Should All Pre-Pregnant Women Give Away Their Cats? Yea or Nay

In light of the fact that changing kitty litter could have a disastrous effect on a pregnancy, what's your stance?

I realize cats are wonderful creatures, but it's common sense to protect future unborn children. Should it be required by law?


(this poll brought to you by the motorcycle helmet brouhaha)

:shrug:

Some of the header text went away in Preview mode.

However, I wish to remain confined, for the time being, within these two contrasting issues.

I confess, I don't know whether or not to be shocked that there are actually some 'yes' votes.

KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OUR BODIES AND GO FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO DO

:shrug:

the couple in question and go from there.

_______________________

On edit: No. Cats and dogs are good pals for grown-ups and young folks, too. No reason they shouldn't be a part of the gang.

Changing the kittylitter is a solvable problem. No need to send Puffy into exile over it.

keep it in a place where you wouldn't frequent. We keep our boxes in the basement, I hate the basement - so no worries of going down there.

Note to spouses/SOs: once changing the freaking catbox becomes your job, it will be your job forever. Even though it's really not your cat. Just so you know.

eom

pregnant women or soon-to-be pregnant women can not have cats.

Gotta protect the fetus, you know.

And you can't ask the husband to change the litter...

Boxes in basement, husband took over cleaning them during my pregnancies. Once babies were born, we went back to sharing the stinky chore. No way would I give up my felines.

What if you're not married or living with an SO?

Consider finding a caretaker or temporary home for the pet, during the pregnancy.

I'm a hardline prego safety freak. If you make the decision to keep that child, it's not about you anymore (I am pro-choice, btw). Don't be selfish and wreakless. Give up drinking, drugs, cigarettes, fish, cats, caffiene, anything with peanuts in it, nothing unpasturized, and eat as much organic food as possible. As well as a few other things.

I really don't compromise when it comes to those things. And it sickens me when I see people who are blatently careless for their own selfish reasons, while pregnant. 6.5 months in the NICU, and you see alot of things you wish you never had, for reasons that could have been completely avoided.

Most cats, especially indoor-only cats, have never been exposed and are not carriers of toxoplasmosis. Emptying the litterbox daily avoids the risk; it takes a day for the oocysts to become active.

I'm not an incubator-in-waiting, but I am immunocompromised (toxoplasmosis is as dangerous to us) and I clean the litterboxes. Why get all hysterical when it's so easy to avoid?

Mine are all outside cats.

should be made to clean out every cat litter box in America on a daily basis, to show their genuine concern :evilgrin:

No one should have to give up a pet just because there is a child in the house. As a very longtime cat owner, I can testify that cats who grow up with children make excellent bodyguards and companions. All the old wives tales are false and filled with superstition to the point that they're ludicrous.

So who are we taking rights from now...a double bonus here: pregnant women! and cat lovers!

Make sure there is a law with full force and inspection, so that the law isn't deemed worthless or symbolic (that would just encourage pregnant women and cats).

While the cops are there checking the litter boxes and it's promixity to those afflicted with child...they could also make sure that the caps on the bottles under the sink are secure as well...

Safety next to Godliness

And he notion of passing a law requiring this is beyond absurd, it is freakishly absurd.

After all, there's another thread in this forum where a majority think it's just fine to legislate the necessity of the piece of equipment - only in that case, the only potential injury is to the one person who may or may not choose to decline.

We've (well, not WE, but George W. Bush's FDA) already gone the step of creating guidelines telling medical personnel treat women of childbearing age as "pre-pregnant."

And he notion of passing a law requiring this is beyond absurd

There's a growing list of absurd extemes that debators of 20 years ago would never have imagined that legislation would grow around. There's a term for it, which escapes me at the moment.

So: why is it okay to legislate the risky behavior choices of one group of people (motorcycle riders) who hurt only themselves, but not okay to legislate the choice of another group, who could potentially hurt another?




It's not.

1. Real Threat. I'm not up on motorcycle helmets, but the risk there seems to be far, far more obvious, imminent and proven than that of kitty cats. I don't know, call me crazy, but another post on the thread goes through the science of it.

2. FDA. The FDA has become completely coopted and corrupted. Not much to say there.

3. Penalty. I don't think people are deprived of their motorcycles for not wearing a helmet. Perhaps in extreme circumstances, but it would follow that people should not have their kitty cats (or their uterus) taken away from them if they get pregnant (and have a kitty cat).

And, yes, I still think it is a freakishly absurd notion to pass a law requiring this.

"...the only potential injury is to the one person who may or may not choose to decline."

bullshit- who ends up paying the hospital/care bills for a lifelong head/trauma/invalid case...? and who ends up all paying higher insurance rates because of it?

It's a false analogy. And flamebait. ;-)

there is NO statistical correlation between contact with cats and infection with Toxoplasma gondii. In America, at least, because of our urban lifestyles and preference for litter boxes over cats pooping in our gardens, and good basic hygiene at home, and knowledge about how to keep Toxo from being too much of an issue in livestock-rearing.............because of all that, women don't get Toxo from contact with their, or anybody else's, cats. They DO get it from eating incompletely cooked meat. And from failing to wash hands before fixing dinner (after gardening outside). And it's RARE.

But still, the FDA has put out their guidelines recommending "pre-pregnant" women avoid cat feces.

or age or reproductive state, should take EXACTLY THE SAME PRECAUTIONS. IOW, follow basic common-sense good hygiene with any animal feces.

You know: WASH YOUR HANDS!!! And don't let the litter box sit for days without scooping.

first of all, what is "pre-pregnant"?

and second of all- if a woman is planning on having a child, hopefully there's also a partner involved who would be able to handle the litter duties.

btw- my wife has not once in over 10 years changed a litter box...we have 3 cats, and that's one of my jobs. and we have no kids or any intention of having any- i had a vasectomy several years ago.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/038549081X/002-9610636-6035268?v=glance&n=283155
From Library Journal
In a startling departure from her previous novels ( Lady Oracle , Surfacing ), respected Canadian poet and novelist Atwood presents here a fable of the near future. In the Republic of Gilead, formerly the United States, far-right Schlafly/Falwell-type ideals have been carried to extremes in the monotheocratic government. The resulting society is a feminist's nightmare: women are strictly controlled, unable to have jobs or money and assigned to various classes: the chaste, childless Wives; the housekeeping Marthas; and the reproductive Handmaids, who turn their offspring over to the "morally fit" Wives. The tale is told by Offred (read: "of Fred"), a Handmaid who recalls the past and tells how the chilling society came to be. This powerful, memorable novel is highly recommended for most libraries. BOMC featured alternate. Ann H. Fisher, Radford P.L., Va.
Copyright 1986 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/038549081X/002-9610636-6035268?v=glance&n=283155
From Library Journal
In a startling departure from her previous novels ( Lady Oracle , Surfacing ), respected Canadian poet and novelist Atwood presents here a fable of the near future. In the Republic of Gilead, formerly the United States, far-right Schlafly/Falwell-type ideals have been carried to extremes in the monotheocratic government. The resulting society is a feminist's nightmare: women are strictly controlled, unable to have jobs or money and assigned to various classes: the chaste, childless Wives; the housekeeping Marthas; and the reproductive Handmaids, who turn their offspring over to the "morally fit" Wives. The tale is told by Offred (read: "of Fred"), a Handmaid who recalls the past and tells how the chilling society came to be. This powerful, memorable novel is highly recommended for most libraries. BOMC featured alternate. Ann H. Fisher, Radford P.L., Va.
Copyright 1986 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

the term pre-pregnant is downright offensive.

It's also good short-hand, for the circumstance.

"shorthand"(in what way?) for what circumstance?

Have we adopted RW terminology here now?

I haven't been paying attention to the "motorcycle helmet brouhaha" but wouldn't your comparison be faulty? In order to be a valid comparison, the law would have to suggest that anyone who might someday drive a motorcycle wear a helmet even while not on the bike.

Being "pre-pregnant," as the RW of the White House/FDA defines it, seems to be quite equal to being on the bike.

I saw a term recently being knocked around to describe the current political situation where those things people warned us about with their extreme "slippery slope" arguments, more and more, there are people who are willing to legislate these absurdisms.

Socially, I seem to be growing more libertarian in my old age.

If I'm not mistaken, helmet laws (note: I have not said whether or not I agree with them) are currently written such that a person on a bike would have to wear one to prevent a possible accident.

Thus, to make a fair comparison, your poll would have to be re-written to suggest that pregnant women give up their cats. The condition is known and the risk is potential - pregnant, possible toxicity; riding a bike, possible accident. In your current poll both the condition and the risk are potential for the woman but not for the biker. Hence, not a fair comparison.

BTW - why would you consider taking your lead from "the RW of the White House/FDA"?

Take my lead from there, trust me on that.

If the poll would only work for you if pregnant - not "pre-pregnant" women be fined by law for not giving up their cats, that's just as well, too.

I happen to believe it's FUBAR that some of us think it's okay to legislate against *some* risky choices, but not others, and that the list of what we would/would not legislate is as politically driven for us as it is RWers.

I see posts on here from those who talk about their loathing of being in the same insurance pool as a non-helmeted cyclist, as smokers, as fatties, and yet (and this part is NOT a complaint) I've never seen an AIDs sufferer or HIV positive person here be treated with anything other than compassion. Or do we engage in the mass belief that every DUer who has HIV got that from a blood transfusion?

Or perhaps I should have made that my poll question? We'd have had great fun, with that.

You see to be advocating more.

I believe you are mistaking my intentions in this thread.

how many millions of people are out there running around where mom not only had cats but changed the litter?

people who perfectly fine and no damage at all?

Not all cats have toxoplasmosis.
And to suggest a law-that's just insane.

I hadn't heard of it again til today. (My son is 9)

that's one of my chores.

and when the cats start crapping in the house plants- i know it's time to change them.

period

:evilgrin:

First, it should NEVER be a LAW to give up your pet!

Second, all a person has to do to nullify the risk is wear a mask, wash their hands, wear gloves even, change the cat litter to a non-clay based litter, and purchase a $30 self-cleaning rollover type litter box that takes away the need to even scoop.

Jeez, what are people - masochists? To think of giving away their first baby (though it may be feline). Crying out loud - people have had cats and babies since the beginning of time, and they've all been OK.

No more brainwashing by the RW fundies!!!

No, it shouldn't be required by law. Yes, they should get rid of the cats. Honestly, getting rid of my cats was the best thing I ever did. I used to have terrible allergies from all the hair and there was always gravel all over the place. (We gave them away the first time we moved to Japan, 11 years ago) I loved my cats dearly, but I don't know if I'd ever keep cats again. Maybe if I was really bored and lonely...