data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ef118/ef118db8538316d13414b77917e324f00e093d44" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/46069/460692bda71b4646fdb0a688218881341e90297a" alt=""
John has had some pretty direct and confrontational interviews already. This wouldn’t be new for him.
John has had some pretty direct and confrontational interviews already. This wouldn’t be new for him.
I’ve said it before, why would he would have to? Having to do something is usually due to the fact that not doing it is illegal. Trump doesn’t care about the law. He would just say “no” and then nothing happens like usual.
I didn’t read it? Another amazing assumption. She had seizures. That happened. Jesus Christ.
If you actually read it you would have read the first paragraph.
"Patient One was 24 years old and pregnant with her third child when she was taken off life support. It was 2014. A couple of years earlier, she had been diagnosed with a disorder that caused an irregular heartbeat, and during her two previous pregnancies she had suffered seizures and faintings. "
Diagnosed with irregular heartbeat and had seizures during her last two pregnancies. There risk there is SUPER obvious. The why doesn’t matter, what she did was selfish. Her two kids now have no mother because she wanted a third one.
Did you read the post? She was diagnosed with a heart issue. She had seizures, that’s not common. What am I assuming?
You seem to be purposefully ignoring whole sentences in the post.
She was diagnosed, and it had to do with her heart. She knew the risk of pregnancy. It’s not an assumption, it’s right there in the article.
Yeah but that’s all the reason for her not to do this. She left her other kids without a mother because she wanted more kids. It was extremely selfish and I feel sorry for her kids.
How can you claim to know the future with such certainty? It comes across silly.