[Vision2020] Is it Infanticide Vs. Abortion? (was:CatholicMajority On Supreme Court)
Tony
tonytime at clearwire.net
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
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list