gadgetlady

Yup. I was slipped with severe scarring. I converted to gastric bypass and lost 90 lbs in a year. I'm basically at goal. Years and $ wasted with the band, and virtually instant success and a much better lifestyle with the bypass.

Can anyone tell me what the symptoms of both slippage and erosion are? I'm having some weird things going on. Last night I took a bunch of pills (my bad; I should have taken liquid) because I injured my rotator cuff from swimming (grrr). I had trouble all night getting the pills down, and woke up at about 4am with pain in my back and chest which felt like they were still stuck. My back still hurts. I don't know if this is just irritation or something more. So if anyone can give me a brief synopsis of the symptoms of both, I'd appreciate it. TIA!

I think I need to unsubscribe from this thread! I had my band removed 1.5 years ago. Only lost 25 lbs in 3.5 years with the darn thing, and then it slipped. Converted to bypass and I'm down over 90 lbs and loving it. The band was a waste of time and money for me.

Finally, this barbaric practice can end!!!!

Sorry -- meant to say SOME -- that's what I get for posting and running, which is what I'm also doing now. Bye!

No, that's not my argument at all. I fully understand that some women are raped. Lots of things happen to us in life that are not our will and leave us without a choice. "Once a woman develops breast cancer, she is either a cancer victim or a cancer survivor; she has no other choice" -- that statement doesn't require her consent to the cancer. My point is that once a baby is conceived, there is no reversing the fact that the baby exists. The parents are parents, regardless of whether they want to be or not. If they opt for the fate of their child to be death, then they are parents of a dead child. They can't reverse the fact that they are parents. Every pregnant woman already has a baby. Some babies die in utero. All babies die at a young age. All people die eventually. That doesn't negate the fact that they were ever alive! We don't -- or shouldn't -- determine whether someone lives or dies based on what we believe their destiny might be. That being said, I don't only focus and sympathize with the baby, even though he or she is 100% defenseless and a victim; I am also fully sympathetic with the mother. I recognize her plight and believe in supporting her emotionally, physically, and financially. Women deserve better than being told they can, should, or must kill their babies to lead full lives. Causing others' deaths never advances our lives in any meaningful or positive way.

Yes, if it is a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), it is natural, just like a natural death. You know as well as I that that has nothing to do with the discussion we're having here. That's what laws are for. Protecting the defenseless. I would much rather people not kill people for any reason. I don't think adoption is the answer for everyone. I just know taking the life of another human being to solve a problem is not ever a good answer.

Uh, yes, there is a familial connection and the children are the children of their parents. But that doesn't indicate ownership. My husband is my husband, he belongs to me, but I don't have the right to kill him. The choice of the would-be parents comes before the pregnancy. Once the mother is pregnant, they have become parents whether they like it or not. It is no longer a choice. The only choice at that point is a live baby or a dead baby. LOL. There is nothing "natural" about elective abortion. It is its own intervention, a violent surgical procedure that ends a life that would otherwise naturally eventually become an adult.

It's unfortunate because many people wish that a mother's body were not inconvenienced for 9 months. I don't find it unfortunate -- I find it incredible -- but it's one of the facts of life that is unfortunate for those who don't want to be pregnant. There is no such thing as a perfect world. But we shouldn't kill people when we find circumstances to not be what we'd like them to be. Absolutely right. Mothers should not be making death decisions for other people -- in this case, their offspring.

What you're delusional about is my potential participation in such a thing. Whatever.

Unfortunately, our reproductive system dictates that the place a new baby gets to grow is within a mother's womb. I know a lot of people think that's not fair or it's oppressive or whatever, but it is what it is. Just because the baby is growing in the mother's womb doesn't make it not a baby and it doesn't make it something we can own and kill at will.

A fetus is most definitely a person. It is a very young person, but "fetus" is not a term that defines something other than a human being in the very early stage of pre-born life. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I have no concern over whether people have sex or what they do for birth control or whether they want to sterilize themselves or anything else along those lines. My concern is, once a human being is in existence, that we protect that human being from being killed by other human beings. So I am wholly opposed to killing children based on gender, as well as killing them based on pretty much any other reason you can come up with.

That says it all. We can't own other people. When we do, we get to do such things as kill, enslave, and oppress them. It fosters the very worst part of human nature to believe and treat others as objects and possessions. Yes and no. If you abuse or try to kill your child at any point during his or her post-uterine life, the government will intervene, and rightfully so, to protect the basic rights of that child. It is only right to extend those basic rights to the beginning of life. Delusional much?

Being a parent doesn't give you the right to kill your child. Born or unborn. We don't own other people. Parents don't own their children. They are caretakers for their children. I don't want to "control the destiny of" another living person. I simply want to ensure that everyone's right to live is protected by law. Beyond that, their destiny is their destiny.

rodriguezequal, I just wanted to tell you I have been at a loss for words since you started posting about this last night. I know you're angry and frustrated and a range of other emotions. You have been and are in my prayers. I have a few book resources for getting through things when God doesn't make sense -- if you're interested, let me know.

The simple fact is that the baby is not the mother's body. He or she is a separate person. He or she resides in the mother's body, but that doesn't make him or her a body part. Women don't have, for 9-month increments at various stages in their lives, two hearts, two brains, two sets of different DNA, two circulatory systems, two possibly different blood types, four arms, four legs, and occasionally a set of male genitalia. Unfortunately for women who don't want to be mothers, the baby resides in the mother's body and is on life support, as it were, for a period of time. The mother isn't making the choice to electively reduce her breast size, get banded, or remove her gall bladder. When she chooses to abort, she is choosing to take the life of another person. That's not entirely true. There are many things you can't legally do to your own body. Prostitute yourself (in most places), kill yourself (in most places), cut off your limbs at whim (you'd be institutionalized for trying), etc. I am quite serious. While religious people may get involved in the movement, as religious people got involved in slavery and civil rights (Martin Luther King, Jr. was a reverend, after all -- -AND pro-life!!!), that does not make it a religious issue.

Not everyone agrees. Some say the baby is in the process of becoming a human being. Some say the baby isn't fully human. Some say the baby won't be fully human until he or she is delivered and separated from the mother's body. Some say the baby is a potential human being. A lot of euphemisms are used to disguise the fact that the baby is a living, growing human being, an individual distinct from the mother with separate DNA and circulatory system, on life-support as it were, but still a unique individual. This really and truly is the crux of the matter, and it was the crux of the matter in 1973 as well. Blackmun said so in the Roe v Wade majority opinion -- If the "suggestion of personhood is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment." In 1973 we didn't fully understand what goes on in the womb; a lot of it was still a mystery. Now we do know, and the unborn baby is clearly a person. This is why many states are pushing forward with personhood amendments. As an aside, I've always been amused by the argument that most pro-lifers are men and they just want to subjugate women. A Rasmussen study released yesterday was the 4th study to confirm that the majority in America has swung to the pro-life side, but what is also interesting is that women are more pro-life than men by a full 13 percentage points (64% to 51%).

All of the links claim to know (not just "mine"). Just a reminder here that what we do not know isn't whether the baby is a human being, but when the baby feels pain. And again, it doesn't matter. The ability to feel pain does not make one a human being. Uh, no. It's because not everyone believes the same things about religion, and the presence or absence of a soul is inconsequential to the argument of whether it's ok to take another human being's life. Pro-lifers don't use doctored pictures. They don't need to. Pictures of pre-born babies are readily available in all sorts of literature, and pictures of aborted babies speak for themselves. I wasn't pushed against any wall; I'm the one that pointed out that we don't know. We don't know when the baby feels pain. What we do know is the baby is a human being. Nope. I don't believe it's ever viable or reasonable to take another person's life without their consent. Muslims believe it's ok for husbands to beat their wives. It's their interpretation of their religion. Is this a matter of personal choice as well? Personal choice ends where another person's body begins.

Just responding to your correction of what I said; trying to present the facts, not slay you.

Real Alternatives - free, caring and completely confidential pregnancy support services. Fetal development: What happens during the first trimester? - MayoClinic.com Pre-Natal Information Pregnancy Forum - Fetal Heart Rate The heart begins to beat at 18-21 days after conception, 3 weeks fetal, 5 weeks gestational.

The heart starts beating at 21 days after conception, or roughly a week after the mother's first missed period. That's usually about the time a mother finds out she's pregnant.

Conception doesn't happen on the first date of the mother's last period. She releases the egg and is fertile approximately 14 days into her cycle, at which time conception, if it is going to happen, takes place. So when someone measures pregnancy from the first date of your last period, they're not measuring from Day 1 of the baby's life. They're pre-dating the baby's life by 2 weeks. Does that make sense?

I have found the websites to be about 50/50 on gestational vs. fetal age. So when you say 5 weeks you're talking about 3 weeks fetal age?

Are you talking gestational age or fetal age? Because there is a difference of approximately 2 weeks. One is measured from conception and the other is measured from the first date of the mother's last period.

I couldn't get to photos from there -- maybe a Firefox issue? I don't know. And I don't know if we're talking 5 weeks gestational or fetal. But at 5 weeks, the baby is roughly the size of a raisin.