Order Form Included The Mother-Of-All Lead Systems: Fill & Download for Free

I will start off saying I am the mother of two adopted children. I bless the birth mothers that did not have an abortion. But I am pro choice. Why?What century are we living in?Are we going back in time? Are we going to go back to the days of coat hanger abortions? Are we going back to where women cannot vote? Are we going back to when women had no rights at all? Are we going back to where women were property?Do you really think that the wealthy families in this country are going to obey any law that condemns abortion? I will tell you what those families will do, they will do what wealthy families have done in the past. The wealthy family member who gets pregnant and wants an abortion and it is illegal will be sent away to another country (or where abortions are legal) and the "problem" will go away.Ah, so it not only is a law taking away the rights of women, but a law gives the wealthy more rights than the rest of the population. Funny how most laws can be broken without penalty to the wealthy. Funny how people can make laws that affect one gender over another. Funny how people cite religion as a reason to make laws.Funny that our Constitution says:Separation of church and state. The principle that government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. ... The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice, but also prevents the government from officially recognizing or favoring any religion. That includes the Evangelists that are so entrenched in our Oval Office with trump and Pence.So we have a population of a state or country made up of many beliefs and many religions. Some are "part time" church goers when it is convenient or a wedding, funeral. Some go to church regularly, Some do not got to church at all. Some are true to their faith, some are not, some don't believe that there is a God or higher power at all. But lawmakers are saying that their "religious beliefs" must be made into law and obeyed by everyone. Lawmakers, whether federal, state or local are sanctimonious people that think that others cannot make decision for themselves.How many people that thought that this was a good idea are true believers, regular church goers and obey every commandment of their religion? How many of those that thought this was a good idea will force their daughter, granddaughter, sister or other female family members to have a baby, no matter the age of the family member or how she got pregnant?Take a family, mom, dad, 3 children ages 6,8,9. Both parents must work to pay the bills. Uh oh, mom is pregnant again with an unplanned child. Stressed out parents at this point, but wait, dad is either killed in an accident or dies of a heart attack. Now we have a mom with 3 children and one on the way. She knows she can hardly make ends meet as it is and now how will she manage with another child. She knows that she will have to take time off from work for doctor appointments, and what if her pregnancy goes wrong, after all she is not young anymore. She knows she will not to be able to work just before and after the birth. She is not guaranteed that her job will be held open for her. She has no family to turn to. What if she dies during childbirth, who will take care of her children? So after much soul searching, thinking of the pros and cons, she decides that what is best for her 3 children and herself is to have an abortion. AND YOU ARE GOING TO CONDEMN HER FOR THIS DECISION? Do you really think this is an easy decision for her?Oh but wait, a LAW says she is a bad person who broke the law by murdering a clump of cells or an embryo and must be punished. So there is a trial, more expenses for a lawyer, she is jailed or executed. Her 3 children are placed in "the system" and go to foster homes, most likely split up. What did they do that they needed to be punished?Are all you pro lifers going to take her 3 children in, feed, clothe, and love them like your own? Hell no, you won't. Adoptive parents adopt because they want a baby or child to love and nurture, not because the children will be without a loving mother because she broke a LAW by having an abortion.So we may have a LAW that says all abortions for any reason are illegal and the woman is charged with murder, has to be punished by jail or death.Why do societies have laws?Laws exist to protect the rights of the members of a society and to ensure that they do not have to protect those rights through their own actions. Note: it says the rights of the members, not some members.What is the purpose of laws?Four principal purposes and functions are establishing standards, maintaining order, resolving disputes, and protecting liberties and rights. Note: it says protecting liberties and rights.Laws are to protect men, women and children. When a woman first becomes pregnant there is no baby or person. She has a clump of cells that at 4 weeks start to develop into an embryo (still not a baby). At the end of 8 weeks the embryo becomes a fetus. The end of the first trimester is at about 12 weeks the fetus is now about 3 inches long and weighs almost an ounce, and is now beginning to take form (but still not a baby). At 16 weeks the musculoskeletal system is forming.At this point, between 12 and 14 weeks, unless there is a medical reason and the mother may die, or the baby will be born severely deformed, I am against abortions. But I still would not condemn a woman for wanting or having an abortion since I am not that woman nor do I live that woman’s life.Risks to mother:Pregnant women may experience certain complications and symptoms as the fetus grows. Anemia, urinary tract infection, and mood changes may occur. An expectant mother may experience high blood pressure (preeclampsia), which increases the risk of preterm delivery and other potential dangers for the baby. Severe morning sickness or hyperemesis gravidarum causes persistent nausea and vomiting, particularly during the first 12 pregnancy weeks. This may lead to first trimester symptoms of weight loss and dehydration, requiring IV fluids and antinausea medication. Pregnant women should be aware of the possibility of developing gestational diabetes. It causes symptoms like excessive thirst and hunger, frequent urination, and fatigue. Obesity and excessive weight gain are possible, especially as the pregnancy progresses. Women are supposed to gain weight during pregnancy, but excessive weight gain may be associated with symptoms that put mother and baby at risk. Ask your doctor how much weight you should gain during your pregnancy.Here is one instance where an abortion is a must if this is detected during pregnancy. CDC estimates that each year, about 3 pregnancies in every 10,000 in the United States will have anencephaly. There is no known cure or standard treatment for anencephaly. Almost all babies born with anencephaly will die shortly after birth. During pregnancy, there are screening tests (prenatal tests) to check for birth defects and other conditions. Anencephaly would result in an abnormal result on a blood or serum screening test or it might be seen during an ultrasound (which creates pictures of the body).What is Anencephaly?Anencephaly (pronounced an-en-sef-uh-lee) is a serious birth defect in which a baby is born without parts of the brain and skull.So a mother will carry a child to birth, risking her health, only to grieve when this happens. But a LAW says you cannot have an abortion for any reason, not even if it endangers the mother's health, the baby will not live, the baby will be so deformed that it will never live for a life of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.Of all the women that decide to have an abortion feel grief, and with time the grief lessens but never goes away. Women choosing abortion do not do it because to her it is a disposable item like an old piece of clothing. Probably 2% feel relief, and of those 2%, 1% is the woman and 1% is the family. Why does the pro lifer think that all women get abortions because it is an inconvenience? Nobody knows the circumstances the woman is in and they cannot unless they live the woman's life.Every woman has the right to her own body, to make the decisions that is right for her own body, for her own reasons (not yours) to have an abortion. Nobody is taking away the rights of a pro lifer but you are willing to take away the rights of a woman who wants or needs an abortion with a LAW. A woman's choice isn't your or anyone else's business and certainly not any religion or government whether federal or state!EDIT: There are about 4 million babies born every year in the US. This mean about 400 babies will be born with Anencephaly.EDIT #2: Rachel Bellinger commented on this answer with a link to a book called Carrying to Term: A Guide for Parents after a Devastating Prenatal Diagnosis. Thank you Rachel.Carrying to Term

We cannot require the father's involvement in the decision of whether or not to permit an abortion - both practically and ethically.The short version is that requiring the father's involvement in any capacity whatsoever is going to be an impractical and unjust imposition on the mother.It would be impossible to enforce fairly, and it would necessarily be unjust to the mother even if you could.There is, in essence, no way to "split" the right to determine an abortion between the two parents. It must be the mother's sole decision.Practically:We cannot always identify or contact the father reliably. In some cases, we may be literally unable to identify the father (for example, if the mother doesn't know who he is, or even simply refuses to identify him). In other cases, we may be unable to locate the father (for example, suppose two homeless drifters have sex, and the woman then seeks an abortion - is the state expected to conduct a manhunt to locate the father? Alternatively, what if the father is in another country?).What if a person claims to be the father, but the mother denies that this person is the father? What types of paternity tests should we require? Note that some methods of paternity testing can create a risk of miscarriage, or are invasive to the woman that would be tested. Are we proposing to allow any man to require any pregnant woman seeking an abortion to undergo these medical procedures at any time?What if multiple people claim to be the father? What if a pair of identical twins each claim to be the father - how would we determine which of them has the legal right to input in the mother's decision to abort? (While such scenarios may be unlikely, they nonetheless must be accounted for.)We would also need to define a legal process for detecting a pregnancy in the first place, and ensure that all women have access to the means to do so in a timely manner. Women would not be allowed to decide to take an abortifacient at any point after a possible fertilization without first confirming that they are not pregnant or who the father is and that they have his consent. This does not seem plausible.This would also require a criminal investigation to be opened potentially after every single miscarriage, in case the mother induced an abortion against the permission of the father. This is also implausible, not to mention an enormous burden on law enforcement.Abortion clinics would also now need a system to record and track the father's consent (or reason why it is not needed), and log that before performing any abortion, on anyone. This means that the consent provided by the father must take a specific form that an abortion clinic is capable of verifying and recording. This would be very challenging, if plausible at all. These records would have to include not just the consent itself (or proof that it is not needed), but also proof that the person providing that consent is indeed the person who can make that decision.Ethically:It isn't fair to require the father's consent if the pregnancy itself was not consensual. (This leads to another practical issue: Whether or not the pregnancy is consensual depends, in part, on the mother's age - and in some states, on the father's age; if the would-be parents in question have no legal documents, then this becomes problematic.) Requiring the consent of a rapist in order to allow the victim to procure an abortion is clearly ethically abhorrent.One could suggest that in cases of rape, the father's consent is not required. This doesn't solve our ethical issue, because it would still require that the father be convicted of rape before the mother can procure an abortion without his input. Our justice system cannot guarantee that rape charges be resolved swiftly enough to reach a conviction in time for an abortion to be plausible. (Even if we did, that would amount to mandating the woman decide whether or not to report the rape within a certain time frame in order to be able to get an abortion.)And then what if a woman is gang raped, or is raped by multiple men over a period of time? She would have to report and find out the results of each case before she can legally proceed with an abortion. This is absurd in practice and inhuman to the woman in question. As a reminder, a disturbing proportion of rapes are estimated to go unreported entirely.Also consider that as a pregnancy develops, it will eventually have implications for the mother's health and physical ability. Aside from the direct impact to her health that a pregnancy has, it could impair her ability to work. Thus, while the process of obtaining the father's consent is underway, the mother's income and livelihood could be jeopardized - whether or not she is eventually able to obtain the abortion.Biological parenthood doesn't necessarily confer legal parenthood either.Suppose the father refuses to consent to the abortion, but is deemed to be unable to act as the legal father to the child (or children) before the birth - but after the legal point at which the mother can legally seek an abortion. Should the father have the ability, in effect, to require that the woman carry the pregnancy to term, even though he himself will not be acting as the father? This is going beyond the father's "right to be a father" and now simply conferring the father the right to force someone else to be a parent.Note that there are many reasons why a person could be unable to assume the role of a child's father legally. They may, for example, be too mentally incompetent to do so. Alternatively, they may simply have legally abandoned their role as father - for example, they could have divorced after fertilization but before birth.The converse is also true: The mother might not be legally fit to act as mother when the child is born; should the father thus be able to require that she see a pregnancy to term (with all that this could cost her) for a child that won't be legally hers? In other words, should the father have the right to, in effect, force someone to be a surrogate mother?Would we also have to extend these "father's rights" to those who are not the biological father themselves?If a woman gets pregnant by one man, and then during the pregnancy marries a different man, whose consent is required for her abortion - the biological father or the legal father? If it's the biological father, then they are - again - being given the right to force someone to be a surrogate parent. If it's the legal father, then we're in a tricky situation: The pregnancy had been consensual with another person, but the woman never consented to attempt pregnancy with this person. Thus, this is still conferring someone else the right to force the woman to be a surrogate mother.Also, if the biological father can prevent the abortion, he is creating an imposition not just on the mother but also on the current legal father - in other words, he is forcing parenthood on someone who he never had a consensual agreement with. (The mother and legal father could, of course, put the child up for adoption - but now the imposition is simply shifted onto the child. Additionally, there are costs to putting a child up for adoption that are still imposed as well.)If a couple agrees to have a child by someone else (for example, if the man is infertile, and so they agree to have another man impregnate the woman - or, if the couple is two women), and the woman later wishes to abort, would the consent of the non-biological "father" be required? Why or why not? In fact, how do we establish who is or is not the non-biological "father" before the birth of the child? And what if that status changes before birth?Would we ever extend these "father's rights" to multiple people? For example, suppose that a couple asks another woman to be a surrogate mother. She agrees, but later wishes to abort the pregnancy. Do we need the consent of both the would-be parents, in this case? What if the two disagree with each other?And on top of all that:So far I've only been discussing cases where the "father" (or whoever is playing that role) wants to see the pregnancy carried to term, and the pregnant woman wishes to abort.But we also need to ask all these questions about the reverse scenario: What if the "father" wishes to abort, and the pregnant woman does not?It might seem easy to say "The father must consent to an abortion, but cannot force it on the mother." But this would introduce a significant ethical problem. If we allow the father to reject an abortion, but do not allow him to require one, then we are not actually establishing a father's autonomous right to be a father - what we are doing is granting the father veto power over another person's right to their own autonomy, despite that person not having legally wronged the father at all.And if we do allow the father to require an abortion - it shouldn't be difficult to see why that's an abhorrent and impractical path, either.tl;drI realize that a father can be deeply invested in a pregnancy in many ways. However, we have no plausible nor ethical way to grant him any legal decision-making power over that pregnancy.I understand the sentiments of those like Jon Davis (see his answer here), but unfortunately, there is no "solution" here along those lines. The fundamental inequality presented by our biology cannot be overcome legally, in this case.

'What is a cytokine storm? What triggers them?'Cytokine storm or Cytokine release syndrome - Wikipedia occurs as a result of overzealous immune responses that generate so much cytokine secretion, hypercytokinesis, that rather than stay local as cytokines normally do, they spill over into the systemic circulation, and the outcome can even be fatal.Cytokines typically associated with cytokine storm are IL-1, IL-2, IL-6, IFN-, TNF-.Symptoms can include headache, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, fever, weakness, fatigue, hypotension, tachycardia, capillary leaks, liver and kidney dysfunction.Septic shock is the most extreme form and could be considered the mother of all cytokine storms.Left untreated, such severe cytokine storms can lead to multi-organ failure and be fatal.OTOH, 'flu-like' symptoms in response to an ongoing infection is a common and much milder form of cytokine storm that many people experience at some point in their lives.Disproportionate cytokine responses during acute infections could also be a sign of immunopathology. In such cases, rather than adequate control of infection, such responses help rather than clear it.Somewhat akin to hormones in being cell-to-cell messengers, cytokines (cytos, cell; kinos, movement) are secreted molecules considered as chemical messengers of the immune system. Structurally cytokines tend to be proteins, glycoproteins or polypeptides.After a cell secretes a particular cytokine, it typically, though not always, binds cell-surface receptors specific for that cytokine expressed on other, usually nearby, cells. Such binding triggers a biochemical pathway that cascades its way into the nucleus and leads to turning on or off of specific genes in the responding cell.Cytokine-triggered biochemical pathways and ensuing responses are not only unique to a particular cytokine but also to the responding cell. For example, response outcome of the cytokine IL-10 binding its receptor on a B cell or a macrophage is different and emblematic of the inherent properties of these very different responding cells.Intended for short-range cell-to-cell communication within a tissue microenvironment means cytokine effects at long-range can be unpredictable and typically toxic, simply as a result of potentially exponential increase in the number and type of target cells that could bind them.Scientists discovered this the hard way in the early days of cytokine therapy. Originally identified in 1990, Interleukin 12 - Wikipedia was one of the first cytokines to be tested in clinical trials.Eagerness to do so was driven by observations of IL-12's capacity to drive strong CD4 T cell responses of a type necessary to help activate CD8 T cells to become 'killer' cytotoxic cells.In turn, cytotoxic CD8 T cells can kill and eliminate cancer cells for example.Based on such early evidence of IL-12 potency, in short order, in 1995 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_Institute,_Inc. in partnership with Wyeth - Wikipedia injected IL-12 in 17 renal carcinoma patients. Twelve suffered from acute cytokine storm and needed to be hospitalized and two died (1, 2).More recently, cytokine storm as a concept has started becoming mainstream simply because many newer immunotherapies rapidly entering the clinic are eminently capable of triggering them.Theralizumab - Wikipedia or TGN1412 is a famous case in point when in a first-in-human study in 2006, six healthy young volunteers (all men) were injected with it. Within hours, all were hospitalized with life-threatening symptoms that culminated in multi-organ failure, a result of cytokine storm. Only timely expert medical care ensured they survived.TGN1412 is a humanized IgG4 mAb (Monoclonal antibody - Wikipedia) whose specific target is the T cell costimulatory molecule CD28.It underwent extensive testing in in vivo rodent (rat and mouse) and non-human primate (cynomolgus monkeys) models as well as in vitro human PBMCs (Peripheral blood mononuclear cell - Wikipedia), tests that never showed any inkling of what could happen when injected into humans.In fact, the cynomolgus monkeys had had no ill effects whatsoever even after being given up to 500 times the dose given to the six healthy young volunteers (3).Other mAbs such as Muromonab-CD3 - Wikipedia, Alemtuzumab - Wikipedia Rituximab - Wikipedia, and Blinatumomab - Wikipedia have also been observed to trigger cytokine storms in some patients. Targets of such mAbs include CD3, CD52, CD20 or CD19 and CD3 jointly, all cell-surface molecules largely or solely expressed by immune cells such as T and B cells.Nowadays, CAR-T (Chimeric antigen receptor - Wikipedia) is a rapidly emerging form of cancer immunotherapy where cytokine storms have been seen to develop in a variable fraction of patients in different clinical trials (4, 5).Bibliography1. Cohen, Jon. "IL-12 deaths: explanation and a puzzle." Science 270.5238 (1995): 908-908.2. Leonard, John P., et al. "Effects of single-dose interleukin-12 exposure on interleukin-12–associated toxicity and interferon-γ production." Blood 90.7 (1997): 2541-2548. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Sosman/publication/242668015_Interleukin12Associated_Toxicity_and_Interferon-gamma_Production_Effects_of_Single-Dose_Interleukin12_Exposure_on/links/0c960532b973c21ee2000000.pdf3. Hünig, Thomas. "The storm has cleared: lessons from the CD28 superagonist TGN1412 trial." Nature Reviews Immunology 12.5 (2012): 317-318.4. Bonifant, Challice L., et al. "Toxicity and management in CAR T-cell therapy." Molecular Therapy-Oncolytics 3 (2016).https://ac.els-cdn.com/S2372770516300353/1-s2.0-S2372770516300353-main.pdf?_tid=848ad9c8-144b-11e8-ad62-00000aacb360&acdnat=1518917701_0aef0ed4b653682eacd93546b615ddd15. Neelapu, Sattva S., et al. "Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy—assessment and management of toxicities." Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 15.1 (2018): 47. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrclinonc.2017.148.pdf