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

Fri Apr 27 11:35:17 PDT 2007

My beloved Keeeely, perhaps you thwarted divine intention by procreating.  Indeed, it was probably all a part of God's plan that you should have remained childless.

Toodle-oo,

-Tony
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: keely emerinemix 
  To: Tony ; Andreas Schou 
  Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:19 AM
  Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Is it Infanticide Vs. Abortion? (was:CatholicMajority On Supreme Court)

  If I had known that the criteria for being a good parent, for having compassion and a soul, was to agree with Tony on much of anything, I think I might have chosen not to take the risk and thus remain childless.

  keely

  > From: tonytime at clearwire.net
  > To: ophite at gmail.com
  > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:20:49 -0700
  > CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
  > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Is it Infanticide Vs. Abortion? (was: CatholicMajority On Supreme Court)
  > 
  > Cute Andreas, very cute. But perhaps you will excuse me if I do not accept 
  > your contention where the very lives of society's most innocent members are 
  > concerned. What specific documentation can you provide to support your 
  > insistence that partial birth abortions are NEVER performed on viable 
  > babies? And you needn't waste any more of our time with irrelevant 
  > statistics as to the percentage of overall abortions this procedure 
  > constitutes. One is one too many. Also, my aspiring lawyer, please advise 
  > us as to what circumstances would require killing a woman's child when only 
  > the head remains inside in order to save her life.
  > 
  > 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.
  > 
  > 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
  > =======================================================

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger  Get it now! 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070427/b85cebb7/attachment-0001.html 