Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

Holy s***! I've never been more happy to be RH+. I'm not even a religious woman but praise the Lord. 🙌🏻

In 1971, there was nationwide concern over bacterial contamination of saline IV fluid manufactured by Abbott Laboratories. Just imagine if you needed a bag of IV saline today, e.g., if you were dehydrated in the ER. No thanks! Praise Jesus!

What? I’m RH+. I don’t need the shot, thankfully. I’ll never have to worry about any of these issues. 😂

According to multiple people on this htread, that can change on a dime. Look out!

They don’t know what they’re talking about. 95% of the people on this thread are clueless. Blood type doesn’t change.

I don't know about that. When I get mad, my eyes burn a delicate lavender fire, and my bone marrow rapidly vacillates between AB+ and O-.

Was the eye color change for people with hazel eyes ever a real thing? I always thought there was maybe some reflection based on what people are wearing? Like a deep blue shirt makes someone with blues has appear to have a deeper blue. I thought it was my mind playing tricks on me.

There's the actual pigment in the iris, and then there is how you perceive the pigment. The former doesn't change, but the latter can. Different lighting, different makeup or clothing colors (you already know how some blue shirts can really make blue eyes pop), even the change in pupil size can affect how you pereive the pigment that is there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

Holy s***! I've never been more happy to be RH+. I'm not even a religious woman but praise the Lord. 🙌🏻

In 1971, there was nationwide concern over bacterial contamination of saline IV fluid manufactured by Abbott Laboratories. Just imagine if you needed a bag of IV saline today, e.g., if you were dehydrated in the ER. No thanks! Praise Jesus!

What? I’m RH+. I don’t need the shot, thankfully. I’ll never have to worry about any of these issues. 😂

According to multiple people on this htread, that can change on a dime. Look out!

They don’t know what they’re talking about. 95% of the people on this thread are clueless. Blood type doesn’t change.

I don't know about that. When I get mad, my eyes burn a delicate lavender fire, and my bone marrow rapidly vacillates between AB+ and O-.

Was the eye color change for people with hazel eyes ever a real thing? I always thought there was maybe some reflection based on what people are wearing? Like a deep blue shirt makes someone with blues has appear to have a deeper blue. I thought it was my mind playing tricks on me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

Holy s***! I've never been more happy to be RH+. I'm not even a religious woman but praise the Lord. 🙌🏻

In 1971, there was nationwide concern over bacterial contamination of saline IV fluid manufactured by Abbott Laboratories. Just imagine if you needed a bag of IV saline today, e.g., if you were dehydrated in the ER. No thanks! Praise Jesus!

What? I’m RH+. I don’t need the shot, thankfully. I’ll never have to worry about any of these issues. 😂

According to multiple people on this htread, that can change on a dime. Look out!

They don’t know what they’re talking about. 95% of the people on this thread are clueless. Blood type doesn’t change.

I don't know about that. When I get mad, my eyes burn a delicate lavender fire, and my bone marrow rapidly vacillates between AB+ and O-.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

Holy s***! I've never been more happy to be RH+. I'm not even a religious woman but praise the Lord. 🙌🏻

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

First, that's not Rhogam. Rhogam is a specific brand with specific processing, not any generic anti-D immunoglobulin. There has also never been any infectious transmission with HyperRHO, Rhophylac, or WinRho, which are less commonly used in the US. As to what the screening and processing protocols were in Ireland in 1977 and 1978 (about 50 years ago), I can't say -- but I doubt you are pointing at anything else from Ireland at 50 years ago and calling it relevant for today. In the 1970s we also had lawn darts and no infant carseat restraints in the US.

Second, of course you get to decline for yourself. Who cares? But why the criticism of other women making a different choice?

It is the exact same type of injection. It is made from human blood. I'm sure the women that received those injections fully trusted it.

My point is that if it happened once then it can happen again. It took them 20 years to realize that batch was contaminated. There was also another case of contamination in Germany.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

Holy s***! I've never been more happy to be RH+. I'm not even a religious woman but praise the Lord. 🙌🏻

In 1971, there was nationwide concern over bacterial contamination of saline IV fluid manufactured by Abbott Laboratories. Just imagine if you needed a bag of IV saline today, e.g., if you were dehydrated in the ER. No thanks! Praise Jesus!

What? I’m RH+. I don’t need the shot, thankfully. I’ll never have to worry about any of these issues. 😂

According to multiple people on this htread, that can change on a dime. Look out!

They don’t know what they’re talking about. 95% of the people on this thread are clueless. Blood type doesn’t change.

I don't know about that. When I get mad, my eyes burn a delicate lavender fire, and my bone marrow rapidly vacillates between AB+ and O-.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

Holy s***! I've never been more happy to be RH+. I'm not even a religious woman but praise the Lord. 🙌🏻

In 1971, there was nationwide concern over bacterial contamination of saline IV fluid manufactured by Abbott Laboratories. Just imagine if you needed a bag of IV saline today, e.g., if you were dehydrated in the ER. No thanks! Praise Jesus!

What? I’m RH+. I don’t need the shot, thankfully. I’ll never have to worry about any of these issues. 😂

According to multiple people on this htread, that can change on a dime. Look out!

They don’t know what they’re talking about. 95% of the people on this thread are clueless. Blood type doesn’t change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

Holy s***! I've never been more happy to be RH+. I'm not even a religious woman but praise the Lord. 🙌🏻

In 1971, there was nationwide concern over bacterial contamination of saline IV fluid manufactured by Abbott Laboratories. Just imagine if you needed a bag of IV saline today, e.g., if you were dehydrated in the ER. No thanks! Praise Jesus!

What? I’m RH+. I don’t need the shot, thankfully. I’ll never have to worry about any of these issues. 😂

According to multiple people on this htread, that can change on a dime. Look out!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

Holy s***! I've never been more happy to be RH+. I'm not even a religious woman but praise the Lord. 🙌🏻

In 1971, there was nationwide concern over bacterial contamination of saline IV fluid manufactured by Abbott Laboratories. Just imagine if you needed a bag of IV saline today, e.g., if you were dehydrated in the ER. No thanks! Praise Jesus!

What? I’m RH+. I don’t need the shot, thankfully. I’ll never have to worry about any of these issues. 😂

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

Holy s***! I've never been more happy to be RH+. I'm not even a religious woman but praise the Lord. 🙌🏻

In 1971, there was nationwide concern over bacterial contamination of saline IV fluid manufactured by Abbott Laboratories. Just imagine if you needed a bag of IV saline today, e.g., if you were dehydrated in the ER. No thanks! Praise Jesus!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

Holy s***! I've never been more happy to be RH+. I'm not even a religious woman but praise the Lord. 🙌🏻

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

... do you know how blood transfusions work?

There are people who only will consent to blood donations from those who never received a COVID vaccine, so, you know. There's a lot of interesting opinions out there.

I mean, they literally don't sort blood that way so those people are just choosing to die.

I don't know why anyone would decline the Rh factor when there's such a high risk of serious issues if you don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

... do you know how blood transfusions work?

There are people who only will consent to blood donations from those who never received a COVID vaccine, so, you know. There's a lot of interesting opinions out there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nah. I agree with the pp on that. The Rhogam shot is made from human blood and carries the risk of contracting infectious diseases. I also doubt you'd be entitled to any sort of compensation if you did contract an infectious disease from it. If you're blessed enough to be able to avoid it then you definitely should.

Yes, you're being injected with blood products from complete strangers.

Which ... you can decline. Which comes with informed consent. Which nobody ever forces you to take. So if you want to put your Rh value out there to any potential dating partners, have at it. Nobody cares.

And by the way, Rhogam goes through such processing that there has literally NEVER been a case of any infectious transmission through Rhogam, despite half a million or more doses worldwide for 40+ years.

So -- don't do it, if you don't want to. But to criticize other women for making a different choice because you think it's risky to get Rhogam, or somehow eugenically impure? Damn. Crazypants talk, there.

There have.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10210705/

First, that's not Rhogam. Rhogam is a specific brand with specific processing, not any generic anti-D immunoglobulin. There has also never been any infectious transmission with HyperRHO, Rhophylac, or WinRho, which are less commonly used in the US. As to what the screening and processing protocols were in Ireland in 1977 and 1978 (about 50 years ago), I can't say -- but I doubt you are pointing at anything else from Ireland at 50 years ago and calling it relevant for today. In the 1970s we also had lawn darts and no infant carseat restraints in the US.

Second, of course you get to decline for yourself. Who cares? But why the criticism of other women making a different choice?

It is the exact same type of injection. It is made from human blood. I'm sure the women that received those injections fully trusted it.

My point is that if it happened once then it can happen again. It took them 20 years to realize that batch was contaminated. There was also another case of contamination in Germany.