[Vision2020] The 30 Second Rule (Was Is it Infanticide Vs.Abortion?)

Donovan Arnold donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 26 11:09:09 PDT 2007


That sounds like a good idea Sue, I will try to control myself. : )
   
  Best,
   
  Donovan

Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com> wrote:
      I count it a success when something I write causes you to reconsider anything.   
   
  Shall we try to be nice to each other next week?
   
  Sue 
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Donovan Arnold 
  To: Sue Hovey ; Tony 
  Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 3:09 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The 30 Second Rule (Was Is it Infanticide Vs.Abortion?)
  

  Well Sue, you certainly got me reconsidering my position on selective euthanasia. Can you explain again, why are the taxpayers paying for you to stick around year after year? Seems like another example of wasteful government spending. 
   
   
  Best,
   
  Donovan 
  
Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com> wrote:
          Donovan,
   
  Interesting piece,  your little diatribe here.  I'm not quite sure what you intended to prove.  Or was it one of those times when you just couldn't control yourself?  It isn't funny, it isn't enlightening, it isn't even close to coherently written.  As I read this stuff I was thinking better than a 30 second rule for abortion, why not just allow them retroactively.  Then women could pick and choose.  I guess there'd have to be a cut off date of say 40 years or so.  How old are you anyway?
   
  Sue Hovey
    ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Donovan Arnold 
  To: Tony ; Andreas Schou 
  Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:39 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The 30 Second Rule (Was Is it Infanticide Vs.Abortion?)
  

  Perhaps what proponents of late term abortion and partial birth abortion should come up with is a 30 second rule for abortions.
   
  A so called procedure where a doctor gets 30 seconds after the unwanted FETUS comes out of the woman's womb to bash its head in with a rock. 
   
  It won't really be killing a baby because the umbilical cord won't be cut yet so is still part of the woman's body, and most the fetuses will be dead, injured, deformed, disabled, male, or at least jaundiced anyway.  
   
  People who want rights for women should really push for this god given right of women not to be taken away for several reasons:
   
  1) There is only 30 seconds or less difference between a partial birth abortion and the 30 second rule. 
   
  2) There is less of a risk of damage to the mother womb's because other types of abortions take place inside her womb where damage may occur.
   
  3) It is easier to clean up the fetus parts if you put down newspapers or plastic garbage bags
   
  4) The procedure will be less complicated and costly meaning it will be more accessible to women with less economic means.
   
  5) The procedure is so simple it can be made into a do-it-at-home-kit so dead beat dads, ex-boyfriends, pushers, and even pimps can take a wake at the unwanted problem.
   
  Women in many cultures across the world over thousands of years have had this right. It is only because of recent beliefs and the enforcement of White Christianity in this country that women are longer able to exercise this god given right to post-birth abortion, or should we use the term Post Fetal Intrauterine Cranial Compression to feel better about it.
   
  Best,
   
  Donovan

Tony <tonytime at clearwire.net> wrote:
  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" 
To: "Tony" 
Cc: 
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 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,
>
> 


=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
http://www.fsr.net 
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

    
---------------------------------
  Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.     
---------------------------------
    
=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================     
---------------------------------
    
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/776 - Release Date: 4/25/2007 12:19 PM




    
---------------------------------
  Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.     
---------------------------------
    
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.6.1/777 - Release Date: 4/26/2007 3:23 PM


       
---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070426/0846fc9a/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list