An obstetrician's opinion

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

"morally necessary terminations"

Now there's a rusty can of worms if I've ever seen one.

So would you compel a brain damaged fourteen year old to give birth to the child of her rapist? Or insist a woman continue with a pregnancy where the foetus had no brain and would not survive more than a few hours after delivery?

[Cow Poke]

Apart from yourself no one has ever written that "sonograms are bad".

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

Do you actually have anything to contribute, or are you going to continue to show what a you can be?

[mossrose]

So would you compel a brain damaged fourteen year old to give birth to the child of her rapist? Or insist a woman continue with a pregnancy where the foetus had no brain and would not survive more than a few hours after delivery?

I'm fairly certain that NO obstetrician or any other doctor sees that sort of thing "every week". Those things are indeed rare. Unlike abortion, which is carried out by the millions worldwide every year.

When, I might add, very few aborted children survive an abortion. Some might survive a few hours after the procedure, but many are left to die. So where is your actual argument on this?

Oh, and, btw, how would any doctor know whether an unborn child "had no brain" unless they performed some tests. Which, as we all know are potentially harmful to everybody involved.

[Cow Poke]

So would you compel a brain damaged fourteen year old to give birth to the child of her rapist?

Ah, a NEW derail of your own thread!!!

Or insist a woman continue with a pregnancy where the foetus had no brain and would not survive more than a few hours after delivery?

Is this your ish way of trying to distort what I was asking, and go down yet another crawfish hole?

[Cow Poke]

I'm fairly certain that NO obstetrician or any other doctor sees that sort of thing "every week". Those things are indeed rare. Unlike abortion, which is carried out by the millions worldwide every year.

Unless, of course, it's like the "hammer sees every problem as a nail" kind of thing. Somebody with really bad morals might see just about every case as "morally necessary".
I mean, how SICK do you have to be to kill unborn children for a living?

Oh, and, btw, how would any doctor know whether an unborn child "had no brain" unless they performed some tests. Which, as we all know are potentially harmful to everybody involved.

Yeah, God forbid some qualified medical person utilize any diagnostic equipment!!!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Ah, a NEW derail of your own thread!!!

My post was a reply to this

"morally necessary terminations"

Now there's a rusty can of worms if I've ever seen one.

So would you compel a brain damaged fourteen year old to give birth to the child of her rapist? Or insist a woman continue with a pregnancy where the foetus had no brain and would not survive more than a few hours after delivery?

Or you unable to answer those questions?

[Cow Poke]

My post was a reply to this




So would you compel a brain damaged fourteen year old to give birth to the child of her rapist? Or insist a woman continue with a pregnancy where the foetus had no brain and would not survive more than a few hours after delivery?

Or you unable to answer those questions?

Tell you what.... you answer my question that you've been avoiding for page after page, and I'll gladly answer these.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm fairly certain that NO obstetrician or any other doctor sees that sort of thing "every week". Those things are indeed rare.

Firstly no one has alleged that an obstetrician "sees that sort of thing every week" but secondly [and tragically] such instances do occur. However, under the present Texas law any one who assisted in providing abortions in such cases [either directly or indirectly] could face the risk of being sued by a zealous member of the public.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Tell you what.... you answer my question that you've been avoiding for page after page, and I'll gladly answer these.

You have my replies to you from several pages back.

If either you cannot remember what I wrote to you, or you simply cannot be bothered to go back and re-read my replies to you, that is your problem, not mine.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yeah, God forbid some qualified medical person utilize any diagnostic equipment!!!

Yet no one has ever contended that DUS should never be used. You are using a diversionary tactic of your own making.

[Cow Poke]

You have my replies to you from several pages back.

Still hiding behind that, refusing to provide a simple answer.

If either you cannot remember what I wrote to you, or you simply cannot be bothered to go back and re-read my replies to you, that is your problem, not mine.

Maybe you're ashamed of your answer and hope nobody remembers how stupid it was.

Either you can answer a simple question or you can't. If I answered a question "pages back", and it was an answer I stood by, I'd have no problem at all providing the same answer again.

You're still playing games?

[Cow Poke]

Firstly no one has alleged that an obstetrician "sees that sort of thing every week" ....

Are you out of your mind? You quoted her in your OP.....

....

As she also notes "Every week, I see examples of morally necessary pregnancy terminations that, under the Texas law, could put doctors in legal jeopardy."

....

[Cow Poke]

Yet no one has ever contended that DUS should never be used.

And nobody ever said that anybody contended that. Seriously, do you type drunk?

You are using a diversionary tactic of your own making.

Do, darlin, I'm merely mocking your own ignorant derail, where you made the incredibly inept attempt to argue that DUS may be harmful, therefore, should not be used in a pregnancy center setting to show a pregnant woman the baby inside her.

[mossrose]

Firstly no one has alleged that an obstetrician "sees that sort of thing every week" but secondly [and tragically] such instances do occur. However, under the present Texas law any one who assisted in providing abortions in such cases [either directly or indirectly] could face the risk of being sued by a zealous member of the public.

You said, in this post:

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...51#post1301551

As she also notes "Every week, I see examples of morally necessary pregnancy terminations that, under the Texas law, could put doctors in legal jeopardy."

Which is what CP was referring to in his post about the can of worms, to which you responded in this post:

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...25#post1303325

So would you compel a brain damaged fourteen year old to give birth to the child of her rapist? Or insist a woman continue with a pregnancy where the foetus had no brain and would not survive more than a few hours after delivery?

So, indeed, sweetpea (and I use that term with a great deal of sarcasm), your own source alleged that she sees these kinds of things every week and by continuing on with your charade you, by consent of agreement with her are also alleging what was said.

You just can't help yourself, can you? You make stupid, ignorant remarks and then when you are called on it you refuse to admit you screwed up.

[mossrose]

Are you out of your mind? You quoted her in your OP.....

All she had to do was hit the quote thingy in your post and she would have seen where she had posted it. She really might be as dumb as a sack of hammers.