An obstetrician's opinion

[Gondwanaland]

I think she is just so determined to be right that she will not admit when she is proven wrong. Over and over again.

Or, she could be this stupid.

Or both. Both is good.

Sadly this is how it goes every time with her. She is so arrogant and pompous and self-righteous that she cannot stand the idea of being wrong, so she will dig and dig and dig and distract and distract and distract, instead of simply admitting she was wrong about something.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Let's skip your dishonest tactics and just get back to my point.....

What this abortion advocate would see as "morally necessary pregnancy terminations" is probably on a par with what your country's most infamous leader would see as "morally necessary human terminations".

Oh well done! You have managed to introduce Godwin's Law!

[Cow Poke]

Or both. Both is good.

Sadly this is how it goes every time with her. She is so arrogant and pompous and self-righteous that she cannot stand the idea of being wrong, so she will dig and dig and dig and distract and distract and distract, instead of simply admitting she was wrong about something.

I wonder if she ever sobers up and reads what she typed, and thinks, "Oh my GODLESSNESS, Did I actually TYPE THAT CRAP?"

[Cow Poke]

Oh well done! You have managed to introduce Godwin's Law!

That train left the station long ago, toots.

[mossrose]

Or both. Both is good.

Sadly this is how it goes every time with her. She is so arrogant and pompous and self-righteous that she cannot stand the idea of being wrong, so she will dig and dig and dig and distract and distract and distract, instead of simply admitting she was wrong about something.

Yuh.

[CivilDiscourse]

Or both. Both is good.

Sadly this is how it goes every time with her. She is so arrogant and pompous and self-righteous that she cannot stand the idea of being wrong, so she will dig and dig and dig and distract and distract and distract, instead of simply admitting she was wrong about something.

Well, I'm not sure its losing, but losing to "the likes of us" that harms her ego.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Nobody but yourself is dumb enough to assume I was quoting you directly.

Can you not read for basic comprehension?

I never suggested you were quoting me directly.

I wrote that " Apart from yourself no one has ever written that "sonograms are bad" [My emphasis]

[Definition of no one: no person; not anyone; nobody]

[Cow Poke]

Every week, I see examples of morally necessary pregnancy terminations

(note, this is from H_A's OP, from the article)

"Morally Necessary" is a major can of worms, as I said before H_A started yet another birdbrained derail of her own nutty thread....

Here's one of the problems with that....

In my medical judgment, every pregnancy that is not wanted by the patient, I feel there is a medical indication to abort a pregnancy where it is not wanted. In good faith, I would recommend on a medical basis, you understand, that, and it would be 100% ... I think they are all medically necessary ... Occasionally we will advise these women to carry their pregnancy to term, but most of these are medically necessary because I am considering the woman's physical, mental, emotional and social and welfare and family and environment and all that ... I am concerned with the quality of life, not physical existence.

Abortionist Jane Hodgson, Transcript, August 3, 1977. at 99-101, McRae v. Califano, 491 F.Supp. 630 (E.D.N.Y. 1980), rev'd sub nom. Harris v. McRae. 100 S. Ct. 2671 (1980).

So a "morally necessary pregnancy termination" could actually be argued to be one that impacts "emotional and social" and even "quality of life".

H_A - as the most prolific poster in this thread, I'm going to have to ask you to stay on topic or take your ball and run home.

[Cow Poke]

Can you not read for basic comprehension?

Not only can I, but I DO! However, I'll just ignore the rest of your flatullationistic utterance in this little cow plop.

[rogue06]

Karkowsky wrote, "I see examples of morally necessary pregnancy terminations that, under the Texas law, could put doctors in legal jeopardy" She then cites some examples of the sorts of cases she has dealt with. She is not contending that she sees those exact same cases every week.

It would be nice if she could cite examples and explained exactly how it "could put doctors in legal jeopardy."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It would be nice if she could cite examples and explained exactly how it "could put doctors in legal jeopardy."

Read her article.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

(note, this is from H_A's OP, from the article)

"Morally Necessary" is a major can of worms,

Unless you have access to the medical records and histories of all of Dr Karkowsky's patients that remains nothing but your personal and unqualified opinion.

Furthermore, I understand [from things you have written in the past] that your experience [except in rearing your own children] is confined within the mission/charity organisation with which you are involved. Something that I suspect that is along the lines of this organisation https://mercyhouse.org/

[Do correct me if I am mistaken in any of the above].

In my medical judgment, every pregnancy that is not wanted by the patient, I feel there is a medical indication to abort a pregnancy where it is not wanted. In good faith, I would recommend on a medical basis, you understand, that, and it would be 100% ... I think they are all medically necessary ... Occasionally we will advise these women to carry their pregnancy to term, but most of these are medically necessary because I am considering the woman's physical, mental, emotional and social and welfare and family and environment and all that ... I am concerned with the quality of life, not physical existence.

Abortionist Jane Hodgson, Transcript, August 3, 1977. at 99-101, McRae v. Califano, 491 F.Supp. 630 (E.D.N.Y. 1980), rev'd sub nom. Harris v. McRae. 100 S. Ct. 2671 (1980).

Your quotation appears to be from here https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/lib...on-demand-9588.

I could only find the following from Dr Hodgson here https://law.justia.com/cases/federal.../630/1798718/:

Mr. Dornan urged the House again to insist, as it had on five previous occasions, on limiting abortions to those necessary to save the life of the mother (H 10134). He quoted Dr. Jane Hodgson as having testified in the present case that

"In my opinion, `medically necessary' means any abortion that was requested by a woman." (Cf. Tr. 99-101.)

Could you provide a citation for the entire affidavit that was originally made by Dr Hodgson? The site offers only partial sections of it.

More to the point Dr Hodgson made that statement forty four years ago and she clearly held to that view given her experiences in her clinical work.

However, that has not prevented you [with no evidence whatsoever] from leaping to conclusions.

You were also somewhat selective in your citation of the phrases "emotional and social" and "quality of life" and omitted to include "physical, mental, [...] and welfare and family and environment and all that" as well as "not physical existence."

There is also an additional comment in that section on that site and I assume it also comes from Dr Hodgson.

"Abortion must remain legal for those difficult cases where the mother's life is threatened by carrying the fetus or delivering it. Such cases are not at all uncommon. It is truly illogical to put the interests of a potential life above those of a living, breathing woman."

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Not only can I, but I DO! However, I'll just ignore the rest of your flatullationistic utterance in this little cow plop.

Given the flurry of posts you made in the last few pages I disagree.

Unless of course you were deliberately:

• using language to provoke a response
• deliberately attempting to belittle - references to inebriation and suggestions of stupidity
• alleging I had written something I had not and then attempting to use my own words against me

In other words - trolling.

[rogue06]

Read her article.

She makes the claim but is short on evidence.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

She makes the claim but is short on evidence.

Under current Texas law there would be no legal cause to abort an anencephalic foetus as maternal physical health may be unaffected by that abnormality. Other organs of such deformed foetuses may be well formed and healthy.

Under Texan law there would be no cause to provide an abortion for an underaged and brain damaged victim of rape. Mr Abbott has defended the law stating that it "provides at least 6 weeks for a person to be able to get an abortion." However, how would that impact on such a victim? Or a woman with learning disabilities? Or indeed for women with irregular menses who may not realise they are pregnant until seven or eight weeks?

Of course under Texan law such cases could result in abortions but there is a risk that the medical professionals and indeed anyone else tangentially involved in such an abortion may find themselves being sued