gadgetlady

Did you ever find out what was wrong?

Yup. I was slipped with severe scarring. I converted to gastric bypass and lost 90 lbs in a year. I'm basically at goal. Years and $ wasted with the band, and virtually instant success and a much better lifestyle with the bypass.

I think I need to unsubscribe from this thread! I had my band removed 1.5 years ago. Only lost 25 lbs in 3.5 years with the darn thing, and then it slipped. Converted to bypass and I'm down over 90 lbs and loving it. The band was a waste of time and money for me.

I'm sorry, but did you just say ALL babies die young...?

Sorry -- meant to say SOME -- that's what I get for posting and running, which is what I'm also doing now. Bye!

gadget: "Once the mother is pregnant, they have become parents whether they like it or not. It is no longer a choice."

And that is where you are completely mistaken.

Your argument is based on the idea that all women choose to have the sexual encounter that has made them pregnant and that pregnancy is the consequence to their choosing to have sexual contact.

No, that's not my argument at all. I fully understand that some women are raped. Lots of things happen to us in life that are not our will and leave us without a choice. "Once a woman develops breast cancer, she is either a cancer victim or a cancer survivor; she has no other choice" -- that statement doesn't require her consent to the cancer.

My point is that once a baby is conceived, there is no reversing the fact that the baby exists. The parents are parents, regardless of whether they want to be or not. If they opt for the fate of their child to be death, then they are parents of a dead child. They can't reverse the fact that they are parents.

It is bizzare that you have stated that if a woman has become pregnant she is destined in each and every case to have a baby. You know that is totally wrong. I brought up spontaneous abortions because they happen very frequently. There are miriad other reasons why fertilized eggs do not have the capability to produce viable babies.

Every pregnant woman already has a baby. Some babies die in utero. All babies die at a young age. All people die eventually. That doesn't negate the fact that they were ever alive!

All of your focus and sympathies lie within a teeny, tiny blob of tissue that you believe that you know what its' destiny is. You do not know what the long-term destiny is of every fertilized egg.

We don't -- or shouldn't -- determine whether someone lives or dies based on what we believe their destiny might be.

That being said, I don't only focus and sympathize with the baby, even though he or she is 100% defenseless and a victim; I am also fully sympathetic with the mother. I recognize her plight and believe in supporting her emotionally, physically, and financially. Women deserve better than being told they can, should, or must kill their babies to lead full lives. Causing others' deaths never advances our lives in any meaningful or positive way.

If there is a spontaneous abortion, it is also included in the natural order of things.

Yes, if it is a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), it is natural, just like a natural death. You know as well as I that that has nothing to do with the discussion we're having here.

If there is a surgical abortion, then there is still nothing you can do to stop a woman who is ill-equipped, for whatever reason, to continue the development of that fertilized egg.

That's what laws are for. Protecting the defenseless.

I would much rather a woman would choose to have a procedure (that is simple and relatively painless to everyone involved) to stop the development of a fertilized egg, if the woman so ill-equipped, either emotionally or physically, that she is unable to support the development of a baby.

I would much rather people not kill people for any reason.

You think adoption is the answer. I think adoption could be the answer, but I believe that it is not the answer for everyone.

I don't think adoption is the answer for everyone. I just know taking the life of another human being to solve a problem is not ever a good answer.

gadget: "Absolutely right. Mothers should not be making death decisions for other people -- in this case, their offspring. "

So at least we agree on one thing - offspring belong to "their" parents. They are not products of the world.

Uh, yes, there is a familial connection and the children are the children of their parents. But that doesn't indicate ownership. My husband is my husband, he belongs to me, but I don't have the right to kill him.

They have creators and those who are charged with the responsibility of literally bringing them to life, if they so choose.

The choice of the would-be parents comes before the pregnancy. Once the mother is pregnant, they have become parents whether they like it or not. It is no longer a choice. The only choice at that point is a live baby or a dead baby.

It's the natural order of things. You can't change it by intervening in some way.

LOL. There is nothing "natural" about elective abortion. It is its own intervention, a violent surgical procedure that ends a life that would otherwise naturally eventually become an adult.

It's unfortunate that babies must be conceived, grow and be nurtured inside a woman's womb? I find that to be a very strange statement and one that sounds very self-serving in this debate.

It's unfortunate because many people wish that a mother's body were not inconvenienced for 9 months. I don't find it unfortunate -- I find it incredible -- but it's one of the facts of life that is unfortunate for those who don't want to be pregnant.

In a perfect world, there would be no rape. In a perfect world, there would be no incest. In a perfect world, there would be no deformities or malfunctioning female anatomical parts. There would be no women who are too fragile, either physically or mentally to carry a baby to term. In a perfect world, every woman would be a fully-equipped baby making machine, turning them out on a regular basis. At least in your perfect world.

There is no such thing as a perfect world. But we shouldn't kill people when we find circumstances to not be what we'd like them to be.

Neither of us is perfect enough to make life and death decisions for other people.

Absolutely right. Mothers should not be making death decisions for other people -- in this case, their offspring.

As for the baby bartering business, it is hardly a delusional concept. And if you really are as involved in the anti-choice movement and involved in helping to place unwanted babies, then you know as well as I that there are people who are in the baby selling business. For you to pretend otherwise is assinine.

What you're delusional about is my potential participation in such a thing. Whatever.

Relevant phrase being "post-uterine life". I have no quarrel with the government getting involved in the protection of a child. But I do have a quarrel with the government getting its' grubby little hands on my uterus and anything contained within that package of MINE.

Unfortunately, our reproductive system dictates that the place a new baby gets to grow is within a mother's womb. I know a lot of people think that's not fair or it's oppressive or whatever, but it is what it is. Just because the baby is growing in the mother's womb doesn't make it not a baby and it doesn't make it something we can own and kill at will.

A fetus is not a person.

A fetus is most definitely a person. It is a very young person, but "fetus" is not a term that defines something other than a human being in the very early stage of pre-born life.

Do you prefer the way it is in some countries where the government tells it's citizens whether they can have babies and/or what sex they are allowed to have? As far as I am concerned what you want it no different.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I have no concern over whether people have sex or what they do for birth control or whether they want to sterilize themselves or anything else along those lines. My concern is, once a human being is in existence, that we protect that human being from being killed by other human beings. So I am wholly opposed to killing children based on gender, as well as killing them based on pretty much any other reason you can come up with.

gadget, I own my child. It is mine and no one elses.

That says it all.

We can't own other people. When we do, we get to do such things as kill, enslave, and oppress them. It fosters the very worst part of human nature to believe and treat others as objects and possessions.

my child is totally my responsibility for the rest of his or her life. It has absolutely nothing to do with you. It has everything to do with me.

Yes and no. If you abuse or try to kill your child at any point during his or her post-uterine life, the government will intervene, and rightfully so, to protect the basic rights of that child. It is only right to extend those basic rights to the beginning of life.

For all I know you're in the baby bartering business.

Delusional much?

You have no rights to that accumulation of tissue called a fertilized egg. If it is a baby, you have no rights to that baby. You have no right to intervene on its' behalf whether it is a "separate" entity or not.

Being a parent doesn't give you the right to kill your child. Born or unborn. We don't own other people.

You cannot go intervene on their behalf and choose what will become of them. YOU do not own them, its' parents own them and make all of the decisions for them.

Parents don't own their children. They are caretakers for their children.

It is wrong, grossly wrong, for you or anyone else to make decisions about my fertlized egg, my embryo, my fetus, my unborn baby or anyother name you wish to give this "separate entity" that you want to control the destiny of.

I don't want to "control the destiny of" another living person. I simply want to ensure that everyone's right to live is protected by law. Beyond that, their destiny is their destiny.

are you trying to say that i didn't pray my ass off when i was pregnant with my son?! That i didn't pray...give me a healthy baby, please...do you think that when my son was dying that i didn't pray and pray!!!!??? God doesn't get my prayers because everytime i prayed it fell on deaf ears. God has kick me when i was down time and time again. I am tired of hearing, "god only gives you what he thinks you can handle" well guess what i stopped being able to hand what he was throwing me a long friggin time ago!!!!! I hate what he has done to my family and my life. What happened to me and my son and my other child had nothing at all to do with free will!!! If god creates life then who the hell do you think helped my son develope? Who formed him? Who made him the way he is?!?! Where was god when i was trying to kill myself because no one answered my prayers? Where was god when my husband was injured in iraq? Where was god when my son was developing? Where was god when i was holding a blade to my wrist? Where is you god?!?! He's not here...he's never been there for me....ever!!!! How dare you spew that crap. You talk like god is speaking in your ear...like you would know exactly what he wants of his other children! You may know what he wants for you in your life than you follow what he wants for you, but don't you dare assume that you know what he wants from others....christianity is a religion. I don't care what you say! You should be ashamed of yourself...maybe you should think and reread what you type before you post!!! I'm out of here...

rodriguezequal, I just wanted to tell you I have been at a loss for words since you started posting about this last night. I know you're angry and frustrated and a range of other emotions. You have been and are in my prayers. I have a few book resources for getting through things when God doesn't make sense -- if you're interested, let me know.

gadget: "Personal choice ends where another person's body begins."

Amen and hallelujah to that statement. I couldn't have said it better myself.

The simple fact is that the baby is not the mother's body. He or she is a separate person. He or she resides in the mother's body, but that doesn't make him or her a body part. Women don't have, for 9-month increments at various stages in their lives, two hearts, two brains, two sets of different DNA, two circulatory systems, two possibly different blood types, four arms, four legs, and occasionally a set of male genitalia. Unfortunately for women who don't want to be mothers, the baby resides in the mother's body and is on life support, as it were, for a period of time. The mother isn't making the choice to electively reduce her breast size, get banded, or remove her gall bladder. When she chooses to abort, she is choosing to take the life of another person.

According to our laws, you are completely free to choose whatever course of action you deem proper when it comes to your own body.

That's not entirely true. There are many things you can't legally do to your own body. Prostitute yourself (in most places), kill yourself (in most places), cut off your limbs at whim (you'd be institutionalized for trying), etc.

And I hope you're reading, carefully, all that has been posted regarding Christianity here. You can't be serious when you say that people who are against women's right to choose has nothing at all to do with religion.

I am quite serious. While religious people may get involved in the movement, as religious people got involved in slavery and civil rights (Martin Luther King, Jr. was a reverend, after all -- -AND pro-life!!!), that does not make it a religious issue.

I have to agree with you that it doesn't matter. But I am confused, are we arguing weather or not a fetus is human or not? Of course it's human.....

Not everyone agrees. Some say the baby is in the process of becoming a human being. Some say the baby isn't fully human. Some say the baby won't be fully human until he or she is delivered and separated from the mother's body. Some say the baby is a potential human being. A lot of euphemisms are used to disguise the fact that the baby is a living, growing human being, an individual distinct from the mother with separate DNA and circulatory system, on life-support as it were, but still a unique individual.

This really and truly is the crux of the matter, and it was the crux of the matter in 1973 as well. Blackmun said so in the Roe v Wade majority opinion -- If the "suggestion of personhood is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

In 1973 we didn't fully understand what goes on in the womb; a lot of it was still a mystery. Now we do know, and the unborn baby is clearly a person. This is why many states are pushing forward with personhood amendments.

As an aside, I've always been amused by the argument that most pro-lifers are men and they just want to subjugate women. A Rasmussen study released yesterday was the 4th study to confirm that the majority in America has swung to the pro-life side, but what is also interesting is that women are more pro-life than men by a full 13 percentage points (64% to 51%).

Interesting that you admit that "we do not know" yet you have persisted in posting links that claim to know.

All of the links claim to know (not just "mine").

Just a reminder here that what we do not know isn't whether the baby is a human being, but when the baby feels pain. And again, it doesn't matter. The ability to feel pain does not make one a human being.

It is understandable why you back away from the religious aspects of the argument. You can't win your case if it is solely based on religious beliefs.

Uh, no. It's because not everyone believes the same things about religion, and the presence or absence of a soul is inconsequential to the argument of whether it's ok to take another human being's life.

questionable pictoral resources

Pro-lifers don't use doctored pictures. They don't need to. Pictures of pre-born babies are readily available in all sorts of literature, and pictures of aborted babies speak for themselves.

But when pushed against the proverbial wall, even you admit that "we don't know."

I wasn't pushed against any wall; I'm the one that pointed out that we don't know. We don't know when the baby feels pain. What we do know is the baby is a human being.

There are occasions when even you would probably admit, if you were being truthful, that an abortion is the only viable and reasonable action to be taken.

Nope. I don't believe it's ever viable or reasonable to take another person's life without their consent.

It is our scientific research that we are able to interpret, and our emotional and philosophical opinoins that count when we have to make a choice.

Muslims believe it's ok for husbands to beat their wives. It's their interpretation of their religion. Is this a matter of personal choice as well?

Personal choice ends where another person's body begins.

wow I was off by 5-6 days! Kill me!

Just responding to your correction of what I said; trying to present the facts, not slay you.

The heart starts beating at 6 weeks...so the fetus would be 4 weeks old

Real Alternatives - free, caring and completely confidential pregnancy support services.

Fetal development: What happens during the first trimester? - MayoClinic.com

Pre-Natal Information

Pregnancy Forum - Fetal Heart Rate

The heart begins to beat at 18-21 days after conception, 3 weeks fetal, 5 weeks gestational.

yes I understand...I just always go by that same dating...so then most women find out they are pregnant when the baby is only 2-4 weeks old...so when prolifers say heartbeat starts at 6 weeks (or whatever it is) do they mean the pregnancy is 8 weeks along or the actual fetus is 8 weeks old (which will mean 10 weeks pregnant)?

The heart starts beating at 21 days after conception, or roughly a week after the mother's first missed period. That's usually about the time a mother finds out she's pregnant.

If life starts at conception then the age would be the same...? Yes when I say 5 weeks I guees it means 3 weeks to you which I don't quite understand...

Conception doesn't happen on the first date of the mother's last period. She releases the egg and is fertile approximately 14 days into her cycle, at which time conception, if it is going to happen, takes place. So when someone measures pregnancy from the first date of your last period, they're not measuring from Day 1 of the baby's life. They're pre-dating the baby's life by 2 weeks.

Does that make sense?

Gestational...the age that most sites use when showing the growth of the fetus and the progress of the pregnancy.

I have found the websites to be about 50/50 on gestational vs. fetal age.

So when you say 5 weeks you're talking about 3 weeks fetal age?

At five weeks the baby is the size of a sesame seed. at 6 weeks the size of a lentil (About 1/4 inch). 7 weeks around the size of a blueberry...

Are you talking gestational age or fetal age? Because there is a difference of approximately 2 weeks. One is measured from conception and the other is measured from the first date of the mother's last period.

By the fourth week of pregnancy your developing baby is about 1mm in length

By the fifth week your baby is about 1.5 - 2.5 mm or 0.05 - 0.09 inches in length.

Photo Gallery | BabyCenter Check out this slideshow for more...trust me as soon as I found out I was pregnant I was looking at every chart out there...my baby was about the size of a sesame seed when I lost it.

I couldn't get to photos from there -- maybe a Firefox issue? I don't know. And I don't know if we're talking 5 weeks gestational or fetal. But at 5 weeks, the baby is roughly the size of a raisin.

IBy the end of the 1st trimester the fetus is around 2-3 inches long...a lot of women have their abortions around 5-8 weeks when the fetus is less then or about 1 to 2 inches...at the 5th week the fetus is only about the size of a poppy seed.

At 3 weeks, the baby has a beating heart. At 6 weeks, recordable brain waves and the baby responds to touch.

A poppy seed? Can you document that for me?

Not generally, but sometimes it is

Right, but a d&c used as an abortion technique dismembers the baby while still alive.