[Vision2020] Is it Infanticide Vs. Abortion?

[Tony]

No no no Paul, you misunderstood.  I was not referencing early term abortion, let alone miscarriage, when I mentioned Andreas' apparent lack of a soul in championing the killing of nearly - birthed children.  It was a reference to Intact D & E, A.K.A. partial birth abortion.  Andreas, grinning with glee and wringing his bloody hands, pleads for the "right" to stab a baby at the base of its skull and vacuum out its brain as its head collapses.  He would then toss it in the trash as his eyes rolled back in his head, his gory rampage presumably culminating in orgasmic bliss.

I understand, Paul, that the truth can be unsettling.  Sometimes it can be shocking to learn the details of man's inhumanity to man, or in this case his offspring, but the truth they say will set us free.  Don't blame the messenger Paul.  Allow yourself to accept the horrendous reality of what the left is capable of.  I contend that it is Andreas and his ilk who are being harsh.  I am not advocating the premeditated killing of babies, they are.  Those who allow their intellect to entirely supplant their empathy and compassion, resulting in an emaciated and undernourished soul, are truly a danger to the rest of us.

Stay strong Paul.

The battle for our souls continues......

-Tony
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Rumelhart 
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:54 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Is it Infanticide Vs. Abortion?


  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
=======================================================

  



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  =======================================================
   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/20070427/2f311c50/attachment.html