Pregnant providers...

To each their own, I agree, her body!
One poster mentioned that there are some crazy guys out there. I have experienced a pretty crazy woman who was pregnant. I will let you guess who it is, and she is not a provider except to me, but not very often.

**milk engorged breasts and lactating, i love breast milk** who want to give me some?

What do you think about pregnant providers, should they take a break or keep providing? If so what turns some men on about pregnancy? Originally Posted by Ciarra Goods

As long as I'm still trying to check "getting some milk from a lactating Mom" off my bucket list I'll recuse myself from uttering my opinion.

Her body, her choice.

If I were not sterile and got pregnant would I keep providing? Probably not. But who am I to come down on someone who does? Originally Posted by Missy Mariposa

If an unborn person is not a person prior to birth then you are absolutely correct. If on the other hand, the unborn person is a person, then it's not as cut and dry as "her body, her choice." Determining which case is true is fundamentally critical to the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. If a fetus is nothing more than a parasitic conglomeration of tissue, then a woman's liberty to choose what to do with her body MUST be guaranteed. If on the other hand, a person becomes a person prior to birth, that person has the same fundamental right to life that the rest of us who have had the good fortune of being born have. I guess, not knowing the motivation of the OP concerning why she asked the question leaves us all a little too uninformed to properly answer her question.

Pregnancy is incredibly sexy, and a willing pregnant provider is a rare and wonderful find. A woman is at her most feminine and beautiful state when she is pregnant.

I'd fuck her good.

If an unborn person is not a person prior to birth then you are absolutely correct. If on the other hand, the unborn person is a person, then it's not as cut and dry as "her body, her choice." Determining which case is true is fundamentally critical to the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. If a fetus is nothing more than a parasitic conglomeration of tissue, then a woman's liberty to choose what to do with her body MUST be guaranteed. If on the other hand, a person becomes a person prior to birth, that person has the same fundamental right to life that the rest of us who have had the good fortune of being born have. Originally Posted by johnnylongcaulking

Very true. But as of today, 25 Mar 2012, a fetus is not legally a person until it exits the woman and can live on its own. So that's the standpoint I take. If a fetus legally becomes a person before that, at some point in time, my view will change.

interesting question.... I would probably not see someone " in the family way", for a 1st time visit.... that said if one of my favs were to find themselves "expecting" and wanted / needed to see me, if only for the moola aspect, I would have to give it a lot of thought - then again, I only hang with a very few trusted friends, so maybe my perspective is not so objective....

Very true. But as of today, 25 Mar 2012, a fetus is not legally a person until it exits the woman and can live on its own. So that's the standpoint I take. If a fetus legally becomes a person before that, at some point in time, my view will change. Originally Posted by Missy Mariposa

And a little over 150 years ago, a black person wasn't "legally" a person either. Just because the "law" doesn't recognize the truth of a matter, doesn't negate the truth of the matter. Sorry, your argument thus far is void of any real substance. It's akin to the parental justification so often used, "Because I said so."

Actually, yes they were - they were 3/5ths of a person. Still more than a fetus. But you're comparing already born people independent of anyone else to a fetus inside of someone's uterus. Apples and oranges.

A fetus cannot live without the woman's body until just past 24 weeks. It lives as a parasite, leeching off of her systems. If she doesn't get enough calcium, it steels from HER bones. So yes, HER body HER choice. Last time I checked parasites don't have rights over their host in any other case. If a woman wants to provide with a fetus inside, HER body and HER choice. The parasite inside has no say* what she does. Whether it's morally right or not is up to her and only her.

*That's not to say I hate babies or that they're parasites. On the contrary, I love already born children. I have no feelings about the unborn other than it's not my business what goes on inside of an already born person's uterus and the unborn fall in that category.

So let’s look at your points individually.

Three-Fifths Compromise: This compromise was about apportioning representatives to the House of Representatives based on census results. Had this compromise not been reached, the South wouldn’t have had a significant voice in the House of Representatives and would have likely attempted to cede from the Union much earlier than they did. Three-Fifths compromise was NOT about stating that black people were people. It was stating that without counting them in some manner, the South would not have remained with the Union for as long as they did. Finally, by law, negroes were not people. They were property. Finally, if you believe 3/5ths of a person is the same as a whole person, let me pay you 3/5ths of a C-bill for every C-bill you charge for your services. I guarantee you won't see them as the same thing. They inherently have different values by the very use of the term 3/5ths. This is the same argument that Pro-Choice advocates (including yourself) make which me to the next point.

Parasites are living organisms. They are the species they are. A fetus is genetically a homosapien in an early stage of its development. Babies are parasites in that they absolutely MUST have outside assistance to survive for more than a couple to a few days…same as a fetus. This doesn’t negate the species of the creature. You’re familiar with butterflies and cocoons. The larval stage of a Monarch Butterfly is still a Monarch Butterfly. It is alive and exhibits all the signs of life as defined by our vary own scientific definitions of life. Google/wiki it for yourself. The fact that a fetus is dependent upon another person for its survival is not a logical explanation of why a fetus is not a person. There are lots of BORN people who depend on other people for their survival, elderly, physically infirmed, mentally infirmed, etc…

You still haven’t demonstrated that a fetus isn’t a person. You’ve only demonstrated that it is genetically a homo-sapien that depends upon another homo-sapien for its survival.

Now that we’ve derailed this thread completely, I will stop posting here. If you want to discuss this further, feel free to start another thread or a PM. Since this is a very divisive issue, I won’t respond further in public on this thread unless specifically invited to by the OP. Good evening.

So let’s look at your points individually.

Three-Fifths Compromise: This compromise was about apportioning representatives to the House of Representatives based on census results. Had this compromise not been reached, the South wouldn’t have had a significant voice in the House of Representatives and would have likely attempted to cede from the Union much earlier than they did. Three-Fifths compromise was NOT about stating that black people were people. It was stating that without counting them in some manner, the South would not have remained with the Union for as long as they did. Finally, by law, negroes were not people. They were property. Finally, if you believe 3/5ths of a person is the same as a whole person, let me pay you 3/5ths of a C-bill for every C-bill you charge for your services. I guarantee you won't see them as the same thing. They inherently have different values by the very use of the term 3/5ths. This is the same argument that Pro-Choice advocates (including yourself) make which me to the next point.

Parasites are living organisms. They are the species they are. A fetus is genetically a homosapien in an early stage of its development. Babies are parasites in that they absolutely MUST have outside assistance to survive for more than a couple to a few days…same as a fetus. This doesn’t negate the species of the creature. You’re familiar with butterflies and cocoons. The larval stage of a Monarch Butterfly is still a Monarch Butterfly. It is alive and exhibits all the signs of life as defined by our vary own scientific definitions of life. Google/wiki it for yourself. The fact that a fetus is dependent upon another person for its survival is not a logical explanation of why a fetus is not a person. There are lots of BORN people who depend on other people for their survival, elderly, physically infirmed, mentally infirmed, etc…

You still haven’t demonstrated that a fetus isn’t a person. You’ve only demonstrated that it is genetically a homo-sapien that depends upon another homo-sapien for its survival.

Now that we’ve derailed this thread completely, I will stop posting here. If you want to discuss this further, feel free to start another thread or a PM. Since this is a very divisive issue, I won’t respond further in public on this thread unless specifically invited to by the OP. Good evening. Originally Posted by johnnylongcaulking

Free blacks were allowed to vote in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut in 1776.

----3/5s did not apply to Native Americans.

I have never had sex with a pregnant woman, but damn do I want to! I've had sex with a couple ladies a few months after the pregnancy, and damn was that fun, too!

To all the people making mention of diseases and the dangers... Isn't it highly preached to be SAFESAFESAFE in this business? Do you think that logic just flies out the window when a woman gets pregnant? It's still SAFESAFESAFE after she's pregnant and chooses to provide, amiright?

I didn't find pregnant women sexy until my girl got pregnant with my child. After that I had a much higher respect for the life cycle and what women go through.

However, I wouldn't see a pregnant provider, just a personal preferences.

To each there own but!!!!!! Yuk.............