|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Nov 30, 2016 13:06:31 GMT -5
60-90 days of training? What position is this for? Brain surgeon? I've never offered more than two weeks training for a mid level position. Where I work we have people who often need at least year to really be up-to-speed, and it takes them at least 3-to-6 months to be a truly functional member of the team. However, I also work in a niche area, and almost no one has the type of experience that we need. We did hire a temp once when someone went on maternity leave. It was a huge waste of money. The person wasn't productive and ended up causing everyone else more work when we had to redo their work. I'm not a brain surgeon (and believe me, I would not want someone operating on my brain with only 60-90 days of training. I think you're pretty brave if you would allow someone cutting into your head and jacking with your brains with 90 days of training), but a person would have been hard pressed to step into my position after 60-90 days of training, particularly if they had not worked in my lab in the same institution. I suspect that a couple of my coworkers could, as they new the procedures of how the lab and administration works, but someone coming in cold from another place? Nope. Hell, it took me 6 months to figure out the chain of command and how I needed to get things done administratively when I moved to a totally new institution and I was running the whole lab my way!
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 30, 2016 13:11:07 GMT -5
It's not really about pregnancy...you don't get time off for pregnancy, you get time off for the childbirth
Correction. If you end up with complications during pregnancy you can absolutely end up on leave before you give birth to the child. Where would that fall into the mix? Do we tell women "too bad so sad that's what you get for deciding to become pregnant?". They do not understand fully what causes eclampsia or gestational diabetes, research is showing more and more it's not something that the mother can control. There are also a bazillion other things that are totally outside your control that can happen too such as a placental tear or your cervix weakening requiring bed rest until you give birth. So do we draw the line at when you pop out the kid it's "elective" or is EVERYTHING to do with pregnancy 'elective coverage"? This is the problem with pushing that pregnancy is a choice and therefore shouldn't be covered in any way or be given limited coverage compared to a heart attack. I can control when I GET pregnant but once I do there is very little of it I actually control. Well we were discussing "maternity leave" so I didn't get too far down the rabbit hole there. But again, you don't get time for pregnancy, you might get time off for other things like the complications.
I don't think the distinction is that gray. Did you elect to have gestational diabetes? No. Did you elect to give birth to a child? Yes.
My own personal opinion, I could be fine with either way...everything related is not covered because it's elective, or related things are covered.
I'm not even pushing that pregnancy is a choice and shouldn't be covered. I'm really pushing that I think it's folly to pretend that childbirth (or more specifically, all that goes into discussion of maternity leave which is far beyond the medical issue) is just exactly the same as any other disability.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 30, 2016 13:14:28 GMT -5
Without getting too into controversial topics, it takes 2 to conceive, it only takes 1 to decide to go through childbirth which is what the time off is for. Agree that many pregnancies are unscheduled. You don't get time off for being pregnant though. You get time off for giving birth to a child, which is 100% under the control of the pregnant female (excluding the weird "I didn't know I was pregnant but I just gave birth" scenarios). The moral implications to not "deciding to go through childbirth" are huge. I am technically pro-choice, but still. It would be a terribly difficult choice--not one to be made for the convenience of an employer. This is not a flip a coin sort of choice that you seem to imply with this argument. They are, but it has nothing to do with the convenience of the employer (the question of whether an employer should pay you or not would be made by that point, nobody is saying people should have abortions because the employer covers maternity but it would be really inconvenient to have you take time off so just abort). You have the moral choice to make, the question is whether medical insurance (and for the purpose of the this thread, whether your employer, or the government, or medical insurance) should cover the financial result of your moral decision.
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 30, 2016 13:43:06 GMT -5
A pregnancy is a conscious decision yes but so is non urgent knee replacement or any elective surgery, Let's look at it like that. Both are quality of life issues.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 30, 2016 13:48:53 GMT -5
A pregnancy is a conscious decision yes but so is non urgent knee replacement or any elective surgery, Let's look at it like that. Both are quality of life issues. Absolutely, I have no issues with lumping those things together. The one big difference being that "maternity leave" when discussed can also encompass a lot more than the medical side of things.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 30, 2016 13:52:05 GMT -5
Hold up..... Hoops is a dad?!?! <<faint>> It's a girl too, so you know she's in trouble.
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 30, 2016 13:52:07 GMT -5
What do companies do when an employee decides to have elective knee replacement, elective breast reduction, any elective surgery. What about gender reassignment surgery. There would be an uproar if companies and people started complaining about having to temporarily replace those employees. Why is pregnancy so different than any employee requesting time off for elective surgery.
|
|
naughtybear
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 10, 2016 17:03:08 GMT -5
Posts: 996
|
Post by naughtybear on Nov 30, 2016 13:53:38 GMT -5
Oh I see what you are saying Hoops. I think I said something similar earlier on.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 18:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 13:56:37 GMT -5
Hold up..... Hoops is a dad?!?! <<faint>> It's a girl too, so you know she's in trouble. WTH? You just had a baby and didn't tell us?!
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 30, 2016 14:04:16 GMT -5
It's a girl too, so you know she's in trouble. WTH? You just had a baby and didn't tell us?! Haven't even been on much since we found out. She got pregnant, I was in the middle of renovating 3 rooms in the house (1 of which was the nursery), rushed to get that done just in time to go overseas for work, came back home, she gave birth, and I've been home taking care of the baby for the last month. Today is my first day back at work (which is where I usually post).
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,082
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Nov 30, 2016 14:07:23 GMT -5
WTH? You just had a baby and didn't tell us?! Haven't even been on much since we found out. She got pregnant, I was in the middle of renovating 3 rooms in the house (1 of which was the nursery), rushed to get that done just in time to go overseas for work, came back home, she gave birth, and I've been home taking care of the baby for the last month. Today is my first day back at work (which is where I usually post). You moocher! You can't even claim you gave birth to the child! Seriously though congrats. DH just loves being the father of two little girls.
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Nov 30, 2016 14:09:59 GMT -5
But we can control A LOT of our health issues. Type II diabetes is often brought on by excessive weight gain. So if I develop it and my records show that I am overweight should coverage be stopped and if I need to take leave for my issue should I be told "too bad so sad?" If you have a heart attack due to high cholesterol should you be told "too bad so sad? That's what you get for eating too many cheeseburgers?" I get where you are coming from. If I choose not to take birth control I am "choosing" to get pregnant. Where we are going to disagree is that companies will think that way. Once they are given permission to separate out issues and decide what benefits they provide based on "level of control" you'd be amazed what is suddenly going to become "your responsibility". We already have to fill out a "voluntary" health survey every year during benefits enrollment. Right now that information cannot be used against us, but it would not be hard to change that if it's decided my coverage should be based on what the company feels I have control over. This is a downside of having these things tied to your employment. That's why I'd be in favor of a system like Canada's. I get the outcry over "big government" but it's not like our system is perfect either. I'd also been in favor of doing away with sick/vacation and making one large PTO pool that any employee can take for whatever reason no questions asked. I'd also be in favor of for most industries we start moving towards everyone being able to have a flexible schedule (within reason of course there does need to be some consistency). Instead of being chained to your desk from 9-5 period if you have a week where you need to take your sick parent to doctor's appointments you could work 7-3 no questions asked. FMLA can still be in place for health related issues but otherwise it's your business what that leave is for. No more playing around with what "deserves" leave and what doesn't. There was an episode of Adam Ruins Everything that went over employment and it's amazing how much of our workplace rules were designed during the Industrial Revolution and Great Depression. Maybe it's time to update? We agree that most things like that can be controlled, but it's an indirect control...that's why I said "directly". It's not really about pregnancy...you don't get time off for pregnancy, you get time off for the childbirth. People make a conscious and clear choice to go through childbirth in a very direct way. Nobody says "hey manager, in 74 days from now I'm going to decide to have a heart attack, I'll need some time off". I'm really approaching this more like a government thing. I don't care what companies do honestly, there's enough flexibility people can choose to work for the company that offers the benefits they enjoy.
I don't think maternity leave from a company standpoint is even that big of a deal frankly. It's not actually that much money for the company (I mean, it's covered by insurance, then the STD insurance...it's not like the insurance is any more expensive because my wife is a woman). My wife just went back to work after having a baby, her total bill including her missed pay wasn't that much different than the tuition reimbursement I've collected over the years working on my Masters.
My opinion on government intervention is that we shouldn't...but then that's my opinion on most government intervention for most adults.
Depends on how the pregnancy goes. That in itself is a crapshoot. My liver freaks the hell out when I am pregnant but is perfectly healthy the rest of the time. I could end up on bed rest at 25 weeks like some friends have. It's all in how the medical situation goes. And there are many jobs that a pregnant woman cannot do, so modified duty or alternate job duties are called for. Even the military pulls women off active duty after a certain point until after they give birth.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 30, 2016 14:11:23 GMT -5
Haven't even been on much since we found out. She got pregnant, I was in the middle of renovating 3 rooms in the house (1 of which was the nursery), rushed to get that done just in time to go overseas for work, came back home, she gave birth, and I've been home taking care of the baby for the last month. Today is my first day back at work (which is where I usually post). You moocher! You can't even claim you gave birth to the child! Seriously though congrats. DH just loves being the father of two little girls. I know, I'm lucky (or unlucky, depending on how you look at it) that my company gives time off for fathers (paid bonding leave), so I got 2 weeks off, and took it as 4 weeks of half-days. My company will give time off for LOTS of stuff, it's a reason lots of folks choose to work here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 18:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 14:13:16 GMT -5
WTH? You just had a baby and didn't tell us?! Haven't even been on much since we found out. She got pregnant, I was in the middle of renovating 3 rooms in the house (1 of which was the nursery), rushed to get that done just in time to go overseas for work, came back home, she gave birth, and I've been home taking care of the baby for the last month. Today is my first day back at work (which is where I usually post). Well, congratulations!
|
|
tcu2003
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 31, 2010 15:24:01 GMT -5
Posts: 4,955
|
Post by tcu2003 on Nov 30, 2016 16:23:49 GMT -5
Without getting too into controversial topics, it takes 2 to conceive, it only takes 1 to decide to go through childbirth which is what the time off is for. Agree that many pregnancies are unscheduled. You don't get time off for being pregnant though. You get time off for giving birth to a child, which is 100% under the control of the pregnant female (excluding the weird "I didn't know I was pregnant but I just gave birth" scenarios). The moral implications to not "deciding to go through childbirth" are huge. I am technically pro-choice, but still. It would be a terribly difficult choice--not one to be made for the convenience of an employer. This is not a flip a coin sort of choice that you seem to imply with this argument. This whole argument also assumes that if someone wanted to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy, they have access to both a healthcare provider and facility where that can happen. There are plenty of places in the US where that isn't the case, or at least not access that is anywhere close/convenient.
|
|
tcu2003
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 31, 2010 15:24:01 GMT -5
Posts: 4,955
|
Post by tcu2003 on Nov 30, 2016 16:24:05 GMT -5
And congrats, hoops.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 30, 2016 16:29:59 GMT -5
OK, I get where you're coming from and the comparison you are making. There is no doubt that there is a medical aspect to a pregnancy and that there is no male equivalent. But, I would like to point out that, these days, a pregnancy is a concious decision. Where something such as a heart attack is not. In this world of equality and equal pay for equal work (which I support), shouldn't we encourage gender equality in as many aspects of life as possible? I'd be fine with that if you did not get leave or any type of benefits if you ended up with prostate cancer. That's specifically a male related issue that I will never have to face as a female so if you don't have to "pay" for a solely female related issue then I should not have to pay for solely male related issues either. That would apply to ovarian cancer as well since you cannot experience it. If we are going to separate out things based on gender where do we draw the line? It's easy to say keep it to pregnancy but once companies, especially insurance companies, find out they can save money by divvying up things based on gender do you really think it'd stop there? And you may disagree but I REALLY doubt my salary would go up if I did not have to pay for your prostate cancer or your salary would go up if you did not have to pay for my maternity leave. That money will go back into the pockets of the company. But what is being discussed in this thread is much longer than the recovery time for a delivery. With my oldest, I was up and walking fine in a week. And that was with a lot of tearing (she was a HUGE baby!). I had a hysterectomy and was back to work in less than two weeks. It doesn't take 3 months, 6 months or a year to recover from birth.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Nov 30, 2016 16:30:17 GMT -5
The moral implications to not "deciding to go through childbirth" are huge. I am technically pro-choice, but still. It would be a terribly difficult choice--not one to be made for the convenience of an employer. This is not a flip a coin sort of choice that you seem to imply with this argument. This whole argument also assumes that if someone wanted to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy, they have access to both a healthcare provider and facility where that can happen. There are plenty of places in the US where that isn't the case, or at least not access that is anywhere close/convenient. I'm not sure this argument holds up all that well. It may well be inconvenient...but it's far more convenient than raising a child for 18 years that you otherwise would have chosen not to have. The relative inconveniences of each are pretty lopsided.
In the end though, my only real point on that piece is that it's not necessarily a given that it's just like other disabilities like a heart attack or broken leg. To me, there are enough differences that it makes some sense we discuss it separately from how we discuss someone who just had a heart attack.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Nov 30, 2016 16:48:43 GMT -5
If we model after Canada, the one I'm most familiar with, it does delineate a difference. There's 17 weeks maternity leave - that's only for mothers that have given birth to recover and I think some of it can be used prebirth if medically needed. Then there's 35 weeks of parental leave that can be split between the parents that's not medically related and can be taken by those that adopt or have a surrogate.
Both are paid through EI though, and Quebec might be a bit different.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Nov 30, 2016 17:51:49 GMT -5
I'd be fine with that if you did not get leave or any type of benefits if you ended up with prostate cancer. That's specifically a male related issue that I will never have to face as a female so if you don't have to "pay" for a solely female related issue then I should not have to pay for solely male related issues either. That would apply to ovarian cancer as well since you cannot experience it. If we are going to separate out things based on gender where do we draw the line? It's easy to say keep it to pregnancy but once companies, especially insurance companies, find out they can save money by divvying up things based on gender do you really think it'd stop there? And you may disagree but I REALLY doubt my salary would go up if I did not have to pay for your prostate cancer or your salary would go up if you did not have to pay for my maternity leave. That money will go back into the pockets of the company. But what is being discussed in this thread is much longer than the recovery time for a delivery. With my oldest, I was up and walking fine in a week. And that was with a lot of tearing (she was a HUGE baby!). I had a hysterectomy and was back to work in less than two weeks. It doesn't take 3 months, 6 months or a year to recover from birth. I think that is largely dependent on the woman though. I've never given birth, but I have had friends who okay within a week or two and others that desperately needed the full six weeks. I think everyone is different. Everyone's recovery is different. Which is true for almost every medical procedure out there.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 30, 2016 18:23:05 GMT -5
I'd be fine with that if you did not get leave or any type of benefits if you ended up with prostate cancer. That's specifically a male related issue that I will never have to face as a female so if you don't have to "pay" for a solely female related issue then I should not have to pay for solely male related issues either. That would apply to ovarian cancer as well since you cannot experience it. If we are going to separate out things based on gender where do we draw the line? It's easy to say keep it to pregnancy but once companies, especially insurance companies, find out they can save money by divvying up things based on gender do you really think it'd stop there? And you may disagree but I REALLY doubt my salary would go up if I did not have to pay for your prostate cancer or your salary would go up if you did not have to pay for my maternity leave. That money will go back into the pockets of the company. But what is being discussed in this thread is much longer than the recovery time for a delivery. With my oldest, I was up and walking fine in a week. And that was with a lot of tearing (she was a HUGE baby!). I had a hysterectomy and was back to work in less than two weeks. It doesn't take 3 months, 6 months or a year to recover from birth. Maternity leave is about so much more than just physically recovering from the birthing process. It's about breastfeeding. It's about bonding with the infant. It's about not handing him off to strangers right after birth. It's about being emotionally wrung out from hormones. It's about being exhausted due to not sleeping. It's about changing your whole lifestyle.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 30, 2016 18:26:04 GMT -5
It's cute how you think it's only about getting back to work as soon as you stop bleeding.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 30, 2016 18:35:44 GMT -5
But what is being discussed in this thread is much longer than the recovery time for a delivery. With my oldest, I was up and walking fine in a week. And that was with a lot of tearing (she was a HUGE baby!). I had a hysterectomy and was back to work in less than two weeks. It doesn't take 3 months, 6 months or a year to recover from birth. Maternity leave is about so much more than just physically recovering from the birthing process. It's about breastfeeding. It's about bonding with the infant. It's about not handing him off to strangers right after birth. It's about being emotionally wrung out from hormones. It's about being exhausted due to not sleeping. It's about changing your whole lifestyle. People on here are comparing it to men having surgery. to do that, once you physically recover then you stop being paid. Otherwise, it isn't about disability.
A woman can choose to stay home but she doesn't have to stay home. Right now my Senior Financial Reporting Analyst in pumping her breast milk in her office. she does it several times a day. She also came back to work at 6 weeks (she wasn't here long enough to qualify for 12 weeks FMLA). I guess Americans are just a tougher breed
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 18:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 18:35:51 GMT -5
But what is being discussed in this thread is much longer than the recovery time for a delivery. With my oldest, I was up and walking fine in a week. And that was with a lot of tearing (she was a HUGE baby!). I had a hysterectomy and was back to work in less than two weeks. It doesn't take 3 months, 6 months or a year to recover from birth. Maternity leave is about so much more than just physically recovering from the birthing process. It's about breastfeeding. It's about bonding with the infant. It's about not handing him off to strangers right after birth. It's about being emotionally wrung out from hormones. It's about being exhausted due to not sleeping. It's about changing your whole lifestyle. I agree, but that's the other part of maternity leave. The basic recovery part is what I think should be covered. The other part should be covered out of personal savings, etc. I believe 4-6 weeks is plenty to recover from a vaginal birth. Like Miss T said, you are usually up and walking fine within a week or two. Heck, I was crawling up the stairs by Day 3 or 4 because I had to. That's not the same thing as saying I could have stood up for 7 hours to teach. Some jobs lend themselves to sitting, but teaching isn't one of them if you do it right. But I could have done it after a month. I could have driven a car after a month, but the doctor wouldn't let you. Can you imagine? I think if we could separate the medical from the bonding aspect, society would do better. The medical should be routinely provided through short-term disability insurance or whatever. Even Miss Tequila could arrange coverage for 4-6 weeks. The maternity/paternity part would be a perk like tuition reimbursement or extra PTO. Except for some fields, it wouldn't have to be all or nothing. Letting women come back half-time for the next six weeks at full pay would serve both the mother's needs and the company's. A lot of work can be done at home, and the stuff that can't could be done in the half-time part in the office. The real problem is that we aren't thinking outside the box. It really isn't all or nothing once you get past the basic recovery part.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 30, 2016 18:36:40 GMT -5
It's cute how you think it's only about getting back to work as soon as you stop bleeding. It's cute how you think women are so delicate that they can't handle lack of sleep and hormones. Yet women in America do it every day
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 30, 2016 18:37:24 GMT -5
Maternity leave is about so much more than just physically recovering from the birthing process. It's about breastfeeding. It's about bonding with the infant. It's about not handing him off to strangers right after birth. It's about being emotionally wrung out from hormones. It's about being exhausted due to not sleeping. It's about changing your whole lifestyle. I agree, but that's the other part of maternity leave. The basic recovery part is what I think should be covered. The other part should be covered out of personal savings, etc. I believe 4-6 weeks is plenty to recover from a vaginal birth. Like Miss T said, you are usually up and walking fine within a week or two. Heck, I was crawling up the stairs by Day 3 or 4 because I had to. That's not the same thing as saying I could have stood up for 7 hours to teach. Some jobs lend themselves to sitting, but teaching isn't one of them if you do it right. But I could have done it after a month. I could have driven a car after a month, but the doctor wouldn't let you. Can you imagine? I think if we could separate the medical from the bonding aspect, society would do better. The medical should be routinely provided through short-term disability insurance or whatever. Even Miss Tequila could arrange coverage for 4-6 weeks. The maternity/paternity part would be a perk like tuition reimbursement or extra PTO. Except for some fields, it wouldn't have to be all or nothing. Letting women come back half-time for the next six weeks at full pay would serve both the mother's needs and the company's. A lot of work can be done at home, and the stuff that can't could be done in the half-time part in the office. The real problem is that we aren't thinking outside the box. It really isn't all or nothing once you get past the basic recovery part. Exactly to the first...and grrrr to the second
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 30, 2016 18:39:00 GMT -5
I never was told not to drive a car.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 30, 2016 18:49:23 GMT -5
I never was told not to drive a car. that was back in the day when they kept you in the hospital for several days. I was kept almost two days and that's only because both kids had issues (one was a premie and one had one functioning kidney). Otherwise I would have been sent home in 24 hours.
Woman are strong creatures. Wanting to stay home with the baby is one thing but for posters to claim we are so fragile that we need a year off to recover is just crazy talk.
ETA: I misunderstood zib's post. I thought she said she was told not to drive. I know my mom was told not to drive. They also kept her in the hospital for a week for a normal, vaginal delivery!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 18:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2016 19:07:09 GMT -5
I never was told not to drive a car. I was. "Don't drive for six weeks." My MIL drove us to our daughter's first check-up back in 1977.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 30, 2016 19:43:37 GMT -5
Cripe. I drove everywhere. No one said not to.
|
|