Will Trump win again???

[GravelRider]

Are you saying no one in history has ever had an abortion at 39 weeks? I wasn’t saying anything about how common very late term abortions are, I was just showing the entire spectrum, and there are definitely people that are fine with abortion up until the day of delivery. Don’t pretend there aren’t.

But if you just want to deflect and not answer my question about when a fetus becomes a baby/child, I understand. Because then you’d have to back up your arbitrary line in the sand and I know that’s quite difficult to do.

Also, I never said anything about killing a baby after delivery.

I mean, this guy did....

View attachment 287994

And you brought it up.

But I never did.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s not up to me to decide. I don’t have anything growing inside me changing my physiology and utilizing my resources that I would like removed. It’s not my decision.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GravelRider]

In case you missed it, gay marriage was also illegal federally up until recently. That's another case of "Christian values" being opposed on all of us.

Again I see that as a societal law based on societal values. I think that there were people of many faiths and some people of no faith at all that were opposed to gay marriage in the past, and that is why it used to be illegal. I don't see this as "Christians values being imposed on all". I see it as society's values being imposed on all. I guess, you could argue that in America the majority of religious people belong to a Christian faith, so therefore, they are always the majority of society and have the greatest impact on the societal values. Therefore they can get the most blame when you disagree with a value or law.

Today gay marriage is legal, yet Christians still are the majority religion. So how do you reconcile that? Did Christian values change and therefore societal values changed? Or did societal values change and therefore Christian values changed? IDK. All I know is that societal values do change over time, and therefore laws change, too.

Did societal values change or did a court decide that laws that society put in place were unjust? Justice should not be dictated by the whims of the majority.

 

[Leon'sMom]

Did societal values change or did a court decide that laws that society put in place were unjust? Justice should not be dictated by the whims of the majority.

Sure. A court can decide that a law is unjust.
Society speaks>Legislators listen and write laws>Executive branch ensures laws are followed>Judicial system can overturn a law.

 

[Matty44]

Justice should not be dictated by the whims of the majority.

But life itself should be determined by the 'whims' of an individual?

 

[Matty44]

It’s not up to me to decide. I don’t have anything growing inside me changing my physiology and utilizing my resources that I would like removed. It’s not my decision.

Does your opinion change if the baby in question that's 'not your decision' WAS a 39 wk baby? You seemed to think that was so preposterous to even suggest earlier, but your logic here seems to say that you'd be fine with it even if it was 39 wks old already crowning. Is that correct? Either its not your body, not your decision, and therefore you should be ok with even the latest of late term abortions, or you put some inherent importance on the gestational age of the baby in conjunction with "not my body, not my decision." So which is it?

 

[GravelRider]

Does your opinion change if the baby in question that's 'not your decision' WAS a 39 wk baby? You seemed to think that was so preposterous to even suggest earlier, but your logic here seems to say that you'd be fine with it even if it was 39 wks old already crowning. Is that correct? Either its not your body, not your decision, and therefore you should be ok with even the latest of late term abortions, or you put some inherent importance on the gestational age of the baby in conjunction with "not my body, not my decision." So which is it?

I stand by my assertion that no one is delivering a 39 week fetus and then euthanizing it. It is probably an even rarer event than school shootings. Any discussion about it is purely academic.

I also stand by my assertion that it is not up to me to decide what happens with someone else’s body. That is a discussion between a person and the physician caring for that person. I have no business being involved in that discussion. How I feel about it personally is completely inconsequential to that decision.

 

[Matty44]

I stand by my assertion that no one is delivering a 39 week fetus and then euthanizing it. It is probably an even rarer event than school shootings. Any discussion about it is purely academic.

I also stand by my assertion that it is not up to me to decide what happens with someone else’s body. That is a discussion between a person and the physician caring for that person. I have no business being involved in that discussion. How I feel about it personally is completely inconsequential to that decision.

I agree with your first comment that it’s pretty much just an academic discussion, but you brought it up so...



But your other comments seem to be just an easy way not to have to deal with the question at hand. You were so confident that it’s wrong to harm a child, but then when asked if a 36 wk old baby is a child or not, you just say “meh, I don’t have to think about that because that child is in someone else’s body.” Unless you can unequivocally say “No, a 36 week GA baby is not a child,” then how can you let the thought of “not my body, not my decision” override “No one should ever harm a child, obviously.”

Are you really being intellectually (or morally) consistent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AMEHigh]

It’s not up to me to decide. I don’t have anything growing inside me changing my physiology and utilizing my resources that I would like removed. It’s not my decision.

Anti-abortion advocates and lawmakers like to always throw "gotcha" questions at us. Like by asking well are you ok with abortion at 35 weeks or 42 weeks or whatever arbitrary timeline?!? Like that's actually helpful. There is never going to be a time when we can argue every single medical case that has ever or will ever happen. Can you imagine a lawmaker asking about every little scenario that can happen with anesthesia?! It's literally impossible. The same with all aspects of medicine including abortion care. Medical care is not black and white and never will be. So infuriating. The vast majority of patients and doctors make the most appropriate decisions based on the scenario at hand and we are never going to argue all of the what-ifs. It's such a slippery slope.

 

[Matty44]

Anti-abortion advocates and lawmakers like to always throw "gotcha" questions at us. Like by asking well are you ok with abortion at 35 weeks or 42 weeks or whatever arbitrary timeline?!? Like that's actually helpful. There is never going to be a time when we can argue every single medical case that has ever or will ever happen. Can you imagine a lawmaker asking about every little scenario that can happen with anesthesia?! It's literally impossible. The same with all aspects of medicine including abortion care. Medical care is not black and white and never will be. So infuriating. The vast majority of patients and doctors make the most appropriate decisions based on the scenario at hand and we are never going to argue all of the what-ifs. It's such a slippery slope.

I wasn’t asking any gotcha questions. Just questions to get at the root principles and values one uses to make important decisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GravelRider]

I agree with your first comment that it’s pretty much just an academic discussion, but you brought it up so...



But your other comments seem to be just an easy way not to have to deal with the question at hand. You were so confident that it’s wrong to harm a child, but then when asked if a 36 wk old baby is a child or not, you just say “meh, I don’t have to think about that because that child is in someone else’s body.” Unless you can unequivocally say “No, a 36 week GA baby is not a child,” then how can you let the thought of “not my body, not my decision” override “No one should ever harm a child, obviously.”

Are you really being intellectually (or morally) consistent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, if you were to walk into a daycare center tomorrow and injure or kill a child, that would be illegal and immoral.

Otherwise you are being purposefully obtuse. I have stated repeatedly that a person has domain over his or her body. Deciding what to do with his or her body is a decision that I should not be involved with. I don’t care what semantic game you want to play.

 

[Matty44]

Yes, if you were to walk into a daycare center tomorrow and injure or kill a child, that would be illegal and immoral.

Otherwise you are being purposefully obtuse. I have stated repeatedly that a person has domain over his or her body. Deciding what to do with his or her body is a decision that I should not be involved with. I don’t care what semantic game you want to play.

I’m not being obtuse at all. If you think there’s something morally or legally wrong with aborting a 39 wk fetus (and I’m gonna assume that you feel that way even though you won’t flat out state it - correct me if I’m wrong), then you agree that the hypothetical mothers ‘domain over her body’ becomes irrelevant, or at least secondary to that baby’s domain over their own livelihood. At some point, again unless you believe in abortion up until birth, the baby’s domain outweighs the mothers domain and you would say it’s wrong to kill the baby. Therefore, a line must be drawn SOMEWHERE at the point where that hierarchy switches.

You can’t be intellectually honest and say both
1) aborting 39 wk old baby is wrong
2) a woman has domain over her body and it’s nobody else’s business

You might try and spare your intellectually honesty and draw a line in the sand where that dynamic shifts from ‘its her body and no one else’s business’ and ‘hey that baby is 39 wks, you shouldn’t abort it.”
But then you actually need to have a line, and preferably some justification for the gestational age of said line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[radsisrad]

Settle down, don't be a dick.

I was replying to a post that claimed that slavery isn't in the Constitution. The mere fact that the 3/5ths Compromise in there is clear evidence that the Founders were aware of slavery and OK with it. That's all.

But that's not all that you said. You wrote something that's profoundly absurd and slanderous. Don't try to walk it back now and claim that all you were writing was that the Founders were accepting of slavery.

 

[Mikkel]

I have stated repeatedly that a person has domain over his or her body. Deciding what to do with his or her body is a decision that I should not be involved with. I don’t care what semantic game you want to play.

But you're saying a pregnant mother has domain over someone else's body. Your argument is logically inconsistent.

 

[Hamhock]

I’m not being obtuse at all. If you think there’s something morally or legally wrong with aborting a 39 wk fetus (and I’m gonna assume that you feel that way even though you won’t flat out state it - correct me if I’m wrong), then you agree that the hypothetical mothers ‘domain over her body’ becomes irrelevant, or at least secondary to that baby’s domain over their own livelihood. At some point, again unless you believe in abortion up until birth, the baby’s domain outweighs the mothers domain and you would say it’s wrong to kill the baby. Therefore, a line must be drawn SOMEWHERE at the point where that hierarchy switches.

You can’t be intellectually honest and say both
1) aborting 39 wk old baby is wrong
2) a woman has domain over her body and it’s nobody else’s business

You might try and spare your intellectually honesty and draw a line in the sand where that dynamic shifts from ‘its her body and no one else’s business’ and ‘hey that baby is 39 wks, you shouldn’t abort it.”
But then you actually need to have a line, and preferably some justification for the gestational age of said line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please use accepted medical terminology. (assuming you are a physician)

When you say '39 week old baby, that means the baby was born (left the uterus) 39 weeks ago.

I suspect even @sb247 would be annoyed by this...and he confidently/shamelessly uses the term "unborn child".

@GravelRider -- realize this discussion is hopeless because @Matty44 uses terms like child to describe a fetus (maybe even an embryo).

This is just pathetic from physicians. Pathetic.

HH

 

[nimbus]

Please use accepted medical terminology. (assuming you are a physician)

When you say '39 week old baby, that means the baby was born (left the uterus) 39 weeks ago.

I suspect even @sb247 would be annoyed by this...and he confidently/shamelessly uses the term "unborn child".

@GravelRider -- realize this discussion is hopeless because @Matty44 uses terms like child to describe a fetus (maybe even an embryo).

This is just pathetic from physicians. Pathetic.

HH

If it’s not clear to you, @Matty44 is not a physician.

This is an enormously popular thread. It is probably driving SDN traffic to all time highs.

 

[Mikkel]

Please use accepted medical terminology. (assuming you are a physician)

When you say '39 week old baby, that means the baby was born (left the uterus) 39 weeks ago.

I suspect even @sb247 would be annoyed by this...and he confidently/shamelessly uses the term "unborn child".

@GravelRider -- realize this discussion is hopeless because @Matty44 uses terms like child to describe a fetus (maybe even an embryo).

This is just pathetic from physicians. Pathetic.

HH

He's using age as gestational age. If you're a physician, you should be able to understand that concept.

23 week gestational age refers to 23 weeks post conception, whether the baby is outside the womb or not.

 

[nimbus]

He's using age as gestational age. If you're a physician, you should be able to understand that concept.

23 week gestational age refers to 23 weeks post conception, whether the baby is outside the womb or not.

Don’t forget the 2 week GA blastocyst babies.

 

[AMEHigh]

In case you missed it, gay marriage was also illegal federally up until recently. That's another case of "Christian values" being opposed on all of us.

Again I see that as a societal law based on societal values. I think that there were people of many faiths and some people of no faith at all that were opposed to gay marriage in the past, and that is why it used to be illegal. I don't see this as "Christians values being imposed on all". I see it as society's values being imposed on all. I guess, you could argue that in America the majority of religious people belong to a Christian faith, so therefore, they are always the majority of society and have the greatest impact on the societal values. Therefore they can get the most blame when you disagree with a value or law.

Today gay marriage is legal, yet Christians still are the majority religion. So how do you reconcile that? Did Christian values change and therefore societal values changed? Or did societal values change and therefore Christian values changed? IDK. All I know is that societal values do change over time, and therefore laws change, too.
[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure where your conversation is going now. You asked about laws based on religion and those were provided. Again, lawmakers themselves will say things like "life is a precious gift from god" and then pass laws restricting abortion. I never said that every single law passed is based on religion.

Therefore, as far as society and the law goes politics are complicated. The vast majority of people based on polling believe in stricter gun restrictions such as universal background checks, yet that hasn't happened. I believe that is due to multi-factorial reasons. So yes society can shape things, but there is a lot that goes in to politics and what ultimately passes or doesn't pass as a policy or law.

So obviously trends change, people's views change, but at the same time there certainly are still christian values that dictate politics in this country as mentioned in previous examples. I believe that religion is essentially arbitrary, therefore I think it has no place in dictating my patient care especially. This is especially troubling in regards to medical care at catholic institutions that have a monopoly in certain areas in which patients and doctor's don't even have a choice of choosing care somewhere else. I'm pretty sure if people in this country were forced to go to a muslim hospital for example then I guarantee that people's perception of how it's ok for religion to be a part of medical care would change.

 

[nimbus]

Here’s the Christian Coalition agenda. I never knew that Jesus was pro-2A, pro-military, and pro-Big Oil. He always seemed like a hippie liberal to me. If they’re so concerned about the deficit, maybe they could encourage churches to start paying taxes. And who do they think runs the military that they love so much. Hint: it’s not a private outfit.

Our Agenda | Christian Coalition

Christian Coalition's Agenda for the 112th Congress. Our main focus is on opposing Obamacare, Freedom of Choice Act, opposing confirmation of liberal judges, protecting religious programming, opposing embryonic stem-cell research, making the tax cuts permanent, Federal Marriage Amendment

www.cc.org

Christian Coalition of America's Agenda for the 115th Congress

​

Repeal and Replacing Obamacare
The pro-abortion Obamacare legislation which passed the Democrat-controlled 111th Congress in early 2010 and which accounts for 1/6th of the American economy must be repealed and replaced with the commonsense reforms advocated by the majority party. The first major bill passed by the Republican-controlled 112th Congress on January 19, 2011 was indeed the repeal of Obamacare and it passed overwhelmingly by a bipartisan majority.

Christian Coalition of America is determined to eliminate the most onerous provisions of Obamacare, which among many other faults, forces Americans to pay for abortions with their hard-earned tax dollars. Obamacare also forces Christian owners of businesses to pay for abortion drugs, contraceptives, and other services which are against the consciences of these business owners. The Christian Coalition of America will work to defund and ultimately eliminate each part of Obamacare.



Click Here to Join Our Campaign to Roll Back Obamacare



---------

Stand With Israel


In recent years it has become fashionable to publicly push the Israeli people should trade land for peace, which further undermines the peace and security of America’s most reliable ally in the middle-east. Meanwhile, the people Israel is supposed to give up their land to are governed by the terrorist organizations like Hamas.


Christian Coalition of America is committed to the peace and security of Israel – and that means that the United States and its leaders must be in a position of strengthening Israel in the face of those who are openly committed to its destruction.


We believe as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu stated, “The problems of the region are not rooted in Israel.” That is why Christian Coalition of America is launching a national campaign to call on Americans and our government to “Stand with Israel”.



The Coalition will work at the state and national levels to advocate for passage of resolutions of support for Israel that recognize Israel’s right to exist as a state and homeland for the Jewish people, that support its right to defend its borders, and that recognize Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel.



We will work to support government policies and officials who support those principles.



Click Here to Join our Campaign to Stand with Israel



---------



Reducing Government Spending and Debt


Our national debt is now 20 trillion dollars and growing by over one trillion dollars a year. The national debt was actually doubled during the past 8 years; more than the debt accumulated by the last 43 presidents combined.…The national debt represents a total of over $53,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. And that doesn’t include tens of trillions in “unofficial” debt in entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and now, Obamacare.


Year after year Congress borrows more money and then spends all that it borrows; and year after year they vote to increase our national debt limit. Now we are borrowing money to make payments on the money that we have borrowed. That’s called insolvency, and it’s where we’re headed if we don’t change course fast.
The fact of the matter is that our country doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. Quite simply, government is too big and it spends too much. We believe that unsustainable government spending is immoral and will place an incredible burden on our children and grandchildren and limit their access to the American dream.


Christian Coalition of America will work to support passage of a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution, oppose further tax increases, support flatter, fairer tax rates, and an end to the death tax.



Click here to join our campaign to demand a balanced budget!



---------



Reestablishing a Peace Through Strength Military Policy


After eight years of the administration gutting the military thus endangering the lives of Americans, Christian Coalition of America will fight to reestablish the highly successful Reagan Peace Through Strength policy which was a major factor in the defeat of the Soviet Union and its communist Eastern Europe allies.



The United States of America needs an overwhelming military force which will ensure that our enemies will not challenge us; which unfortunately has been the case during the past 8 years. Christian Coalition will strive to overturn the sequestration of funding for our courageous military personnel in the 115th Congress.



---------



Defending our Second Amendment Rights


Time and again, liberals attempt to use tragedies to create a perceived “crisis” that requires a new, bigger, government “solution”. Fewer places is this more true than when it comes to our Second Amendment rights.


Despite having thousands of gun-control laws already on the books throughout our county, anti-gun zealots are trying to use real tragedies like the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary or in Aurora, Colorado to create a demand for legislation that will do nothing to prevent such tragedies, but would in fact infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.



Christian Coalition of America will advocate against further erosion of our Second Amendment liberties, and in favor of solutions to care for those with mental illness and protect themselves and others from the harm they may do.



Click here and join our campaign to Defend our Second Amendment Rights!



---------



Stop Public Funding of Abortion - End Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research - Defund Planned Parenthood

Each year pro-life Americans have to put up with the fact that their tax-dollars are being used by entities such as Planned Parenthood to kill unborn children. This must stop.


Planned Parenthood receives well over $500 million from American taxpayers every year. Christian Coalition of America believes that the one year defunding of Planned Parenthood advocated by the Speaker of the House for this coming Fiscal Year is a good beginning. However, legislation must be introduced and passed to permanently defund this onerous organization.

We will work to support and pass legislation that will end all public funding of abortion, whether in the form of federal health care benefits, grants to organizations like Planned Parenthood, or to support the use of federal government facilities to facilitate abortion.



With so many promising new developments in the area of adult stem cell research, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the government to continue to allow – much less expand – funding for research and destruction of embryonic stem cells. Despite this fact, the Obama administration and the Democrat leadership in Congress have done everything possible to expand tax-payer funding for human embryonic stem cell research.


Christian Coalition of America will work to roll back tax payer funding for human embryonic stem cell research and will fight to defeat any measures that expand embryonic stem cell research and spotlight all members of Congress who support using taxpayer dollars for this abominable practice.



Join Our Campaign to End Taxpayer Funding of Abortion



----------



Defending Traditional Marriage

The definition of traditional marriage in the United States was overturned by 5 radical Supreme Court Justices in June 2015.



These five judicial dictators unilaterally legislated from the bench that the 31 state constitutional amendments voted for by tens of millions of American voters -- all of which defined in their State Constitutions that marriage is only between one man and one woman -- were unconstitutional.



Contrary to some politicians in Washington D.C., that dictated Supreme Court ruling is not “settled law.” Five left-wing justices should not be allowed to redefine an institution that has existed for thousands of years.



----------



Energy Independence and Reform

America's economic growth, national security and the health of our environment are all intertwined with our country's energy policies - and we need a better plan. We can better ensure our national security, strengthen our economy and protect our environment at the same time by developing "Made in America" energy resources.



By doing a better job of developing domestic sources of energy, we help make our country more secure and independent, and send fewer dollars overseas to enrich countries that hate us.

We need an all-American, "all of the above" approach to our energy needs. A solution that allows for the development of American resources to lower our gas prices, but also recognizes we must work towards a much more diversified energy future. We are convinced that we can build an independent energy future, a stronger economy and make our nation more secure, as well as fulfill our scriptural obligation to use and take care of God’s creation in a responsible manner.



----------

Ending Religious Discrimination Against Christians in the Military

America’s military personnel are constantly facing challenges from our own government when it comes to living their faith.



In recent years the Navy and Air Force instituted regulations which forbade military chaplains from praying in the name of Jesus during military functions other than worship services. These services have surrendered to atheist activists and left-wing Members of Congress in adopting these onerous regulations. Fortunately Congress rolled back these regulations, but only after an outcry by our nation’s Christians.



And after ending our country’s ban on open homosexuals in the military in a lame-duck session of Congress, the way is now open for the government to discriminate against Christians at all levels of our nation’s military in myriad ways.



Christian Coalition of America will also fight to ensure that evangelical Christian military chaplains and other personnel are not discriminated against.



Click here to join our campaign to Stand Up for Religious Liberty!



----------



Opposing Liberal Judicial Nominees

We support the nomination and confirmation of judges -- including the replacement for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia during the 115th Congress -- who will uphold and apply the Constitution as it was originally written by our Founding Fathers and will not seek to re-write it to their own ideological ends, or to make law from the bench.



Christian Coalition of America will be monitoring all of the judicial nominations sent to the United States Senate by President Trump. Christian Coalition of America will support nominees who abide by a philosophy of applying the original understanding of our Constitution. And Christian Coalition will stand in firm opposition to the confirmation of all who do not.



----------



Opposing any Re-introduction of the "Fairness Doctrine"

Christian Coalition of America will fight to prevent any re-introduction of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" from taking effect, whether in the form of Congressional legislation or government regulation.



The "Fairness Doctrine" – which would have the practical effect of forcing radio and TV stations to broadcast an equal amount of time for liberal programs to match that of each conservative program – was abolished in the 1980’s by former President Ronald Reagan.



If it is allowed to come back, it would effectively end conservative talk-radio and put Christian television programming at risk.



Click Here to Join Our Save Talk Radio Campaign to Oppose the "Fairness Doctrine"

 

[Matty44]

If it’s not clear to you, @Matty44 is not a physician.

This is an enormously popular thread. It is probably driving SDN traffic to all time highs.

It’s true, I’m just a lowly CAA. But please, don’t try to insinuate that I’m like Mr Boo and I got sucked in by a popular thread from the nether reaches of the interwebs. I’ve been around here as long as you.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nimbus]

It’s true, I’m just a lowly CAA. But please, don’t try to insinuate that I’m like Mr Boo and I got sucked in by a popular thread from the nether reaches of the interwebs. I’ve been around here as long as you.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You only participate in this thread and the stock thread. Doesn’t seem like there’s much interest in anesthesia. I’d consider that getting sucked in.

 

[Matty44]

You only participate in this thread and the stock thread. Doesn’t seem like there’s much interest in anesthesia. I’d consider that getting sucked in.

Alrighty, I have no interest in anesthesia. Whatever you say.

It’s just so humorous how you and gravel and others on the left SO often go to personal attacks and demeaning and other ways to belittle and avoid answering simple questions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nimbus]

Alrighty, I have no interest in anesthesia. Whatever you say.

It’s just so humorous how you and gravel and others on the left SO often go to personal attacks and demeaning and other ways to belittle and avoid answering simple questions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You weren’t asking a question. I wasn’t avoiding anything.

 

[Matty44]

You weren’t asking a question. I wasn’t avoiding anything.

I’ve made numerous assertions and asked questions of Gravel (mainly). You followed up our discussion with a condescending remark and an insinuation about why I was here. It was pointless and unhelpful to the discussion at hand. Unless your goal was to belittle and distract from the (unanswered) questions that were posed. Even if they weren’t clearly directed towards you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Leon'sMom]

Please use accepted medical terminology. (assuming you are a physician)

When you say '39 week old baby, that means the baby was born (left the uterus) 39 weeks ago.

I suspect even @sb247 would be annoyed by this...and he confidently/shamelessly uses the term "unborn child".

@GravelRider -- realize this discussion is hopeless because @Matty44 uses terms like child to describe a fetus (maybe even an embryo).

This is just pathetic from physicians. Pathetic.

HH

I'm wondering, have you ever been an OB patient or the companion of an OB patient for an actual OB care appointment?
OBGYNs talk to their patients all the time about their "babies" in the womb.
I'm sorry, but your comment above is both ignorant and pompous. In your attempt to belittle and critique a fellow poster's choice of words, you have exposed how little you truly know about the experience of being pregnant and the dynamics and language used by both OBGYNs and patients. I guess I would call that being out of touch.

 

[AMEHigh]

.

I'm wondering, have you ever been an OB patient or the companion of an OB patient for an actual OB care appointment?
OBGYNs talk to their patients all the time about their "babies" in the womb.
I'm sorry, but your comment above is both ignorant and pompous. In your attempt to belittle and critique a fellow poster's choice of words, you have exposed how little you truly know about the experience of being pregnant and the dynamics and language used by both OBGYNs and patients. I guess I would call that being out of touch.

Are you in medicine?
There is a time and place for certain terminology.
Between doctors discussing certain issues it’s important to use correct medical terminology.
I provide both prenatal care and abortion care. I typically use the correct medical terminology. I follow patients leads as well for terminology, but I discuss things differently for a patient that is at 38 weeks gestation vs a patient that is 6 weeks gestation.
Medical terminology used with patients is not the same medical terminology that should be used among doctors.
I am certainly not out of touch and pride myself on being patient centered, yet when I’m talking among other doctors I’m going to use the correct medical terms such as embryo, fetus, pregnancy, gestational sac, CRL, gestational age, child, etc.

Edited to add: I cringe when doctors don’t use words correctly and aren’t patient-centered as well.

 

[Hamhock]

He's using age as gestational age. If you're a physician, you should be able to understand that concept.

23 week gestational age refers to 23 weeks post conception, whether the baby is outside the womb or not.

I'm wondering, have you ever been an OB patient or the companion of an OB patient for an actual OB care appointment?
OBGYNs talk to their patients all the time about their "babies" in the womb.
I'm sorry, but your comment above is both ignorant and pompous. In your attempt to belittle and critique a fellow poster's choice of words, you have exposed how little you truly know about the experience of being pregnant and the dynamics and language used by both OBGYNs and patients. I guess I would call that being out of touch.

I do not have any direct "experience of being pregnant", as I am a male. However, this is not a prerequisite or even benefit in the discussion of obstetrics and pediatrics.

My post and this discussion is in a subforum Anesthesiology (medicine). I used language that is appropriate for this subforum and discussion.

I was not 'talking to mommy about her baby' during a prenatal visit. @Matty44 has entered a discussion forum filled with physicians (and some midlevels). Demanding accurate language here is far from ignorant or pompous.

@Mikkel Yes, I am quite familiar with the concept of gestational age. Babies and children are not aged according to gestational age (unless we are talking about corrected age). @Matty44 is trying, intentionally or not, to obfuscate by mixing terms. Yet, I suspect you (@Mikkel) noticed that too.

HH

 

[Leon'sMom]

"Unborn baby" is the proper medical terminology for a 39 wk GA fetus.
You know it. I know it. We all know it.

 

[deleted480308]

Please use accepted medical terminology. (assuming you are a physician)

When you say '39 week old baby, that means the baby was born (left the uterus) 39 weeks ago.

I suspect even @sb247 would be annoyed by this...and he confidently/shamelessly uses the term "unborn child".

@GravelRider -- realize this discussion is hopeless because @Matty44 uses terms like child to describe a fetus (maybe even an embryo).

This is just pathetic from physicians. Pathetic.

HH

It’s extremely common in prenatal visits and l/d discussions for doctors and nurses to refer to the “baby” prior to birth, I’m assuming you don’t so we’ll just have to disagree on that

 

[Hamhock]

It’s extremely common in prenatal visits and l/d discussions for doctors and nurses to refer to the “baby” prior to birth, I’m assuming you don’t so we’ll just have to disagree on that

I have just addressed that a few posts above here.

My post and this discussion is in a subforum Anesthesiology (medicine). I used language that is appropriate for this subforum and discussion.

I was not 'talking to mommy about her baby' during a prenatal visit. @Matty44 has entered a discussion forum filled with physicians (and some midlevels). Demanding accurate language here is far from ignorant or pompous.

 

[AMEHigh]

Does anyone know why the White House has chosen not to participate in the judiciary committee? I read the report on npr but haven’t read the 5 page letter yet that counsel sent. Will do it in the morning. Just wondering their strategy of not being there.

 

[Hamhock]

.


Are you in medicine?
There is a time and place for certain terminology.
Between doctors discussing certain issues it’s important to use correct medical terminology.
I provide both prenatal care and abortion care. I typically use the correct medical terminology. I follow patients leads as well for terminology, but I discuss things differently for a patient that is at 38 weeks gestation vs a patient that is 6 weeks gestation.
Medical terminology used with patients is not the same medical terminology that should be used among doctors.
I am certainly not out of touch and pride myself on being patient centered, yet when I’m talking among other doctors I’m going to use the correct medical terms such as embryo, fetus, pregnancy, gestational sac, CRL, gestational age, child, etc.

Edited to add: I cringe when doctors don’t use words correctly and aren’t patient-centered as well.

It seems you respond faster. I appreciate your stating what is, to me, obvious. Thanks.

Although I think posters like @sb247 are using "unborn child" as a technique -- I sense @Matty44 and some of the others may have been tricked into using this language in the "fight" against abortion/murder.

HH

 

[Hamhock]

"Unborn baby" is the proper medical terminology for a 39 wk GA fetus.
You know it. I know it. We all know it.

I have recently learned @Matty44 is not a physician.

This helps me understand his perspective.

Are you a physician, @Leon'sMom ?

HH

 

[Matty44]

I have recently learned @Matty44 is not a physician.

This helps me understand his perspective.

Are you a physician, @Leon'sMom ?

HH

Wow, you sure are high and mighty huh? My perspective on abortion is somehow different and more understandable because I’m an anesthetist and not an anesthesiologist? Really? I’m perfectly aware of what I said and why I said it. And for sure haven’t been “tricked” into anything Sheesh.

Ive done plenty of OB and I’m fully aware of “correct” terminology. But on this forum, when my point of contention with Gravel, which I’m sure he won’t answer, was regarding hurting children, and I was asking him when he believed a fetus became a baby/child. It’s not a medical discussion or part of an electronic record. It’s a personal morals and values discussion. I personally consider it a baby and I have no problem addressing it as such here on this forum.


As an aside, this ain’t twitter, you don’t need to @ everyone.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Matty44]

.duplicate

 

[Hamhock]

Ive done plenty of OB and I’m fully aware of “correct” terminology. But on this forum, when my point of contention with Gravel, which I’m sure he won’t answer, was regarding hurting children,

Children are never found inside the uterus.

If you would like to start an educated discussion with either Gravel or myself, please learn or use accurate terminology.

HH

 

[Matty44]

Children are never found inside the uterus.

If you would like to start an educated discussion with either Gravel or myself, please learn or use accurate terminology.

HH

Ok, do you think it’s ever not ok to abort a fetus?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hamhock]

Ok, do you think it’s ever not ok to abort a fetus?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, will you use accurate diction in this discussion and forum? Will you use accurate and honest diction in your daily life?

If so -- if you will commit to this -- I am happy to discuss the fetus, embryo, and baby/child.

I most genuinely feel there is an uncertainty within most people and our community about the start of "human" life (all life, really), the end of life, and --most importantly -- human consciousness.

It's up to you: do you want to discuss this?

IIRC, you entered this thread under the pretense of wanting to learn about what other people think. Is this still true?

I will try to have a discussion about the most sensitive topic in American politics and medicine: abortion....if it's genuine.

HH

 

[Matty44]

Ok, will you use accurate diction in this discussion and forum? Will you use accurate and honest diction in your daily life?

If so -- if you will commit to this -- I am happy to discuss the fetus, embryo, and baby/child.

I most genuinely feel there is an uncertainty within most people and our community about the start of "human" life (all life, really), the end of life, and --most importantly -- human consciousness.

It's up to you: do you want to discuss this?

IIRC, you entered this thread under the pretense of wanting to learn about what other people think. Is this still true?

I will try to have a discussion about the most sensitive topic in American politics and medicine: abortion....if it's genuine.

HH

Absolutely. I’d love that. And it’s refreshing, if you’re genuine, that you are interested in actually having a discussion. Most in this thread (if you haven’t read it) have no interest in having a true discussion on this and just deflect and mock and demean (aside from AmeHigh, who did have some civil discourse thousands of post ago). I am truly interested in the thought process and rationalization of those that are pro abortion, but it’s almost impossible to have a civil discussion.

So, will you answer my question about if abortion is ever not ok? Because if you think it’s always permissible, no matter what, up until birth, then we are probably too far apart to have any productive discourse. But if you believe there are times that it’s inappropriate, I’d love to hear your rationale for when the cutoff is and how you’ve made that distinction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hamhock]

Absolutely. I’d love that. And it’s refreshing, if you’re genuine, that you are interested in actually having a discussion. Most in this thread (if you haven’t read it) have no interest in having a true discussion on this and just deflect and mock and demean (aside from AmeHigh, who did have some civil discourse thousands of post ago). I am truly interested in the thought process and rationalization of those that are pro abortion, but it’s almost impossible to have a civil discussion.

So, will you answer my question about if abortion is ever not ok? Because if you think it’s always permissible, no matter what, up until birth, then we are probably too far apart to have any productive discourse. But if you believe there are times that it’s inappropriate, I’d love to hear your rationale for when the cutoff is and how you’ve made that distinction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hmmm...I'll admit, I am hesitant.

Yet, I'll give it a try. I find abortion one of the most interesting topics within the world of medicine.

To help this discussion, I won't even use my personal views. I will "play" the typical "abortion proponet", who won't admit acceptance of abortion.

Fair ground rules?

HH

 

[Matty44]

Hmmm...I'll admit, I am hesitant.

Yet, I'll give it a try. I find abortion one of the most interesting topics within the world of medicine.

To help this discussion, I won't even use my personal views. I will "play" the typical "abortion proponet", who won't admit acceptance of abortion.

Fair ground rules?

HH

That seems kind of convoluted. Why not just use your views? Seems simpler and more genuine...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hamhock]

That seems kind of convoluted. Why not just use your views? Seems simpler and more genuine...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK, I will use my personal views. (was that your objection?)

Yet, I will insist on honest and medically-accepted terms. Embryo. Fetus. Neonate. Etc.

Fair?

HH

 

[Matty44]

OK, I will use my personal views. (was that your objection?)

Yet, I will insist on honest and medically-accepted terms. Embryo. Fetus. Neonate. Etc.

Fair?

HH

Sure. So can we start with the question I’ve proposed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hamhock]

I will try. I assume you are asking about this question:

Ok, do you think it’s ever not ok to abort a fetus?

There are most definitely circumstances when abortion is unacceptable.

Is that what you are really asking about?

If so, here's an example:

A woman presents with asymptomatic pregnancy. She would like to attempt to carry to term and, at best, give birth.

I would not think that abortion is appropriate here. To act otherwise is clearly assault.

...but, I suspecf you think similarly.

Note: I am not being flippant here. I am honestly answering your question.

HH

 

[Matty44]

I will try. I assume you are asking about this question:


There are most definitely circumstances when abortion is unacceptable.

Is that what you are really asking about?

If so, here's an example:

A woman presents with asymptomatic pregnancy. She would like to attempt to carry to term and, at best, give birth.

I would not think that abortion is appropriate here. To act otherwise is clearly assault.

...but, I suspecf you think similarly.

Note: I am not being flippant here. I am honestly answering your question.

HH

Ok, let me rephrase.

Is it ever immoral to abort a fetus if that is the mother’s wishes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hamhock]

Ok, let me rephrase.

Is it ever immoral to abort a fetus if that is the mother’s wishes?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This may require definition of morality...but for now, I think that's unnecessary.

Abortion of a fetus (as defined by medicine) is acceptable.

HH

 

[Matty44]

This may require definition of morality...but for now, I think that's unnecessary.

Abortion of a fetus (as defined by medicine) is acceptable.

HH

Moral, just, acceptable in your opinion. For example, would there be anything wrong with aborting a 39 1/2 wk otherwise healthy fetus?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hamhock]

Moral, just, acceptable in your opinion. For example, would there be anything wrong with aborting a 39 1/2 wk otherwise healthy fetus?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Moral, just, acceptable in your opinion". I don't know what you mean by this...but I think you are more interested in your question.

I also don't know what you mean by "wrong".

However, to answer your question (with a small adjustment):

It is acceptable to me to abort a "39 1/2 wk otherwise healthy fetus" (your phrase).

HH

 

[Matty44]

"Moral, just, acceptable in your opinion". I don't know what you mean by this...but I think you are more interested in your question.

I also don't know what you mean by "wrong".

However, to answer your question (with a small adjustment):

It is acceptable to me to abort a "39 1/2 wk otherwise healthy fetus" (your phrase).

HH

Ok, then in line with my preface, we don’t really have much to discuss on the topic then. Thanks for being forthright with your position at least. That’s more that can be said for most on here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hamhock]

Ok, then in line with my preface, we don’t really have much to discuss on the topic then. Thanks for being forthright with your position at least. That’s more that can be said for most on here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OK, interesting.

I must drop this now (for sleep)...but I would like to hear sometime why there is no more discussion.

HH