Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Sure, but ... we're not without the invention of modern medicine. You know that, right?

Other things that are disadventageous to the survival and wellness of offspring, but for which (hooray!) we now can deal with easily:

1. Near-sightedness
2. Allergy to strawberries
3. Propensity to get strep throat
4. Asthma
5. Imperforate hymen
6. Hernias

Any of these literally could lead to death in the 1300s. Guess what? They don't have to, and there isn't some magic intentionality we can appease by discouraging people with a propensity to developing strep throat from reproducing.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

If there was a definitive way to eliminate or reduce the risk of all of the things that you have listed BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention, then I'd be all for it. Until then, it's like comparing apples to oranges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Jesus christ, lady, I sure hope you stay home in a box to prevent interacting with the world and never get sick or in any accidents, so that you never ever take antibiotics or go to any emergency room or do anything ever at all, because a Rhogam shot is about as low-risk, cheap, one-and-done as you can imagine. You sound an awful lot like a eugenicist.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Sure, but ... we're not without the invention of modern medicine. You know that, right?

Other things that are disadventageous to the survival and wellness of offspring, but for which (hooray!) we now can deal with easily:

1. Near-sightedness
2. Allergy to strawberries
3. Propensity to get strep throat
4. Asthma
5. Imperforate hymen
6. Hernias

Any of these literally could lead to death in the 1300s. Guess what? They don't have to, and there isn't some magic intentionality we can appease by discouraging people with a propensity to developing strep throat from reproducing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

hey let me introduce you to the wonders of the standard newborn screen (heel poke)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

Here's the point that I've been trying to make. If you know that you're Rh negative then by avoiding having a child with an Rh positive person, you completely eliminate the risk of Rh incompatibility and the need for Rhogam altogether. If you avoid heavily drinking alcohol, then you reduce (but not completely eliminate as it has other causes) your risk of cirrhosis of the liver and the need for a liver transplant. I am all about trying to reduce or eliminate your risk (when possible) BEFORE you get to the point where you need medical intervention.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

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.

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.

A Rhogham shot is an easy way to avoid a dead baby. I got one for my second kid and it was painless and not particularly expensive as far as I remember. These shots are part of the (many) reasons, infant mortality has declined.

And FWIW-my OBGYN did write my blood type incorrectly and I caught it, which was a big deal, because with what she inputted, I wouldn't have needed a Rhogam shot, and my baby would have been at risk. People need to get a basic understanding of biology to be good advocates for their children.

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.

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 wrote: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.

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.

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.