Hilarious

Make sure you aren't eating or drinking when you read this, unless your prepared to clean your monitor.

Evidence That The Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Was A Very Small Victory.

Sad but not unexpected news out of Cincinnati as the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down a Michigan partial-birth abortion ban. The case was brought to test the idea of broadening the definition of partial-birth abortion to include a common procedure used in the second trimester called Dilation and Evacuation (D & E) as opposed to the recently upheld federal ban on Dilation and Extraction (D&X).

For anyone not familiar with the technical definitions of these two procedures, here is a clinical definition taken from a document published by the Attorney General of Michigan regarding the Legal Birth Definition Act.

Dilation and Evacuation (D & E) Procedure:

As performed late in the second trimester, the abortion procedure commonly referred to as dilation and evacuation, or "D & E, " begins with dilation of a woman's cervix. Once sufficient dilation is achieved, the physician reaches into the woman's uterus with an instrument, grasps as extremity of the fetus, and pulls. when the fetus lodges in the cervix, the traction between the grasping instrument and the cervix causes dismemberment and eventual death, although death may occur prior to dismemberment. The process continues until the entire dead fetus has been removed, piece-by-piece, from the woman's uterus.

Dilation and Extraction (D&X) Procedure:

The physician initiates the D & X or partial birth abortion procedure by dilating a woman's cervix, but to a greater degree than in the traditional D & E procedure. Once the physician achieves sufficient dilation, the manner in which the abortion proceeds depends upon the presentation of the fetus. . . . In a breech extraction, the physician partially delivers the fetus through the mother's cervix up to a point that allows the physician to access the fetus's head, which is inside the mother, while stabilizing the fetus's body, which is outside the mother. Then, in order to collapse the fetus's skull, the physician forces a pair of scissors into the base of the skull, enlarges the opening and evacuates the contents with a suction catheter. the abortion concludes with the removal, in a single pass, of the fetus's intact, dead body. if the fetus presents head first, the doctor first collapses the fetus' exposed skull by breaching and compressing the head with the forceps' jaws, inserting a finger. . . ., or piercing the head with a sharp instrument, such as a tenaculum or a large-bore needle. The doctor then suctions out the fetus's skull contents, if necessary, and completes the delivery of the fetus from the mother's body, whole and intact, in a single pass.

I went to the trouble of posting these very detailed definitions to point out the absurdity of what we are arguing over in court. As you can plainly see by reading the definition, the major point of difference between the two is not how many weeks old the pregnancy is, but how the fetus is removed. In the D & E procedure it is stressed that the fetus is removed piece-by-piece, while in the D & X procedure great pains are taken to stress that the fetus is removed intact. I guess that don't count vacuuming the brain out as dismemberment.

Incrementalism is excruciating. Why are we drawing the line here? Our government is telling us one of these procedures is legal, and the other is not. Have they read these definitions? As a society we delude ourselves with the arcana of medical terminology to hide the fact that we are arguing over two ways to kill a baby. How can a thinking person not realize the clean and morally correct line is to define life as beginning at conception? Conceived persons would then have all the rights granted to people who are already born.

Of course, drawing the line at conception causes inconveniences for regular folk, as it is becoming common knowledge that the pill can act as an abortifacient. Can we not see how accepting contraception has led to this? It is indeed a slippery slope. The right thing to do is rarely the convenient thing.

Soccer Kid

This may be the funniest commercial I've ever seen.

HT - American Papist

Duncan Hunter For President

PowerLine has a good thread on their candidates forum about the man I will be supporting in the Republican presidential primary, Duncan Hunter. Representative Hunter is a rock ribbed conservative, pro-life across the board on all the issues. His core beliefs can be found here. Please do everything you can to support his efforts.

Wading Into Irrational Thoughts

I read Daily Kos almost everyday, although most of what I read there is so illogical I don't feel the need to comment. But this post needs to be addressed. The post is a reaction by planned parenthood to a story about a pharmacy in Great Falls, MT that has decided not to fill prescriptions for birth control. The owners, who are Catholic, made the decision and ran an ad in the local paper to inform their customers of their decision.

Of course, I expect planned parenthood to disagree with this move, but the lengths to which they distort simple facts have to be pointed out.

Here is the first quote that got my attention:

"the maternal death rate has fallen more than 60 percent since 1965, when the Supreme Court constitutionally protected the use of birth control in the United States. And if that isn't enough, the infant death rate has declined by more than 70 percent. Birth control is basic health care for women. Not only does it save lives, it helps women and their families prevent poverty and plan their futures. It is mind-boggling to me that women in this country are still denied the right to choose when and whether to have a child."

Pop quiz.

The number of rapes committed and ice cream cones sold go up in a city during the months of June, July, and August. How should the city go about solving it's crime problem?

If planned parenthood were in charge, they would outlaw ice cream, since it's obviously causing the increase in rape. They make the common statistical error of assuming correlation proves causation. The fact that maternal and infant death rates have fallen since 1965 is not proof that birth control saves lives, and they make no mention of the pill's effects on cancer rates, STD contraction, and birth defects (of course babies with birth defects can be aborted).

But that's not all, the post continues:

"In the town of Great Falls, Montana, it would leave me with fewer choices and greater barriers to deciding when and whether I want to have children."

Newsflash! As Natural Family Planning teaches, there are only three one hundred percent effective ways of avoiding pregnancy. Male castration, removal of the ovaries, and abstinence. The choice is always ours as to whether or not we have children, but sex comes with the responsibility of raising any children that God blesses us with.

Finally the post engages the standard planned parenthood practice of extrapolating an extreme medical case to rationalize the pill for everyone, by telling the story of an infertile woman taking the pill for medical reasons not being able to get her prescription filled at this particular pharmacy. Let's forget the fact that this is a free country and she can take her prescription across the street to another pharmacy, or order it online, there are very few medical conditions that absolutely require the use of the pill as treatment.