Posted on 08/08/2015 7:45:55 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
The subject of rape, incest and life of the mother as exceptions to bans on abortion came up at last night’s GOP presidential debate, and moderator Megyn Kelly proved to be dangerously wrong on this issue.
Kelly was aghast that anyone would have any hesitation about approving an abortion to save the life of the mother. She spoke of this choice as if were one that commonly and frequently must be made.
The reality, however, is that an abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother. This is, quite simply, a choice that a mother and her doctor never have to make, and Ms. Kelly has contributed to the already widespread ignorance on this subject.
The nearest circumstance would be what are called ectopic pregnancies, the anomaly in which the fertilized egg attaches to the Fallopian tube and never implants in the womb of the mother. Removal of the Fallopian tube is necessary to preserve the mother’s life and thus is a procedure that indirectly - not directly - causes the death of an unborn child. This technically is not even an abortion, because the procedure is done for the purpose of removing the Fallopian tube, not killing the baby.
As Lauren Enriquez writes, “The abortion procedure is not – ever – necessary to save the life of a mother...[A] true abortion – in which the direct intention is to end the life of a human being – is not a treatment for any type of maternal health risk.”
❖ The Association of Pro-Life Physicians, committed to fulfilling the do no harm component of the Hippocratic Oath, has said (emphasis mine throughout),
“We find it extremely unfortunate that many pro-lifers have regarded the health of the mother to be a consideration in whether or not she should have the right to terminate the life of her pre-born baby. Politicians who herald the title “pro-life” on the campaign trail frequently tout this health exception, as well as exceptions for rape and incest, as pragmatic compromises that will not offend political moderates and not alienate the pro-life community. We do not consider this compromise consistent with pro-life Hippocratic principles at all. To intentionally kill or condone the intentional killing of one innocent human being precludes one from being considered “pro-life” at all. A murderer of one person is not any less a murderer if he allows thousands to live, nor if he saves thousands from dying!
“When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.”
Here’s what some of the world’s leading gynecologists and gynecological organizations have to say (emphasis mine):
❖ "When we are talking about saving mothers' lives, we should not use the terms 'abortion' and 'saving mothers' lives' in the same sentence, full stop. It is a dreadful reflection on anyone who would actually do that. This is about saving mothers' lives, preserving dignity and not stigmatising anybody. These are wanted pregnancies, loved pregnancies, and intervention has to be made to save the mother's life. To call it an abortion is wrong." ~ Dr. Sam Coulter Smith, Master of the Rotunda Maternity Hospital
❖ "During my 35 years as Professor of Gynaecology and Obstetrics at University College Galway, and Director of the Hospital Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology I delivered - with these hands - over 9000 children in Galway. From my experience, I believe I am entitled to say that there are no circumstances where the life of the mother may only be saved through the deliberate, intentional destruction of her unborn child in the womb.” ~ Professor Eamon O'Dwyer
❖ “It would never cross an obstetrician’s mind that intervening in a case of pre-eclampsia, cancer of the cervix or ectopic pregnancy is abortion. They are not abortion as far as the professional is concerned, these are medical treatments that are essential to save the life of the mother...95% of members of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists surveyed said that they could preserve mother’s lives and health without abortion.” ~ Professor John Bonnar, then Chairman of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
❖ “We consider that there is a fundamental difference between abortion carried out with the intention of taking the life of the baby, for example for social reasons, and the unavoidable death of the baby resulting from essential treatment to protect the life of the mother.” ~ Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
❖ "As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion - the purposeful destruction of the unborn in the termination of pregnancy - is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatments results in the loss of life of her unborn child.” ~ The Dublin Declaration, issued at the 2012 International Symposium on Maternal Health
❖ "In the case of cancer complicating pregnancy, termination of pregnancy does not improve maternal prognosis.” ~ World-renowned cancer specialist, Dr Frédéric Amant, who specializes in the safe delivery of chemo/radiotherapy during pregnancy
Bottom line: while medical treatments to save the life of a mother may tragically result in the death of her unborn baby, that is a far different thing than deliberately killing a baby through abortion, which is never medically necessary to preserve the life or the health of the mother.
Megyn Kelly should have known better.
Dr. Ron Paul said that in all of his years in the profession, he had not seen one case where this was necessary.
Don’t confuse irony with magnanimity. It’s perfectly consistent for those who fight for genuine freedom.
Who believes that abortion advocates would ever support limiting abortions to the rare exceptions of rape, incest, and saving a mother’s life, even if one concedes, for the sake of argument, that those exceptions are valid, and should be allowed?
It conveys the concept. Rush Limbaugh said Trump didn’t use email, for example.
While treatment of pre-eclampsia does involve ending the pregnancy, it can usually be done in such a way that both patients survive. I had labor induced when I had pre-eclampsia. That baby is now a father.
“It is ironic that conservatives want to save the lives of babies that would grow up to vote against them.”
Yes, it shocking that we believe that the right to life applies to everyone, not just to people with whom we agree politically.
< /sarc>
Thank God your pre-eclampsia occurred when your son was old enough to survive. It can occur as early as 20 weeks.
The condition developed over time. As I recall, I started taking phenobarbitol to try to control it at about 5 or 6 months. But when I got closer to my due date, the condition worsened. Plus, I had placenta previa. I am lucky I did not lose him.
That’s splitting a mighty fine hair. Yes you could say “the child passed while trying to save save the mother” but several procedures, including those to end ectopic pregnancies (not all of which occur in the Fallopian tubes), due to invasive and quickly spreading cancers of the reproductive organs, or because of placental abruptions, are undertaken with the express aim to terminate the pregnancy. Furthermore they are undertaken at a time when it is known that there is no chance that the child will survive the procedure.
It is a horrible, soul wrenching choice and one I Thank God I never had to make. I don’t know if I could decide to end the life growing inside of me, even to save my own.
This is nonsense. It is abortion when the early, non-viable fetus is removed from the mother’s fallopian tubes. That is one of the rare times when abortion is moral, but it’s liberals nonsense to pretend that this is not abortion. I was present when an OB/GYN performed what she called her “first abortion ever” to save my sister’s life (after my brother-in-law was hit by a drunk driver and could not be there) for exactly that reason.
Part of the “War on Women” Megyn rekindled—A non-issue that is hoped will propel Hillary into the White House. She got Trump with it and the Pro-Life people “You would see your wife die!” comments were right out of the Planned Parenthood playbook. She did more to help Hillary in that debate than anyone else in a month. She’s No RINO—she a full on Liberal Progressive.
Thank you for posting this. Even some sincere conservatives sometimes stumble on this particular point. (Not sayin’ that MK is one! LOL)
(BTW, my absolutely BRILLIANT and GORGEOUS niece, who is teaching a seminar at Harvard Med this month, is the daughter of rape. My beloved sister DID NOT abort, and is SO glad she didn’t.)
Megan kelly is married and she has two children. It is inappropriate for people calling her a whore. Boy the vitrola is getting worse the woman asked some questions and suddenly Megan Kelly is the most hated person because she asked poignant questions and Donald Trump proved that he is unfit o be commander in chief. You think Odumbo is bad, Trump would even be worse.
Character assassination is common in political debates but it is a first for them to open up with character assassination.
Such an argument sounds overly facile; the people putting it forth appear to have never heard of the concept of triage.
However this kind of situation would have to represent well under 10% of the modern cases under which surgical abortions are performed.
Yep.
Probably even less than 10%.
Not only that, such an operation(to save the life of the mother) would never be performed at Planned Parenthood. If a mother’s life was in danger from an fallopian-tube pregnancy, she would be in a real hospital, not some abortion mill, and it would not even be characterized as an “abortion”.
It is a silly argument that has a way of tripping people up.
Yes; if health is endangered to the point that death was seriously feared, why is she at PP at all.
Great “GOTCHA” response! LOL!
We should all remember this next time someone mentions the “Life of the Mother” meme.
(Although I am not particularly fond of “GOTCHA Responses”, and prefer serious and civilized debate, the liberals use this tactic on us all the time, and it’s good to have a few of them ourselves!)
“she asked poignant questions”
It was not supposed to be a press conference or interview, it was supposed to be a debate, like, how does your immigration plan work verses amnesty. I get it, you don’t like Trump but what he did say about one actual issue was correct: we would not be having any conversation about the immigration disaster had I not raised it. He was right and he was right to try to jam that hatchet job question right back down her throat. His only regret should be taking on someone with more ink then he has.
Certainly PP can be told: “In such cases, who needs you.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.