References :

11. Parenting is an Option

    2010 Sep 04 11

    Yes I do think they should have a fund for corrective medical procedures, but it should also include getting the first mother back to her pre-pregnancy weight, pre-pregnancy breast size and shape as some women get larger breast with pregnancy and child birth and some get smaller breast with pregnancy and after child birth.

    Yes I do feel that all the damage to the female body somebody needs to pay for the damage to the pelvic floor prolapse, urinary/fecal incontinence which can take several months before a woman realizes the damage even if it is just once in a blue moon. And orthopedics issues.
    References :

12. scratch the Hostile Fay

    2010 Sep 04 12

    There’s the opposite problem here in the south. Apparently you’re supposed to keep your child regardless of whether or not you can take care of it. There’s all sorts of help offered should you "decide to do the right thing", but do what YOU think is best (that is, give it up to folks who can properly take care of it) and no one wants to have anything to do with you. I know; I’ve been there.

    I’ve seen the abortion thing, and I’ve done the adoption thing, and I have to agree with you: if you don’t want kids, you ought to get help getting yourself "fixed" if you want. Don’t wait on an "oops" to do something about it.

    I don’t regret for one minute letting another couple take in my child, but I would have been more than happy to have prevented it in the first place. (This was an "oops".)

    Just my nickel’s worth (was 2 cents, but there’s inflation for you!)
    Scratch
    References :

13. Karryanna

    2010 Sep 04 13

    Corrective? Nope… that’s pushing it – pun intended- and health insurance or medicaid should pay for it.
    References :