doesn’t frighten me - the ones that frighten me are the ones that think they know more than meNo but I do find that these type of Drs do tend to be frightened by patients who do know more than them
well I haven’t found that to be the caseThere is even more nonsense put out by “pro-choice” Dr and the human in me tends to violently object to their lies.
Begging your pardon, Doctor, but don’t you think your position would have more credibility if you presented information to back up your bald assertions, rather than merely making snide remarks that dismiss the people to whom you’re responding as unqualified to participate in the discussion?well that shows that you don’t understand the rationale for treatment then doesn’t it? it exposes the “pro-life” stance as ludicrous
you favour a treatment that reduces the chance of future conception and you label that “pro-life”?
that’s what happens when you don’t understand the science
I am afraid that “Im a Doctor so i know best” argument holds no weight at all when discussing Faith and Morals. Given your callous disregard for life anyone who enages your services should b very, very careful.doesn’t frighten me - the ones that frighten me are the ones that think they know more than me
I don’t find patients ever know more than me in my specialist field these days
well I haven’t found that to be the case
it’s more a matter of omission, which is falsely perceived to undermine “informed consent” due to a simplistic idea of informed consent
what utter tripe!I am afraid that “Im a Doctor so i know best” argument holds no weight at all when discussing Faith and Morals. Given your callous disregard for life anyone who enages your services should b very, very careful.
there is no point in debating with people that base their scientific understanding on the moral position they want to takeBegging your pardon, Doctor, but don’t you think your position would have more credibility if you presented information to back up your bald assertions, rather than merely making snide remarks that dismiss the people to whom you’re responding as unqualified to participate in the discussion?
Seeing as how you are the one who introduced the contrary position (and, by the way, hijacked the thread), it stands to reason that the burden of proof is on you. And yet, all you’ve done is say, “Obviously you don’t know what you’re talking about” and (once) throw out a few medical terms in a manner that suggests that, if one isn’t familiar with them, then one doesn’t know what one is talking about.
You claim it’s impossible to debate with “pro-life extremists” because they don’t know what they’re talking about, and/or they are lying. I submit that it is impossible to debate with you because of your staunch refusal to concretely refute anything anyone has said AND your unwillingness to present any support for your position other than bald assertions.
Peace,
Dante
there is no difference, that is the issueIt only shows that there is a moral treatment and an immoral one. I’m sorry that you are unable to see the difference.
The morality isn’t in taking or preserving the tube, it is in the intention towards the unborn child.there is no difference, that is the issue
how is taking the tube more moral than preserving it? it isn’t
explain that one
You are being rather arrogant here in your thought.there is no point in debating with people that base their scientific understanding on the moral position they want to take
can’t you see the ridiculousness of saying salpingectomy is OK but tubal preservation and methotrexate aren’t?
what is your opinion?
that is an area for debate - debate me on it
you must concede, if one doesn’t know the language one can hardly be considered very knowledgeable on the subject?
Perfect example of why I rarely take Dr’s for clients. The overwheming arrogance , the “I know best” attitude. I swear in the last semester of Medical school they must take a “I am god 101” course.what utter tripe!
so where have I expressed “callous disregard” for life - try reading the posts!
we’re discussing science not morals - please keep up
another example of “prolife” thinking which demonstrates why I can’t have a debate with these extremists
the level of (lack of) thought is truly astounding - this guy doesn’t like “pro-life” fanatics so he must have a callous disregard for life? I find this truly staggering
that’s what you don’t understandThe morality isn’t in taking or preserving the tube, it is in the intention towards the unborn child.
please someone debate it with meYou are being rather arrogant here in your thought.
So I say why don’t you give it a try you might even have a good chance of educated us poor ignorant pro-lifers
Someone who is as “SMART” as your , right?please someone debate it with me
someone who actually accepts medical science and doesn’t work back from their desired conclusion?
I will concede that I do not know the whole process, but that doesn’t mean the medical practice does either, though I certainly hope they know more than a lay-person.Ok, you still don’t understand the whole process, yet venture to offer an opinion
Not familiar with the term “twaddle.” I’ll email my friend and see if it is a British thing.please don’t insert absolute twaddle into the conversation!
I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you are talking about the less common cases of it attaching to other organs like the colon. You mentioned “tube preservation” so I had presumed you were referring to to those occurring in the fallopian tube. If I was mistaken I apologize. I think I need to leave discussions with you to those with a thicker skin than mine. God bless you in your medical practice.I don’t know where you get this odd idea I’m not open to correction - and you have got the wrong end of the stick
do you know what an ectopic pregnancy is, first of all? it seems you don’t
I wish you would keep to what I have said, not what you think I have said - where on earth have I said anything about defective tubes at all in this thread? the mind boggles…
your lack of answer I will take as a “NO”Perfect example of why I rarely take Dr’s for clients. The overwheming arrogance , the “I know best” attitude. I swear in the last semester of Medical school they must take a “I am god 101” course.
Having read your latest flurry of posts I stand by what i said…
As I said before the “focus” or the “ends” are the same. We agree there. The means of obtaining that end is where morailty comes in. A rather weak analogy may be that if one wanted to lose weight they could follow a healthy diet and exercise (good “means”) or vomit after every meal (bad “means”). The end is the same…losing weight, the means are significantly different.that’s what you don’t understand
what is the focus of treatment in ectopic pregnancy?
this is important
Yes but methotrexate will stop the growth of the child and eventually kill him. While salpingectomy is not directly trying to kill the child but hopefully trying to replace him in the uterus.right let’s explain the science
ectopic pregnancy is where the enbryo implants somewhere it shouldn’t
the most common place is the Fallopian tubes/salpinges (singular salpinx)
this may be due to a problem in the tubes affecting egg transport, but clearly not always as the embryo has a remarkable ability to implant, even implanting in the pouch of Douglas for example or on the bowel
the pregnancy cannot go to term
this pregnancy will rupture
the aim of treatment is destroy this non-viable pregnancy
this is why tubal preservation is possible and why methotrexate is an alternative treatment
they are all morally equivalent, as the pregnancy has to be terminated to save the mother’s life
no salpingectomy doesn’t try to replace the embryo in the foetus tho - it is killing the embryo just the sameYes but methotrexate will stop the growth of the child and eventually kill him. While salpingectomy is not directly trying to kill the child but hopefully trying to replace him in the uterus.
I agree in both cases the child will probable die but only in one of the cases (methotrexate) is the child being singles out to die.
The pro-life stance is that you can not intentionally commit murder, which is the case in the methotrexate.
I am going to tread very carefully here. Although not familiar with that chemical, from the context I am going to presume it is a “dissolving chemical” for lack of a better term and so is a non-surgical alternative. The question remains, since the growth of the ovum has stretched and weakened the tube, why would you want to preserve the tube? A weak tube raises the possibility of a second ectopic. That was the “defective tube” I was referring to.the aim of treatment is destroy this non-viable pregnancy
this is why tubal preservation is possible and why methotrexate is an alternative treatment
Yes, I am aware of that but it is the intent. It gives dignity to the child and the mother, not one over the other.no salpingectomy doesn’t try to replace the embryo in the foetus tho - it is killing the embryo just the same