Baloney. That's your spin.
Did he apologize to Chris Wallace as well - after using the same colorful euphemism about him a minute or so after dismissing Megan? No.
Don't forget to floss those molars:
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.
Trump does not pretend to be classy. Megyn does and she’s not. She should be working side by side with dyke Rachel Madcow on MSNBC. Then they could both yuck it up about Trump and how he “disparages” women. Classic liberal nonsense and that is exactly what Fox has became, with their shameful pimping for Jeb Bush and their love affair with sodomite “marriage”. As a matter of fact they should merge with MSNBC.
>>Do you floss after regurgitating Faux RINO dung, or do you leave the little green chunks between your teeth?
Donald Trump apologized by clarifying what he meant to say. I am surprised a man such as yourself would support such a sniveling, spineless, pathetic excuse of a man for President. But, let’s face it, Attila the Hun isn’t in the race.
It is ironic that conservatives want to save the lives of babies that would grow up to vote against them.
I’ll bet they did not kill the baby. Terminating a pregnancy is not the same as abortion. The baby died of natural causes (unable to sustain life outside the womb). Had the mother died, the baby would have also died. I cant see some one letting the mother die to save the life of a baby that was going to die
Phooey.
‘Whore’ isn’t solely about sex. My mutt is a food whore.
MK intended to debase and humiliate Donald with her question.
She was going for the double bind. Nasty piece of work.
POIGNANT question??!!
She lost twins actually and when she got pregnant a second time the pregnacy was terminated again, then my daughter got cancer because of the pregnancy. That was 3 years ago. She gave birth to a healthy baby girl a month ago, albeit 5 weeks early. There is a lot more to it, but she had ground-breaking surgery where the doctors removed the part of her uterus and they weren't sure she'd be able to have children.
“
We are blessed. You go ahead and cling to whatever you think is “statistically” significant
Good point.
I think you confuse terms because you leave out intent. Intent is what divides killing from murder, unintentional homicide from murder in the first degree. If one considers the morality of self defense and just war; truly the intent is not to murder those that want to kill you but rather to defend yourself using the proportionate means necessary to assure you survive.
I can tell you that myself as a Catholic, the Catholic Church gas extensively elaborated upon and developed better than any others the moral landscape on this issue.
Abortion, simply put, is intentional murder. Reasons do not really matter when the intention is evil. In other words good ends never justify evil means.
Food Hound is the phrase not a food whore. look up whore in the dictionary - deals with prostitution. Gee doberville you are so smart, The bumper sticker on your car probably is I brake for squirrels!
>>Donald Trump apologized by clarifying what he meant to say.
Bullshyte.
“Trump Hits Back: “Only a Deviant Would Think Anything Else” (Trump Statement)”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3322199/posts
Mr tough guy, this is the tweet to which I referred:
Re Megyn Kelly quote: ‘you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever’ (NOSE).
Your quote is from Sunday. In real time (soon after he realized he had stepped on it), your man went limp. He apologized. The Donald apologized. Not that I follow him closely, but this is the first time I have heard him apologize. Then either he figured it out, or his advisors told him how to pivot on the question. That’s where you turn it around, and make your “answer” into an accusation. Of course, you knew this. You know that the Donald is jerking his supporters off with his braggadocio.
Just as a reminder, in my original post, I agreed with Trump that he was unfairly targeted by the panel. The Fox panel should have asked more policy-oriented questions and fewer personality-oriented questions of him. Even considering this, I thought it was the best pre-nomination debate in the history of the country, with the credit going to both Trump and to Fox. Even so, Trump’s comment during a post-debate interview went too far.
Baloney. That's your spin.
Did he apologize to Chris Wallace as well - after using the same colorful euphemism about him a minute or so after dismissing Megan? No.
Don't forget to floss those molars:
I didn’t realize the Donald said something about Chris Wallace that could be interpreted to mean Wallace was on the rag. That is indeed exactly the kind of man we need as President. Maybe you could be his Vice President.
>>I didn’t realize the Donald said something about Chris Wallace that could be interpreted to mean Wallace was on the rag.
He used the same words.
“Blood coming out of his eyes”.
Maybe you and Ewick Erickson shouldn’t project your mangina complex onto others.
Mangina? You should email that to Trump. I don’t know that he’s used that word.
LOL
>> I don’t know that he’s used that word.
He didn’t. I’m using it in reference to the self-evident condition presented by you and Ewick.
So, the Donald said about Chris Wallace, he had “Blood coming out of his eyes,” just as he said this about Megyn Kelly. Nobody objected to the Donald saying this about either person.
The Donald also said about Megyn Kelly, “Blood coming out of wherever.” Which could be interpreted to refer to the female equivalent of a Mangina. This is what people objected to. The Donald apologized in a tweet, by clarifying what he meant. He said in the tweet, “Blood coming out of wherever.” (NOSE)
Do I have this correct, or did the Donald also say Chris Wallace has “blood coming out of his wherever.” (MANGINA)
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.