Texas "pro-life" obgyn thinks it's fine for a 9 or 10 year old to carry a baby to term

[Anonymous]

18:41 totally agrees with the nutjob forced birther.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She doesn’t say it’s fine for them to do so, just that the body is designed that it’s not a risk. Someone stating a car can go 150mph with no issue is not saying it’s ok to drive 150, just that it could happen.

She is actually saying something which is not based in medical science. Young girls are at much higher risk of several pregnancy complications. She is basically saying the opposite. If you can get pregnant, pregnancy doesn't carry significant risk (i.e. your body is ready to have a baby). This is not consistent with our best understanding of human physiology.

You an OB? She is…..

So you think making 9 year olds give birth is a defensible idea.

That’s not what she said at all. Try to comprehend what you read.

She said a 9 year old could safely go through pregnancy, l&d, and she said this as a way to justify not allowing a pregnant 9 year old to have an abortion. Do you agree with her?

I have no idea if a 9 year old can safely go through a pregnancy, as I am not a Dr. She did not say she would "make a 9 year old give birth" as quoted above. If you want to debate something, you can't make up what someone said, and debate it like they said it.
You are all worked up over something made up, not something a person actually said.

She absolutely supports making a pregnant 9 year old go to term. She absolutely supports banning pregnant children from getting abortions. Prove us wrong.

Anti-abortionists are getting bolder about declaring their extreme positions.

I don't have to "prove you wrong" as it is your statement, and in the title of the thread, therefore it is upon you to prove it, not assume it, The quote in the OP is

Dr. Ingrid Skop, an obstetrician in San Antonio who belongs to the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said that even a girl as young as 9 or 10, impregnated by a father or a brother, could carry a baby to term without health risks.

“If she is developed enough to be menstruating and become pregnant, and reached sexual maturity, she can safely give birth to a baby,” Dr. Skop said.

Show me where that says she supports "making a 9 year old go to term" You wont find it. All it says is someone that young "could" carry a baby to term without health risks. You are assuming she means something else and getting offended by it, thats on you.

OP here. She is chair of American Association of "Pro-life" Obstetricians/Gynecologists which supports the banning of abortion in all cases except where the mother is in imminent danger of dying. This organization, of which she is chair, supports the restrictive abortion ban in Texas and elsewhere that do not allow for exceptions in the case of rape and incest. That is why she has testified in its favor. Can you make the connection?

To put it another way, she and her organization wholeheartedly support laws that would ban a 9 year old from having an abortion if her pregnancy is discovered around 8 weeks. Neither she nor her organization have advocated for the law to make those exceptions.

Hence her declaration that it was perfectly safe for a 9 year old to give birth, which no physician in her right might would agree with. She stated that to ward of criticism that a law without a rape / incest exception would force abused children to give birth.

Or are you REALLY arguing that she believes pregnant children should have access to abortion? Do you truly believe that? Because the opposite of believing that a pregnant 9 year old should have legal access to abortion is to believe that a pregnant 9 year old should carry the pregnancy to term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She doesn’t say it’s fine for them to do so, just that the body is designed that it’s not a risk. Someone stating a car can go 150mph with no issue is not saying it’s ok to drive 150, just that it could happen.

She is actually saying something which is not based in medical science. Young girls are at much higher risk of several pregnancy complications. She is basically saying the opposite. If you can get pregnant, pregnancy doesn't carry significant risk (i.e. your body is ready to have a baby). This is not consistent with our best understanding of human physiology.

You an OB? She is…..

So you think making 9 year olds give birth is a defensible idea.

That’s not what she said at all. Try to comprehend what you read.

She said a 9 year old could safely go through pregnancy, l&d, and she said this as a way to justify not allowing a pregnant 9 year old to have an abortion. Do you agree with her?

I have no idea if a 9 year old can safely go through a pregnancy, as I am not a Dr. She did not say she would "make a 9 year old give birth" as quoted above. If you want to debate something, you can't make up what someone said, and debate it like they said it.
You are all worked up over something made up, not something a person actually said.

She absolutely supports making a pregnant 9 year old go to term. She absolutely supports banning pregnant children from getting abortions. Prove us wrong.

Anti-abortionists are getting bolder about declaring their extreme positions.

I don't have to "prove you wrong" as it is your statement, and in the title of the thread, therefore it is upon you to prove it, not assume it, The quote in the OP is

Dr. Ingrid Skop, an obstetrician in San Antonio who belongs to the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said that even a girl as young as 9 or 10, impregnated by a father or a brother, could carry a baby to term without health risks.

“If she is developed enough to be menstruating and become pregnant, and reached sexual maturity, she can safely give birth to a baby,” Dr. Skop said.

Show me where that says she supports "making a 9 year old go to term" You wont find it. All it says is someone that young "could" carry a baby to term without health risks. You are assuming she means something else and getting offended by it, thats on you.

OP here. She is chair of American Association of "Pro-life" Obstetricians/Gynecologists which supports the banning of abortion in all cases except where the mother is in imminent danger of dying. This organization, of which she is chair, supports the restrictive abortion ban in Texas and elsewhere that do not allow for exceptions in the case of rape and incest. That is why she has testified in its favor. Can you make the connection?

To put it another way, she and her organization wholeheartedly support laws that would ban a 9 year old from having an abortion if her pregnancy is discovered around 8 weeks. Neither she nor her organization have advocated for the law to make those exceptions.

Hence her declaration that it was perfectly safe for a 9 year old to give birth, which no physician in her right might would agree with. She stated that to ward of criticism that a law without a rape / incest exception would force abused children to give birth.

Or are you REALLY arguing that she believes pregnant children should have access to abortion? Do you truly believe that? Because the opposite of believing that a pregnant 9 year old should have legal access to abortion is to believe that a pregnant 9 year old should carry the pregnancy to term.

All of what you just wrote can be 100% true, she can believe all of that, however you are adding stuff to the original statement to try and prove that is what she meant. You are reading into what she said and not actually reading what she did in fact say. Making "the connection" as you put it is a lot different than saying "She said X". People here are saying "She said X" and I am saying she did not say it, so the retort is "She meant X" She might have meant X, but that is not what she said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She doesn’t say it’s fine for them to do so, just that the body is designed that it’s not a risk. Someone stating a car can go 150mph with no issue is not saying it’s ok to drive 150, just that it could happen.

She is actually saying something which is not based in medical science. Young girls are at much higher risk of several pregnancy complications. She is basically saying the opposite. If you can get pregnant, pregnancy doesn't carry significant risk (i.e. your body is ready to have a baby). This is not consistent with our best understanding of human physiology.

You an OB? She is…..

So you think making 9 year olds give birth is a defensible idea.

That’s not what she said at all. Try to comprehend what you read.

She said a 9 year old could safely go through pregnancy, l&d, and she said this as a way to justify not allowing a pregnant 9 year old to have an abortion. Do you agree with her?

I have no idea if a 9 year old can safely go through a pregnancy, as I am not a Dr. She did not say she would "make a 9 year old give birth" as quoted above. If you want to debate something, you can't make up what someone said, and debate it like they said it.
You are all worked up over something made up, not something a person actually said.

She absolutely supports making a pregnant 9 year old go to term. She absolutely supports banning pregnant children from getting abortions. Prove us wrong.

Anti-abortionists are getting bolder about declaring their extreme positions.

I don't have to "prove you wrong" as it is your statement, and in the title of the thread, therefore it is upon you to prove it, not assume it, The quote in the OP is

Dr. Ingrid Skop, an obstetrician in San Antonio who belongs to the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said that even a girl as young as 9 or 10, impregnated by a father or a brother, could carry a baby to term without health risks.

“If she is developed enough to be menstruating and become pregnant, and reached sexual maturity, she can safely give birth to a baby,” Dr. Skop said.

Show me where that says she supports "making a 9 year old go to term" You wont find it. All it says is someone that young "could" carry a baby to term without health risks. You are assuming she means something else and getting offended by it, thats on you.

OP here. She is chair of American Association of "Pro-life" Obstetricians/Gynecologists which supports the banning of abortion in all cases except where the mother is in imminent danger of dying. This organization, of which she is chair, supports the restrictive abortion ban in Texas and elsewhere that do not allow for exceptions in the case of rape and incest. That is why she has testified in its favor. Can you make the connection?

To put it another way, she and her organization wholeheartedly support laws that would ban a 9 year old from having an abortion if her pregnancy is discovered around 8 weeks. Neither she nor her organization have advocated for the law to make those exceptions.

Hence her declaration that it was perfectly safe for a 9 year old to give birth, which no physician in her right might would agree with. She stated that to ward of criticism that a law without a rape / incest exception would force abused children to give birth.

Or are you REALLY arguing that she believes pregnant children should have access to abortion? Do you truly believe that? Because the opposite of believing that a pregnant 9 year old should have legal access to abortion is to believe that a pregnant 9 year old should carry the pregnancy to term.

All of what you just wrote can be 100% true, she can believe all of that, however you are adding stuff to the original statement to try and prove that is what she meant. You are reading into what she said and not actually reading what she did in fact say. Making "the connection" as you put it is a lot different than saying "She said X". People here are saying "She said X" and I am saying she did not say it, so the retort is "She meant X" She might have meant X, but that is not what she said.

DP here. Are you this dense IRL? Or do you just play a moron on DCUM?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP here. Are you this dense IRL? Or do you just play a moron on DCUM?

It’s just beginning to dawn on PP that she’s not on the side of the angels here and it’s causing her some discomfort, hence the contortions.

[Anonymous]

Is it a realistic scenario in any state that a 9 year old would be forced against her will to carry a baby to term?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She doesn’t say it’s fine for them to do so, just that the body is designed that it’s not a risk. Someone stating a car can go 150mph with no issue is not saying it’s ok to drive 150, just that it could happen.

She is actually saying something which is not based in medical science. Young girls are at much higher risk of several pregnancy complications. She is basically saying the opposite. If you can get pregnant, pregnancy doesn't carry significant risk (i.e. your body is ready to have a baby). This is not consistent with our best understanding of human physiology.

You an OB? She is…..

So you think making 9 year olds give birth is a defensible idea.

That’s not what she said at all. Try to comprehend what you read.

She said a 9 year old could safely go through pregnancy, l&d, and she said this as a way to justify not allowing a pregnant 9 year old to have an abortion. Do you agree with her?

I have no idea if a 9 year old can safely go through a pregnancy, as I am not a Dr. She did not say she would "make a 9 year old give birth" as quoted above. If you want to debate something, you can't make up what someone said, and debate it like they said it.
You are all worked up over something made up, not something a person actually said.

She absolutely supports making a pregnant 9 year old go to term. She absolutely supports banning pregnant children from getting abortions. Prove us wrong.

Anti-abortionists are getting bolder about declaring their extreme positions.

I don't have to "prove you wrong" as it is your statement, and in the title of the thread, therefore it is upon you to prove it, not assume it, The quote in the OP is

Dr. Ingrid Skop, an obstetrician in San Antonio who belongs to the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said that even a girl as young as 9 or 10, impregnated by a father or a brother, could carry a baby to term without health risks.

“If she is developed enough to be menstruating and become pregnant, and reached sexual maturity, she can safely give birth to a baby,” Dr. Skop said.

Show me where that says she supports "making a 9 year old go to term" You wont find it. All it says is someone that young "could" carry a baby to term without health risks. You are assuming she means something else and getting offended by it, thats on you.

OP here. She is chair of American Association of "Pro-life" Obstetricians/Gynecologists which supports the banning of abortion in all cases except where the mother is in imminent danger of dying. This organization, of which she is chair, supports the restrictive abortion ban in Texas and elsewhere that do not allow for exceptions in the case of rape and incest. That is why she has testified in its favor. Can you make the connection?

To put it another way, she and her organization wholeheartedly support laws that would ban a 9 year old from having an abortion if her pregnancy is discovered around 8 weeks. Neither she nor her organization have advocated for the law to make those exceptions.

Hence her declaration that it was perfectly safe for a 9 year old to give birth, which no physician in her right might would agree with. She stated that to ward of criticism that a law without a rape / incest exception would force abused children to give birth.

Or are you REALLY arguing that she believes pregnant children should have access to abortion? Do you truly believe that? Because the opposite of believing that a pregnant 9 year old should have legal access to abortion is to believe that a pregnant 9 year old should carry the pregnancy to term.

All of what you just wrote can be 100% true, she can believe all of that, however you are adding stuff to the original statement to try and prove that is what she meant. You are reading into what she said and not actually reading what she did in fact say. Making "the connection" as you put it is a lot different than saying "She said X". People here are saying "She said X" and I am saying she did not say it, so the retort is "She meant X" She might have meant X, but that is not what she said.

You sound very pedantic and literal. She said 9 year olds can safely give birth. Yes, I can interpret that "safely" as being synonymous with meaning it is "fine" for that 9 year old to give birth. There was no "but..." clause after she said that. She is literally promoting laws that would force abused children to give birth rather than allow them to get abortions. That is the consequence of her actions.

People like her and her organization are very careful not to come out and say directly "we want to force abused children to give birth to their abusers' babies" because they know the public doesn't support that. But that is the reality of what they are lobbying for: that abused children go to term with their father's or brother's or uncle's babies. That is exactly why she is justifying a law that makes no exception for abortion in the case of a pregnant 9 year old, by saying it is safe for that 9 year old to give birth. She doesn't want any exceptions for rape, and if people come back and say, but what about raped children, she says, no, no, it's safe for them to go through pregnancy. She is denying the danger of pregnancy for a child, which no medical expert agrees with, and those who have actually tended to children forced to give birth (see countries in Latin America where that happens) will tell you is a horrifying thing to do.

If a mother brought her pregnant 9 year old to this doctor, what do you think she would counsel her to do? We both know she would tell them not to get the abortion. You know it, and don't pretend you don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it a realistic scenario in any state that a 9 year old would be forced against her will to carry a baby to term?

In Texas it now is, yes, if the pregnancy is discovered after 6 weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it a realistic scenario in any state that a 9 year old would be forced against her will to carry a baby to term?

In Texas it now is, yes, if the pregnancy is discovered after 6 weeks.

Only if the family of the 9 year old fails to find a physician that will attest that a medical emergency exists. I think one lone kook in Texas is getting attention for her view that a 9 year old is able to carry to term precisely because it is an atypical view.

The Texas law will be struck down. There is bipartisan support for abortion, as the majority of Americans (looking at both parties combined) support our current laws. Only 39% of Americans support more restrictions. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ I'm not saying people shouldn't be vigilent in keeping laws as they are, but we don't need to get worked up about random obgyns with fringe extreme views, even if they weasel their way in front of congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it a realistic scenario in any state that a 9 year old would be forced against her will to carry a baby to term?

In Texas it now is, yes, if the pregnancy is discovered after 6 weeks.

+1

And rape victims who haven’t yet menstruated are not going to have any idea that they’re pregnant three weeks in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it a realistic scenario in any state that a 9 year old would be forced against her will to carry a baby to term?

In Texas it now is, yes, if the pregnancy is discovered after 6 weeks.

Only if the family of the 9 year old fails to find a physician that will attest that a medical emergency exists. I think one lone kook in Texas is getting attention for her view that a 9 year old is able to carry to term precisely because it is an atypical view.

The Texas law will be struck down. There is bipartisan support for abortion, as the majority of Americans (looking at both parties combined) support our current laws. Only 39% of Americans support more restrictions. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ I'm not saying people shouldn't be vigilent in keeping laws as they are, but we don't need to get worked up about random obgyns with fringe extreme views, even if they weasel their way in front of congress.

What about the festering fascism in the GOP suggests they care that there’s support for abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it a realistic scenario in any state that a 9 year old would be forced against her will to carry a baby to term?

In Texas it now is, yes, if the pregnancy is discovered after 6 weeks.

Only if the family of the 9 year old fails to find a physician that will attest that a medical emergency exists. I think one lone kook in Texas is getting attention for her view that a 9 year old is able to carry to term precisely because it is an atypical view.

The Texas law will be struck down. There is bipartisan support for abortion, as the majority of Americans (looking at both parties combined) support our current laws. Only 39% of Americans support more restrictions. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ I'm not saying people shouldn't be vigilent in keeping laws as they are, but we don't need to get worked up about random obgyns with fringe extreme views, even if they weasel their way in front of congress.

By calling her a "kook" you are minimizing her power -- this is someone who was brought to the US Congress to testify. She is the chair of a major anti-abortion doctor's group. She has a bullhorn and she uses it. And more and more anti-abortionists are saying aloud that they do not favor allowing exceptions in cases of rape or incest. It is a growing movement within the anti-abortion movement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it a realistic scenario in any state that a 9 year old would be forced against her will to carry a baby to term?

In Texas it now is, yes, if the pregnancy is discovered after 6 weeks.

Only if the family of the 9 year old fails to find a physician that will attest that a medical emergency exists. I think one lone kook in Texas is getting attention for her view that a 9 year old is able to carry to term precisely because it is an atypical view.

The Texas law will be struck down. There is bipartisan support for abortion, as the majority of Americans (looking at both parties combined) support our current laws. Only 39% of Americans support more restrictions. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ I'm not saying people shouldn't be vigilent in keeping laws as they are, but we don't need to get worked up about random obgyns with fringe extreme views, even if they weasel their way in front of congress.

By calling her a "kook" you are minimizing her power -- this is someone who was brought to the US Congress to testify. She is the chair of a major anti-abortion doctor's group. She has a bullhorn and she uses it. And more and more anti-abortionists are saying aloud that they do not favor allowing exceptions in cases of rape or incest. It is a growing movement within the anti-abortion movement.

Yeah... I personally know other kooks that have testified in front of congress and while they have an audience among certain people, they aren't exactly thought leaders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it a realistic scenario in any state that a 9 year old would be forced against her will to carry a baby to term?

In Texas it now is, yes, if the pregnancy is discovered after 6 weeks.

Only if the family of the 9 year old fails to find a physician that will attest that a medical emergency exists. I think one lone kook in Texas is getting attention for her view that a 9 year old is able to carry to term precisely because it is an atypical view.

The Texas law will be struck down. There is bipartisan support for abortion, as the majority of Americans (looking at both parties combined) support our current laws. Only 39% of Americans support more restrictions. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/ I'm not saying people shouldn't be vigilent in keeping laws as they are, but we don't need to get worked up about random obgyns with fringe extreme views, even if they weasel their way in front of congress.

What about the festering fascism in the GOP suggests they care that there’s support for abortion?

Pew's polling data would suggest your perception is not well supported. In fact, if you wade deeply into that data, you'll see that support for abortion restrictions is declining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She doesn’t say it’s fine for them to do so, just that the body is designed that it’s not a risk. Someone stating a car can go 150mph with no issue is not saying it’s ok to drive 150, just that it could happen.

She is actually saying something which is not based in medical science. Young girls are at much higher risk of several pregnancy complications. She is basically saying the opposite. If you can get pregnant, pregnancy doesn't carry significant risk (i.e. your body is ready to have a baby). This is not consistent with our best understanding of human physiology.

You an OB? She is…..

So you think making 9 year olds give birth is a defensible idea.

That’s not what she said at all. Try to comprehend what you read.

She said a 9 year old could safely go through pregnancy, l&d, and she said this as a way to justify not allowing a pregnant 9 year old to have an abortion. Do you agree with her?

I have no idea if a 9 year old can safely go through a pregnancy, as I am not a Dr. She did not say she would "make a 9 year old give birth" as quoted above. If you want to debate something, you can't make up what someone said, and debate it like they said it.
You are all worked up over something made up, not something a person actually said.

She absolutely supports making a pregnant 9 year old go to term. She absolutely supports banning pregnant children from getting abortions. Prove us wrong.

Anti-abortionists are getting bolder about declaring their extreme positions.

I don't have to "prove you wrong" as it is your statement, and in the title of the thread, therefore it is upon you to prove it, not assume it, The quote in the OP is

Dr. Ingrid Skop, an obstetrician in San Antonio who belongs to the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said that even a girl as young as 9 or 10, impregnated by a father or a brother, could carry a baby to term without health risks.

“If she is developed enough to be menstruating and become pregnant, and reached sexual maturity, she can safely give birth to a baby,” Dr. Skop said.

Show me where that says she supports "making a 9 year old go to term" You wont find it. All it says is someone that young "could" carry a baby to term without health risks. You are assuming she means something else and getting offended by it, thats on you.

OP here. She is chair of American Association of "Pro-life" Obstetricians/Gynecologists which supports the banning of abortion in all cases except where the mother is in imminent danger of dying. This organization, of which she is chair, supports the restrictive abortion ban in Texas and elsewhere that do not allow for exceptions in the case of rape and incest. That is why she has testified in its favor. Can you make the connection?

To put it another way, she and her organization wholeheartedly support laws that would ban a 9 year old from having an abortion if her pregnancy is discovered around 8 weeks. Neither she nor her organization have advocated for the law to make those exceptions.

Hence her declaration that it was perfectly safe for a 9 year old to give birth, which no physician in her right might would agree with. She stated that to ward of criticism that a law without a rape / incest exception would force abused children to give birth.

Or are you REALLY arguing that she believes pregnant children should have access to abortion? Do you truly believe that? Because the opposite of believing that a pregnant 9 year old should have legal access to abortion is to believe that a pregnant 9 year old should carry the pregnancy to term.

All of what you just wrote can be 100% true, she can believe all of that, however you are adding stuff to the original statement to try and prove that is what she meant. You are reading into what she said and not actually reading what she did in fact say. Making "the connection" as you put it is a lot different than saying "She said X". People here are saying "She said X" and I am saying she did not say it, so the retort is "She meant X" She might have meant X, but that is not what she said.

DP here. Are you this dense IRL? Or do you just play a moron on DCUM?

If someone was here posting “Biden said X” and when called out to prove it said “well he meant X” you’d have an issue with it. Why is this different?