Have I no right?

[Ryadn]

You are wrong. If women didn't menstruate, the sperm would have to come in contact with the egg inside the ovaries themselves, resulting in millions of eggs getting fertilised at once.

A woman doesn't have millions of eggs.

Yahoo Answers lied to me!

Anyway, several hundred thousand, if the other site I looked at is to be trusted.

It that were true, a woman would never go into menopause in her 40-50, since she would never run out of eggs. It's more like 400.

Wrong. We DON'T run out of eggs. That isn't what triggers menopause.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

About 40,000, allowing for natural variation.

As for ova being fertilized in the ovary, it does happen. It's called an ectopic pregnancy, it's very painful and dangerous, and the embryo doesn't usually survive.

40,000 at puberty. You're born with about 100,000.

[Tunizcha]

You are wrong. If women didn't menstruate, the sperm would have to come in contact with the egg inside the ovaries themselves, resulting in millions of eggs getting fertilised at once.

A woman doesn't have millions of eggs.

Yahoo Answers lied to me!

Anyway, several hundred thousand, if the other site I looked at is to be trusted.

It that were true, a woman would never go into menopause in her 40-50, since she would never run out of eggs. It's more like 400.

Wrong. We DON'T run out of eggs. That isn't what triggers menopause.

Then I apparently am remembering my previous course in health science wrong.

[New Kereptica]

You are wrong. If women didn't menstruate, the sperm would have to come in contact with the egg inside the ovaries themselves, resulting in millions of eggs getting fertilised at once.

A woman doesn't have millions of eggs.

Yahoo Answers lied to me!

Anyway, several hundred thousand, if the other site I looked at is to be trusted.

It that were true, a woman would never go into menopause in her 40-50, since she would never run out of eggs. It's more like 400.

That's not how menopause works...

[New Kereptica]

You are wrong. If women didn't menstruate, the sperm would have to come in contact with the egg inside the ovaries themselves, resulting in millions of eggs getting fertilised at once.

A woman doesn't have millions of eggs.

Yahoo Answers lied to me!

Anyway, several hundred thousand, if the other site I looked at is to be trusted.

It that were true, a woman would never go into menopause in her 40-50, since she would never run out of eggs. It's more like 400.

Wrong. We DON'T run out of eggs. That isn't what triggers menopause.

Then I apparently am remembering my previous course in health science wrong.

"Menopause occurs due to a complex series of hormonal changes. Associated with the menopause is a decline in the number of functioning eggs within the ovaries. At the time of birth, most females have about 1-3 million eggs, which are gradually lost throughout a woman's life. By the time of a girl's first menstrual period, she has an average of about 400,000 eggs. By the time of menopause, a woman may have fewer than 10,000 eggs. A small percentage of these eggs are lost through normal ovulation (the monthly cycle). Most eggs die off through a process called atresia (the degeneration and subsequent resorption of immature ovarian follicles - fluid filled cysts that contain the eggs). "
-http://www.emedicinehealth.com/menopause/page2_em.htm#Menopause%20Causes

Indeed, you seem to be. A decline in the number of eggs happens alongside menopause, but a total depletion of eggs is not the cause.

[Tunizcha]

You are wrong. If women didn't menstruate, the sperm would have to come in contact with the egg inside the ovaries themselves, resulting in millions of eggs getting fertilised at once.

A woman doesn't have millions of eggs.

Yahoo Answers lied to me!

Anyway, several hundred thousand, if the other site I looked at is to be trusted.

It that were true, a woman would never go into menopause in her 40-50, since she would never run out of eggs. It's more like 400.

Wrong. We DON'T run out of eggs. That isn't what triggers menopause.

Then I apparently am remembering my previous course in health science wrong.

"Menopause occurs due to a complex series of hormonal changes. Associated with the menopause is a decline in the number of functioning eggs within the ovaries. At the time of birth, most females have about 1-3 million eggs, which are gradually lost throughout a woman's life. By the time of a girl's first menstrual period, she has an average of about 400,000 eggs. By the time of menopause, a woman may have fewer than 10,000 eggs. A small percentage of these eggs are lost through normal ovulation (the monthly cycle). Most eggs die off through a process called atresia (the degeneration and subsequent resorption of immature ovarian follicles - fluid filled cysts that contain the eggs). "
-http://www.emedicinehealth.com/menopause/page2_em.htm#Menopause%20Causes

Indeed, you seem to be. A decline in the number of eggs happens alongside menopause, but a total depletion of eggs is not the cause.

Let me find my notes.

[New Kereptica]

Let me find my notes.

http://www.safemenopausesolutions.com/causesmenopause.html
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/menopause/DS00119/DSECTION=causes

Those sites say the same thing. There are others (namely, this one) which contradict them, but the majority appear to support the hormonal cause.

[Tunizcha]

Let me find my notes.

http://www.safemenopausesolutions.com/causesmenopause.html
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/menopause/DS00119/DSECTION=causes

Those sites say the same thing. There are others (namely, this one) which contradict them, but the majority appear to support the hormonal cause.

I know the internets has a plethora of this stuff, but I want to know where I remember 400 from. It was probably something about embryology, but I want to get it right.

[Grave_n_idle]

Let me find my notes.

http://www.safemenopausesolutions.com/causesmenopause.html
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/menopause/DS00119/DSECTION=causes

Those sites say the same thing. There are others (namely, this one) which contradict them, but the majority appear to support the hormonal cause.

I know the internets has a plethora of this stuff, but I want to know where I remember 400 from. It was probably something about embryology, but I want to get it right.

400 may well be a reasonable figure for the number of eggs that actually get released...

[Ryadn]

Let me find my notes.

http://www.safemenopausesolutions.com/causesmenopause.html
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/menopause/DS00119/DSECTION=causes

Those sites say the same thing. There are others (namely, this one) which contradict them, but the majority appear to support the hormonal cause.

I know the internets has a plethora of this stuff, but I want to know where I remember 400 from. It was probably something about embryology, but I want to get it right.

400 may well be a reasonable figure for the number of eggs that actually get released...

I'd say so. If you never bear a child and never fail to ovulate, a woman who begins menarchy at 13 and enters menopause at 48 will release about 450 eggs in her lifetime.

[Dempublicents1]

Killing someone elese because of nine months of dicomfort to yourself is not fair though.

Define "discomfort".

Nausea
Fatigue
Headaches
Mood changes
Vaginal discharge
Vaginal bleeding
Fluid retention
Back and leg pains
Indigestion
Constipation
Skin irritation
Acne
Varicose veins
Urinary tract infections
Diabetes
Pregnancy-induced hypertension
Weight gain (expected to be approximately 25-35 pounds in 9 months)
Depression
Chloasma (a brownish or reddish "mask" that appears in some women during pregnancy)
Hyperpigmentation, particularly of nipples, genital region, and that strip leading down to your pubic area.
Body hair growth, such as on the face, belly, or nipples.
Hemorrhoids
Permanent change to body fat distribution
Stretch marks
Swelling of feet and ankles (may be permanent)
Permanent scarring of vaginal area (assuming vaginal birth) and/or abdomen (either vaginal or cesarean birth)
Incontinence (may be permanent)
Loss of memory/ability to focus (may be permanent)
Tendon/ligament damage (may be permanent)

These are all considered "routine side effects" of pregnancy. I could list the more serious complications that are considered "common," if people would like.

Please do, at your convenience. I'm tired of these anti-choice arguments that required people to not know the first fucking real thing about pregnancy.

Well, here's a bunch of serious "side effects." Some will impact most pregnant women; others will "only" impact one in ten, or one in twenty. Odds which I'm sure all men would be happy to play with their own bodies, eh?

Pelvic floor disorder
Serious tearing of the vagina, rectum, or bladder, leading to heavy bleeding
Uterine inversion (uterus turns inside out)
Allergic reactions (new allergies may sometimes develop during pregnancy, and can be serious)
Bell's Palsy (loss of control of facial muscles)
Carpal tunnel syndrome (yes, it is more common during pregnancy!)
Temporary or permanent injury to back
Ectopic pregnancy
Increased nerve irritation, sometimes serious (typically caused by pregnancy-induced relaxation of ligaments coupled with pregnancy-related weight gain, putting pressure on various areas and pinching nerves)
Pre-eclampsia and eclampsia
Anemia
Hyperemesis gravidarum (morning sickness that does not go away and can be extremely dangerous)
Placenta previa
Embolism
Increased risk of serious infection or STDs (pregnant women are immune-suppressed)
Severe cramping
Tearing of abdominal muscles and/or back muscles
Broken bones (tail bone fracture is extremely common; rib cage and pelvis are also possibilities)
Mitral valve stenosis (most common heart complication)
Depression and/or psychosis
Osteoporosis

I also forgot to list under the 'minor' pregnancy side effects:
Cavities
Shortness of breath
Pica
Bleeding gums
Insomnia
Hair loss
Yeast infections
Bloody nose
Altered sense of taste and smell (may be permanent)


I'm looking for a source for this, but I have notes from a med school course I took that discussed complications due to pregnancy, and the stat they gave us was that approximately 40% of pregnant women experience at least one complication, and about 15% have complications that are potentially life-threatening.

One addition: Diabetes, both gestational and Type II later in life.

[Grave_n_idle]

Killing someone elese because of nine months of dicomfort to yourself is not fair though.

Define "discomfort".

Nausea
Fatigue
Headaches
Mood changes
Vaginal discharge
Vaginal bleeding
Fluid retention
Back and leg pains
Indigestion
Constipation
Skin irritation
Acne
Varicose veins
Urinary tract infections
Diabetes
Pregnancy-induced hypertension
Weight gain (expected to be approximately 25-35 pounds in 9 months)
Depression
Chloasma (a brownish or reddish "mask" that appears in some women during pregnancy)
Hyperpigmentation, particularly of nipples, genital region, and that strip leading down to your pubic area.
Body hair growth, such as on the face, belly, or nipples.
Hemorrhoids
Permanent change to body fat distribution
Stretch marks
Swelling of feet and ankles (may be permanent)
Permanent scarring of vaginal area (assuming vaginal birth) and/or abdomen (either vaginal or cesarean birth)
Incontinence (may be permanent)
Loss of memory/ability to focus (may be permanent)
Tendon/ligament damage (may be permanent)

These are all considered "routine side effects" of pregnancy. I could list the more serious complications that are considered "common," if people would like.

Please do, at your convenience. I'm tired of these anti-choice arguments that required people to not know the first fucking real thing about pregnancy.

Well, here's a bunch of serious "side effects." Some will impact most pregnant women; others will "only" impact one in ten, or one in twenty. Odds which I'm sure all men would be happy to play with their own bodies, eh?

Pelvic floor disorder
Serious tearing of the vagina, rectum, or bladder, leading to heavy bleeding
Uterine inversion (uterus turns inside out)
Allergic reactions (new allergies may sometimes develop during pregnancy, and can be serious)
Bell's Palsy (loss of control of facial muscles)
Carpal tunnel syndrome (yes, it is more common during pregnancy!)
Temporary or permanent injury to back
Ectopic pregnancy
Increased nerve irritation, sometimes serious (typically caused by pregnancy-induced relaxation of ligaments coupled with pregnancy-related weight gain, putting pressure on various areas and pinching nerves)
Pre-eclampsia and eclampsia
Anemia
Hyperemesis gravidarum (morning sickness that does not go away and can be extremely dangerous)
Placenta previa
Embolism
Increased risk of serious infection or STDs (pregnant women are immune-suppressed)
Severe cramping
Tearing of abdominal muscles and/or back muscles
Broken bones (tail bone fracture is extremely common; rib cage and pelvis are also possibilities)
Mitral valve stenosis (most common heart complication)
Depression and/or psychosis
Osteoporosis

I also forgot to list under the 'minor' pregnancy side effects:
Cavities
Shortness of breath
Pica
Bleeding gums
Insomnia
Hair loss
Yeast infections
Bloody nose
Altered sense of taste and smell (may be permanent)


I'm looking for a source for this, but I have notes from a med school course I took that discussed complications due to pregnancy, and the stat they gave us was that approximately 40% of pregnant women experience at least one complication, and about 15% have complications that are potentially life-threatening.

One addition: Diabetes, both gestational and Type II later in life.

For all your collective girly whining, you're ignoring the fact that it's the guy who has to ejaculate.

Girls get it easy.

[Poliwanacraca]

Yes, ha ha, very funny. If you do NOT support criminalizing menstruation and male masturbation, could you explain how a fetus being as much alive as an egg or sperm cell in any way supports your argument?

Firstly and i could be wrong i thought it was stated somewhere in a medical journal that there was really no medical reason for a woman to really have to menstruate ever but could still have a proper pregnancy.
Secondly,how would you go about setting up a government organization for the purpose of checking to see if a guy has masturbated? If we had such a system and it was accurate then sure,why not criminalize masturbation? We could also write up Nocturnal Emission's as Mass Suicides

I probably don't even want to know how you plan to prevent women from menstruating.

As for the question "why not criminalize masturbation," is "because that would be fucking stupid" a sufficient answer, or do you require more detail?

all of what getting the child out of the woman's body entailsDodging the point does not actually make it disappear. You are welcome to hook embryos up to life-support machines, just as you are welcome to have yourself hooked up to them. You are not welcome to demand a woman use her uterus to support that embryo, just as you are not welcome to demand she use it to support you.

I never dodged it,i simply stated that if i was in that bad of health i'd be in a coma or at least in a position where i couldn't speak seeing as the ventilator tube is shoved down my throat,plus having that medical option afforded to a sick human with fully mature organs renders the question of needing a uterus to stay alive let alone needing to look for one pointless.

Which continues to have no bearing on whether or not you have the right to do so. We are not debating the relative uterus-scaling ability of embryos versus coma patients. We are discussing whether anyone, born or unborn, has the right to demand the use of another person's body against that person's will.

And, again, if you think that is all of what getting the child out of the woman's body entails, you should absolutely say that to women who have experienced labor. I continue to suspect that the results would entertain many of us.

I never said that it was "all of what getting the child out of the woman's body entails" i said "it's not the woman who decides when her baby is developed enough and should leave the womb"

You said, and I quote, that babies leave the womb "on there [sic] own." As I have repeatedly explained, they do no such thing. Labor is so called because it involves a great deal of hard work on the part of the woman to get the baby out - significantly more work than it takes to remove the average tapeworm, incidentally.

Incidentally, who the hell do you think "decides when the baby is developed enough and should leave the womb"? Are you somehow under the impression that the fetus is hanging out in utero thinking, "Hmm, am I developed enough yet? Do I want to be born, or should I wait another day or two?"

It is quoted on the same page as your post. It is, in fact, quoted directly above the post of mine you're responding to here. I do not know if it is humanly possible to be so lazy that you couldn't glance up one post.

like i said "i didn't feel like sifting through 50+pages on the off chance that bottle made some sort of list" that and the fact that the person i was replying to or "quoting" was on the first page means i didn't read as far as his post.

How exactly did you read my post without even seeing that there existed other posts on the same page? Are you magic?

And even if you are magic, you know where it is now. It has, in fact, been quoted yet again right above this post as well. Why don't you try reading it before you claim that pregnancy is merely an "inconvenience"?

All people are also significantly more than just environments, which would be what I actually said. Otherwise, you would have no cause to object if someone decided to raise a culture of, say, Yersinia pestis in your lungs. Somehow I suspect that you see yourself as more than simply an environment, and would very strongly support your right not to support a plague colony against your will.

First of all when did children become a "plague"?

When on earth did I say they were? Yersinia pestis is a plague. It is, in point of fact, THE plague. Basic reading comprehension is your friend.

Secondly if it was done without my knowledge and i had no idea what was being done nor understood the consequences,then how could i object? A baby doesn't have any of that so it can't, but if it could understand do you think it'd be okay with it's own termination? Are you okay with the thought of your own termination?

"A block of wood doesn't have consciousness or self-awareness, but IF IT DID, do you think it would object to you sawing it up to make a table, huh?"

Do you really not see how that's a dumb question? If I'd been aborted, I quite definitely wouldn't mind, because there would never have been any me to do the minding.

[Dempublicents1]

If removed from an oxygen rich environment and placed in one where you couldn't breath . . . . . 200 feet under the Ocean sounds about right . . . . . . . you'd cease to function on a minimal level yourself without the right type of equipment. If placing a fetus into an environment it cannot survive because it has yet to develop the right equipment for that environment (lungs) isn't considered "murder" then tossing you into the Ocean immobilized, with weights, and no SCUBA tank shouldn't get me in trouble either.

If someone was using your organs for survival against your will and the only way you could stop that would be to drown them, you'd have a valid comparison. And I'd say you'd have every right to do so.

Sweet sugarcoated Jesusdisks.

I read this wrong at first and it invoked quite a blasphemous mental image.

Actually the point is moot because we're not talking about a pregnancy that spontaneously aborted, or one which never happened because implantation never occured, but, rather, one that, if there are no fuck-ups and no abortion, will result in babby.

This cannot possibly be determined unless the pregnancy continues to term. Chances are high that many aborted embryos would never have become babby even if the woman had chosen to carry to term. So what we're talking about is embryos that might possibly maybe become babby if luck works out that way.

Secondly if it was done without my knowledge and i had no idea what was being done nor understood the consequences,then how could i object? A baby doesn't have any of that so it can't, but if it could understand do you think it'd be okay with it's own termination? Are you okay with the thought of your own termination?

Assume I was suddenly an embryo again, but somehow retained all the knowledge and emotion I currently have. Personally, I would rather be aborted than have my mother forced to be used as an incubator against her will.

I pointed it out earlier in the thread, but the number of people who would see their own mothers forced to be incubators disturbs me.

[Poliwanacraca]

Sweet sugarcoated Jesusdisks.

I read this wrong at first and it invoked quite a blasphemous mental image.

I didn't even realize that very blasphemous mental image wasn't what GnI said until you pointed it out. I kinda liked it better the blasphemous way - but then, I always did like Jewish boys.

[Grave_n_idle]

Sweet sugarcoated Jesusdisks.

I read this wrong at first and it invoked quite a blasphemous mental image.

I didn't even realize that very blasphemous mental image wasn't what GnI said until you pointed it out. I kinda liked it better the blasphemous way - but then, I always did like Jewish boys.

I'm going back to edit it, now.

My original inspiration was an Eddie Izzard quote, but I think I like this version better.

[Grave_n_idle]

I probably don't even want to know how you plan to prevent women from menstruating.

A complicated system of corks, string, and chewing gum.

I could tell you more, but you don't want to hear it.

[Poliwanacraca]

I probably don't even want to know how you plan to prevent women from menstruating.

A complicated system of corks, string, and chewing gum.

I could tell you more, but you don't want to hear it.

...is it at least sugar-free chewing gum? Giving us all yeast infections on top of somehow plugging our vajayjays just seems needlessly cruel.

[Dyakovo]

I probably don't even want to know how you plan to prevent women from menstruating.

A complicated system of corks, string, and chewing gum.

I could tell you more, but you don't want to hear it.

...is it at least sugar-free chewing gum? Giving us all yeast infections on top of somehow plugging our vajayjays just seems needlessly cruel.

No such thing...

[Grave_n_idle]

I probably don't even want to know how you plan to prevent women from menstruating.

A complicated system of corks, string, and chewing gum.

I could tell you more, but you don't want to hear it.

...is it at least sugar-free chewing gum? Giving us all yeast infections on top of somehow plugging our vajayjays just seems needlessly cruel.

Sorry, if you didn't want yeast infections, you shouldn't have been a girl. It's sickening how you people are always trying to get out of the consequences of your choices.

Even when those choices aren't actually choices, or were made by someone else.

Take some responsibility, dammit.

[Ashmoria]

I probably don't even want to know how you plan to prevent women from menstruating.

A complicated system of corks, string, and chewing gum.

I could tell you more, but you don't want to hear it.

...is it at least sugar-free chewing gum? Giving us all yeast infections on top of somehow plugging our vajayjays just seems needlessly cruel.

they have that pill system now where you menstruate 3 or 4 times a year. when that came out, there was a discussion about how women dont NEED to menstruate at all. i figure that in 5 years we'll find out that it causes some horrible disease...

or she could just be constantly pregnant. which has its own severe health consequences.

[Callisdrun]

As a human being, I have the right (at least in my country), to refuse to donate my blood, organs, tissues, or life to any other being.

I have the right to refuse this even if I not longer need them (am dead).

I have the right to refuse them if the being in question is my wife, parent, best friend, and even my own child.

I have the right to refuse them even if the need was caused by my own negligence (a car accident for example).

I have the right to refuse even when that negligence is criminal (drunk driving).

And most importantly, I have that right even when I intentionally cause the damage that creates the necessity in a purposeful criminal act (I.E. If I shot you).

So the answer to your question is no, you don't have any "right to life" which trumps another person's right to ownership of their own body. But don't feel bad...NOBODY has that right.

This summarizes my opinion as well. No one has a right to someone else's organs. So even if a fetus did count as a full human being (which in my opinion it does not... I don't know about the rest of you, but I celebrate the day I was BORN as the beginning of my life), it still wouldn't have a right to use the mother's organs. It is a privilege, which can be taken away at any time by the owner of those organs (the woman).

I've proposed this trade before.

I'll agree that a woman can be forced, against her wishes, to endure pregnancy and childbirth...provided that the body of the biological father becomes property of the woman for as long as she continues to experience physiological effects resulting from the pregnancy. Since she's being forced, against her wishes, to donate her body, it's only fair that she be provided with a body in trade. And it wouldn't be fair to donate the child's body, after all, since it didn't do anything to deserve that.

Rather, it was the biological father who made the choice to drop his pants (the slut), so he's the one who should be expected to bear the natural consequences of his choice (i.e. being forced against his wishes to donate his body to somebody else, despite the fact that there is absolutely no REAL natural reason why this would have to occur.)

Seems about as fair as forcing women to endure nine months of unwanted pregnancy. Basically the same thing. But given this as the other fair arrangement, abortion certainly seems to be a better, more feasible option.

[The Isle of Biscay]

I am the child of a rape victim. Yeah, the child of the rapist and my mom. I would have been aborted if my mom would've had access to that.

Now, for all you people out there who are "pro-women's choice," have I no right to life? I could've died and you'd just assume that my life for my mother's comfort was a more than fair trade. I am very successful today and would like to know why in the United States eagle eggs are better protected than our children. I would like to know how you think it's okay to kill something that has a heartbeat, a hand, a face, and is LIVING and GROWING inside of someone? This is MURDER.

Have I no right to life?

Why is this trade considered so equal? A life and comfort are NOT EQUAL!

At the point of fertilisation, it takes about 22 hours for the genetic materials from the sperm and the egg to merge, a stage called syngamy (The is not even a whole organism before this point).

According to many Neurologists, a fetus does not exihibit continuous brain wave activity until 32 weeks from point of conception. Other Neurologists are "concerned" that that a fetus may feel pain as young as 20 weeks.

Interestingly though, MOST abortions take place before 12 weeks! At this stage of development, the human conciousness does not even exist! The same as if the fetus was not even there. If anyone is going to argue that a fetus younger than 12 weeks is a human being, then they would ALSO have to prove that a sperm and an ova are also human beings, as the only difference is the merging of the genetic material.

[Ashmoria]

I am the child of a rape victim. Yeah, the child of the rapist and my mom. I would have been aborted if my mom would've had access to that.

Now, for all you people out there who are "pro-women's choice," have I no right to life? I could've died and you'd just assume that my life for my mother's comfort was a more than fair trade. I am very successful today and would like to know why in the United States eagle eggs are better protected than our children. I would like to know how you think it's okay to kill something that has a heartbeat, a hand, a face, and is LIVING and GROWING inside of someone? This is MURDER.

Have I no right to life?

Why is this trade considered so equal? A life and comfort are NOT EQUAL!

At the point of fertilisation, it takes about 22 hours for the genetic materials from the sperm and the egg to merge, a stage called syngamy (The is not even a whole organism before this point).

According to many Neurologists, a fetus does not exihibit continuous brain wave activity until 32 weeks from point of conception. Other Neurologists are "concerned" that that a fetus may feel pain as young as 20 weeks.

Interestingly though, MOST abortions take place before 12 weeks! At this stage of development, the human conciousness does not even exist! The same as if the fetus was not even there. If anyone is going to argue that a fetus younger than 12 weeks is a human being, then they would ALSO have to prove that a sperm and an ova are also human beings, as the only difference is the merging of the genetic material.

aye

abortions that occur after 20 weeks are truly tragedies where something has gong wrong with the fetus or the pregnancy. its not done lightly or for "birth control"

[Lulziland]

I am the child of a rape victim. Yeah, the child of the rapist and my mom. I would have been aborted if my mom would've had access to that.

Now, for all you people out there who are "pro-women's choice," have I no right to life? I could've died and you'd just assume that my life for my mother's comfort was a more than fair trade. I am very successful today and would like to know why in the United States eagle eggs are better protected than our children. I would like to know how you think it's okay to kill something that has a heartbeat, a hand, a face, and is LIVING and GROWING inside of someone? This is MURDER.

Have I no right to life?

Why is this trade considered so equal? A life and comfort are NOT EQUAL!

Agree wholeheartedly.