Posts
baby monitor zero to three image
Smirutka
This may sound a little funny considering this is my 3rd child but I really have no clue what's going on right now. I'm 37 weeks and 4 days pregnant & @ my last doctor appointment which was this past friday (37 weeks exactly) I was 2 centimeters dilated, 50% effaced & baby's head was at the zero station. I have been losing my mucous plug little by little over the past 2 weeks or so and the rest of it came out yesterday morning. Shortly after the plug came out I ended up getting pretty bad diarrhea that lasted the rest of the day. Well, last night I started feeling VERY crampy, almost menstrual period type crampy, but it was coming in spurts. I would cramp for a little bit, then it would stop. Well, this morning, I noticed that I started spotting a little bit (I'm guessing that's due to my mucous plug coming out yesterday). I've had CONSTANT menstrual period type cramps since about 11 o'clock this morning (and it's now 8 o'clock at night). It feels JUST like an intense menstrual cramp, but it's been there ALL day, no mercy. It's not geting worse, and it's not getting less painful, it's just THERE and won't go away. I've tried walking, laying down, relaxing and drinking a nice cold bottle of water.. NOTHING has helped.
If it helps any, when I went into labor with my oldest (now 5 years old), my contractions were 5 minutes apart when they started, and from the time labor started, until I pushed her out, I was only in labor for SIX hours.
When I went into labor with my youngest (now 3 years old), I hadn't felt any contractions or anything & my water broke a little after midnight, I wasn't feeling ANY contractions at all, but went to the hospital anyways, just because my water had broken. When the nurse hooked me up to the machine that monitors the contractions, IT was showing that I was having pretty intense contractions every 3 minutes, and she was surprised that I wasn't feeling a thing. I started feeling the contractions at 7:30 that morning & from the time I started feeling contractions until I pushed her out, I was only feeling the pain for THREE HOURS.
And it's due to past labor and birth experiences that I am completely STUCK as to what's going on with my body right now. And I don't know if I should go get checked out, or just wait... I have no clue. Any advice is greatly appreciated.
p.s. I am feeling the baby move ALOT, so I'm not worried that there's anything wrong with her. It's just my body that's making me unsure of what to do.
Answer
I would say you are well into labor, momma. Good luck and all the best :)
I would say you are well into labor, momma. Good luck and all the best :)
Liberals and Govt. and less taxes?
jaguarman
Why do extreme Liberals hate Free Enterprise,Capitalism, and companies that want less taxes, and less govt.? I didn't mean Zero Govt. I mean less Govt. in peoples lives. I think it would help the economy now.
Answer
Actually the old bromide of "less taxes and limited government" is not a Liberal or a Conservative issue at all. It's about common sense, to quote Thomas Paine.
Less taxes and less government? That's an old bromide which is used in elections every year, but in practice it just doesn't work. Governments require money in order to operate (the same as any organization) and they earn money through three methods: licensing fees, import duties, and taxes. The first two account for about 20% of government revenues, with taxes making up the rest. Decrease the taxes, and the government has less money, so governmental programs (like AFDC, CCC, CDC) go to the chopping block, and some people somewhere are going to suffer.
Too confusing? Try it this way. John Smith works as a rancher near Cheyenne, Wyoming. Every year he pays $500 so his cattle can graze on government preserves, and he pays $1,000 every year in federal taxes. A tax crusader comes into office and gives him a 50% tax cut. He saves $500 a year, but the same tax cut affects 20 million other people, which means the government loses roughly $10 billion. To make up for the loss, it cuts funding to Federal school programs and the Environmental Protection Agency. Now John's son has to be driven to 30 miles to school by his father because the Federal Bus Program no longer exists. He uses that $500 savings on gasoline, and it goes pretty quickly! Meanwhile, the EPA isn't monitoring the groundwater poisoning from a lead mine nearby, which results in John's wife giving birth to a baby with severe brain damage!
This is not an empty hpothesis on my part, it's fact.
Take the case of Proposition 13 in California. It was touted by a tax crusader named Howard Jarvis in 1978. Prop 13 drastically reduced the property taxes paid by homeowners in California, and led to a boom in the housing market. Sounds great, right? But property taxes also accounted for the primary source of funding for California schools. Today--30 years later--California schools' performance ranks last nationwide! Before Prop 13 it was near the top.
Or how about the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger? When he came into office, he drastically reduced (by 50%) the vehicle licensing fee at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Voters applauded. However, that licensing fee was the primary source of funding for the state budget. Now, three years later, California is facing a $40 billion deficit, and though Arnold has tried taking the money from the schools, the prisons, or even from state health care budgets it's nowhere near enough, and has only succeeded in alienating the legislature and producing a political crisis which may end up costing him his job (there is talk of impeaching Schwarzenegger).
Was it worth it?
Nobody--Liberal, Conservative, Anarchist, or Libertarian--likes paying taxes, but taxes pay salaries, support the poor, pave the roads, feed the hungry, and in some cases even pay for roadkill removal! Would we really want to give that up?
Less government and lower taxes sounds great in the short term, but the long-term effects just aren't worth it. And that's not a Liberal platitude, that common sense.
P.S. for the record, I'm a centrist.
Actually the old bromide of "less taxes and limited government" is not a Liberal or a Conservative issue at all. It's about common sense, to quote Thomas Paine.
Less taxes and less government? That's an old bromide which is used in elections every year, but in practice it just doesn't work. Governments require money in order to operate (the same as any organization) and they earn money through three methods: licensing fees, import duties, and taxes. The first two account for about 20% of government revenues, with taxes making up the rest. Decrease the taxes, and the government has less money, so governmental programs (like AFDC, CCC, CDC) go to the chopping block, and some people somewhere are going to suffer.
Too confusing? Try it this way. John Smith works as a rancher near Cheyenne, Wyoming. Every year he pays $500 so his cattle can graze on government preserves, and he pays $1,000 every year in federal taxes. A tax crusader comes into office and gives him a 50% tax cut. He saves $500 a year, but the same tax cut affects 20 million other people, which means the government loses roughly $10 billion. To make up for the loss, it cuts funding to Federal school programs and the Environmental Protection Agency. Now John's son has to be driven to 30 miles to school by his father because the Federal Bus Program no longer exists. He uses that $500 savings on gasoline, and it goes pretty quickly! Meanwhile, the EPA isn't monitoring the groundwater poisoning from a lead mine nearby, which results in John's wife giving birth to a baby with severe brain damage!
This is not an empty hpothesis on my part, it's fact.
Take the case of Proposition 13 in California. It was touted by a tax crusader named Howard Jarvis in 1978. Prop 13 drastically reduced the property taxes paid by homeowners in California, and led to a boom in the housing market. Sounds great, right? But property taxes also accounted for the primary source of funding for California schools. Today--30 years later--California schools' performance ranks last nationwide! Before Prop 13 it was near the top.
Or how about the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger? When he came into office, he drastically reduced (by 50%) the vehicle licensing fee at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Voters applauded. However, that licensing fee was the primary source of funding for the state budget. Now, three years later, California is facing a $40 billion deficit, and though Arnold has tried taking the money from the schools, the prisons, or even from state health care budgets it's nowhere near enough, and has only succeeded in alienating the legislature and producing a political crisis which may end up costing him his job (there is talk of impeaching Schwarzenegger).
Was it worth it?
Nobody--Liberal, Conservative, Anarchist, or Libertarian--likes paying taxes, but taxes pay salaries, support the poor, pave the roads, feed the hungry, and in some cases even pay for roadkill removal! Would we really want to give that up?
Less government and lower taxes sounds great in the short term, but the long-term effects just aren't worth it. And that's not a Liberal platitude, that common sense.
P.S. for the record, I'm a centrist.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment