<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE>P {
PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
BODY {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Toodle-oo,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>-Tony</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=kjajmix1@msn.com href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">keely emerinemix</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=tonytime@clearwire.net
href="mailto:tonytime@clearwire.net">Tony</A> ; <A title=ophite@gmail.com
href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">Andreas Schou</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, April 27, 2007 8:19
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Vision2020] Is it
Infanticide Vs. Abortion? (was:CatholicMajority On Supreme Court)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>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.<BR><BR>keely<BR><BR>> From: <A
href="mailto:tonytime@clearwire.net">tonytime@clearwire.net</A><BR>> To: <A
href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">ophite@gmail.com</A><BR>> Date: Thu, 26 Apr
2007 20:20:49 -0700<BR>> CC: <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>> Subject:
Re: [Vision2020] Is it Infanticide Vs. Abortion? (was: CatholicMajority On
Supreme Court)<BR>> <BR>> Cute Andreas, very cute. But perhaps you will
excuse me if I do not accept <BR>> your contention where the very lives of
society's most innocent members are <BR>> concerned. What specific
documentation can you provide to support your <BR>> insistence that partial
birth abortions are NEVER performed on viable <BR>> babies? And you needn't
waste any more of our time with irrelevant <BR>> statistics as to the
percentage of overall abortions this procedure <BR>> constitutes. One is
one too many. Also, my aspiring lawyer, please advise <BR>> us as to what
circumstances would require killing a woman's child when only <BR>> the
head remains inside in order to save her life.<BR>> <BR>> At least you
are right about one thing: you are not qualified to render <BR>> medical
advice. Nor are you qualified to parent children. That requires <BR>>
compassion and a soul.<BR>> <BR>> Later,<BR>> <BR>> -Tony<BR>>
----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Andreas Schou"
<ophite@gmail.com><BR>> To: "Tony"
<tonytime@clearwire.net><BR>> Cc:
<vision2020@moscow.com><BR>> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 12:03
AM<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Is it Infanticide Vs. Abortion? (was:
<BR>> CatholicMajority On Supreme Court)<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > On
4/25/07, Tony <tonytime@clearwire.net> wrote:<BR>> >> Andreas,
is it your contention then that intact dilation and extraction <BR>>
>> is<BR>> >> performed on non-viable babies in EVERY case? If
so, why has such<BR>> >> information never been divulged before now
by the proponents of this<BR>> >> "procedure?" One suspects that
there is, once again, more to the story <BR>> >> than<BR>>
>> those on your side of this debate would have the public
believe.<BR>> ><BR>> > It's my contention that it constitutes 0.2%
of abortions, that it is<BR>> > performed as an emergency surgery rather
than elective abortion, and<BR>> > that it is performed on non-viable
fetuses.<BR>> ><BR>> > Late-term abortions constitute 1.4% of all
abortions performed in the<BR>> > United States. Intact D&E
constitutes 15% of those.<BR>> > Back-of-the-envelope calculations tell
me that that means that intact<BR>> > D&E is used in roughly 0.2% of
all abortion procedures in the United<BR>> > States.<BR>>
><BR>> > Kennedy's opinion is predicated on the fact that intact
D&E is<BR>> > medically equivalent to the interuterine dismemberment
and suction of<BR>> > the miscellaneous parts; that is, there is no
circumstance under which<BR>> > an intact D&E would save the life of
the mother when other equivalent<BR>> > processes could also be
performed. This logic is designed specifically<BR>> > to limit the
ruling's scope.<BR>> ><BR>> > Notably, Kennedy leaves an opening
for specific review of the law when<BR>> > he specifically mentions that
the court would entertain a case<BR>> > considering that specific issue
-- that is, whether a late-term<BR>> > abortion would be medically
necessary for the health or life of the<BR>> > mother. How Kennedy
expects that a challenge would reach the Supreme<BR>> > Court in the
(roughly) 90 days before the case is mooted by the birth<BR>> > of a
child or the death of a fetus is an exercise best left to the<BR>> >
imagination (or alternately sniggered at behind your hand).<BR>>
><BR>> >> That critical question aside, why are these handicapped
infants not <BR>> >> simply<BR>> >> delivered and allowed to
expire naturally, if that is indeed their fate,<BR>> >> rather than
being unceremoniously dispatched?<BR>> ><BR>> > I am not qualified
to deliver medical advice, but it is my<BR>> > understanding that one
cannot live without a functioning forebrain.<BR>> > You, however, have
left me somewhat unsure of this understanding.<BR>> ><BR>> > --
ACS<BR>> ><BR>> > * If you're interested, this Harpers article is
a good overview of the<BR>> > "partial-birth abortion"
pseudo-debate:<BR>> >
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/11/0080278<BR>> ><BR>> > *
Yes, it's a blog post. However, it's an ob/gyn med student's<BR>> >
overview of the medical literature on intact D&E, as well as what<BR>>
> exactly was made illegal by the partial-birth abortion law:<BR>> >
http://www.agraphia.net/partial-birth-abortion-v-intact-dilation-extraction/<BR>>
><BR>> > * This is a personal account of someone who did have an
intact D&E due<BR>> > to (extremely severe) spinal bifida. It might
explain why someone<BR>> > might want to do it:<BR>> >
http://lifestyle.msn.com/mindbodyandsoul/womenintheworld/articlemc.aspx?cp-documentid=4595719<BR>>
><BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> List services
made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the communities of the
Palouse since 1994. <BR>> http://www.fsr.net <BR>>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>
=======================================================<BR><BR>
<HR>
Connect to the next generation of MSN Messenger <A
href="http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline"
target=_new>Get it now! </A></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>