A pregnant perspective

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-12-2007
A pregnant perspective
174
Thu, 12-06-2007 - 1:44pm

I'm in my 17th week of pregnancy. I'd always been pro-choice intellectually, but being pregnant has just sealed the deal for good. I cannot believe that there are people in the world who'd force women to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against their will!

Just FYI, here's what I'm going through in just the first 17 weeks:
Constant nausea - rushing to hang out in the toilet every couple of hours, even if I'm in the middle of a meeting
Breasts hurting all the time
Throwing up twice a day for 12 weeks, and occasionally thereafter
Constant heartburn - yesterday I could not control a loud burp when I was talking to my boss
Taking those blasted horse pills (prenatal vitamins) every day, plus iron supplement
Peeing every hour on the hour
Horrible sciatic pain that makes my legs shaky at completely unexpected times, I've even fallen down twice
Insomnia
Inability to find a comfortable sitting or sleeping position
Pimples AND dry skin at once - my body is just one giant dry flake
Yucky vaginal discharge
Zero libido
Hair loss

And it scares me even to think what I have to look forward to in the next 23 weeks - swollen ankles, gestational diabetes, chloasma, varicose veins, the DELIVERY with vaginal and perianal tears and everything else that goes with it... Not to speak of the PERMANENT effects of pregnancy, which include loss of vaginal elasticity, incontinence, stretch marks, altered body shape, sagging breasts, pouchy tummy, varicose veins, c-section scars... You know? How can anybody think going through this is a woman's "duty" just because she chose to have sex?

To all you pro-lifers out there, I present a scenario and a question:

What if there was a religious group that strongly believed that parents should be compulsorily, legally forced to do whatever it takes to keep their children alive? What if this group had as much political clout as pro-life groups?

Would you support legislation that, say, forces fathers to donate their liver to their biological child, even if they have given up this child for adoption? Livers regenerate fully within 3-6 months after you donate a part of it, after all, and recovery from the surgery takes no more than one month. Would you vote to make organ donation compulsory if it was needed to save a biological child's life?

If so, why aren't you out there campaigning for this legislation right now?? Why do no pro-life groups want THIS to become law? Why force ONLY WOMEN to give up so much of their lives, bodies and careers to give life to unwanted children?

pregnancy

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-06-2007
Thu, 12-06-2007 - 1:55pm

I was PL until I became pregnant and gave birth to my daughter. Going through that made me realize how wrong it would be to force a woman to unwillingly put her body and mind through that, especially when only *she* truly knows what the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy are.

I've heard that being pregnant makes some women switch from PC to PL, but for me it had the complete opposite effect.

melissajune21.jpg picture by ambersspace


&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2004
Thu, 12-06-2007 - 2:50pm

Having been pregnant 6 times and having been through almost everything you listed and worse however I don't think that makes abortion right. Sorry you are going to have to do a lot better than that if you want to change my mind.

EDIT****

as to the rest of your questions I guess you will have to find a fanatic to ask because I do agree with abortion for maternal mortality or severe fetal defects (as in the kind I would also support euthanasia for) Also I am not the type to force anyone to do anything. I have better things to do with my time like try to cut down on demand and increase support networks but if you really feel the need to lump all PLers together and assume we would expect one person to DIE for another to survive and that all we do in condone women for having sex go right ahead but if that is the case I really want nothing more to do with you because I don't appreciate being pre judged based on the position I hold one ONE issue.
Doing so is the equivalent of saying all PCers are pro abortion or baby killers.




Edited 12/6/2007 2:56 pm ET by misa101
Photobucket
*
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-08-2007
Thu, 12-06-2007 - 2:56pm

I was the opposite.

Ella Grayce

Lilypie1st Birthday Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-12-2007
Thu, 12-06-2007 - 2:57pm

Please read the last part of my post: would you vote to legalise forced organ donations from parents to their biological children, even if the children have been given up for adoption?

If so, why isn't anybody trying to pass this law?

If not, what makes the situation different from forced pregnancy and childbirth?

EDIT: You say you're not the type to force anyone to do anything. Do you mean that you are OK with abortion on demand - NOT for maternal health or fetal defects? If not, aren't you in favour of forcing these women to give birth?

EDIT: And please, where have I suggested that PLs are asking women to DIE for another person?




Edited 12/6/2007 3:03 pm ET by wendelinw
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-10-2003
Thu, 12-06-2007 - 2:58pm

ITA! I was pro choice before I ever had kids. But after 6 pregnancies- ALL planned and wanted, 2 miscarriages and 4 c sections I think it is barbaric and Draconian to ever think of forcing a woman to continue gestating and giving birth against her express will and consent when there exists another option- abortion.

Since no one else can assume the short and long term risks in her stead, no one else should be the arbiter of that decision.


.
.
.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2004
Thu, 12-06-2007 - 3:00pm

>>would you vote to legalise forced organ donations from parents to their biological children, even if the children have been given up for adoption?<<

no and what does that have to do with anything??? I also wouldn't expect a woman who was in danger of loosing function of any organ to carry a pregnancy to term.

>>If not, what makes the situation different from forced pregnancy and childbirth?<<

I don't support forced gestation. I just adamantly do not support abortion. I think it is wrong and immoral if done for reasons other than maternal mortality risk or fetal disabilities that would cause life long pain or a short painful life.

So really your question do not apply to me at all.







Photobucket
*
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-08-2007
Thu, 12-06-2007 - 3:03pm

"Please read the last part of my post: would you vote to legalise forced organ donations from parents to their biological children, even if the children have been given up for adoption?"


No because if they have been given up for adoption the parent's have given all rights and responsibilites to another family.

Ella Grayce

Lilypie1st Birthday Ticker
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-12-2007
Thu, 12-06-2007 - 3:10pm

>> no and what does that have to do with anything??? I also wouldn't expect a woman who was in danger of loosing function of any organ to carry a pregnancy to term.

Donating your liver does not mean you are losing the function of your liver. It means you give up a part of your liver to be transplanted into a child. Your liver would fully regenrate within 3-6 months, until which time you are expected to control your food intake and not exercise very hard etc. It's perfectly comparable with what you would expect to happen to your body when you are pregnant - you experience pain, you cannot eat certain foods, you cannot do certain exercises, and your body is under severe stress - except for pregnancy all this happens for a longer time than with liver donation.

>>I don't support forced gestation. I just adamantly do not support abortion. I think it is wrong and immoral if done for reasons other than maternal mortality risk or fetal disabilities that would cause life long pain or a short painful life.

I'm confused. If you do not support forced gestation, and only consider abortion immoral, i.e. if you are in favour of women making their own choices even if you consider their choices to be immoral, and you would not vote to force women to give birth, that makes you PC and not PL. In that case, I specifically did not direct my question to you. I only addressed that question to PLs.

pregnancy
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-12-2007
Thu, 12-06-2007 - 3:20pm

>> No because if they have been given up for adoption the parent's have given all rights and responsibilites to another family. The bio mother did her part (carrying the pregnancy). The rest is in the hands of the adoptive family.

You are singling out only one set of people - pregnant women - to be forced to be responsible for the life they have created. Everybody else is given a free pass, whether or not the life of the child is in danger. How exactly can this view be described as pro-LIFE? Sounds like anti-pregnant-woman to me! Why can't a pregnant woman choose to "give up all rights and responsibilities" of her child? In both instances, the life of a child is at stake, that does not change. Why deny the choice of giving up responsibility to only one group?

>> And as for biological children and parents no I wouldn't say that should be made law, but I would hope all parent's would do that if it came down to life or death for the child.

Double standards again. We all hope that parents would choose the life-preserving option, so why make it compulsory ONLY when it comes to pregnant women? You're blatantly discriminating against one demographic.

>> It's a sacarfice women should make for their children. Our society has taught us that they are not children. They are cells and they are disposable. But really it's your child at a very early stage. And we should have an obligation to protect one another.... protect our mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, and CHILDREN.

Again, I point out to you that you have double standards. I am arguing from the baseline that the unborn are indeed human lives. But NO human life, whether or not you are responsible for creating it, has the right to violate your bodily integrity against your will. Just like you cannot make it a law that fathers with very sick infants should be forced to carry their babies around with them, hooked up to their bodies as life support, in the same way, you should not be forcing women to give birth. WHY is this a sacrifice only women "should" make? In no other case does this obligation legally enforced. Parents are not even legally forced to bankrupt themselves to save their child's life. Many do, but some people choose not to. Why aren't you forcing them to part with their money, which can be earned back, if you're forcing women to allow their children to take over their bodies for a period of time?

pregnancy
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-06-2007
Thu, 12-06-2007 - 3:35pm

" It's a sacarfice women should make for their children. Our society has taught us that they are not children. They are cells and they are disposable. But really it's your child at a very early stage. And we should have an obligation to protect one another.... protect our mothers, fathers, siblings, friends, and CHILDREN. "

What if carrying a pregnancy to term endangers the life of a woman's already born child? Should the embryo be more valuable than the breathing, sentient, able to feel pain child?

melissajune21.jpg picture by ambersspace


&nbs

Pages