re: #317 Obdicut

Dude: Basic medical information is that PUV is decided on a case-by-cases basis whether or not it is a survivable— even with surgery— condition.

Whether or not the NYT fucked up you don’t actually know. The particular PUV their child had could have been considered by 99 doctors to be inoperable, with one willing to try. They say the results were that he was then ‘perfectly formed’; that may or may not be true.

It may also be that the damage to the renal system had already occurred.

You cannot call bullshit on the NYT without knowing the details of the case beyond the testimony of the mother. Given the Santorum’s history on abortion, I don’t grant her testimony credence.

Oops - except - except - the NYT is stating that they are getting their facts from the book. “According to Karen Santorum’s book,” and then a complete misrepresentation of what is in Karen Santorum’s book.

So, yeah. We have two sources…then we find out we really only have one source, because the second was simply a distortion of the first.

This is sensitive shit. We should either have proof (i.e. a link) that the Santorums are lying or take their word on the general timeline of events.

Per her book, the operation was successful. Therefore, it couldn’t have been the most horrible decision ever. The post-op infection is what seems to have kicked off the unfortunate premature birth.