[Vision2020] Is it Infanticide Vs. Abortion? (was: CatholicMajority On Supreme Court)

[Tony]

Andreas, is it your contention then that intact dilation and extraction is 
performed on non-viable babies in EVERY case?  If so, why has such 
information never been divulged before now by the proponents of this 
"procedure?"  One suspects that there is, once again, more to the story than 
those on your side of this debate would have the public believe.

That critical question aside, why are these handicapped infants not simply 
delivered and allowed to expire naturally, if that is indeed their fate, 
rather than being unceremoniously dispatched?  Some among us seem altogether 
too sure that we are qualified to determine who is "viable" and who is not.

Later,

-Tony
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
To: "Tony" <tonytime at clearwire.net>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Is it Infanticide Vs. Abortion? (was: 
CatholicMajority On Supreme Court)


> On 4/24/07, Tony <tonytime at clearwire.net> wrote:
>> Andreas, just a quick note to enlighten you as to what partial birth
>> abortion entails.  And no, it is not a reference to virtually all 
>> abortions
>> as you mistakenly claim.  The medical term for this barbaric "procedure" 
>> is
>> intact dilation and extraction.  The squirming infant is pulled feet 
>> first
>> from its Mommy until only its little head remains inside.  Then the 
>> "doctor"
>> unceremoniously stabs the little guy or gal at the base of its skull and
>> sucks out its brain, at which point the poor innocent babe's skull
>> collapses, facilitating its removal and disposal.  There is no place for
>> such murderous behavior in a civilized society.  Those who support the
>> continuation of this practice are moral reprobates who should be shunned.
>
> There most certainly is.
>
> Intact dialiation and extraction is, ironically, only performed on
> nonviable fetuses that were carried almost to term. In short, it is a
> procedure performed on nonviable fetuses *which the mother did not
> wish to abort*. Generally, it is peformed in cases of anencephaly: a
> neural tube defect where the fetus' braincase fails to form.
>
> Google image search it, if you want to. I did. If you do, it will
> become very clear to you why these fetuses are not viable.
>
> Intact D&E is not the only procedure suitable to remove an
> anencephalic fetus; however, it is the only abortion procedure that
> creates a corpse suitable for burial. Other procedures, procedures
> which remain legal -- iironically, it is the fact that these
> procedures are medically equivalent that creates the foundation of the
> Supreme Court's radically inconsistent docrtine -- create a
> miscellaneous stew of limbs and organs unsuitable for burial.
>
> The law that resulted in the ruling is the purest manifestiation of
> rank cynicism: it's an exploitation of the courts' misunderstanding of
> why the procedure is performed.
>
> -- ACS
>
> the standard procedure peformed in cases of anencephaly and
> exencephaly -- when a fetus' braincase fails to form,
>
>