Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tax-chick
Ah, a variant of product placement.

It says the technology has improved but still, the angle of the view, position of limbs, and/or cord placement can fool the eye, so it's just not a good idea to put faith in the ultrasound for ascertaining sex.

It may be correct in most cases, but it is still a subjective test. I wouldn't paint walls or buy expensive DNA-specific baby items until I knew for sure.

In her 35 years as a practicing Ob/Gyn, she has never seen a mistake like this with one of her patients, said Dr. Laura Corio a gynecologist with Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York.

That's a weird statement on a number of levels.

30 posted on 03/17/2015 1:13:31 PM PDT by Ezekiel (All who mourn the destruction of America merit the celebration of her rebirth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: Ezekiel

Maybe her patients didn’t rely on ultrasound to determine the sex.

One of my friends asked the screener, “What is it?” and they guy said, “It’s a fish.”


32 posted on 03/17/2015 1:18:10 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Google "tiny kitten pictures," and put down the gun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson