Re: Oklahoma doctors can lie about birth defects if an abortion might occur

**BigGaayAl** · 05-05-2010, 12:39 AM

Every sperm is sacred !

**snooggums** · 05-05-2010, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by seg[TDev]

Not sure what vaccine prevents an acute congestion of the stomach and the brain? The point I was trying to make was what if the physician is wrong in his assessment. My nephew was suppose to be born with a developmental defect (mentally retarded). The physician made his diagnosis through an amniocentesis and had an in depth discussion with my sister in law and her husband about whether or not to continue the pregnancy. They decided to carry the baby full term. Suffice it to say it was a false positive and my nephew was born healthy. The life and story of Helen Keller if you are familiar with it, is amazing and we learned a lot about how to communicate and teach those children who are deaf and or blind because of her. As far as I see it going deaf and blind at 9 months is not much different than being born deaf and blind. The relevance is what if a doctor diagnosed a patient as being mentally retard with the potential to do what Helen Keller accomplished in life but the mother decided on an abortion.

Helen Keller isn't an example of a doctor making a wrong diagnosis, I really can't follow your logic.

Most vaccines treat illnesses that cause 'congestion in the stomach and brain' ie an infection in the sinus or throat area, and as noted she had a high fever which led to the blindness and hearing loss. High fevers were common causes of hearing loss and blindness in children due to diseases like Scarlet Fever, meningitis, smallpox, etc which all have been reduced through vaccines. If she had vaccines and modern medical care she wouldn't have been deaf or blind, and an example of a misdiagnosis for a kid is just an anecdote. I'll bet if you counted up the number of correct diagnosis of mental retardation to the misdiagnosis the tests would be fairly reliable. As our doctor always said: The majority of tests are mostly accurate because they are measuring side effects, but there will be a few where the results are almost a guarantee. I was glad we didn't get any of the guarantees of something like tay sachs, but I support anyone who gets that diagnosis terminating the pregnancy to prevent the suffering of everyone involved.

**CallousDisregard** · 05-06-2010, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by BigGaayAl

Every sperm is sacred !

..." let the pagans spill their's on mountain hill and plain.."

**seg[TDev]** · 05-11-2010, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by snooggums

Helen Keller isn't an example of a doctor making a wrong diagnosis, I really can't follow your logic.

Most vaccines treat illnesses that cause 'congestion in the stomach and brain' ie an infection in the sinus or throat area, and as noted she had a high fever which led to the blindness and hearing loss. High fevers were common causes of hearing loss and blindness in children due to diseases like Scarlet Fever, meningitis, smallpox, etc which all have been reduced through vaccines. If she had vaccines and modern medical care she wouldn't have been deaf or blind, and an example of a misdiagnosis for a kid is just an anecdote. I'll bet if you counted up the number of correct diagnosis of mental retardation to the misdiagnosis the tests would be fairly reliable. As our doctor always said: The majority of tests are mostly accurate because they are measuring side effects, but there will be a few where the results are almost a guarantee. I was glad we didn't get any of the guarantees of something like tay sachs, but I support anyone who gets that diagnosis terminating the pregnancy to prevent the suffering of everyone involved.

I am not a doctor, but being a pediatric dentist I have taken my share of classes on pathology. I also have my fair share of patients with serious medical conditions. I am not completely sure but I think a vaccine is used to prevent an illness not treat it. It's usaully gound up viral rna that is injected to initiate the production of certain antibodies to fight that specifiic virus should you get it. The example of Helen Keller was to bring to light the impact a child can have on the world regardless of his/her handicaps. A child might be misdiagnosed as blind and deaf (like Helen Keller) the parents decide to terminate the pregnancy because they didn't want their child to suffer or whatever other arguement you can come up with. In reality if carried full term that child might grow and contribute to the world what Helen Keller did but we wouldn't know. That was the point I was trying to make.
I am very aware of what Tay Sachs is. A guy from my hometown had a two year old son die from it recently. It is an extremely rare autosomal recessive disorder where most kids die before the age of four. A child born with that disease, although sad, is a great gift. I am not trying to say every sperm is sacred but life is. Here is a video of the guy from my home town with his son:

**snooggums** · 05-11-2010, 09:53 PM

The kid might be Hitler or Stalin too.

When I said treat I meant immunize the body by increasing the child's natural resistance to disease by introducing a, most often dead or non-replicating, virus that the child might later be exposed to which will cause the child to not have as severe a reaction when ill. Man, I really screwed that up and totally invalidated my point that with modern medicine it is very unlikely that she would end up with the same fate which had absolutely nothing to do with her prenatal care but was instead the result of a disease she contracted well after birth.

/sarcasm

Helen Keller's condition was post birth and there is no way to detect a child's inability to hear in utero, unless there is an obvious deformation of the eyes or other known illness there is not a way to tell if a child will be blind before birth either. Helen Keller is a terrible example because she could already talk and see before her illness so when she learned to communicate she already had experience with sight and sound for reference. She should not be included in a debate about stuff that happens before birth because she is completely irrelevant.

**seg[TDev]** · 05-12-2010, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by snooggums

The kid might be Hitler or Stalin too.

When I said treat I meant immunize the body by increasing the child's natural resistance to disease by introducing a, most often dead or non-replicating, virus that the child might later be exposed to which will cause the child to not have as severe a reaction when ill. Man, I really screwed that up and totally invalidated my point that with modern medicine it is very unlikely that she would end up with the same fate which had absolutely nothing to do with her prenatal care but was instead the result of a disease she contracted well after birth.

/sarcasm

Helen Keller's condition was post birth and there is no way to detect a child's inability to hear in utero, unless there is an obvious deformation of the eyes or other known illness there is not a way to tell if a child will be blind before birth either. Helen Keller is a terrible example because she could already talk and see before her illness so when she learned to communicate she already had experience with sight and sound for reference. She should not be included in a debate about stuff that happens before birth because she is completely irrelevant.

I shouldn't poked at the specifics about an immunization that was a little trivial.

I was making the assumption that even though she wasn't born blind or deaf, because it occurred so young (19 months of age) the result based on how she interacted with the world was that she might as well have been. If any of her experiences at 19 months of age had an impact on her later in life then you are right.

We can consider other developmental problems or diseases besides blindness or deafness, to me it doesn't matter. I am just concerned about where we draw the line in terms of making the decision. I see children routinely with special needs that require consistent 24 hour a day care and are a financial and emotional burden to the family, but the family considers their child a blessing. That's why I elaborated on Tay Sachs. Elliot's illnesses might have been diagnosed in utero and the parents could have made a choice to abort, but they didn't. His parents considered every moment they had with him a blessing, that's why I included it in the discussion.

**ScratchMonkey** · 05-14-2010, 09:42 AM

Meanwhile, in Florida:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/featu...,2430733.story

Tacked on as an amendment to an unrelated health-care issue, the provision would require women to undergo an ultrasound of the fetus at their own expense before an abortion could be performed. They also would need to listen to a doctor describe the development of the fetus.

**CallousDisregard** · 05-15-2010, 08:09 AM

I think forcing the mother to follow some procedures before she kills her baby is as close to due process as we will ever get and if it stops a few abortions it is worth it.
Abortion is not murder, but it is taking a human life and in America, that requires some due process, at least give the kid a chance.

**Ferris Bueller** · 05-15-2010, 08:43 PM

Classic argument to that callous:
-what if the mother is the victim of a rape?
-what if the child had been previously diagnosed with a terminal disease or severe defect?
-what if the mother is aborting due to an inability to provide for the child?

there are a thousand reasons why this process is not only wrong morally, but can be very psychologically damaging. having an abortion is a very painful process both physically and psychologically. so my question would be, other than some ridiculous "right-to-life" argument, why are we seeking to make it even more painful and damaging to the person going through the procedure?

not to mention, as I have argued earlier, the intentional infliction of harm on a patient, being psychological harm in this case, is a violation of the most sacrosanct principle in medicine.

**Kerostasis** · 05-15-2010, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

Classic argument to that callous:
-what if the mother is the victim of a rape?
-what if the child had been previously diagnosed with a terminal disease or severe defect?
-what if the mother is aborting due to an inability to provide for the child?

While those are indeed classic arguments, I don't see how they particularly relate to the specific objection Callous is offering here or the law he is defending. Except perhaps the financial cost of the ultrasound relating to abortion as a purely financial decision, but then the government screws with our financial decisions all the time so that's really nothing new.

**Ferris Bueller** · 05-16-2010, 12:10 AM

He's equating due process to medicine. The two are not related. Abortions, as acknowledged by callous, do not qualify as murder. Nor do they constitute any kind of crime under the law. So I'm failing to see wherein, aside from a personal moral standpoint on the issue by supporters of the issue, any due process would apply. Regardless of whether or not a fatus can be classified as a human being, nowhere in the world are rights granted to fetuses alone, those are bestowed upon birth. Therefore, under our laws, the fetus is owed no due process. The argument for due process isnt logical, but based purely in one's personal beliefs.

Thread Tools

Display