<html>
<head>
<style>
P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
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: tonytime@clearwire.net<br>> To: ophite@gmail.com<br>> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:20:49 -0700<br>> CC: vision2020@moscow.com<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></body>
</html>