Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesby05
Yep - at six weeks' gestation is when the heart usually begins to beat. I used to get confused by the `already two weeks pregnant' thing as well, but actually pregnancy in medical terms is counted by your menstrual cycle, because it is from the first day of your period that a new cycle begins, and if you fall pregnant during that cycle, then that's where they count it from. Menstruation and ovulation are clear necessities to be able to become pregnant, and as most women don't know their date of conception, they take it from the first date of the LMP, which is much more accurate. Women ovulate roughly two weeks after the first day of their last menstrual period (or LMP) so they are always two weeks `less' pregnant than the doctor tells them.
Clear as mud, huh? Lol.
|
More like complicated, lol. I wonder if this means that when you give birth at nine months, you'd actually be only eight and half months gone, if you take away that extra two weeks...then again, maybe you give birth at nine and a half months, making you nine months gone.
See? Confusing as hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesby05
No, but in the context of a foetus, it absolutely does. Because if you do an ultrasound on a foetus after six weeks and the heart is not beating, it's dead - it's not going to get any further. I had an ultrasound at five weeks and there was nothing there - a little tiny jelly bean called a yolk sac, and that was it. I had another one a week later and there was a little tadpole in that jelly bean (foetal pole) and a heart that was beating at 146 beats per minute. At that point, my foetus was called a `live foetus'. Medically, that's when life starts, and I'm inclined to agree.
|
I admit I find it amazing that a heart no bigger than a pin prick could be beating so fast, doing all the work our hearts, which are about 100 times bigger, also do.
I guess I can agree that life begins at this point, because I have actually thought this for years. Going back to my pro life days, I was of the belief that life begins at conception, and now, being pro choice, I haven't been able to change my opinion on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesby05
It can - but many don't. If you breastfeed, the baby utterly relies on the mother's nutrients - even more so than when in utero. Of course, not everyone breastfeeds, but without some form of feeding and nutrition the baby will die. So in fact without intervention a baby is LESS likely to survive once it's born than a foetus which will pretty much survive anything in utero.
|
Good point, I'll agree with you here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesby05
Good question. Before I was pregnant, I would have been less sure on that. Now that I have seen her (it's a girl), felt her, I get her cycles, she even has moods that I can discern and I still have three months to go - no, once she's born she'll be as much of a life as she is now. The only difference is that I'll be able to see her.
|
She may be the same life as she is now, but if she was born today, she would less of a chance of survival than she would if she born at full term. She'd still be the same life when she's born, she'll just be a stronger life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesby05
I would never see a woman be forced to be pregnant against her will. It's an incredibly profound and amazing experience BUT is also very trying, exhausting, taxing and frightening. You become a vessel, you really do. Depending on your situation in life, that could be a great or an awful thing.
|
I agree, which is why I believe abortion should be an option for those women without the income to raise a child, or the will. I would prefer a woman abort a baby who she cannot care for, or is not willing to care for, rather than bring it into the world, and hand it over for someone else to take care of. I don't really think this is fair, it's like handing over your responsibilities because you can't be bothered.
Not sure if you'd agree with this, but it's just the way I see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesby05
I am fortunate enough to be in good health, have a good income and somewhere to live and food to eat, a partner who loves and cares for me and has been involved intimately in my pregnancy every step of the way, who is supportive and kind, an employer who values me and has looked after me very carefully, friends and family and security. And pregnancy is STILL hard. But with all of those things to help the incredible profoundness of it outweighs any of the difficulties - which have at times felt overwhelming.
|
I would also say that the most important things a woman needs when pregnant is the support of family and friends. Without these, she'd probably find herself daunted at the huge task ahead of her - raising a child, possibly alone.
It would be hard to have your partner walk out on you, because it'd be like all the responsibility rests on your shoulders. I'd stress out, so I can understand why some women would consider abortion when their partners leave them, although I do believe there are worse things than being a single parent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesby05
I am one of few women who can claim such wonderful adjuncts to my pregnancy. For many women they do not have the things I have - externally - to help them through it. It's a hard time. Even for the women who breeze through pregnancy physically, it's still pretty hard. If my pregnancy was any harder I would be coping a lot less well - and for many women they have a MUCH harder time than I do. Your support network and situation in life is what makes the difference, I believe.
|
I agree with you here, too. The support from family and friends is crucial, but what of women who have none of this? Could a woman, if she was strong enough, be able to cope with pregnancy, and raising a child, without the external support? I'm not sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesby05
So I am pro-choice for those reasons. I feel that the mother's life in some very few, select cases should be considered before that of the child. I feel she has that right. But I am not universally pro-choice and I am certainly far less pro-choice than I was before I fell pregnant.
|
I don't know if my views will change when and if I fall pregnant. I don't think I'd become pro life again, but I will allow the possiblity that my opinions on some things may change. I haven't experienced pregnany yet, so I can't say for sure that my views wouldn't change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chesby05
Well, when you find out you are pregnant you obviously change your lifestyle a little so that you are getting the right nutrients. In many cases, that just means taking a tablet each day. I take Elevit. I can't think of a situation when taking vitamin supplements could be considered dangerous.
|
I can't think of a situation where taking vitamin supplements would be dangerous eithor, just allowing for the possiblity that it would be.
I mean, I'm anemic, so I have very low Iron levels. I wonder what effect a pregnancy would have on my body if I happened to be pregnant right now - would I feel more drained than I already do, and would my Iron supplements be healthy for the baby? I don't know. I imagine they would be, but at the same time, what if?
Changing your lifestyle wouldn't be too hard to do, especially since you have the baby to worry about.
Do you have to eat any different kinds of foods? More fruit and vegetables, for example? Any foods that are bad for the baby?
__________________
The woman in my avatar is Cristina Scabbia and the woman in my profile picture is Tarja Turunen
Sun flames and moons glow, timeless the tides will flow, what will I face, what will be mine, fortune and fate the other side...
Post of the week:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno
You just don't relate to my sense of humor. How about this. Gosh darn funny man living in a whale. doncha know that gawd could do that I betcha he could. wink wink.
|
Last edited by Makedde; 04-19-2008 at 08:27 PM.
|