[Vision2020] Is it Infanticide Vs. Abortion?

[Paul Rumelhart]

Tony wrote:
> At least you are right about one thing: you are not qualified to render 
> medical advice.  Nor are you qualified to parent children.  That requires 
> compassion and a soul.
>   

Isn't that a little harsh?  Can't you have a stance on this subject 
different from yours and still have compassion and a soul?  How far do 
you take this "one too many" thing, anyway?  Should a woman who has a 
miscarriage be tried for involuntary manslaughter? 

Paul

> Later,
>
> -Tony
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
> To: "Tony" <tonytime at clearwire.net>
> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Is it Infanticide Vs. Abortion? (was: 
> CatholicMajority On Supreme Court)
>
>
>   
>> On 4/25/07, 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.
>>>       
>> It's my contention that it constitutes 0.2% of abortions, that it is
>> performed as an emergency surgery rather than elective abortion, and
>> that it is performed on non-viable fetuses.
>>
>> Late-term abortions constitute 1.4% of all abortions performed in the
>> United States. Intact D&E constitutes 15% of those.
>> Back-of-the-envelope calculations tell me that that means that intact
>> D&E is used in roughly 0.2% of all abortion procedures in the United
>> States.
>>
>> Kennedy's opinion is predicated on the fact that intact D&E is
>> medically equivalent to the interuterine dismemberment and suction of
>> the miscellaneous parts; that is, there is no circumstance under which
>> an intact D&E would save the life of the mother when other equivalent
>> processes could also be performed. This logic is designed specifically
>> to limit the ruling's scope.
>>
>> Notably, Kennedy leaves an opening for specific review of the law when
>> he specifically mentions that the court would entertain a case
>> considering that specific issue -- that is, whether a late-term
>> abortion would be medically necessary for the health or life of the
>> mother. How Kennedy expects that a challenge would reach the Supreme
>> Court in the (roughly) 90 days before the case is mooted by the birth
>> of a child or the death of a fetus is an exercise best left to the
>> imagination (or alternately sniggered at behind your hand).
>>
>>     
>>> 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?
>>>       
>> I am not qualified to deliver medical advice, but it is my
>> understanding that one cannot live without a functioning forebrain.
>> You, however, have left me somewhat unsure of this understanding.
>>
>> -- ACS
>>
>> * If you're interested, this Harpers article is a good overview of the
>> "partial-birth abortion" pseudo-debate:
>> http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/11/0080278
>>
>> * Yes, it's a blog post. However, it's an ob/gyn med student's
>> overview of the medical literature on intact D&E, as well as what
>> exactly was made illegal by the partial-birth abortion law:
>> http://www.agraphia.net/partial-birth-abortion-v-intact-dilation-extraction/
>>
>> * This is a personal account of someone who did have an intact D&E due
>> to (extremely severe) spinal bifida. It might explain why someone
>> might want to do it:
>> http://lifestyle.msn.com/mindbodyandsoul/womenintheworld/articlemc.aspx?cp-documentid=4595719
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
>
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070426/7aabbf8c/attachment.html