Blood type changed during pregnancy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

Yes, the same science I commented several times that allows you to overcome the genetic incompatibility with your spouse. That science. Are you going to read now?

This is all that needs to be said! It gets the point across perfectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

DP. "Meant" is a term that comes with connotation as well as denotation. It implies intent or design.

I had my aortic heart valve replaced when I was 17, because the bicuspid, malformed valve had calcified and I was in critical heart failure. I wasn't "meant" to live. I think there is nothing wrong with using modern medicine to live anyway.

A three year old with acute lymphoblastic leukemia isn't "meant" to live by your rhetoric.
1. Do you think it's okay for him to get chemotherapy and live a normal life?
2. He was preprogrammed to die before puberty, so would you say he wasn't "meant" to live until reproductive age and have children? Or do you think he wasn't "meant" to have children, and if so, what does that mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

DP. "Meant" is a term that comes with connotation as well as denotation. It implies intent or design.

I had my aortic heart valve replaced when I was 17, because the bicuspid, malformed valve had calcified and I was in critical heart failure. I wasn't "meant" to live. I think there is nothing wrong with using modern medicine to live anyway.

A three year old with acute lymphoblastic leukemia isn't "meant" to live by your rhetoric.
1. Do you think it's okay for him to get chemotherapy and live a normal life?
2. He was preprogrammed to die before puberty, so would you say he wasn't "meant" to live until reproductive age and have children? Or do you think he wasn't "meant" to have children, and if so, what does that mean?

!. Yes.
2. I need to stop using the word meant because that is not the message that I'm trying to convey. I cannot determine what is meant to happen. I can only infer based on what I know from looking at the facts.

Here's my question for you. Would you agree that Rh incompatibility (without the intervention of modern medicine) is disadvantageous to the survival and wellness of offspring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

Yes, the same science I commented several times that allows you to overcome the genetic incompatibility with your spouse. That science. Are you going to read now?

This is all that needs to be said! It gets the point across perfectly.

⭐️for finally reading!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

DP. "Meant" is a term that comes with connotation as well as denotation. It implies intent or design.

I had my aortic heart valve replaced when I was 17, because the bicuspid, malformed valve had calcified and I was in critical heart failure. I wasn't "meant" to live. I think there is nothing wrong with using modern medicine to live anyway.

A three year old with acute lymphoblastic leukemia isn't "meant" to live by your rhetoric.
1. Do you think it's okay for him to get chemotherapy and live a normal life?
2. He was preprogrammed to die before puberty, so would you say he wasn't "meant" to live until reproductive age and have children? Or do you think he wasn't "meant" to have children, and if so, what does that mean?

!. Yes.
2. I need to stop using the word meant because that is not the message that I'm trying to convey. I cannot determine what is meant to happen. I can only infer based on what I know from looking at the facts.

Here's my question for you. Would you agree that Rh incompatibility (without the intervention of modern medicine) is disadvantageous to the survival and wellness of offspring?

PP I would stop responding to these people. Your commentary was clear from the beginning. They keep coming back with strawman arguments because they never read what you wrote and are just too pathetic to admit that. Instead they keep digging in trying to pretend you said something you didn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

This is a good point. Let's stop all genetically incompatible people from having kids together. Plus as a society we could save on medical costs and things like adult care since so many genetic disorders prevent people from living independent lives.

I don't get why so many people are attacking you for this idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard of people claiming their blood type changed. I think most are simply cases of people misremembering or not knowing in the first place but thinking they do. My own husband was told by his parents that he was O- but found out that he’s actually O+.

Your blood type doesn’t randomly change. It is genetic. It stays the same throughout your life like your eye color.

Well your eye color definitely changes throughout life and not just from cataracts. Babies often have blueish or violet eye colors that turn hazel. And hazel eyed people’s eye colors change with their mood - if normally brownish they turn amber or green when they get mad or if normally green they turn blue when they get upset.

Jesus christ. Not this shit again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

So you also believe that carriers of genetic diseases shouldn't have kids together? Let's screen everyone for cystic fibrosis and make sure carriers don't have kids together, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

So you also believe that carriers of genetic diseases shouldn't have kids together? Let's screen everyone for cystic fibrosis and make sure carriers don't have kids together, right?

"Everyone must have mandatory genetic testing before their first date! And for something for which there's a simple shot to resolve.... because.... reasons..."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

So you also believe that carriers of genetic diseases shouldn't have kids together? Let's screen everyone for cystic fibrosis and make sure carriers don't have kids together, right?

If they're aware that they're both carriers then I believe they shouldn't (as two carriers can produce a child with full-blown cystic fibrosis), but I have no authority over any adult other than myself. I can only say that I believe doing so is wrong and selfish. I'm entitled to my own opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

So you also believe that carriers of genetic diseases shouldn't have kids together? Let's screen everyone for cystic fibrosis and make sure carriers don't have kids together, right?

"Everyone must have mandatory genetic testing before their first date! And for something for which there's a simple shot to resolve.... because.... reasons..."

Exactly! Honestly this testing should be done at birth and kept in a government database. Healthcare costs are high enough anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do any pregnancy care then? Why do ultrasounds? If things don't work out and the baby or mom does it's just meant to be, right?

Because we have science. Again, your whataboutism doesn’t work here.

Science that develop the shot for rh incapability? That same science?

I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that I’m not against people receiving the shot for Rh incompatibility once a child that is at risk has already been created. I’m not against modern medicine. I simply believe that Rh positive and Rh negative people are not meant to have children together.

What is the meaning of “meant”? What entity is decreeing this?

What I mean by that is that they’re incompatible. It has negative consequences that are only mitigated by Rhogam.

Just like a million other negative consequences of biology that are mitigated by science and medicine and technology.

If those negative consequences were easily avoidable, then I'd get your point.

[Anonymous]

If people are CF carriers I think they might want to know before TTC. At the very least, they can get a baby tested and treated early. My neighbors did not know for years their son had CF, just that he was sick a lot.