Pregnancy Testing Debate

This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Chad Moechnig 1 year, 7 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #11752

    Chad Moechnig
    Keymaster

    combatchaz
    Post subject: Pregnancy Testing Debate Post Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:48 pm

    Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:14 pm
    Posts: 135
    We are having a heated debate at Lock flow regarding this issue, we would love to hear some point of views of other female fighters.

    btw, registration is free, so feel free to give your thoughts.
    Top

    Rosi
    Post subject: PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:34 pm
    Pro Fighter

    Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:26 am
    Posts: 532
    wow… well that debate is certainly high on emotion and low on information.

    I’m not a doctor, but having looked into this, my understanding is that it’s highly unlikely that a foetus will be damaged by direct impact in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy. And it would take serious and probably life threatening injury to the woman first.

    What IS known to be dangerous in pregnancy (at least if you’re a rat) is dehydration and prolonged overheating. So if you’re going to test MMA fighters, you should certainly be testing marathon runners. Which to my knowledge they don’t – in fact i’ve heard reports of women in the early stages of pregnancy competing in (and winning) long distance running.

    There may or may not be some increased risk of miscarriage from the overall trauma of fighting (though current evidence suggests intense exercise on its own is not a risk factor)… but there is a high proportion of miscarriages in the first trimester anyhow, and all kinds of things which a woman is perfectly entitled to do just might increase that risk. Come to that, cleaning a cat’s litter tray could potentially cause serious foetal defects… yet i don’t see any campaign to stop pregnant women owning cats. It’s all about personal responsibility.

    From a legal perspective, surely it would be sufficient to ask the woman to sign a declaration stating that she knows she’s not pregnant?

    I don’t really care all that much one way or the other. But i do think the issue is overplayed sometimes.

    [edit: feel free to paste this to the other thread if you want… i don’t have time to join another internet forum right now]
    Top

    Hywel
    Post subject: PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:05 pm

    Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:54 am
    Posts: 31
    Location: Manchester, UK
    Rosi wrote:
    I’m not a doctor

    yes, technically you are, stop fibbing!
    Top

    AnnaTrocity
    Post subject: PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:30 pm
    less internet
    Last edited by AnnaTrocity on Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

    Top

    combatchaz
    Post subject: PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:34 pm

    Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:14 pm
    Posts: 135
    Annatrocity and Rosi, thanks for your input, I put your comments in the thread, I thought we needed a few more ladies input.
    Top

    Rosi
    Post subject: PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:40 am
    Pro Fighter

    Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:26 am
    Posts: 532
    another thought….

    I wonder how many people would agree with the idea that all women should have to produce a certificate showing they’re not pregnant before they can purchase an alcoholic drink? Just as logical as the fight thing.
    Top

    Pankration_MuayThai
    Post subject: PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:40 am
    Pro Fighter

    Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:38 am
    Posts: 166
    Location: Vancouver, BC Canada
    I’m 30, and a mother of 2, & I think I’d know if I was pregnant. But, a lot of the girls competing are young and may not know. It’s a safety precaution. If it saves 1 baby I think it’s worth it.
    Top

    Rosi
    Post subject: PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:56 am
    Pro Fighter

    Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:26 am
    Posts: 532
    Hywel wrote:
    Rosi wrote:
    I’m not a doctor

    yes, technically you are, stop fibbing!
    Ok then, i’m not a medical doctor. Happy?
    Top

    The Truth
    Post subject: PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:17 pm

    Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 10:02 pm
    Posts: 14
    Pankration_MuayThai wrote:
    I’m 30, and a mother of 2, & I think I’d know if I was pregnant. But, a lot of the girls competing are young and may not know. It’s a safety precaution. If it saves 1 baby I think it’s worth it.
    co-signed
    Top

    Rikki
    Post subject: PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:15 pm
    Instructor

    Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:56 am
    Posts: 915
    Location: Lexington, KY
    I don’t see any problem with pregnancy testing before a fight. I certainly don’t see how it’s a violation of our rights. They’re not telling you what you can do with your body – they’re telling you what you can do with your baby.
    I do, however, have a problem with them making you see a doctor to have it done and pay for it out of pocket. When I fought in Hook n Shoot (and I assume that they still do this) they made the fighters go one at a time to the restroom with a home pregnancy test and then bring it out to show the doctor. Heck, I’d even provide the test! The cost is negligible compared to going to the doctor for it!
    Top

    Rosi
    Post subject: PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:34 pm
    Pro Fighter

    Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:26 am
    Posts: 532
    Quote:
    I don’t see any problem with pregnancy testing before a fight. I certainly don’t see how it’s a violation of our rights. They’re not telling you what you can do with your body – they’re telling you what you can do with your baby.
    So would you agree with my suggestion that women should have to produce proof they’re not pregnant before buying an alcoholic drink? If not, why not? What’s the difference?

    I’m playing devil’s advocate here. I don’t really object to pregnancy testing before a fight, if only because it takes away one possible argument against women fighting.

    I do dislike some of the emotive and uninformed arguments that i often see on the subject though, and I also think it’s inconsistent for the requirement to be enshrined in law – in most places it isn’t illegal for a woman to smoke, drink, or do any of a dozen other things which are actually far more likely to damage her baby. I doubt that most scuba diving centres require women to submit a negative pregnancy test before they dive – i suspect they feel it’s sufficient to warn women that they shouldn’t do it if they’re pregnant.

    However, i don’t think it’s that big a deal, and i certainly don’t feel that it’s a battle that’s worth fighting.
    Top

    AnnaTrocity
    Post subject: PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:01 pm
    less internet
    Last edited by AnnaTrocity on Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

    Top

    Rikki
    Post subject: PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:34 pm
    Instructor

    Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:56 am
    Posts: 915
    Location: Lexington, KY
    Quote:
    So would you agree with my suggestion that women should have to produce proof they’re not pregnant before buying an alcoholic drink? If not, why not? What’s the difference?
    I think that is a little extreme (simply because of the difference in the number of women fighting vs. the number of women buying alcohol). But I think there ought to be a charge of negligence to women whose babies are born with birth defects and other problems due to their substance abuse.
    Top

    Pankration_MuayThai
    Post subject: PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:17 pm
    Pro Fighter

    Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:38 am
    Posts: 166
    Location: Vancouver, BC Canada
    It should not be paid for by the fighter. This could easily be done tastefully at the weigh ins.

    When I was pregnant with my 1st child I still had spotting for the first 3 months and since my period was really light usually I didn’t notice anything. This can be the case for a lot of first time moms. We’re not talking about buying alcohol. We’re talking about an unborn child. It’s like I said earlier, it’s so simple, and can possible save a baby. Guaranteed if they keep testing, they’ll find a poor girl at the weigh ins surprised by the lines showing up on the test.

    As for the women not at risk for being pregnant, try & think of the other girls that it could help out.
    Top

    Rosi
    Post subject: PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 12:20 am
    Pro Fighter

    Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:26 am
    Posts: 532
    Quote:
    I think that is a little extreme (simply because of the difference in the number of women fighting vs. the number of women buying alcohol)
    Surely that’s exactly why it’s a much bigger deal. It’s not always possible to prove what damage alcohol has done, and some things don’t show up until years later.

    Quote:
    We’re not talking about buying alcohol. We’re talking about an unborn child. It’s like I said earlier, it’s so simple, and can possible save a baby.
    I’m just using the same logic – if you agree with mandatory pregnancy testing for MMA, I don’t see why you wouldn’t agree that women should have to prove they’re not pregnant to drink alcohol. Loads of women drink before they know they’re pregnant. Alcohol is KNOWN to damage a foetus in early pregnancy, while current evidence suggests that MMA is actually pretty unlikely to.

    The main thing that people worry about – getting punched / kicked / kneed in the stomach – is EXTREMELY unlikely to damage a foetus in the first trimester.
    Top

     

    BrawlerBitch
    Post subject: PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 4:44 am

    Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:32 am
    Posts: 103
    The conrtol issue is what I have trouble with. I guess it’s the 70’s feminist in me.

    I like the not selling alcohol to females of reproductive age analogy! gets to the heart of the matter. Humans take control where we can. They can’t control Big Liquor Lobbiest or Big Tobacco. The apaulling idea of women fighting is enough to get everyone scrammbling for restraints & rules, least we women get out of control!!!

    I do think that a HPT at weigh-ins is the way to go. Havig to pay to see a private Dr seems un-nessasary. I would deffinatly self administer the test at home,in advance, if I was smile active and there was any chance of pregnancy. Rather than risk the embarassment of not knowing on fight day in front of all those people.
    Top

    J
    Post subject: PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:22 am

    Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:02 am
    Posts: 238
    Location: Asheville, NC
    I think one difference with fighting vs. running/drinking/etc is that there is another person involved — your opponent. Yes, it is largely the responsibility of the fighter to know before they get in the ring, but still, I would not want to be responsible in any way for causing harm to a fetus. I think some sort of simple pregnancy test at the venue, paid for by the promoters, would not be out of line.
    Top

    Pankration_MuayThai
    Post subject: PostPosted: Sat Jul 22, 2006 7:19 am
    Pro Fighter

    Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:38 am
    Posts: 166
    Location: Vancouver, BC Canada
    The main thing that people worry about – getting punched / kicked / kneed in the stomach – is EXTREMELY unlikely to damage a foetus in the first trimester.[/quote]

    I don’t know for sure, but I can see this being a good thing. It’s not worth the risk.

    While most of the people here seem to be resposible, there are a lot of younger girls fighting that could easily not know, and this could reduce the chance of damaging the baby- even if it’s a low risk, it’s still there.

    We can compare it to anything. Buying alcohol. But I think that’s jsu tgettign away from what we’re actually talking about. Yes I know that women often drink before they know that they’re pregnant.

    None of seem to really know the medical evidence of what the damage to the baby would be in a MMA fight. But I personally don’t care what a doctor says, if there’s a 1% chance that it could damage the baby in my opinion that’s too high.
    Top

    Rosi
    Post subject: PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:48 pm
    Pro Fighter

    Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:26 am
    Posts: 532
    Quote:
    Quote:
    The main thing that people worry about – getting punched / kicked / kneed in the stomach – is EXTREMELY unlikely to damage a foetus in the first trimester.
    I don’t know for sure, but I can see this being a good thing. It’s not worth the risk.
    Study the relevant anatomy, and then see what you think.

    The problem with the “it’s not worth the risk” argument is that it is glaringly inconsistent.

    Either you believe that the state has the right to tell a woman what she can do with her body during pregnancy, or you don’t. You can’t have it both ways.

    There are a whole bunch of things which just “might” damage a foetus. Even driving a car carries an element of risk. Cats? Shellfish? Passive smoking? Raw eggs? Stressful situations? Are you going to legislate that women avoid them all while they’re pregnant “just in case” because “it’s not worth the risk”?

    This is why it should really be to be down to the individual. You can make decisions about what to do with your unborn baby on whatever basis you like. But if you want to make that decision for other people, then it needs to be based on rational evidence, not just emotion.

    Quote:
    We can compare it to anything. Buying alcohol. But I think that’s jsu tgettign away from what we’re actually talking about. Yes I know that women often drink before they know that they’re pregnant.
    No, it’s just trying to ensure that we’re being logical and consistent.
    Top

    Rikki
    Post subject: PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:43 pm
    Instructor

    Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:56 am
    Posts: 915
    Location: Lexington, KY
    Personally, I don’t believe that the rule is in place to protect women’s unborn babies – it’s in place to protect the organizations. And rightfully so. If I were the one running the show I’d want to safeguard myself (and my money) as much as possible.
    Top

    warrior14
    Post subject: PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2006 7:20 pm
    Pro Fighter

    Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:08 pm
    Posts: 94
    Location: Sioux Falls, SD
    Rikki wrote:
    Personally, I don’t believe that the rule is in place to protect women’s unborn babies – it’s in place to protect the organizations. And rightfully so. If I were the one running the show I’d want to safeguard myself (and my money) as much as possible.
    Exactly. I for one would not want to deal with that at all if I were a promoter. I don’t think taking a pregnancy test is all that big a deal. Pee on a stick, who cares? However, I agree, the organization should have to pay for it. Or at least compensate in the show money for the fighter.
    Top

    Rosi
    Post subject: PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:09 am
    Pro Fighter

    Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:26 am
    Posts: 532
    Quote:
    Personally, I don’t believe that the rule is in place to protect women’s unborn babies – it’s in place to protect the organizations. And rightfully so. If I were the one running the show I’d want to safeguard myself (and my money) as much as possible.
    Now that argument makes sense – which is why I say I don’t really object to pregnancy testing.

    I have no problem with an organisation or promoter requiring a pregnancy test in order to fight. The only thing that seems dubious to me is the government making it a legal requirement – that just doesn’t sit well with me, and is inconsistent with other laws at present.
    Top

    tuffycat
    Post subject: PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:50 pm

    Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 7:07 pm
    Posts: 3
    Location: Dallas, TX
    I think it is a good idea to protect all involved: child, organization and mother.
    I found out about my 1st pregnancy after feeling unusually weak, winded and dizzy during a long run. I almost fainted after the final sprint. I had no idea that I was pregnant but knew something was wrong. I was just fine running 1 week before and had not skipped my period yet. I could not imagine finding this out via beat down in a full contact fight rather than a run. I have to agree that mandatory pregnancy tests at weight ins ( at the organization’s expence of course) is nessesary for the fighter’s protection as well as the child’s.
    Top

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

© 2014 Fighter Girls.  All Rights Reserved.

Fighter girls®

Fightergirls.com®

Forgot your details?