You Tell Me?

The following is an article that I originally posted on my own site, “Politically Frank in 2009.  Considering the ad hoc  committee hearing held in the Delaware State Senate this week concerning the practices of Planned Parenthood, I felt this oldie but goody was applicable.

The suction and curettage method is a common abortion procedure used in the first trimester of pregnancy. The abortionist begins by dilating the mothers cervix until it is large enough to allow a cannula (a small hollow tube) to be inserted into her uterus. The cannula is attached to a vacuum  type pump by a hose. The cannula is run along the surface of the uterus causing the baby to be dislodged and sucked into the tube either whole or in pieces along with amniotic fluid and the placenta and end up in a collection jar. Any remaining parts are scraped out of the uterus with a surgical instrument called a curettage. Then the cannula is used again to ensure that all body parts have been removed.

Another method of abortion is known as , dilation and evacuation. This type of abortion is done after the third month of pregnancy. The cervix must be dilated before the abortion, then a pliers like instrument is inserted into the uterus. The abortionist then seizes a leg, arm or other body part of the baby and with a twisting motion , tears it from the body. This continues until only the head remains. Finally the skull is crushed and pulled out. The nurse then must reassemble the body to ensure that no body parts remain.

In the prostaglandin method ,the hormone prostaglandin is injected into the mother to induce labor. The baby usually dies from the trauma of the delivery. But if the baby is old enough it can be delivered alive. This is called a  “complication” . To prevent this “complication” some abortionist will inject a  ”feticide” (a drug to kill the fetus) into the baby’s heart , then induce labor and deliver a dead baby. This type of abortion is used in mid and late term pregnancies.

Dilation and extraction is a type of abortion that is used in pregnancies of four to nine months gestation. The abortionist inserts forceps into the uterus and grasps one of the baby’s legs and then positions the baby feet first and face down. The child’s body is then pulled out of the birth canal except for the head. The baby is alive and probably kicking and flailing its legs and arms. The abortionist then jams blunt tipped scissors into the baby’s skull and spreads them until a suction tube can be inserted and the brain is sucked out. The skull collapses  and the head is removed from the mother.

Now you tell me , can we call ourselves  a civilized society if we allow this type of genocide to be carried on  either through actively working for the expansion of it , or by turning a blind eye to it ?

15 Comments on "You Tell Me?"

  1. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    Tuxamus Maximus has pondered this and just can’t understand why any male, unless married to the woman with fetus on board, would have any say in what a woman wants to do with her body. Males sure do seem to go along with implants though! Females can complain all they want about the legality but males should just sit this argument out.

    Tuxamus Maximus thinks abortion should remain a viable option for ALL women at any time and for any reason.

    Tuxamus Maximus also thinks that every possible form of abortion, and birth control, should be made available to any woman be it in vending machines or on demand with no questions asked because we can pay for an unwanted fetus now or an unwanted baby in the future. Pay a little now or pay a LOT later.

    Tuxamus Maximus also thinks that all forms of abortion and birth control should be offered on an income based scale.

    Tuxamus Maximus has heard all the arguments, most presented by males thumping a bible, and wants only to leave a gift in all of their sandboxes!

  2. Frank Knotts says:

    TM, my argument is not based on my faith alone. Our society has laws against murder, abortion is the taking of life.

  3. Laffter says:

    Yes Frank, you are partially right, society DOES have laws against the taking of life

    So, explain the last century of wars……ahhhhh right, there is an exception

    As for abortion….well, can you say when life starts ? Beyond a doubt

    Is it when it’s an egg, when its fertilized, a zygote ? When exactly?

    And what about a fetus that has a medical issue like the sine outside then body, or no brain, or so serverely deformed that it is incomparable with life

    One reason is respect but disagree with Lopezs vote is at least he was consistent……he is pro-life across the board- for the unborn as well as repealing the death penalty.

    I on the other hand – am pro- choice AND pro death penalty.

    I have always believed that this choice is between a woman,,her doctor and her God.
    No one else. And certainly NOT the government

  4. Frank Knotts says:

    Laffter, the question of the beginning of life is easy. It is at conception. And no this is not based on my faith alone. It is science.
    This is the way I see it. Once an egg is fertilized, if neither God nor man intervene, then that fertilized egg will become a human being. There is no way to argue against this.
    So if life begins at conception, then the taking of that life falls under society’s laws against murder. I personally do not see a difference based on at what point on the developmental time line that the life is terminated.
    War is not murder, war is in most cases the out growth of human nature’s need to dominate others. Thus causing another people to defend themselves, in the case of abortion, the child is incapable of defending itself, much in the same way that a person who is murdered during an armed robbery was unable to defend themselves.
    Your examples of selective murder based on physical defects is a bit troubling and a dangerous road to start down.
    Today parents are able to decide to “TERMINATE” a pregnancy for the reason that the child is not perfect. Tomorrow, will society sanction terminating the pregnancy based on eye or hair color?
    How long before we consider euthanizing the elderly that are no longer physically perfect, or productive? If parents can decide that an imperfect child would be too much of a burden, then why not allow children to decide that caring for parents that are too much trouble to care for in the declining years, to terminate those lives? Or maybe government should decide that the cost of caring for the elderly is too high.
    As for the question of abortion verses death penalty, well that one comes down to society protecting itself. The innocent life of an unborn child has not affected or hurt anyone. The killer who has murdered must answer for there crime and society must protect the innocent victims that might be, if the killer is allowed to live.
    I would however trade capital punishment for abortion in a minute.
    As for your comment of, “I have always believed that this choice is between a woman, her doctor and her God.”
    Well this is a tried and true argument for the pro-choice people. But women already are told in many ways what they can or cannot do with their bodies. They are told they can’t put alcohol into them until a certain age, they are told that they cannot prostitute their bodies, they are told that they cannot use their bodies to kill another person, they can’t sell their organs, they can’t sell the very babies that many choose to terminate.
    So you see the same as gun owners have to recognize that there are times when they already accept government intervention of their gun right, women have already accepted intervention of the decisions of their bodies.

  5. Dave says:

    “Once an egg is fertilized, if neither God nor man intervene, then that fertilized egg will become a human being”

    Aside from the belief that God actually intervenes on an individual level, you made an excellent point Frank, that the fertilized egg “will become” a human being.

    Meaning it is not yet a human being. No one can disagree that life begins at conception. However, our society, laws, and entire construct on how we live is based on concept of humanity.

    I can accept that medical science has arrived at the point where a fetus can survive outside the womb much earlier than in centuries past. Regardless, that earlier point is not at the moment of conception (except perhaps in a test tube) and even if that were the case, the fetus is not a human being.

    Consequently, we are faced with a ethical, moral, and scientific decision about what constitutes humaness. Certainly it is not the fertilized egg and it certainly is the fully formed being capable of respiration, pulmonary function, digestion, brain function, and other human qualities. The most critical funcition -consciousness is not understood well enough to identify the point at which we gain consciousness. Perhaps one day it will. Until then, what we can say definitively, is that fertilized egg is not a human being.

    Therefore, society’s laws that apply to humans, cannot apply to the fertilized egg. And of course, as you have heard from me before, my view is that while I understand the debate, I would rather expend effort on preventing the need for the debate by preventing unwanted pregnancy in the first place. That doesn’t mean the debate should not take place, it is just that it doesn’t have to be the centerpoint (or flash point) for our political and social system.

    As a society, we should all that we can to ensure that unwanted pregnancy does not take place. Consequently, I am an advocate for methods such as abstinance, education, contraception, Plan B, and yes even voluntary sterilization. All these methods should be used because one size does not fit all, and various solutions must be available.

    One could apply Occam’s Razor to the problem and recognize that the simplest solution – prevention, is the far better solution than trying to close the barn door (mixing philosophy and metaphor, which is sort of awkward).

  6. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    Tuxamus Maximus thinks Laffter is not only wise but funny as well. Tuxamus Maximus likes Laffter!

    Tuxamus Maximus also agrees with Laffter most of the time! Pro Choice (silence of ALL men) and Pro Death penalty. The faster we put the put those that get DEATH to DEATH the less it costs. If they didn’t do that crime they most likely did many others. But back to the point at hand…show me one fetus that has a Social Security number and I’ll give my opinion a rethink…for about 30 seconds.

    Tuxamus Maximus also agrees with Dave and likes Dave’s way of thinking. Well done Dave! Occam’s Razor… DUDE… that’s a good one to apply in this discussion!
    Tuxamus Maximus is beginning to think Dave is smarter than the average bear!! WOW that’s deep thinking for many and may well apply for some here but over at DP that would get a lot of “Huh’s?”…then the searches would start, then the interpretations and arguments then name calling and on and on and on. Tuxamus Maximus likes this sandbox!!

    Tuxamus Maximus wants Frank to explain miscarriages and still births.

    Tuxamus Maximus wants Frank to explain who pays for the medical care of the indigent knocked up when fetus becomes baby let alone requires unGODly amounts of $$$ to sustain the life of a baby, that is brought into the world prematurely, that wasn’t wanted, or planned, in the first place.

    Tuxamus Maximus also thinks that if all the good ‘Christians’ out ther feel so strongly why don’t they pick up the tabs and adopt all those fetuses that become babies to momma’s that just can’t, or won’t do the JOB of being a GOOD parent for the next 18+ years.

    Tuxamus Maximus thinks Frank is entitled to his opinion but he also thinks Frank has no right to inflict his opinion on any woman. Tuxamus Maximus would gladly drive any woman that needed a ride to an abortion clinic and wait to take her home afterward whether he knows the woman or not.

    Tuxamus Maximus is going to watch the news now.

  7. Frank Knotts says:

    Dave, you and I have had this debate before, and we agree that the best way to avoid abortions is to avoid pregnancies. However we know that in todays world abortion has become birth control for far too many women. So there is no need to have that debate, we agree, education is the best answer, and the best place to start that is at home, parents must exercise personal responsibility to teach their children. That does not mean that government should be paying for organized murder like planned parenthood.
    Now as to the question of when life begins? Is a plant not a plant once it has sprouted from the seed?
    Is the larva of an insect not alive?
    Conception is but the first phase of a human life, to say that it is not a human being is only a way to ease the conscience.
    If we use your definition of life, then I go back and ask you, should children be allowed to terminate parents who in their failing years and have stopped meeting those requirements?
    You listed, ” respiration, pulmonary function, digestion, brain function, and other human qualities.”
    My father is on oxygen the biggest part of the day, both my parents are catheterized, many elderly are no longer cognizant.
    Must they meet all of these standards? Or just one of them? Should I be allowed to put my parents down because they have become a “burden”?
    Dave, life is a time line of sorts, it has a natural beginning and a natural end.
    If I interrupt that time line by killing a person when they are fifty by shooting them, I have interrupted the natural time line of their life, and that would be murder.
    Why is interrupting that time line any different if I do it at three months by sucking them from the womb with a vacuum cleaner?

  8. Dave says:


    Perhaps you should ponder and the reconcile the following two statements you made. Note that in the first one you assert a future state of being human, but not in the present for the fertilized egg.

    “Once an egg is fertilized, if neither God nor man intervene, then that fertilized egg will become a human being”

    “Conception is but the first phase of a human life, to say that it is not a human being is only a way to ease the conscience.”

    There is no doubt that a fertilized egg has a final state of humaness. But that is not it’s initial or early state. In your second statement, you indicate that conception is the first phase of human life. Not exactly accurate because conception is a singular event rather than a phase. Still, your point is taken and generally correct that a fertilized egg is in the first stage of human life. However, I and others, assert that it is not a human being and cannot be treated as a human being. Note that I mention only the fertilized egg aspect and not the later stages of formation. Quite simply these eggs are not human beings, yet.

  9. Frank Knotts says:

    Dave, again, this parsing of what is and isn’t a “viable” human being is simply in my opinion an attempt to ease the consciences of those who either have had, or who support abortions.
    I notice you did not address my point of a time line of human life, the fact that every life has a natural beginning and a natural ending.
    It would seem that you think that somewhere around four months after conception human life simply springs into being.
    Then answer this Dave, can your definition of life happen without conception?
    I and my fellow Christians believe this did happen once, but even we don’t think it will happen again.
    So Dave how do we get to your definition of life at four months after conception, without conception. Even when man plays God and artificially creates life, they must replicate the act of conception by fertilizing the egg.
    In the natural order of things conception is the first spot on the time line of any human life, therefore it is the beginning of that life. Nothing on the rest of the time line can occur if that first step is not successful.
    Dave for one moment forget the political aspects of the discussion, forget all of the verbal acrobatics that have been used on both sides of the debate over the years.
    For just one moment consider this from a purely logical and scientific point of view. Look at life around the planet, in all of its forms and stages, and in every form of life, be it plant or animal, or insect, there is that first spot on its time line of life, without which life could not begin or exist.
    To say that because the fertilized egg is not yet able to vote, therefore it is not a human life is disingenuous.
    So unless you truly believe that life can begin without conception, then you must accept that conception is the beginning of life.
    I also notice you did not address my questions about the other end of the time line and the elderly.

  10. Dave says:


    I did not address the elderly aspect because it was not germane to the discussion. Of course human life has a natural time line. So let’s get back to the crux of this.

    Human life begins at conception. That life as you stated “will become” a human being. Meaning it is not yet a human being, which is the same as stating that it is not yet a person. A fertilized egg is not yet a person. It will become one but “will” is the operative word.

    Now, let’s focus on the point at which it becomes a human being; a person. When is that? I suggest that it is person when it can survive outside of the womb as a separate entity apart from the mother. Until then it is a part of the mother and not a person.

    I can be talked into an earlier point if it makes sense, but I can never be persuaded that the fertilized egg is human being; a person and I know you would try to do that because you don’t hold that view either. So, let’s stick to the central question; at what point does it become a human being?

    The answer might be subjective versus scientific. I gave my rationale as existence outside the womb as a separate entity. What’s your rationale?

  11. Frank Knotts says:

    If you want to hang your hat on the fact that I used the phrase, “will become”, you are welcome to do that. However Dave we both know you are intelligent enough to know exactly what I was saying, and since I have since clarified my view, it is simply a tactic to further your misguided view.
    I again ask, if we use your previous definition of when a “LIFE” becomes a “HUMAN BEING”, then does a “HUMAN BEING” cease being a “HUMAN BEING” once they no longer meet those parameters you spoke of above?
    My view is that it is a human life at conception. Life begins at conception, all that you have enumerated cannot exist without conception. Agreed?
    So what you are attempting to define is what constitutes a “BEING”.
    I again emphasize the fact that no “BEING” will exist without conception. So by interrupting the natural life time line, by aborting that life, you have stop the process of that life becoming a being. The same as if I kill a teenager who would have become an adult, no adult will exist unless it first passes through its teen-age years.
    I again ask Dave, can a “BEING”, meeting your definition of a “BEING” exist without conception? If the answer is no, and I think we both know that it is, then an abortion has killed a being.

  12. Dave says:

    “by aborting that life, you have stop the process of that life becoming a being.”


    “I again ask Dave, can a “BEING”, meeting your definition of a “BEING” exist without conception? ”


    “and I think we both know that it is, then an abortion has killed a being.”


    Because as you once again stated, that life is not yet a human being. Bear with me Frank and let’s shift this to frogs to see if it constributes any clarity.

    If I kill a tadpole, have a killed a frog? Nope. I killed a tadpole, which had the potential to become frog. But it wasn’t a frog yet. It is still only a tadpole regardless of it’s potential.

    Of course, if you want to argue that preventing a fertilized egg from becoming a human being, is the same as taking the life of a human being, I will disagree. Just because the fertilized egg had the potential of becoming a human being does not make it a human being just as a pile of building materials does not make it house. It has only the potential of becoming a house.

    Perhaps to bring this to closure, you seem to be asserting that a fertilized egg is the equivalent of a human being; a person. If that is your belief and intent, then I have to respectfully disagree. A fertilized egg is not a human being. You could find a point in the cycle of becoming a person where we might agree, but it’s not the egg. Sorry about that.

  13. Laffter says:

    I don’t wade into these discussions as they are very much about belief…….
    Rarely is one converted , the most we can hope for is understanding of the others view point

    Just like there are no atheists in foxholes, there is nothing like a pro-lifer with a pregnant teenager sneaking into planned parenthood looking for an abortion…’s all a matter of theory and perspective until its in your own person face.

    Might I add these words from the existentialist philosopher Fredrisch Neitzsche
    ” becoming , is prior to being”

  14. Dan Gaffney says:

    A very provocative 30 minutes on the subject:

  15. Frank Knotts says:

    Dave, always with respect my friend. But what you are attempting to do is draw an arbitrary line on the natural time line of a life and say that this is the time at which it becomes, in your words a human being.
    To use your frog and tadpole analogy, if you kill the tadpole, then yes you have killed the frog that would have been. If you abort the fertilized egg, then you have killed the person that would have been. And if I set fire to that pile of building material then I have burned the house that would have been.
    In my view life begins at conception because that is when the natural time line of that particular life begins. You seem to equate “LIFE” with a more material sense of being. A definition brought forth to justify the ending of that life more than defining it.

Got something to say? Go for it!