Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’m confused
Feivel and DY, Do you beleive the stars are alive and have daas?
Not there malach (which isnt what the Rambam says) but that they have daas?
Rew
“Could be they moved back to Europe were they originally came from doesn’t make it symbolic with racism.”
What?
White supremiscts who cannot fly a swastika instead choose to fly the confedarate flag. This is quite telling. No they arent descendents of southerners who left the US. Is that what you were saying?
“The same can be said of the Magen David. Being that the Jews had to wear it to allow for persecution during the WWII era, does that mean that the Israelis want their country persecuted therefore they use the Magen David on their flag.”
what? No.
Given that the flag was the symbol of a racist government and today has been adopted by white supremascists and neonazis should settle this discussion
I agree with Joseph. Those who are saying the US is a traitorous flag are being absurd. So in the UK they shouldnt fly it, ok that does make sense
At any rate today it is a symbol of racism. It is not a coincidence that the flag was raised on the SC courthouse in 1961 during the civil rights era.
Also consider the fact that the Confederate flag is often flown by neonazis and even in Europe where they have no connection to “southern pride” in coutries where the swastika is banned neo-nazi groups often go with, what they must view as the next best thing, namely the confedare battle standard.
hakohen
“Until JFK decided to appear at his inauguration without a hat, that was what everyone wore.”
This is a myth. JFK did in fact appear with a hat at his inauguration. Pictures are readily available online.
However he wore a tophat not a fedora. If we follow your argument though shouldn’t we wear a tophat and coat tails to davening?
The bottom line is hat and jacket is simply a uniform adopted by the yeshiva world. It has zero to do with “dressing up” though that is proably how it started. Most of us would not wear a hat to see the PResdient (unless it was in a rabbinic setting) There are many pictures available of R’ Moshe sherer Zl or today’s askanim visiting various presidents or legislators and rarely (though not never) are they wearing a hat.
for a tie you can make a stronger argument than a hat.
Joseph
I do!
I dont follow dont you agree that “Halevai one day a year we have proper shomer shabbos” and “Halevai one day a year we properly believe in Hashem”?
Of course we SHOULD do all these things every day, but halevai one day
147
I quote “This does not make sense according to rules of English language. “
You did not say this does not make sense according to hilchos Bracha achrona or shiurim on yom kippur. Which to the best of my knoledge do not care much as to what oxford dictionary has to say. But the “English language” certainly does.
147
Grape juice is in fact a “food”
From Oxford dictionary
“any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants absorb, in order to maintain life and growth”
DY
I dont know about chukas akum. But wihtout question if in a century from now there is a chasidish minhag to celebrate a specidfic day in summer to celebrate fathers, yes It should be obvious that it was copied from goyim.
That said Joseph is silly for the many reasons:
1) “Jews have Father’s Day 354 days a year,” So you agree we should all wish our fathers happy fathwrs day today, you just maintain we should do it tommorow too.
2) Halevai one day a year we have proper kibud av
3) Every day is a time for teshuva, I hope your Rav doesnt discuss teshuva in Elul, every day is time to appreciate Torah, I hope your Rav doesnt discuss these themes on Shavuos. Hodaah on Chanukah, yetzias mitzrayim on PEsach etc etc.
4) These discussions are absolutly silly becasue the bottom line is this: If a father apreciates father’s day then there is no question that there is a mitzva deoraisa to wish him happy father’s day, if he doesnt care there is no reason too. Thus your opinion is only relevant to your children. So spare us.
mik 5, On erev Shabbos I make a habit of sampling from all Shabbos foods at all take out stores on 13th avenue.
Sadly the store owners are not aware of this halacha of yours and throw me out of their stores
With thanks to dik duk dik for most the leg work
I havent heard it in years but here is what I remember
(Yes newbee I know this is a terrible way to talk about Shabbos)
Hello, Bubby.
– Yeah, this is your einikel the big K’nocker speakin’.
….
– Ho ho ho, Bubby. You know what I like!
– A Shabbos tish mit gefilte fish, and a little chrain on the side.
– Some cholent in the pot and a kugel nice and hot, oh! makes me warm inside!
– some hulepthces mit kniedlich drein xich in boich vi dreidlach
in mit tzimes in mit chicken
macht di haltz a bissel triken
ken men trinken ah lchaim
biz d kup is in chomayim
Bubby that’s what I like!
– So, Bubbeh zisesh zug nur, vi macht di zeideh
– No, yeah?
– No, yeah?
– Yeah? No.
– Her hat farloyren zan tzein*
– Oy! ah brach
– Ho ho ho, Bubby. You know what I like!
– A Shabbos tish mit gefilte fish, and a little chrain on the side.
– Some cholent in the pot and a kugel nice and hot, oh! makes me warm inside!
– some hulepthces mit kniedlich drein xich in boich vi dreidlach
in mit tzimes in mit chicken
macht di haltz a bissel triken
ken men trinken ah lchaim
biz d kup is in chomayim
Bubby that’s what I like!
– Tell me Bubby, what time is lecht benchen*
– a qaurter to eight
in kim nisht shpeit
– Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
– OHo ho ho, Bubby. You know what I like!
– A Shabbos tish mit gefilte fish, and a little chrain on the side.
– Some cholent in the pot and a kugel nice and hot, oh! makes me warm inside!
– some hulepthces mit kniedlich drein xich in boich vi dreidlach
in mit tzimes in mit chicken
macht di haltz a bissel triken
ken men trinken ah lchaim
biz d kup is in chomayim
Bubby that’s what I like!
– Oy yo, oh Bubby that’s what I like!
Lol cherrybim thanks for finnaly answering my question and for demonstrating conclusivly exactly as many here suspected.
You have absolutly no clue what you are talking about.
That is not the goal of type 1 at all. Type 1’s are not resistant at all!
Granted they sometimes go on to develop type 2, but you have type 1 completely wrong!
“Does it make a difference if they are Type 1 or 2? Both Types need insulin and medication and diet and exercise to survive.”
Wrong again! For type 1 there is no role whatsoever for medication! they need insulin period. and type 2’s very often do not need insulin (at least initially)
Since you dont know the difference and the “websites” you are getting your false information from don’t seem to know either. Here is a brief crash course:
Type 1 is an autoimune process in which the insulin producing cells of the pancreas are destroyed. The goal of treatment is thus simple: The body cant produce insulin so it needs to be supplied artificially (granted in practice it can get complicated and they can go on to develop type 2 but the premise is simple). There is no role whatsoever for medications. Diet and exercise while always a goood idea dont help supply vital insulin if the body isnt producing it. The diabetic complications you refer to are rare in type 1 since they are usually a result of hyperglycemia which is usually not an issue with type 1.
Type 2 is completyl different! Type 2 is when the body produces insulin but is resistant to it. In these patients diet and excercise can slow the progression. Medications can sensitize the body to insulin. Eventually insulin is often required because the body is so resistent that you need to overwhelm the resistance with more and more insulin. These are the patients who develop the complications you keep referring to.
Most people of marriageable age whop are diabetic have type 1. And even those who have type 2 are rarely beyond help especially if they already know at that young age.
I’m sorry that youve been struggling with this. However if you are compliant with insulin, medications and diet and still “continue to have very high and sometimes very low numbers.” Might I humbly suggest getting a second opinion from a new endocrinologist. You never seemed to have heard of continuous glucose monitors, if you are having highs and lows and funny times thet perhaps you miss when spot checking with a finger stick, a continuous monitor will pick those up and perhaps adjusting the time that you take insulin or the type of insulin you take would help.
B”H your eyes haven’t been affected, you are obviously doing something right. It definitely isn’t easy.
Hatzlacha
Trust,
granted it is easier to understand your way but either way makes sense.
If I say “it cant be night and day too” that means it cant be both at the same time. OF course it can be night and then day afterwards. “You cant have your cake and eat it too” MEans you have to choose one or the other you can a) have your cake (i.e have it in your possesion) or b. eat your cake. You simply cannot do both at the same time it is one or the other.
Interestingly some poeple do say “You cant eat your cake and have it too” but thta is less common and (according to one account)actually helped lead to the arrest of the unabomber.
Wikipedia has an entry on this idiom that includes early versions going back to the 16th century
“I dont think the couple has the halachic or moral right to demand that guests dont take photos of other guests at the wedding”
They probably don’t have the halachic right, but I do think they have a moral right. (see what I did there). And i am almost certain it isnt gezeilah or geneiva
I think it is weird to make a big deal out of this, but hey if they don’t want it just dont do it. period
mazal77
“As a guest, if you are requested not to do certain things, it is only proper etiquette.”
I dont think anybody including newbee is arguing on that point. If asked by baalei simcha not to do something, people just shouldn tdo it, period. Gezel or not.
I think newbee means, that there is no way to avoid it, about which of course he is right, unfortunately our simchas are big and frankly you cant expect 500 people to all be mentchen. Again I’m not saying it isn’t wrong.
However, it isn’t Gezel.
That said
Reb yid
Where do you gt the idea that you own a picture I take of you?
I definitely do not disagree at all
however I do wonder about this “It is one hundred present gezel to take pics of the choson and kallah and put them up.” “It is one hundred percent poor geneviah.”
what is being stolen?
Ivdu
‘”Oh you just want to have your cake and eat it too”. thats right! What good is cake if you can’t eat it?
I dont get this one. If you eat it you no longer have it, as the saying correctly points out “you cant have your cake and eat it too” it is one or the other
Unless you mean the word “too” isnt neccesary?
yiddishemusic
I had the same thought!
Though it is more than just illogical, most of his statments are simply factually incorrect. I find it fascinating when people cling to statements that are simply and demonstrably false
cheerybim
Even if your “facts” were correct which many are not, your over all attitude displays a complete lack of understanding of the subject at hand.
Here is my question to you again
“Several posters have pointed out to you that there are two types of diabetes. Yet you still seem to be fusing them together.
Prior to this discussion, did you know there were two types?
Do you know now?”
I also have another question. I’m curions where you got these “facts” from
“Advancement? Like what? Either a diabetic changes his eating habits and starts to exercise daily (like telling a drug addict to just stop his habit), or he is finished. “
Are the “Certified diabetic medical sites” you found really not aware of advances in diabetes? Do they really lump all diabetics together like you do?
Or this gem
“However, it’s not an exact science and at any time blood sugar levels can shoot dangerously high, or plummet seriously low.”
Which “certified diabetic medical site” says that at any time blood sugar levels cna rise and fall on their own?
cheerybim
I’d be happy too. Though there are a lot of “facts” in your posts most of which arent true. Which in particular would you like corrected?
“not all diabetics have similar requirements”
True
” or reactions to devices.”
False
” Continuous glucose monitoring systems are invasive”
false
” and the sensor which is placed in the body is replaced every few days.”
True but that is less often thanchecking fingersticks
“the continuous glucose monitors are very expensive: the monitor itself can cost up to $2000 and other material expenses are about $2500 per year.”
True though many insurances will pay
” Whereas, the standard monitor is usually obtained free of charge”
True
” and costs pennies per day to operate.”
False
“But even if you can own a continuous glucose monitor, the device is not as accurate and reliable as the standard monitor”
false
” and still requires calibration with a regular blood glucose testing meters every few hours.”
false
“Maybe this is why I am not aware of any diabetics who own a continuous glucose monitoring system.”
True I guess, though perhaps they arent sharing?
” Most insurance companies as well as Medicare do not cover continuous glucose monitoring systems and feel the higher costs are not justified.”
False
“A diabetic should be checking his blood on a regular basis anyway.”
True though depends on the diabetic and how often you mean by “regular basis”
” And if it’s so great, why don’t all endocrinologists have their patients wear it.”
I guess you did some research subsequently
I have a question for you. Several posters have pointed out to you that there are two types of diabetes. Yet you still seem to be fusing them together.
Prior to this discussion, did you know there were two types?
Do you know now?
Wolf
They do.
Keep in mind though the ninth ikkur you refer to is the Rambam’s others disagree
Cheerybim, im sorry but like every comment youve made on this thread you have no idea what you are talking about.
I also love how 2 days ago you never seemed to hear about continuous blood glucose monitors, and now you are an expert.
If you have questions I and I’m sure others here would be mor ethan happy to answer. Dont make asumptions about a topic you clearly know so little about. just ask.
Including heavily reduced tuition?
Dash
that isnt much of a question A hashgacha on an establishment doesnt mean that they oversee the kashrus of every thing inside, rather that they trust those who do. If say the Star K gives a hechsher on a pizza store the tomato sauce might be under the chaf K, the cheese under the hisachdus, the flour under the OU etc etc.
Similarly bottled drinks are either under their own hashgacha which the oversseing hashgacha recognises or the overseeing hashgacha feels that they don’t need one (eg water)
al tashlicheinu leis ziknah
Avram
“I highly doubt that those shittos were intended to kasher the fact that almost 75% of abortions in the U.S. are done because of financial concerns or concerns about disruptions to life/career/etc.”
That is not what the thread is about
From the OP
” But do you really think that the Shittah that the determining factor between personhood and not is birth has no moral weight whatsoever?”
DY
This discussion isnt limited to abortion per se.
The question is, is the idea that a fetus does not equal a full fledged life, an immoral one.
clealry the answer is no, and Ive provided several rayahs to that end.
Including Ubar yerech imo (regardless of context), that a preganat woman is killed with her fetus if she is chayav misah, that there is finacial payment for killing a fetus etc etc.
As mentioned above this does not mean abortion on demand is mutar. Just becasue a fetus is not a life doesnt mean we can kill it, for any number of reasons. (Some of which would probably make Avram sadder than a fetus being “just a foot”, eg some say it is hashcasas zera)
and yes some shitas do apply chavala to abortion eg Maharit chelek 1 97,
Avram:
Regarding the first quote. I was quoting those much greater than I http://www.hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=31&daf=58&format=pdf
Regarding the second quote the “view” I’m reffering to is that a fetus isnt a life. which I believe is not an unreasonable view (even if wrong), nor can it be since it is not neccesarily against halacha.
edited
DY
Fair enough, though It depends on what you mean by life support. But that is another topic.
Though there is a difference once the person is alive, then he is fully alive until dead. Whears a fetus is not fully alive while dependent on the mother. IT is like her foot, or yerech imo if you will.
“Are you also unsure that murder is immoral?”
No. why?
I am saying that abortion in society’s view (which is not immoral or unreasonable) and according to some in halacha as well is not murder. (though not neccesarily mutar)
Avram
You finnaly answered my question “Once the head emerges, the infant can breathe on his/her own, whereas before that time, if the mother died, the infant most likely would too.” So the difference between the two in your opinion is that it’s life is dependent on the mother. OR put another way it is not fully alive.
Is that fair?
“Well, I’ll let you debate that with Sam2, because he does not hold that way. If I wanted to chop off one of my arms because I preferred having one instead of two, according to him I’m stupid but doing nothing immoral (i.e., against halacha).”
I would yield to Sam2, he clearly know more than I. But I was always under the impression that purposly being chovel oneself for no reason is against Halacha . I dont see where Sam2 said any different, all I see is that it is not immoral. but may still be against halacha (As to whether the 2 are synonyms, is the discussion on another thread).
“Do the allowing opinions state explicity that the fetus is not a rodef in this case?”
I would have to check inside, I’m pretty sure some do.
” It would seem to me that it could be,”
Thats a big chiddush to me, and clearly not a simple understanding of rodef.
As far as the reasons that havent convinced you.
a. You only addressed one. There is still this: A pregnant woman who is chayiv misah is killed with her fetus inside her. We dont wait till she gives birth. not even a day. If the fetus is a person why is it being killed for its mother’s aveira?
b. Reegarding your response to finacial payment. That is a technical halacha in Retzicha and misas beis din. WE only kill for a vadei issur, since we dont know if the living baby is a nefel or not we cant kill for its murder r”l.
This is in no way similar to abortion for which the penalty is financial. There is no finacial penalty for killing a 1 day old infant much as there isnt for killing a 20 year old person. To sum up:
Abortion – punishement is its monetary value
Infant < 30 days – no punishment (because we cant kill for safek)
> 30 days – misah
Clearly a fetus is in a sepearte category than a baby.
“Our reasoning is quite different, but the conclusions perhaps not so much. “
agreed.
“an we agree that the secular pro-choice “Abortion on Demand!” position is immoral?”
This feeds back to the discussion regarding does halacha equal morality. Of which i am not sure yet.
What I do know is that the idea that a fetus does not equal a baby is not immoral, and in fact compatible with Halacha.
As to where that fact leads you, may be another story.
Avram
Please note you havent answered my question Here it is again:
“why only after head comes out do we say “ain dochin nefesh” why wasnt the fetus a nefesh before head coming out?
What changed? “
You replied “”The halacha does not state that the reason we can kill a fetus when the mother is endangered is because it is not a nefesh.”
Yes because we are note allowed to dammage a body just for nothing. If a person is inconvenieced by his leg, he cant remove it. In a life threatening situation then a fetus much like a keg can be removed. However once the fetus is born (i.e.) the had is out, it is now a person and no longer a fetus (this is the answer to my question above btw) and can no longer be killed even if the mother’s life is in danger becasue you now have 2 lives in front of you wheras before you hasd one.
please note this isnt the only way of understanding the Halacha. But is certainly a valid approach. Namley that until birth the fetus is not considered a person.
“Also, I am enjoying the discussion of these points, but I don’t feel that they are fundamentally relevant to my point, unless you can tell me that there is a valid halachic opinion today that holds we can abort a fetus when the fetus is not at all a rodef”
there are many such shitas! For example say the mother’s life is endangered because of cancer nothing to do with the fetus. Delaying treatment would endager her life, but innitiating treatment would abort the fetus. Can the fetus be aborted, when it isnt being “rodef” the mother?
There are shitas (not all) that say yes. a great source for these shitas and other cases is Dr. Steinberg’s encyclopedia on medical ethics (I dont have it in front of me to provide actual sources at this moment).
bottom line is many shitas hold life begins at birth. Consider the fact that killing a fetus only results in finacial compensation to father, A pregnant woman is killed if chayiv misah even if her fetus is due today.
THis doe snot mean abortion on demand is halachicly sanctioned much as amputation on demand isnt halachicly sanctioned.
Avram
why only after head comes out do we say “ain dochin nefesh” why wasnt the fetus a nefesh before head coming out?
What changed?
Avram
“How does the way the doctor characterizes the unborn baby change anything? “
Um becasue this entire conversation is about the doctor’s intentions
I have encountered people with the exact story as you just a few steps earlier namely regarding Dor Yesharim, intervening with Hashem’s will, preventing life from coming to the world. I assume you dont agree with them, and I dont. And of course to you the two cases are different, but to them our view on Dor Yeshorim is more similar to the Doctor;s than you would like.
That is just a side point though. The main distinction is as Sam2 said
2scents
“You mentioned that you are not referring to the bigger or general picture, yet you brought up the argument of diversions. “
I mentioned the opposite repeatedly, this conversation is about the “medical establishment”
CA
“so where is it coming from (for that .1%? )”
From “a dark and evil place to satisfy their lust”
Seriously though some conflicts even among decent people cant be resolved even with open honest respectful communication. Plus not all medical proffessionals are decent
“secular ethics is increasingly diverging from Jewish values. “
This is a gross oversimplification, in some ways but not others
“…even when faced with a doctor’s facepalm at our choices.”
In those cases explain your choice.
In case this thread gets closed here is my closing statement:
Hopsitals in general and ICU’s in particular are a stressful environment. This is true for the satf as well as the patients. Emotions often run high, and conflicts often ensue. These conflicts can be amongst family members or between the caregivers and patient/family. The key to successful conflict resolution is communication. Of course communication has to be respectful to be effective. IT is hard if not impossible to have respect for those who are coming from a “dark and evil place”. Most caregivers honestly want to do what is best for their patient. If there is a conflict explain your value system and listen to theirs. By no means should you accept theirs if you disagree with it, but try to understand them and where they are coming from it is rarely if ever coming from “a dark and evil place”. 99.9% of conflicts can be resolved with open and honest communication in a respectful way.
That is my main point, all else was commentary.
MAy none of you have to be placed in such situations, and may those who are have a refuah sheleima besoch shar cholei yisroel
DY
Really mischaracterize?
In addition to the great pull quotes from Avram above (thanks)
There is also this “to be free to indulge in whatever you wish, to satisfy any lust” as a driving factor. I’m sorry but I STRONGLY disagree, and while it is nice that some of you are toning down his offensive view, words have meaning
Avram
You are correct about my It above.
CA
It is more than that. I am saying the “doctors who pull the plug” even if wrong, are not coming from a “dark and evil place” nor are they trying to be “free to indulge …and satisfy any lust”
Avram
“Oh, really?”
Yes
“And I absolutely 100% agree with you. However, can you not agree that the virtue of wanting to alleviate suffering can be led down bad paths by wrong beliefs?”
Of course! Though that isnt what we are discussing
“And I absolutely 100% agree with you. However, this is irrelevant to my point. Good intentions are not necessarily related to goodness”
Fair enough, but Good intentions are deffinitly not relaterd to evil intentions
Syag
“I wanted to point out that 2scents used the word “overload” but NEVER made any reference to which population he was thinking of. You did that math on your own”
Neither did I, YOU assumed what population I was reffering to.
Though to be fair, it wasnt hard math. It is the same population the bulk of this thread has been about.
It seems that my shortening of Feivel’s comment into coming from a “dark and evil place” is confusing some people. So here it is again:
In reponse to my saying
“while they may be wrong it is not generally coming from a bad place”
He replied
“
It is in fact coming from a hideous place of darkness and evil.
While you may to some extent be don l caf zchus and partially view the hospital consciousness as being a mere field of wheat being blown by the winds of the environment and the political correctness accepted as the current avodah zara, still the place this ultimately derives from is the same place that all evil, all isms, all avoda zara has ever come from. From turning ones back to Hashem, to be free to indulge in whatever you wish, to satisfy any lust. All disguised of course behind the license of a statue or of humanism or whatever you call it. Then there is no Ribono Shel Olam CvS, no sanctity of life. Every decision being made only by what feels good and will still leave me in the respect of my local and wider society.
It bothers them to see someone that is much like themselves suffering, so let them die instead. Then we don’t have to worry about our own suffering. Works well. Conscience is clear. Problem solved. Why not? There is no Ribono Shel Olam, CvS.
Maybe this is not always in their conscious thoughts, but It is their true motivation, and certainly the underlying rationale of this degenerate, basically atheistic, pseudo-love society.”
Avram
“If something is against the Torah, then ultimately its source is darkness and evil. Those who hold of those things may themselves not be dark and evil, but the source of their position is. Do you really disagree with that? “
Yes! Strongly.
Wanting to alleviate suffering is not (neccesarily) evil
Beleiving that limited resources are better spent in one way than another is not (neccessarily) evil
Feivel
“But I guess as you say that’s not relevant to the question of the moral status of “modern” society. . “
Remeber it was banned So society is improving!
It is not relevent to the subject at hand it is relevent to the “question of the moral status of “modern” society. . .” That isnt really what we are discussing. It did copme up in passing on Friday, and I responded, that there are areas where our morals are improving (treating minorities, mentally ill, war, and now we can add banning partial birth abortion to improvments in morality,) granted we have a long way to go
Minor quible “Cracking ribs is an unfortunate unintended potential side effect of a life saving procedure.” Not potential, it is definite, in the cases I’m reffering to. But I dont disagree on your general point on this matter.
SYAG
2scents said “overloaded” I repeated it and was careful to put it in quotes, since it was not MY wording.
That you can ask that indicates you have not understood my point either. I am not sharing my view on the matter, regardless of what it is, I put Torah first, as has been stressed repeatedly. I dont get to have my own view.
what I am saying is this:
Those who have another view than I do are not automaticly coming from a “dark and evil place” They may still be wrong but not evil.
DY
I do!
I’m guessing you don’t 🙂
2scents
“However, that is usually when they either have an overloaded ER or ICU,”
that is my point and many of those “overloading” the beds are…
“You are making the point that in the bigger picture healthcare money should be spent for people with a longer ypll”
NO i am not making that point at all. In most of my posts I have been careful to stress that.
“that is not the discussion here, rather how some health care providers treat patients that are not young or have terminal illnesses. “
exactly, and wether the way they are treated is coming from a “Dark evil” place. THAT is what I have been discussing.
And again, the lack of resources is not the only issue, it may not even be the main issue, but it is very real. PErhaps not on an indivdual level, but on the general “medical establishment” level.
Feivel
describing a terrible act in a horrible way doesnt change much. I can do the same about taking a 90 year old pt full of decubtus ulcers pounding on his chest cracking ribsetc…
Abortion is not relevent to the issue at hand as I have outlined above.
Health Of course it is based on PC. Life beggining (and ending for that matter) isnt really a medical question, it is a theological/ethical question. Sorry if I implied otherwise.
I dont get what your refrence adds, It states what I said that ACOG namely the “medical establishment” is ok with or even “promotes” abortions. OF course not all practitioners agree, I never said EVERY medical proffessional favore abortions on demand. Again sorry if I implied otherwise
Health the AMA and ACOG among others