nothin to see here. just beating a dead horse.

I may be standing here scratching my head alone, but the 50 Shades frenzy has had me baffled from the start. How did we make the leap from largely agreeing that Harlequin novels are cheesy as hell, to hoisting these books (and now the movie) onto pop culture's shoulders and parading down the streets, cheering like a Mardi Gras krewe? I worry the widespread appeal is a disheartening commentary on American sex lives. If so many people are enthralled to the point of obsession over a fictional character's poorly written sexcapades, is anyone other than me concerned we might collectively be letting our creativity and effort slip in the bedroom??  

But I digress; this post isn't about my irritation over "Laters, Baby" bumper stickers on minivans.  Instead I'm going to weigh in on another much-discussed topic, and while it feels like I'm in the distinct minority regarding the E.L. James trilogy, the tug o'war is a bit more evenly balanced on this subject. It's a touchy one, so let's all take deep breaths and put on our Rational, Respectful Debate hats.

Vaccinations.

I know most people are as sick (no pun intended) of this subject as I am about Christian Grey, so I'm going to make a fairly quick assertion, point you all to one article and one blog that I think are worth reading (no matter your side of the argument), and then I'll go back to binging on Medium and Grimm.  Pinky swear.

For starters, it should go without saying that this is Just a Girl's opinion - nothing more, nothing less - but I'm still tossing these two disclaimers on the table:

1.  I have a degree in health education, but I'm not a clinician.
Random unsolicited advice for students:  Don't get a degree in health education unless you're planning to go to medical school, marry well, or win the lottery. Scratch that. Don't get a degree (unless it's free). Learn the basics of coding, programming, Agile software development, and not being socially awkward, then launch a tech startup. 

2.  I have a niece and two nephews that I would, without hesitation, lay down in the street or take a bullet for, but I'm not a parent.
If you follow me here, on Twitter, or Facebook for any length of time, you'll question whether these children exist because you'll never see them. My sister is paranoid about digital kidnapping. In her defense, cuter children were never created; they'd be prime targets. Anyway - I swear they're real and I love them fiercely.

I am pro-vaccine, but I am not going to spew a bunch of snottiness here toward non-vaccinating parents. I trust that the vast majority believe they're doing what's necessary to protect their babies. The research out there is confusing and overwhelming, and in that sense, non-vaccinating parents are absolutely identical to vaccinating parents - everyone is in the same boat just trying to make sense of virtual mountains of conflicting information.

While I deeply respect both the complexity of this debate and the innate instinct to be a protective Mama or Papa Bear, the fact remains that I am extremely worried about the potential implications of the anti-vaccine movement on our vulnerable populations. Babies. The elderly. Folks with compromised immune systems. Basically those who, despite vaccination, might not have what it takes to fight off some pretty horrific diseases. I have a breast cancer surviving grandma and a mom with a less-than-two-year-old heart valve. They're both included in that group, and that scares the shit out of me. In that sense, I am in the same boat as non-vaccinating parents - fearing for the well-being of their loved ones.

Despite strongly supporting vaccination, there is too much conflicting information for me to jump on a pro-vaccine extremist bandwagon claiming they're "harmless." I acknowledge there may well be associated risks. The fact that funding, research, and time haven't allowed us to eliminate the danger; well, that's frustrating as hell and it sucks. Plain and simple.

But here's the thought I've kept coming back to throughout the resurgence of this debate.  

There's also a risk associated with kids riding in cars and participating in sports and other activities. How many tragedies result from children simply living life and participating in all the fun and discovery kids are entitled to every single year? And how many of those injuries have long term implications? It breaks my heart to even think about it. Still, the vast majority of parents allow most or all of these, without a whole lot of second-guessing or questioning.  Scratch that.  Good parents worry and doubt themselves constantly; it's part of what makes you all good parents. What I mean is, there's usually no more sleep lost on these choices than any other "routine" business. 

And then there's food. Food allergies are far more common in kids than adverse vaccination effects, but parents don't withhold food out of fear of anaphylaxis. They'd face criminal charges, and we'd all be appropriately outraged and horrified.

According to the National Autism Association, in addition to vaccines, a variety of environmental factors can trigger, or exacerbate, autism in certain children, including:

Pesticide Exposure: Scientists think that chemicals in pesticides may adversely affect those who are genetically predisposed to autism, leading them to develop the full-blown disorder.

Parental Age: A study found that women who are 40 years old have a 50 percent greater risk of having a child with autism than women who are between 20 and 29 years old.
Yes, I noted the typo, too.  I think this is supposed to read, "...between 20 and 39," but I am going for authenticity.  I cut and pasted from their website. Take it up with them.

Pharmaceuticals: Babies that have been exposed to certain pharmaceuticals in the womb, including SSRI's, valproic acid and thalidomide, have been found to have a higher risk of autism.

Freeway Proximity: A study found that children born to mothers who live within a 1000 feet of freeways have twice the risk of autism.
Again, take the typo up with them. ;-)

I know lots of people, breeders and non-breeders alike, that avoid pesticides, but I suspect there would be backlash if a movement sprung up shaming women in their 40s who are trying for a baby.  And I honestly haven't heard of this particular reason for avoiding freeway-adjacent real estate, but maybe that's a "thing."

My point (and the incredibly sad fact) is, parents can't protect their children from every danger. They can't eliminate every risk. I imagine that every possibility of a negative outcome - no matter how small the odds - must be absolutely terrifying. That makes a lot of us non-breeders hesitant to bring babies into the world, and I don't envy parents the necessary and heartwrenching job of calculating risk hundreds of times each day. 

J.K. Rowling (so admire her) said that it's "impossible to live without failing...unless you live so cautiously that you might as well not have lived at all - in which case you fail by default." I love that quote, but I don't know if it takes parenting into account. I'm not sure I can fathom the complexity and internal struggle involved when each choice could result in any number of outcomes, and when it seems the only possibility for "success" comes from striking the exact. right. balance. Tighten the reins too much and you position your kid for resentment, rebellion, unhappiness, being ill-prepared for the world...but loosen them and man - the outcomes seem far bleaker. She could get hurt, mentally or physically. He could wind up one of those entitled a-holes (also ill-prepared for the world). She'll grow up too fast. He'll never learn to balance freedom with responsibility. She has no concept of (or respect for) boundaries. The list goes on and on, but the end result is always the same - you're a failure and your child is irreversibly ruined. It's like the world's most frightening Choose Your Own Adventure book, except you don't get to shut it and walk away if things don't pan out.

I understand the other side of the argument. I "get" having the desire to reduce risk as much as possible, especially if the perceived benefit isn't something particularly "fun," like improving physical agility or learning about teamwork (acceptible risk: sport injury), expanding a palate (acceptible risk: food allergy), going on vacation (acceptible risk: car accident), or having a wise, mature, and mellow parent (acceptible risk: mom over 40).

Here's the difference. The choice to get pregnant at 42 and allow your child to ride in the sidecar of a motorcycle in the Independence Day parade after eating brownies chock-full of walnuts at a public park whose lawn has likely been sprayed with pesticides...those risks only directly affect you, your child, and your family. Parents who opt to forgo vaccinating their kids unfortunately can't make that decision in a bubble, and just like cigarette smoking and gun control, anytime your neighbor's choices have the potential to affect you and your health, things can get ugly. 

I don't know what the solution is here. Parents have the right to protect their children, and America has the responsibility to protect itself from a veritable cornucopia of disease outbreaks among its vulnerable populations. What I do know is this: we're not going to get to it via judgment and hate language.

My goal with this post, and with a lot of my social media engagement, is to encourage a more compassionate, respectful, and honest national conversation. 

Let's figure this shit out together.

If you're interested in further reading, I'd recommend Understanding the fear of vaccines: an activist explains why he buys a debunked idea and Voices for Vaccines: Leaving the Anti-Vaccination Movement.  Both offer (somewhat) dual perspectives on the issue. Neither is a government website.

2.24.15 Update

So, here's a snippet of that honest conversation I think we should be having.  Fair warning: the tone is angry and it's difficult to read - at least it was for me - because I could nearly hear the fear in her voice, and my heart ached for her.  I urge you to read to the end anyway.  Whether it reaffirms your own choices, gives you pause for thought, or changes your standpoint completely, it's an important read...

Once upon a time...

...there was a thirtysomething who didn't have a particularly extraordinary life or amazing story to tell, but she wanted to tell bits of it anyway (just in case someone else found it interesting). She doesn't consider herself a narcissist and blogging always seemed rather indulgent to her, so it took her awhile to sit down and go forth with typing her tale for public consumption. When she finally found herself in front of a blank screen waiting to receive her words, she wondered, "What the hell should I say?" 

The truth is, I don't know what exactly I'll write about on here. I don't have a theme in mind; perhaps one will present itself along the way. I'm not sure how often I'll write or whether anyone will read, but like everyone else, I have a story. It's the tale of a girl-woman who's a little quirky and a lot opinionated, sometimes self-doubting, frustratingly restless, and fumbling through a life filled with unexpected adventures. I either have incredibly bad luck or epically poor decision-making skills (likely a combo pack) and consider myself sort of a spokesperson for "choosing the wrong hand." I think a lot of people can probably relate to feeling that way sometimes.

So go ahead. Feel free to have a laugh or two at my expense. Identify and commiserate with me. Judge me, my opinions, and my missteps. Let's compare experiences and decide whose are cooler, or have a serious debate about use of the Oxford comma. If you're so inclined, drop me a line or share me with your friends.

Let's do this shit.