5 ways you can reduce arm fat
http://www.estaily.com/reduce-arm-fat/
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.
And the name is Planned “Parenthood” not Planned “Survival.” PP is doing the unspeakable as soon as it goes beyond contraception.
Looks like the Trump has access to scads of ink too. That is an advantage of being a noted figure years before getting into such situations, and not being afraid of how one smells after wrestling with a skunk.
It has been revealed that PP and other abortion mills are horrible places, and more filthy than a third-world butcher shop.
Yet, a Nail Salon has to have licensing, continuing education, autoclaves for all the instruments, wash-downs with bleach or other disinfectants between customers, and frequent State and Local Inspections.
It has nothing to do with “health” and everything to do with politics.
Yes, there seem to be places that are carried on unashamedly like charnel houses even forgetting the matter of killing the unborn child.
And when a state tries to ban such filth, guess who goes screaming that they are “unconstitutionally” burdened?
Methinks the ladies doth protest too much.
Politics, I would respectfully submit, is only the medium; and it can be a medium of bad or good.
This premise is false. My daughter HAD to terminate a pregnancy or she would be dead now.
Women with class don’t go on Howard Stern and put up with his filthy talk. Kelly did and enjoyed it, weighing in about her married sex life.
Yes. Politics can be used for good or evil.
In the case of PP, it is always evil.
I haven’t had a mammogram in 5 years because I can’t afford one. My doctor gave me a list of places where I might be able to get one either free or at a reduced rate.
There was not a single abortion mill on the list.
PP does NOT provide “women’s health care services”. The just don’t.
If they were a legitimate health care provider, they would gladly submit to all the laws and regulations of such a facility.
But they don’t. So there you go.
In all democratic countries other than the US, abortion is illegal after the third or fourth month. The only places in the world that allows abortion in the third trimester are: (1) the Democratic-controlled states of the US, (2) Communist China and (3) Communist North Korea. So, let’s just make sure we know who the extremists are on this issue.
The general rule, in democracies, is there is a period in which the state cannot intervene because of concerns for privacy; then, following this, the pregnancy can only be interrupted for a serious matter such as to save the life of the mother. In such a case, the primary concern is to save the mother, but a secondary concern is to save the child. Technically speaking, if the child doesn’t survive the procedure, it is not an abortion, because a dead baby wasn’t intended.
In my ROTC days, one of my fellow cadet’s mother gave her life so he could be brought into the world alive. There are saints among us, and I invite you to consider the words of Jesus Christ on this matter, that by giving up your life, you might gain your life. To fully live, you have to conquer death. But, sainthood is a choice. It cannot be compelled by law.
IMHO any damage done, or any help to Hillary is the fault of the candidates for not being able to avoid the same old ‘gotcha’ moments that happen every election cycle. Megyn Kelly is a TV news commentator, with a family and children, and whether or not she has a political agenda (she's relatively conservative on some issues, not others seems to me), it is pointless and destructive to demonize her. Much better and easier to just say something along the lines of “Megyn, I don't know if this question is yours or one that you all decided upon as a group, but I don't think it's fair - and this is why....” Then just explain your position.
Commenting about her personally after the debate makes the candidate look petulant, elevates Megyn’s stature (or reduces the candidate's stature) to a level of equivalency, and just gives sound bite moments to the propagandists on the left.
Every Republican candidate showed know that the left will try to paint them as anti-woman, insensitive, bigoted, greedy (e.g. don't care about the environment as long as money is being made), rigidly religious - and anti-modern as a consequence (e.g. “clinging to guns and religion”), etc. They should never, ever fall into these traps. Never. It's campaigning 101, but they still do it, every election cycle.
Bet this happened in a hospital, not with a visit to PP?
So what is your opinion on Donald Trump’s Comedy Central Roast?
The “jokes” told during that were so obscene and tasteless as to make Howard Stern seem tame in comparison. But there was The Donald yucking it up and laughing along with his most current wife and his daughter Ivanka, and at the end Donald’s response complete with his own F-Bombs.
Yes. Trump is so (not) classy.
I thought I’d add a couple thoughts on Megyn v. Trump:
Trump is the candidate. He is free to do whatever he chooses, including making a buffoon of himself, as he bears the consequences. Clearly, he was wrong to say something that could be interpreted in a sexist way. Hence, he sent out a twitter to say that wasn’t the proper inference. I don’t follow the man religiously, but that was the first time I ever heard him apologize.
Kelly is a news correspondent. She has an obligation to her news organization to be fair and balanced. She asked tough questions of Trump, indeed, so did the panel to all the candidates. But, Trump was correct, they were gunning for him. They gave disproportionate time to certain candidates at the expense of others. And, their questions were skewed toward personality issues with regard to Trump. In my judgment, these were minor mistakes. Re-calibrate and move on.
Overall, I think the debate was the best pre-nomination debate in history. I think this was #1 because of Donald Trump, his persona, and his infusion of candor into the race, and #2 because of the Fox News team.
I suspect she will stay that way. Angry and unfulfilled
Watch that scad of access Trump has dry up as the libs use him as the point man for their war on women campaign wherein he will not get to counter attack because the witneses they will use will be the other gop candidates and the FOX questioners. Lastly, his access on FOX will decline to a very few too. His only access will be what he gets during debates and the media will ensure the only questions he gets will be ones about him and this ridicules mess the FOX minions laid out for them. The only time he will get wide coverage will be if he goes third party so they can give the election to Hitlery.
http://www.estaily.com/reduce-arm-fat/
>> Clearly, he was wrong to say something that could be interpreted in a sexist way.
He said the same thing regarding Chris Wallace in the same conversation.
http://www.google.com/#q=Trump+Chris+Wallace+Blood+Eyes
Do you floss after regurgitating Faux RINO dung, or do you leave the little green chunks between your teeth?
I’ve heard the same thing from other OBGYNs.
Boy i must be out of the mainstream as i never knew Meghan Kelly was on the Howard Stern Show. Interesting her personal life is fair game? What about about Trumps personal life is that fair game? How about his business acumen? His contribution to politicians both democratic and republican as he stated he wanted something in return. Trump donated to Clinton, and a larger donation to than Governor Pataki in New York - he wanted something in return. Here is stating that Dc has a problem with cronyism and he himself contributes to the cronyism. trump is an oxymoron. Where I live we generally do not hear about Howard stern. but also I do have a life outside of politics, media and FR.
The point of this article is that the treatment of ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion. The fertilized egg in that situation would never survive anyway.
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.