BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


New Fertility Ad Campaign

 
 
Cherry Bomb
12:55 / 07.09.01
As read in the Chicago Tribune "WomenNews" (which unfortunately makes one pay for non-current articles) on Sept 5 about a new ad campaign to promote women consider conceiving earlier. The ads, which will be hitting busses and billboards in major cities around the U.S., feature an hourglass in which the sand runds out an upside down baby bottle and major block headlines "A WOMAN'S CHANCES TO CONCEIVE DECREASE ALMOST 30% AFTER THE AGE OF 30."

The idea behind the campaign is that risk factors such as overweight and smoking and age contribute to women's ability to conceive. And yet the ads say NOTHING about smoking or weight as risk factors.

I find these ads absolutely infuriating, on a variety of levels. It's basically saying, "you better get a baby, girl, before it's too late." I assume most ladies aren't going to be running to a fertility clinic and will instead be encouraged to find a man as quickly as possible.

It implies that if I'm 30 and a childless, I"m a failure, in the fertility department anyway.

And it puts all the responsibility of conception on the women. Are men COMPLETELY blameless in this department? If a woman can't conceive, is it all her fault?

Also.... couldn't one adopt? If they really
wanted to raise some children?

The association of fertility specialists, who have paid for the campaign, say that they feel the number of women they're treating and who are having trouble conceiving because they're past a certain age is reason enough to run this campaign and "ruffle a few feathers."

But what do YOU think?
 
 
RiffRaff
14:49 / 07.09.01
That's prety foul, although my reason for disliking it is more due to the fact that there's too goddamn many people on this planet already.
 
 
grant
15:53 / 07.09.01
Interesting point: the number of multiple births (twins, triplets, the Kentucky Septuplets - or were there eight of them?) has vastly increased in recent years because of fertility therapy, which is largely aimed at women over 30.
So if more women under 30 started having babies again (choosing to take the time off work rather then getting it done at the last minute, so to speak), there might be fewer babies being born. I dunno.

Overall, though, that ad seems creepy as hell.
 
 
netbanshee
17:47 / 07.09.01
quote:I assume most ladies aren't going to be running to a fertility clinic and will instead be encouraged to find a man as quickly as possible.

..but at the same time that might be good for some of us guys.. ...but then again a girl who believes she has to have sex cause she thinks the billboards are adding to the pressure she already feels sexually seems not to be my kind of choice in mate.

Sorry if I brought this down a path not hoped for Cherry...

I agree with the creepy bit...
 
 
Cherry Bomb
22:11 / 07.09.01
quote:Originally posted by RiffRaff:
That's prety foul, although my reason for disliking it is more due to the fact that there's too goddamn many people on this planet already.


I agree with this 100%. Too few people who visit the fertility clinics, I think consider this option. There are too many planet, and more than that, there are faaar too many children out there growing up unwanted and unloved.
 
 
Gypsy Christ
04:34 / 17.09.01
thats just weird..and creepy..
Fertility clinics are the devil
 
 
Mister Snee
13:39 / 21.09.01
Yeeah! Bewm!

You know what them billboards is sayin'? They's saying "'ey, woah-man! You'se fer makin' babies, rite? Rite! You best git to it b'fore ah lays the smackdown on yer lazy, non-conceivin' ass!"

Um.

On a more serious note, as it were, Richard Dawkins seems of the opinion that we'd have far fewer deaths and debilitations caused by age-specific disease if people would start breeding later, not earlier. The rationale being that it's possible for a family carrying genes to die at the age of twenty-two to last for dozens of generations... or indefinitely. He basically said in The Selfish Gene that if people would raise the "minimum breeding age" by five years or so every thirty years or so, it'd be a good thing. Um. Because, y'see, we'd weed out people carrying genes to die at age 30, or 35, or 40, or alzheimer genes kicking in at 70, or 75, and, er, we'd all live to be a hundred and fifty, er.

So. Yes.

That's the theory, anyway.
 
 
Gypsy Christ
16:53 / 22.09.01
quote:"A WOMAN'S CHANCES TO CONCEIVE DECREASE ALMOST 30% AFTER THE AGE OF 30."

hmm.. why do i get the notion that teen pregancy is rising or am i confused on some parts? i thought the main line was to get the human race to slow down on the breeding thing..heh.. that would be kinda funny.. breeding ourselves out of existance.. which brings me to another question... should Canabalisum (i know i spelt that wrong) be legeal i mean if it was a choice to be legeal it would be a good chance to cut down on the population.. anbd umm not eat anyone important just like mimes, kathy lee,Clowns, you know the idiots of socity so the idiot gene does not get passed on ..but i'm rambling right now due to sleep devravation and am not makeing much sence so i will leave you with a final though.. Would you seriouslly think about canabalisum if it was leagel? ..*runs away screaming somethign about wuzzles*
 
 
Ierne
17:59 / 22.09.01
Re: cannibalism: Considering what the average Joey Q. Public eats...eating people couldn't possibly be healthy...
 
 
Mordant Carnival
00:55 / 23.09.01
Oh, shhhhhhhhhhhure. Like they'd ever let me adopt.

Yeah, I think the tone of the campaign in practice is creepy as hell ("Drop a sprog NOW, you selfishly barren peice of human SCUM! What do you think you were put on this earth for anyway?"), but I also have a problem with the attitiude that birth is this mechanistic process, utterly divorced from nature. The Ideal we're all supposed to be striving for seems to be:- fertility treatment, followed by Caesarian, followed by a couple of days off to show the new nanny the ropes, followed by a cab back to the boardroom.

Sorry, but does this seem creepy to anyone else?
 
 
Gypsy Christ
00:55 / 23.09.01
ugh.. i dunno if i ever whant to have kids i have a love/hate relationship for them i wouldn't whant to bear a child myself. it almost seems parasitic they grow inside of you like some fourm of tape worm wrenching out your body minerals and all the stuff and for nine months i don't think i would be able to handle it.although babies are adorible even though some fourm of a liquid substance is constantlly dribbling out of some orphus of thier bodies..i dunno maybe some time in the far far future i might consider having one but thats a faaarrr future
 
 
Clavis
09:25 / 24.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Ierne:
Re: cannibalism: Considering what the average Joey Q. Public eats...eating people couldn't possibly be healthy...


New from McDonald's -- the Human McSandwich!


Clavis
(Don't ask what the Secret Sauce is)
 
 
tag
19:24 / 02.10.01
cherry: yeah, that is most definitaly fucked. total disregard for other important factors is pretty irrisponsible. you're right, socialy disgusting as well.

grant: i don't know the statistics but my guess is there aren't enough multiple births that their avoidance would make a positive diffefence (esp in the likely case that more people will be having kids sooner)

Gypsy Christ : hey, i like clowns and public entertainers. _far_ from useless, i'd say. and c'mon. you don't really think people are gunna start eating each other, do you (/me prepares to eat his words in the case of a revived depression/dark ages)
 
 
tag
19:33 / 02.10.01
oh yeah, this reminded me of another pet peve in the technical world of sex: the lag in contraceptive drugs for males. in itself that could be a whole other topic (if the female contraceptives being so popular is sexualy liberating for them or more of a hinderence and unwanted responsibility).

also, there is a group concerned with over population, is there not? what do they have to say about this? was the womannews section for/against/indifferent to the campaign?
 
 
No star here laces
11:16 / 03.10.01
Actually, I have to say that I think the intent behind the ad is good in many ways. I agree that the execution sounds misjudged, but there is a serious point to be made here.

I think people do have kids too late and the amount of money spent on fertility treatment is shocking. It comes down, to a certain extent, to the class divide in reproductive behaviour.

The average age at childbirth is rising. Teen pregnancies are also rising. The reason for this is that among the working class there is increased teen pregnancy and a tradition of marrying young. This leads to children being raised in a financially impoverished environment as the parents have not had time to build up their finances to accomodate the cost of a family. This then rebounds on the children's eventual prospects.

Among the middle class people exert more control over their reproductive function and thus choose to enjoy being young without the encumbrance of a family and give themselves time to build up the financial wherewithal to raise their privileged offspring.

Evidently this behaviour further reinforces the advantages of being born middle-class as these children are more likely to be raised in affluent surroundings, while simultaneously raising the burden on the health services from fertility treatments et al.

Not only this, but it probably also contributes to increased consumption of resources. Living an extended period of high disposable income pre-family life predisposes one to a wasteful consumption-oriented lifestyle as there are few budgetary constraints or responsibility to others impinging on ones decisions.

Denying fertility treatment to couples over a certain age would therefore actually have some positive societal benefits in a limited manner, not to mention the increased prospects of adoption.

Furthermore it is probably better for the children to have younger, more active parents when they are growing up in any case.

Just a thought, hey.
 
 
tag
13:59 / 03.10.01
tyrone: yeah, or hey?

i don't think it matters how young and active a parent is to the kid nearly as much as the numerous other aspects of parenting that come into play.

yeah, Rich Kids are bitches. but if you make (er, suggest? through restricting fertility treatment) Rick Parents have kids earlier in life they are still going to have to money to raise their Rich Kids Rich.

but you know, _that_ doesn't really matter because _everyone_ in well off countries is wasteful regardless of their financial status. it's in the packaging, man, etc. and if we're just talking about trying to make the world a better place in general and pulling on every little string of spider's silk connected to this thread: in my experience middle class kids are activists, have time to care about the enviornement/government/etc whereas kids who have to worry about getting a real job at the age of 18 just don't give a fuck about "the bigger picture."

and imho the world would be a better place if all the families could raise their children affluent rather than impoverished. since when has poverty been a good thing other than the fact that it's vogue?

now for a science fiction future moment! The affluent families of 3398 all have life expectancies of 200 years due do their late child rearing and Richard Dawkins being right. On the other hand, the poor have been marying younger and younger and the increasingly larger and harder work loadsd forced upon them by the upper and middle class has been killing them off quicker, giving them an expected lifespan of only 30 years. It has gotten to the point that there are two distinct races!
 
  
Add Your Reply