I do apologize for making it seem that I thought that was all that pregnancy entailed. I was merely stating that that would be all that would necessarily have to change in the lifestyle of the mother for the fetus to be carried to term. However, now that I think about it, that wouldn't necessarily have to change if the mother was already eating more than she needed.InnerBrat wrote:I take the noise my brain made on reading this as fitting punishment for me wandering in here so unwittingly.bazymew wrote:To interfere in the process would be to kill the fetus. For the mother to continue her normal life except to take more sustenance (which she would do because her body would tell her she is hungry or thirsty) would not be interference with the normal process.
Pregnancy does not work like that, Bazymew. It's not a case of eating and drinking a lot while waiting for a baby to appear, though I do so wish it were. It's an invasive, damaging, parasitic process that has a significant effect on health, comfort and lifestyle. This is one of the reasons some people think they should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to go through it or not.
I do realize that there would have to be numerous other changes usually, though they would be different for various women. I would like to make it clear that I do believe in the woman's right to choose to have an abortion or not, because it seems to be the right thing from the evidence I have gathered so far.
That being said, I was under the impression that pregnancy was not necessarily damaging, but just in most cases, right?