is there anyone else who is pro-life AND pro-gay rights, or is it just me?

[dubman]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

all of these things are not what my position (i don't know about others) stands for. i believe a woman has as much right as a man to do anything with her body that she wishes. however, once a child is conceived, i believe, and it is hard to disprove, that a child is alive and no longer part of the individual such as oocytes or semen. indeed, the child still depends on the mother for a nurturing environment in the womb and nutrition, but a newborn child does as well, and cannot survive on its own. arguing that a week old child is not a person vs. a newborn child is almost the same comparison as arguing that a newborn child is not a person vs. an adult.

so, to me, it's not about removing 'women's rights', it's about protecting the right of an individual to live who cannot stand up for her/his self. if it were in any way possible to safely 'adopt' a child still in the womb to another woman, i would support that procedure.

i do believe that a woman has a right to prevent herself from becoming pregnant if she wishes, via condoms, foam, diaphragms, etc.

now see, this is all what you want to do and see enacted because you believe in it.
regardless of the people who actually have to worry about this.

that's a lot of the issue right there. it's all the things cacophony said by virtue of turning it into a political issue, which was a fucking stupid idea in the first place.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

i do believe that a woman has a right to prevent herself from becoming pregnant if she wishes, via condoms, foam, diaphragms, etc.

damn those women who don't exercise their right to prevent themselves from being impregnated during rape or abuse. DAMN THEM TO HELL.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

But not the boys who refuse to wear a condom in the name of love or saying it's against they're religion. Because, ya know, they're just being boys.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by cacophony

not even a whisper of a dream of a fantasy of the amount of responsibility of the pregnant woman.

let me clarify my point.

at week 20 of a high risk pregnancy, my husband was diagnosed with gestational hypertension. at week 25 his kidneys began to shut down and he was put on medication to control the raised blood pressure in the hopes of saving both his kidneys and his babies. at week 30 his pressure began to rise again and his risk of stroke increased significantly. his medication, which is not fully tested on the effects on fetuses, was increased. at week 33 while doing an audible non-stress test he heard the sound of one of the babies' heartbeats slow, then stop, then start again. that's when he received the news that the hypertension, which could quite possibly kill him, might be destroying the babies' shared placenta. he was rushed to the hospital where he tested positive for preeclampsia, a potentially fatal condition brought on by pregnancy. he was then pumped so full of magnesium sulfate that he was barely coherent, and he had two shots of steroids in his hips to help develop the premature babies' lungs. see, this happened because there was a very clear set of options: carry the babies to term and have a nearly guaranteed date with seizures and liver failure, or deliver two premature babies at 33 1/2 weeks in the hopes that they could survive without encountering one of a dozen life threatening conditions that are part and parcel of arriving almost 2 months early. and when they were delivered, he didn't get to hold them. they were taken away to the neonatal intensive care unit and he was kept bedridden for the next 24 hours, unable to see his babies while the preeclampsia was closely monitored. during this time his liver very nearly shut down.

no wait. that didn't happen to my husband. that happened to me. because i'm a woman and between the two of us i'm the only one with the physical ability to carry a baby and nearly die in the process.

so no, you don't carry a whisper of a dream of a fantasy of the responsibility of pregnancy that a woman carries.

and when you preach your noble stance on men sharing the burden of pregnancy i have to roll my eyes. because good for you, buddy. you be noble and stand there while the woman in your life submits her body either willingly or unwillingly to something that will change her forever. you preach your philosophy about life and the dependency of an embryo on its mother's environment and you make it a political or moral thing. because it's easy, for you. you're never ever EVER going to face the decision or the responsibility or the risk or the consequences a woman will face. bearing the emotional and financial burden are great, both parents do that. but only she bears the physical burden.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

WHOOOPLIIISHHHHH!

Fuck'im up Ma!!!! , .

Can I have more chocolate milk?

[cacophony]

now if you'll excuse me, i have to head back upstairs. the one on the left won't stay asleep.

[dubman]

Originally Posted by cacophony

let me clarify my point.

at week 20 of a high risk pregnancy, my husband was diagnosed with gestational hypertension. at week 25 his kidneys began to shut down and he was put on medication to control the raised blood pressure in the hopes of saving both his kidneys and his babies. at week 30 his pressure began to rise again and his risk of stroke increased significantly. his medication, which is not fully tested on the effects on fetuses, was increased. at week 33 while doing an audible non-stress test he heard the sound of one of the babies' heartbeats slow, then stop, then start again. that's when he received the news that the hypertension, which could quite possibly kill him, might be destroying the babies' shared placenta. he was rushed to the hospital where he tested positive for preeclampsia, a potentially fatal condition brought on by pregnancy. he was then pumped so full of magnesium sulfate that he was barely coherent, and he had two shots of steroids in his hips to help develop the premature babies' lungs. see, this happened because there was a very clear set of options: carry the babies to term and have a nearly guaranteed date with seizures and liver failure, or deliver two premature babies at 33 1/2 weeks in the hopes that they could survive without encountering one of a dozen life threatening conditions that are part and parcel of arriving almost 2 months early. and when they were delivered, he didn't get to hold them. they were taken away to the neonatal intensive care unit and he was kept bedridden for the next 24 hours, unable to see his babies while the preeclampsia was closely monitored. during this time his liver very nearly shut down.

no wait. that didn't happen to my husband. that happened to me. because i'm a woman and between the two of us i'm the only one with the physical ability to carry a baby and nearly die in the process.

so no, you don't carry a whisper of a dream of a fantasy of the responsibility of pregnancy that a woman carries.

and when you preach your noble stance on men sharing the burden of pregnancy i have to roll my eyes. because good for you, buddy. you be noble and stand there while the woman in your life submits her body either willingly or unwillingly to something that will change her forever. you preach your philosophy about life and the dependency of an embryo on its mother's environment and you make it a political or moral thing. because it's easy, for you. you're never ever EVER going to face the decision or the responsibility or the risk or the consequences a woman will face. bearing the emotional and financial burden are great, both parents do that. but only she bears the physical burden.

...

was just gonna make fun of the wording
something like 'notion of a concept of a sparkle of a dust mote of a glint of a tremulous utterance of a-"

and so on.

..

then of course about how having kids is way easy for guys like me we just have to concentrate on our gut real hard.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by cacophony

now if you'll excuse me, i have to head back upstairs. the one on the left won't stay asleep.

I warned you.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by cacophony

let me clarify my point.

at week 20 of a high risk pregnancy, my husband was diagnosed with gestational hypertension. at week 25 his kidneys began to shut down and he was put on medication to control the raised blood pressure in the hopes of saving both his kidneys and his babies. at week 30 his pressure began to rise again and his risk of stroke increased significantly. his medication, which is not fully tested on the effects on fetuses, was increased. at week 33 while doing an audible non-stress test he heard the sound of one of the babies' heartbeats slow, then stop, then start again. that's when he received the news that the hypertension, which could quite possibly kill him, might be destroying the babies' shared placenta. he was rushed to the hospital where he tested positive for preeclampsia, a potentially fatal condition brought on by pregnancy. he was then pumped so full of magnesium sulfate that he was barely coherent, and he had two shots of steroids in his hips to help develop the premature babies' lungs. see, this happened because there was a very clear set of options: carry the babies to term and have a nearly guaranteed date with seizures and liver failure, or deliver two premature babies at 33 1/2 weeks in the hopes that they could survive without encountering one of a dozen life threatening conditions that are part and parcel of arriving almost 2 months early. and when they were delivered, he didn't get to hold them. they were taken away to the neonatal intensive care unit and he was kept bedridden for the next 24 hours, unable to see his babies while the preeclampsia was closely monitored. during this time his liver very nearly shut down.

no wait. that didn't happen to my husband. that happened to me. because i'm a woman and between the two of us i'm the only one with the physical ability to carry a baby and nearly die in the process.

so no, you don't carry a whisper of a dream of a fantasy of the responsibility of pregnancy that a woman carries.

and when you preach your noble stance on men sharing the burden of pregnancy i have to roll my eyes. because good for you, buddy. you be noble and stand there while the woman in your life submits her body either willingly or unwillingly to something that will change her forever. you preach your philosophy about life and the dependency of an embryo on its mother's environment and you make it a political or moral thing. because it's easy, for you. you're never ever EVER going to face the decision or the responsibility or the risk or the consequences a woman will face. bearing the emotional and financial burden are great, both parents do that. but only she bears the physical burden.

i didn't mean to upset you by what i said. i'm sorry, and what you say is true; i could never have that much responsibility (and i'm not just saying that because you probably know where i live ). on the same note, i think abortion is permissible if your health is in danger; which it was. if it comes down to preserving a person that's already fully developed or preserving a child that may well die with the mother, realistically, it would be unreasonable to restrict a woman to have an abortion.

my idea of limiting abortion isn't a federally mandated law that says almost all abortions are illegal and having some huge legal counsel decide which abortion is OK.

my idea is more along the lines of a federal law that protects some abortion rights, and only restricting partial-birth abortion, and the states would go on a state-by-state basis. for example, all states would have to respect the right of a mother to have an abortion if her life was in danger, if she was raped, or if a family member raped her, yet from that point on it would be the individual state's decision to make abortion illegal or legal. so a state with people who largely support abortion rights, such as nevada, would have abortion legal. on the other hand, utah would probably make most abortions illegal. at that point i think it would be up to the doctor to decide whether to carry out an abortion or not rather than bring it before a judge and have to go through a legal proceeding. the penalty for performing abortions illegally would be up to the states, but i wouldn't favor any laws punishing women for having an abortion.

once again, i didn't mean for the discussion to get that personal and heartwrenching— you proved your point very well.

the ideal system, to me, would be to make abortion less common, more difficult to have done, and to make other options much more available, but not to entirely ban abortion from the country if it's truly needed in a case. the libertarian in me wouldn't let that happen. i'm upset enough about obama banning flavored cigarettes in the name of stopping teens from smoking.

[Rog]

in the end it should be the woman's choice about abortion, not a judge's, not a politician's, not a priest's, maybe a doctor if there are complications......and not a bryant either.............i guess that makes me pro-choice. an aggregation of a few non-differentiated cells is not a person.