Said a doctor involved in an effort to produce and publicize photographs of what is removed from the uterus when there is an abortion in the early weeks of pregnancy.
Quoted in "What a pregnancy actually looks like before 10 weeks – in pictures/In 13 US states, abortion is banned even in the earliest stages of pregnancy. But we rarely see what such tissue really looks like" (The Guardian).
I'd like to see the more moderate politicians of both major parties in the United States get together and pass a law that would guarantee access to abortion up to a specified week early in pregnancy. Looking at pictures like this could help people think honestly about where that line should be.
Here is a photograph that shows the stages from 5 weeks to 9 weeks. I know it will not change the mind of anyone who believes there is a human soul in this tissue from the point of conception and that you may think it's disrespectful of me to display a photo of 5 dead human beings. I'm putting it after the jump out of deference to that opinion, but I think this picture is important to confront for those who want to participate in reaching a consensus about the kind of law that ought to be passed now.
Posts
167 comments:
Embryology used to be a required course for medical school. I've studied it and those don't look like embryos. Somebody is trying too hard.
now, ask the democrats.. ANY democrats; to name a limit THEY would accept?
6 weeks?
12 weeks?
24 weeks?
48 weeks?
1 year?
2 years?
10?
I'd like to see the more moderate politicians of both major parties in the United States get together and pass a law that would guarantee access to abortion up to a specified week early in pregnancy.
Where would the power to pass such a law come from?
now, ask the democrats.. ANY democrats; to name a limit THEY would accept?
Even if they would accept a limit, as soon as it went into effect they'd start trying to extend it.
The life begins at conception people have their argument. It isn't bad, but it is a belief and not even a majority hold it.
To be consistent every woman that has a miscarriage has to be thrown in jail.
They should stop trying to impose a religious judgement on everyone else through the monopoly on government power.
Get people into church and convince them that is the right answer.
Stop trying you use the government to make this point.
Where's the blood? Looks like this was bleached & sanitized for effect
Michael K said...
Embryology used to be a required course for medical school. I've studied it and those don't look like embryos. Somebody is trying too hard.
Those pictures look like they took parts of the placenta out with the embryo.
The embryo is most likely too small in most of these pictures and there is a lot of the mother's tissue in there is my guess.
gahrie said...
Where would the power to pass such a law come from?
Fetuses might be small, but some people think they reach across state lines and thus COMMERCE CLAUSE.
Some people think the COMMERCE CLAUSE can do anything.
Agreed, Ann. What would be even more helpful would be an image continuum showing each stage of development accompanied by text explaining the condition and functioning of the fetus. Lately, most of our national abortion "discussion" has been shouting and wild accusations.
"now, ask the democrats.. ANY democrats; to name a limit THEY would accept?
6 weeks?
12 weeks?
24 weeks?
48 weeks?
1 year?
2 years?
10?"
Do you believe that only Democrats support legal abortion?
Philip K. Dick wrote a story late in his career called "The Pre-Persons." It posited a world in which children under the age of 12 were considered "pre-persons," subject to post-natal "abortion" up to their 12th birthday. (He was not mocking anti-abortionists, as he opposed the practice.) He is my favorite writer, and I understand his point, but I do support legal abortion up to a certain point in the pregnancy.
Those images look to be of embryos in poor condition. Perhaps removal from the womb caused damage to delicate tissue or maybe the embryos are covered by placental or maternal tissue. But these look nothing like intact images of embryos. Check out Wikipedia for a picture of a 9 week embryo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_embryonic_development
The life begins at conception people have their argument. It isn't bad, but it is a belief and not even a majority hold it.
To be consistent every woman that has a miscarriage has to be thrown in jail.
Why? Not every death is a crime.
They are showing the "after" pictures. If they wanted an honest conversation, they'd post the "before" pictures for comparison. 9 weeks is the biggest splat in the sample dish, it's also the biggest embryo at the link.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xe5LzVn74cU/URLGbPPa9FI/AAAAAAAAE48/Ot_qYNXNu1M/s1600/16_pregnancy-stages.jpg
Sorry Ann, but this appears to be false information.
Do a google image search for "9 weeks fetus", and you will see clearly defined heads with noses and eyes. The hands have fingers.
You will NOT see fuzzy white patches in a Petri dish.
but I do support legal abortion up to a certain point in the pregnancy.
Telling that in a post discussing the issue of where to set limits to abortion, Comrade Marvin is unable or unwilling to suggest such limits.
"Where would the power to pass such a law come from?"
From the Commerce clause, I would think.
Where does the power to prohibit abortions come from?
"now, ask the democrats.. ANY democrats; to name a limit THEY would accept?"
That's a useful question and I've asked it at times, but this post is about the need for a basic law that a solid majority can agree on. Those who think abortion should be guaranteed as the woman's private decision throughout pregnancy still can agree that it's better to have some access than none — 9 weeks or 15 weeks or whatever this consensus process will yield. Some of them might say I don't want to vote for a law that doesn't give more, but still, you know it's implied: If they want more, they also prefer less to none.
So stick to my question. Obviously, I can see how anyone who wants to change the subject can change it. I'm sure many who think conception is the key point will say they can't support a law that gives any access. But I'm trying to talk to moderate consensus-builders.
Don't change my topic.
I'd like to see the more moderate politicians of both major parties in the United States get together and pass a law that would guarantee access to abortion up to a specified week early in pregnancy.
It's not a federal issue, despite your nonsensical argument about the Commerce Clause.
gahrie said...
Where would the power to pass such a law come from?
A: Article I, Section 8
They want to kill and mutilate children who are rhe future they are evil beyond measure they murdered tens of thousands of elderly they are our memory
We've discussed the Commerce Power topic in previous posts.
Don't change my subject.
Face the question presented here.
Here’s another in utero photo of an 8 week embryo.
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxV-x3XtfDzm-TjOes8BrCaysDcflEdQ45
Those photos in your post are appallingly deceptive. We knew my daughters sex at 12-14 weeks by ultrasound. If those photos were a true representation of in utero state of an embryo there’s no way an ultra sound could determine sex just a few weeks later.
Robert Cook writes, "Do you believe that only Democrats support legal abortion?"
Even an idiot like me can detect a mendacious attempt to deflect the question. Why restate the question if you have no intent to answer it? Perhaps it's because you dread admitting the truth?
You need to update or retract this post. It’s vile misinformation.
gahrie said...
Where would the power to pass such a law come from?
A: Article I, Section 8
Which clause...I didn't see any mention of abortion.
If you are referring to the Commerce Clause, any interpretation of it that would allow Congress to legislate on abortion would render any limitations on Congressional power null and void, which is particularly ironic given that the purpose of Article I Section 8 is to limit Congress to the powers expressly enumerated there.
The current actual age of viability is about 21 weeks. That works for me.
The current actual age of viability is about 21 weeks. That works for me.
Where does the power to prohibit abortions come from?
There is no federal power to prohibit abortions, which is precisely why it is a state issue.
Achilles, so you want to limit people's ability to vote according to what they value? What other areas would you likewise put off limits to people? Maybe a Law that says people can only vote about things they don't care about or perhaps a kind of test to show they have adequate lack of a identifiable religious reason? And that would be limited to excluding people of specified formal religious affiliation? People should only vote on topics and in ways that you approve? What gives you the right to assert religious judgment or values or civil limitations on what other citizens choose to apply their rights toward?
People should have acceptable philosophical purity to assert their beliefs about what government should do and how? Maybe we should not just vote but also have to submit a well-reasoned 1000 word essay for each vote that shows we have not let our personal values or interests affect our vote. And you can grade those and give a green light to those whose ideological purity agrees with your own.
To be consistent every woman that has a miscarriage has to be thrown in jail.
No, because a miscarriage is the pre-birth equivalent of death from old age. Miscarriages happen because of problems with the fetus or with the uterine environment, or both.
The image, if I understand it correctly, is of 5 aborted fetuses? So we can tell exactly what havoc the procedure wreaks on a fetus. Sort of like how a package of hamburger bears no resemblance to the animal it's made from.
I'm in the Europe camp because I don't want a return of back-alley abortions - but I think abortion is abhorrent and ought to give any woman having one pause. So I have very mixed feelings about the abortion pill, as it turns something that you ought to feel terrible about into something you can even more readily liken to contraception. I mean, if a woman is going to have an abortion, I'd rather she did it as early as possible for the sake of the fetus, but I also want her to realize she's ending the life of what would otherwise develop into her son or daughter.
Face the question presented here.
Tell you what. Put up some images of aborted babies at 15 weeks, 20 weeks, 25 weeks, 30 weeks and 36 weeks and we'll talk.
@Tim Fairbank
All I have is an article in The Guardian with photographs and representations.
If one does a Google search you come up with a lot of things, but what is true? Some of the pictures are medical illustrations, which heighten clarity. Some are photographs that I don't know are not "doctored" and that have captions that may or may not be true.
Of course, the whole notion of "9 weeks pregnant" is deceptive about the age of the unborn entity, since the weeks are counted from the woman's last period:
"“Clinicians date pregnancy from the first day of your last period, to help predict the due date. But you’re not pregnant for those first two weeks,” says Fleischman."
Isn't that a picture of what it looks like outside of someone's body? It has been a while since I had a biology class, but I don't think that women have petri dishes as part of their organs. If only we had technology to show what a fetus looks like at 10 weeks within its native growth environment...
Blood tests can show gender before that point.
Where oh where would we be
If one of those cotton strips
Were Berners-Lee
In 2019, when Democrat Ralph Northam was Governor of Virginia and the Democrats held both the House of Delegates and the Stste Senate, the Democrats pushed for a law supporting the “abortion” of babies born alive if they mother decided she didn’t want the child after all.
The next election was last year, in 2021. Republicans retook the House of Delegates, the governor’s office, the lieutenant governorship, and the Attorney General (the State Senate was not on the ballot). Allowing live babies to be left to die was not the only issue, as Democrats had also tried to restrict gun ownership, and the efforts of the Loudoun County School Board to simultaneously stifle parents’ legitimate concerns over curricula while attempting to cover up the fact that a boy wearing female clothing raped two female classmates in the girls’ restrooms. Still, the abortion extremism pushed by the Democrats two years before had not been forgotten.
I want to add that until this post I regarded Althouse as being a hard core abortion up to and including when the baby is part way out of the birth canal. Good to see she and I agree that commonsense regulation of the practice is a good idea.
In many states, abortion is no longer seen as a health procedure, but a morality issue. Pennsylvania’s Doug Mastriano – once a state senator, now running for governor – is one of a number of Republican politicians who has called for murder charges for people who defy abortion bans.
Isn't it a medical ethics issue, and aren't the "people" in legal jeopardy the people performing abortions?
Ann Althouse said "I think this picture is important to confront for those who want to participate in reaching a consensus about the kind of law that ought to be passed now."
As one of many pictures from many sources it would be part of an important discussion. The issue is that any pictures that don't support the abortion industry will be removed as misinformation or a violation of community rules while pictures found safe for their argument will be published. Right now most sites will delete any pictures of abortion remains and suspend the accounts of people who post them. You can't have a discussion where one of the two or three main parties is forced to wear a muzzle after they have their jaw wired shut.
Deceptive, politically-motivated pictures. No, I would not use these pictures to decide anything.
Plenty of medical articles have real images. Here, for example.
CS means Carnegie stage. CS13 is about 32 days.
A nine-week-grown fetus is about 1 inch long. It does not look like the Guardian photo.
Something like 90% of US abortions happen before 15 weeks of gestation, and IMHO many at 16 or 17 weeks would be earlier if required by law. But do you suppose that folks who fought against Roe/Casey for decades and now got Dobbs will settle for preventing less than 10% of abortions?
"the need for a basic law that a solid majority can agree on"
As one of the few people who thinks it's more important that the issue be settled democratically, and clearly, rather than in the exact manner I prefer, I agree that his is the key "need."
But I don't quite get the relevance of images. Sure, more human-like images trigger certain emotions, but if we have a series showing that an indistinct clump of cells turns into a recognizable human being within weeks, why does it make the killing of the clump more palatable?
I'd like to see the more moderate politicians of both major parties in the United States get together and pass a law that would guarantee access to abortion up to a specified week early in pregnancy. Looking at pictures like this could help people think honestly about where that line should be.
I am sure you won't be surprised that I have a problem with the implications of the position taken. To have The judgement as to when an abortion based on an emotional tie to the appearance of the subject is problematic. It is an emotional decision, not a logical one. And the problem with it is that we cannot have a defensible criteria if we base it on one's reaction to the image presented. One person suggested that the images we have are not representative of the truth. That will impact people who will believe the source based on the source's ideological position, rather than base their decision on objective information. Manipulation will cloud the issue.
Other problems include the obvious parallels to percentage of non-white DNA, skin color, or other physical attributes that once were determinations as to a person's value. We find those criteria abhorrent now, will we find this criteria abhorrent in the future?
If you trace each argument for a demarcating line other than Birth or Conception to its logical end, you will discover that it will be based primarily on subjective criteria. And thus I come to the position that either no abortion is morally acceptable, or all abortions are morally acceptable, everything else is just trying to split the baby in an effort to avoid the difficult implications. Most people, like Althouse, hate the idea of abortion, while also hating the idea of forced gestation. The compromise leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth and they have to hope that they will not be judged harshly if it turns out it was infanticide after all.
Meade said...
gahrie said...
Where would the power to pass such a law come from?
A: Article I, Section 8
See?
Abortion is tucked in there right between "levy taxes" and "among the several states."
I am so glad we could point out the obvious fact that the federal government can do anything it wants and that the word "enumerated" was added to the constitution by mistake.
It is also obvious the 9th and 10th amendments were just a practical joke and never meant to be taken seriously.
"Even an idiot like me can detect a mendacious attempt to deflect the question. Why restate the question if you have no intent to answer it? Perhaps it's because you dread admitting the truth?"
You said it, not me: you must be an idiot. I wasn't deflecting the question, but asking you to support your seeming assertion that only Democrats support legal abortion, (which is not true). You began your comment in bad faith.
Also, I did answer the question, to the degree my knowledge permits. I am not an expert on when an embryo is "viable." I support legal abortion up to the point where it is still not viable. I understand "viable" means the embryo could be removed from the mother and could possibly/probably survive (with medical assistance). I have heard that 15 weeks put forth as a legal limit for abortion, but I have also seen it stated that embryos are not viable up to 23 or 24 weeks. I support legal abortion up to such time just before uncertainty comes into play, so, I suppose 16-20 weeks.
Certainly, "day after" birth control medication should be legal and accessible to all women.
In the push to show purity of party loyalty, some R are pushing for no abortion even after rape and some D are pushing for the "right" to abortion right up to delivery. This is not helpful. The vast majority of people only support abortion early in the pregnancy.
Paddy O said...
Achilles, so you want to limit people's ability to vote according to what they value?
One million percent.
I don't want you to get 51% to vote to take my stuff.
I don't want you to get 51% to vote to force me to mow my lawn.
I don't want you to get 51% to vote to impose your religious interpretation of when life begins.
We were never meant to be a democracy. We are a republic with a constitutionally limited government.
The commerce clause was never meant to be a license for unlimited federal power.
>All I have is an article in The Guardian with photographs and representations.
I'm rejecting your premise. I think we can do better than that.
I don't always believe Wikipedia, but they're pretty good
at summarizing a scientific consensus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Weeks_9_to_16_(2_to_3.6_months)
>So stick to my question
Very well. I would draw the line at 13 weeks, which seems to be where the political consensus is converging.
(Have said that, let me add: as a libertarian, I'm pro-choice about EVERYTHING. I have not called for abortion to criminalized, and I never will.)
It is an emotional decision, not a logical one.
Althouse favors emotion over logic.
Ann
That is precisely what Dobbs accomplished.
Forced our elected Representatives debate the topic and vote on a law.
But doesn't Plan C abortion pills accomplish the goal, with out the over the top hysteria?
This all seems like nothing but political theater. The women in my circle are far more concerned with the kids college fund, their personal 401k, and all the extra money required to fuel the cars, and feed their family's. The have yet to realize what the winter heat bills will hold for them.
life - definition
Webster's Unabridged page 1110
NOUN
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth though metaboism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation in envirnment through changes originating internally.
2. the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
There are 33 more that are not directly biological in nature.
Comment
Human life therefore starts at conception, personal belief notwithstanding.
If you're storing away a doll after a girl grows out of it, you arrange it comfortably in its box, Stanley Cavell points out.
The connection of pictures and votes.
I support your effort to bring clarity to the issue but if you read carefully you'll see that the 9 week photo is only of the gestational sac with the fetus, which would have recently developed from the fetal pole and would be clearly visible though still small, removed.
The article is deliberately deceptive. The people the Guardian got their information from are propagandists.
And the idea that we have to search deep to find accurate photos of actual fetal development because the pro-life people don't want us to is absolute hogwash.
The states should decide.
If the Commerce Clause was not cited in Roe v Wade nor Casey, how can it be used for Fed limit on abortion? (Or was it?)
Either way, it seems the ship has sailed on the use of the Commerce Clause wrt abortion - meaning it was not found to apply. Dobbs confirms so.
Its ok for the States to decide these laws for their population. Forcing an answer, even the answer one thinks will be the prevailing one, is just another short-circuit of the debate. It has to play out naturally for our nation to come to terms with the issue peacefully. I expect it won't take long, given the recent 5 decades, but we'll see.
but I do support legal abortion up to a certain point in the pregnancy.
I believe the same and would put that point at 15 weeks.
Democrats are demonizing those who do not choose a point in time, leaving it up to the mother and doctor to decide at ANY point in time.
Dr. Ralph Northam seems to represent the Democrat position.
Ann Althouse said...
That's a useful question and I've asked it at times, but this post is about the need for a basic law that a solid majority can agree on.
Why?
What is the result of relying on the federal government to tell us what is right and wrong?
So stick to my question. Obviously, I can see how anyone who wants to change the subject can change it. I'm sure many who think conception is the key point will say they can't support a law that gives any access. But I'm trying to talk to moderate consensus-builders.
Don't change my topic.
Ann cannot live without the ability to impose law on everyone.
51%. Commerce clause makes it so.
Of course with dead people and illegal aliens and mail in voting 51% of what?
Whatever the federal government says.
Totally not a recipe for disaster.
The only consistent view is that life begins at conception and abortion is murder. Any other limit (9 weeks, 21 weeks, whatever) is arbitrary and will make many people unhappy.
"To be consistent every woman that has a miscarriage has to be thrown in jail."
Yeah.
And a heart attack is the same thing as bludgeoning someone to death.
What debate? The Democratic Party's position is infanticide forever, no exceptions!
Life begins at conception is a slippery idea, far too imprecise for legislative purposes. What constitutes conception, anyway? Is it fertilization or implantation? The egg and sperm are living cells in any case, do they cease to live at conception? Too many imponderables are involved, therefore I'm willing to accept the non-personhood of an embryo.
However, I will not attribute magical properties to the vagina. The short trip from the womb to the outer world does not bestow personhood on a heretofore mass of inconsequential tissue. Personhood isn't a matter of opinion, even an artificial person cannot appear or disappear in a puff of adamant assertion. And don't hand me any crap implying personhood requires autonomy. Sooner or later everyone's autonomy is inoperative, and when that happens we need the benefit of the law. Therefore, we have a progression from nonpersonal tissue liable to the discretion of the woman involved to a human person enjoying the equal protection of the law, but without autonomy, i.e. not able to exercise the inalienable right of self-defense.
Still, the fundamentals remain unresolved. Perhaps we can spread the personhood out such that at 18 weeks the fetus is a 50-percent person entitled to a reasonable degree of legal protection. And at 27 weeks Junior is a 75-percent person akin to a regular person in a coma. And once the head is out Junior could lawfully put a 9mm slug through the abortionist's brain assuming he could pack a heater.
I'm with Mike K and the other folks in thinking the image that you posted from the Guardian is not what it purports to be. I did a Google reverse image search from this post and I'm seeing a lot of pictures of microfiber and mushrooms, and not a single similar picture identified as any kind of embryo. No accusation intended, you are not responsible for what the Guardian or the doctors are posting and calling pictures of embryos.
"Where would the power to pass such a law come from?" you ask?
From the people. This is very basic civics stuff. Dobbs correctly pointed out the Federal Govt absolutely needs an enumerated power to involve its self in abortion. The enumerated powers of all three branches of the federal govt, are laid out in the Constitution. Then the 9th amendment, specifically reminds us that anything not enumerated, belongs to the State, or the People.
Why the angst about the people writing the laws the live under, is a constant mystery to me.
Perhaps we need a national registry of 3-D images for the entire population. That way we can all get together and vote on who should live and who should die based on appearance. Maybe there some folks that are just to plain ugly to live. Maybe some are just to beautiful and by that beauty they make the rest of us feel ugly. Cross and bug-eyed, pimply, 4'6" tall and a redhead? Sayonara!
"Here’s another in utero photo of an 8 week embryo. https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxV-x3XtfDzm-TjOes8BrCaysDcflEdQ45 Those photos in your post are appallingly deceptive. We knew my daughters sex at 12-14 weeks by ultrasound. If those photos were a true representation of in utero state of an embryo there’s no way an ultra sound could determine sex just a few weeks later."
How do I know the photo is what the caption says it is?
“ How do I know the photo is what the caption says it is?”
How do you know that the Guardian Petri dish is what it says it is?
I'd like to see the more moderate politicians of both major parties in the United States get together and pass a law that would guarantee access to abortion up to a specified week early in pregnancy.
Too bad there are no "moderate politicians" left, in either party.
I'd like to see the more moderate politicians of both major parties in the United States get together and pass a law that would guarantee access to abortion up to a specified week early in pregnancy.
Too bad there are no "moderate politicians" left, in either party.
I'd like to see the more moderate politicians of both major parties in the United States get together and pass a law that would guarantee access to abortion up to a specified week early in pregnancy.
Too bad there are no "moderate politicians" left, in either party.
I'd like to see the more moderate politicians of both major parties in the United States get together and pass a law that would guarantee access to abortion up to a specified week early in pregnancy.
Too bad there are no "moderate politicians" left, in either party.
Help me understand the compromise you envision. Are you saying that there would be nationwide minimum period of say 15 weeks to get an abortion, but that women could still get free abortion on demand throughout pregnancy in California, NY, Illinois, and any other state that chooses not to limit it to 15 weeks? Or are you saying there would be single, nationwide law that makes abortion legal through 15(?) weeks and bans abortion thereafter?
The first option isn't much of a compromise, is it?
When I look up when the sex can be determined I'm seeing "around 18 to 22 weeks."
And when you say "there’s no way an ultra sound could determine sex just a few weeks later" you're making an assertion about what happens in the next few weeks but based on what? What seems plausible to you?
I'm just saying don't assume. Let's get the most accurate info we can. Let's be scientific. There's so much politics and emotion and moralism going on that it has created a blur. People choose pictures that support the position they're already in. I would like some clarity and accuracy.
If The Guardian published incorrect photos, it will hear about it and need to correct.
In order to try to stick to the topic, I will mention only in passing my skepticism about the Commerce Clause as a basis for Congressional action protecting or limiting abortion rights. But as a matter of policy, I would support legislation guaranteeing "access to abortion up to a certain specified week early in pregnancy."
I have no objection to the use of photographs or other images (1) to inform legislative determinations about how to protect or limit abortion rights or (2) to inform public opinion concerning such legislative determinations. From a free speech perspective, I have no objection to the use of misleading photographs for those purposes, so long as there are no limits on additional speech calling out the deception and offering alternative images.
What I object to is asymmetrical application of such principles. If the use of misleading images of 9-week embryos is permissible in support of legislation guaranteeing early access to abortion, then the use of misleading images of 35-week fetuses is permissible in support of legislation limiting late access to abortion.
Here is a photograph that shows the stages from 5 weeks to 9 weeks. I know it will not change the mind of anyone who believes there is a human soul in this tissue from the point of conception and that you may think it's disrespectful of me to display a photo of 5 dead human beings. I'm putting it after the jump out of deference to that opinion, but I think this picture is important to confront for those who want to participate in reaching a consensus about the kind of law that ought to be passed now.
Soo, what I'm reading is "these dont' look right, kill them."
Is that really the place you want to be?
I'm on the "functional" side: do you have a beating heart? Do you have a functioning brain? Then you're alive, and deserving of the same respect that all alive humans are deserving of."
Going on "looks" rather than "abilities" strikes me as the wrong way to go
I posted a link to an anatomy journal article that has nothing to do with abortion. The Guardian photos are clearly totally misleading. The Guardian should retract the piece.
Sex is genetic, established from conception. Gender (i.e. sex-correlated attributes) including visible features including penis, testes, vagina, uterus, etc. are visible thereafter.
Pregnancy Week by Week
Fetal Development: Stages of Growth
At the moment of fertilization, your baby’s genetic make-up is complete, including its sex. The sex of your baby depends on what sperm fertilizes the egg at the moment of conception. Generally, women have a genetic combination of XX and men have XY. Women provide each egg with an X. Each sperm can be either an X or a Y. If the fertilized egg and sperm is a combination of an X and Y, it’s a boy. If there are two Xs, it’s a girl.
Six weeks to baby meets granny in legal state, if not in process.
That said, there is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman, and man, have four choices, and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. The wicked solution is neither a good nor exclusive choice.
Stacey Abramssez "Having children is why you’re worried about your price for gas. It’s why you’re concerned about how much food costs."
Don't you just love kamikaze politics?
"How do I know the photo is what the caption says it is?"
Is that your Peterson impression?
conception - definition
Webster's Unabridged page 422
NOUN
2. fertilization; inception of pregnancy.
The only entry biological in nature.
Comment
There is nothing nebulous or imprecise about the word.
Christ, people, that son of a bitchin' book weighs fifteen pounds. Please don't make me go get it again.
"To be consistent every woman that has a miscarriage has to be thrown in jail."
Is is her Choice or Her Choice?
That said, elective abortion is analogous to murder in that demos-cracy dies in darkness (i.e. if you can get away with it). Since murder is a hard problem, civilized society, avoiding exercise of liberal license to indulge diversity [dogma] (e.g. minority report), will discourage the performance of human rites for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.
Robert Cook writes, "You said it, not me: you must be an idiot. I wasn't deflecting the question, but asking you to support your seeming assertion that only Democrats support legal abortion, (which is not true). You began your comment in bad faith."
It was not my question, so there's no question of bad faith on my part and a very open question on the matter of knee-jerk stupidity on yours.
“ When I look up when the sex can be determined I'm seeing "around 18 to 22 weeks." “
That’s generally when an ultrasound tech will attempt to check. In our case, the obstetrician assured us she could read gender much before that and she got it right. Of course she had 50/50 odds.
“And when you say "there’s no way an ultra sound could determine sex just a few weeks later" you're making an assertion about what happens in the next few weeks but based on what? What seems plausible to you?”
Because I’ve seen images showing embryonic development and none of them show such a sudden change in appearance. Gradual development is the rule. The Guardian images show shapeless masses of tissue that get bigger over time. There’s no increasingly distinguishable features. There is something fundamentally wrong with their image. This isn’t my field so I can’t say what, but it doesn’t pass basic scrutiny. It wouldn’t surprise me that the delicate tissue of the embryo that is visible in utero is utterly destroyed by any attempt to remove it from the mother and that’s what we’re seeing in the Guardian photo.
“I'm just saying don't assume. Let's get the most accurate info we can. Let's be scientific. There's so much politics and emotion and moralism going on that it has created a blur. People choose pictures that support the position they're already in. I would like some clarity and accuracy.
If The Guardian published incorrect photos, it will hear about it and need to correct.”
The Guardian is adding to the blur with their own politics and emotion. Please be scientific and find and post in utero images from legitimate sources, not Guardian propaganda.
Sperm and egg do not evolve, they progress from construction to destruction, or conception during union of a man and woman. Think of the carbon precursor to all life.
The states should decide.
3/5 compromise? Perhaps 1/2 (e.g. Fetal-Baby). In case these are the only viable choices, we should choose the former bias... bigotry for life deemed worthy. Since, unlike slavery and diversity [dogma] (e.g. DIE), demos-cracy is murdered... aborted in darkness, and the State has a compelling cause to keep women and girls affordable, available, and taxable, and the "burdens" of evidence aborted, cannibalized, and sequestered... planned in darkness.
This is NOT a picture of what comes out. My wife miscarried at 6 weeks and it looked like a creature, not like that. I don't know what they did to fry up those babies, but those photos are exceedingly dishonest.
Our Professor said...
this post is about the need for a basic law that a solid majority can agree on.
Those who think abortion should be guaranteed as the woman's private decision throughout pregnancy still can agree that it's better to have some access than none.
Can they? would they?
Again, Let's ask the liberals! What 'basic law that a solid majority can agree on' would liberals (our liberals? ANY liberals?) agree to?
I'd like to HEAR a democrat say something like:
"i WANT to propose a federal law, that legalizes abortion up until XX weeks"
Any takers? inga? gadfly? mark? anyone?
ps. Professor? i THINK that This is the topic you're discussing? I hope i have it right this time
“I'd like to see the more moderate politicians of both major parties in the United States get together and pass a law that would guarantee access to abortion up to a specified week early in pregnancy.“
If you happen to go to hell the day that happens, better wear an overcoat.
”Looking at pictures like this could help people think honestly about where that line should be.”
If you’re going to decide by looking at pictures, remember that the issue is “When does a human life begin?” So the question should be when can people distinguish a human embryo from that of a chimpanzee?
The question I have is when does a pregnant woman know that she is pregnant?
We need to clear that up before I venture to ponder the issue further.
I'm a physician with a PhD in anatomy. I'm with Michael K at 10:18 above, these are not what fetuses in utero look like.
Try this, https://wehelpyou.org/a-look-into-the-womb/
Unfortunately, there will be no consensus building. I lived with abortion for a very long time with reasonable limits. Those of us who found it personally abhorrent but did not want it to be illegal were thoroughly used and abused by politicians who, without any consensus at all, made it legal to execute a full term baby here in Colorado. I feel enormous rage every time I contemplate this.
Count me out on any consensus building. I would passionately vote for any ban right now. Saving an innocent life trumps consideration of the mother (except for life-threatening situations) when you cannot negotiate in good faith. The ghouls of the Democratic Party have caused this and need to atone for it.
"How do I know the photo is what the caption says it is?"
Unresponsive, silly answer --> How do I know you're really Ann Althouse?
Or, you could take 60 seconds & use this internet thingy to check a couple of random sources.
The dictionary also contains entries for dragon, unicorn, and mermaid. The question here is legislation, not linguistics.
As I understand it pregnancy can't be medically detected until implantation, which occurs about eight days after fertilization, therefore if conception is the inception of pregnancy, then the language of the law must refer to a detectable fact. Imagine a law that prevents you from fumigating your house because there might be an undetectable person inside it.
As long as I already have the thing on my lap:
embryo - definition
Webster's Unabridged page 636
NOUN
1. the young of a viviparous animal, esp. of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month. CF. fetus
2. Bot. the rudimentary plant usually contained in the seed.
3. any multicellular animal in a developmental stage preceding birth or hatching.
4. the beginning or rudimentary stage of anything.
fetus - definition - singular
Webster's Unabridged page 711
Embryol. (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation. Also, esp. Brit., foetus
@Ann Althouse
“If one does a Google search you come up with a lot of things, but what is true?”
Here is my ultrasound from my youngest, right at 9 weeks. I already can see the head, feet, and hands. I can define more in this ultrasound image than I can in that picture of those blobs in a Petri dish.
https://i.postimg.cc/rmwwXNCq/67-BA3-D08-594-A-405-D-81-D1-1-A3010587-A8-E.jpg
And if you want to discuss actual gestational age, my baby would only be measuring 7 weeks if one were to go my ovulation/conception. Imagine how much more “human” my baby would have looked in an ultrasound 2 weeks later.
Also, I’ve had three early miscarriages in my life. I can tell you right now, a miscarried baby does NOT look like whatever the hell is in that picture from the article.
Just as a consideration, not for religious purposes or speaking of souls, etc.... Those five images show one bigger than the other. Does something that grows mean it is alive?
Ann Althouse said...
"Here’s another in utero photo of an 8 week embryo. https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxV-x3XtfDzm-TjOes8BrCaysDcflEdQ45 Those photos in your post are appallingly deceptive. We knew my daughters sex at 12-14 weeks by ultrasound. If those photos were a true representation of in utero state of an embryo there’s no way an ultra sound could determine sex just a few weeks later."
How do I know the photo is what the caption says it is?
There are as many pictures on the internet of what a fetus looks like at different stages Ann. And enough of us went in to see ultrasounds of our kids to have first hand pictures.
The Guardian pictures are bullshit and you know it.
You are starting at the end of the argument and working backwards to reach your desired goal.
I am reminded of the song "in the year 2525" by someone, I can't remember whom.
It has a lyric along the lines of "In the year 4545, you will pick your son, pic your daughter too, from the bottom of a long black tube."
Assuming medical science progresses, eventually we'll get to that state. What about abortion then? Can you kill a child that you "pick" out of a tube? The argument for abortion lies on "It's the woman's choice to do what she wants with her body!" If child bearing no longer depends on a human female (and we raise various animals outside of a mother now, so it's entirely possible at some point" then where is the argument for abortion? Many Democrats just want to kill children -- ye ancient Moloch worship in modern form.
Is abortion justified if it doesn't require a woman to have a kid?
Althouse said: “If The Guardian published incorrect photos, it will hear about it and need to correct.”
Lol!!! No, seriously, I literally laughed out loud. You are a comic genius a la Norm McDonald.
Astonishing that we're so capable of recognizing the tiniest shoot as an oak tree, but human embryos as too foreign for us to recognize them as part of our own family.
Is it the lack of arms? Because double-amputees are human. Opposable thumbs? Isn't that a bit ablist? A fully-formed brain? I'm not ready to consider even the acephalic to be non-human.
Of course, it's none of these. It's their utter helplessness and complete dependence that puts them outside the "fully human" camp. (This results in the grisly "viability" test that is so popular these days - "Sorry kid, if you can't hack this on your own, you're out of luck!") Hell, I'm 54 and not sure I'm "viable" without human contact.
We designate them as other so that we can treat them as other, because that suits our own purposes.
It's comforting to know that this is one of the many, many ways in which His ways are not our ways.
And thus I come to the position that either no abortion is morally acceptable, or all abortions are morally acceptable, everything else is just trying to split the baby in an effort to avoid the difficult implications.
As it were.
Why doesn't Biden just make abortion legal up to and including birth by executive order? (snark off)
I agree with Achilles on this: Why the needed rush to pass a federal law on this issue? Both a restrictive national law and liberal law along the lines of what Mandela Barnes wants are doomed to fail.
Those who insist on rushing legislation risk their immediate concern for women be confused with a desire to see a law passed before the election and its consequences in January.
Those pictures look like they took parts of the placenta out with the embryo.
I suspect you are correct. I have already said that I did some abortions back in 1969 when I was a surgery resident rotating on GYN. At the time GYN residents were required to do them and everybody hated it. I helped by doing some. At that time they were done at 20 weeks. The babies looked like what we would call premies now and many times they were moving and trying to breathe. Fortunately, the County soon hired some MDs that were willing to do this full time and we were let off. The 1 pound 10 ounce baby I operated on was not much bigger than one of those fetuses. With improvements in neonatal care, the time limit will be pushed back to 13 weeks or less.
These photos are quite deceptive. Particularly the one that is described thusly - "This image shows the gestational sac of a nine-week pregnancy"
Note this is just the gestational sac - not the embryo.
That photo that Ann included in this post is described as
"Finally, above is a number of gestational sacs on one petri dish, showing the progression in growth from five weeks of pregnancy to nine weeks. The sac grows 1mm a day."
This is not about embryos, only gestational sacs.
To present these as embryos or what the unborn actually look like is a great disservice to the truth.
Actually, it looks in each of those photos as though there's something once-alive in there.
There are multiple states where non-doctors can now perform abortions up until birth.
So if we want to actually do journalism in this area, we might show photographs of babies aborted in the second and third trimesters.
The media has been hiding these bodies for over four decades.
I don't think Republicans should sign onto any legislation that ignores these infanticides.
The abortion doctors that produced these photographs are, of course, biased. In what other industry do journalists simply parrot industry propaganda and leave it at that?
I doubt their numbers (like I doubt their photographs), but suppose they are right, and 15% of abortions take place after nine weeks.
That's over 9 million abortions.
These are embryos. Most of the debate is around fetuses. They stopped showing photos one or two weeks before you could recognize a fetus. Fetus =/ Embryo.
I remember seeing this exhibit as a kid. The only exhibit that really stuck with me.
https://www.msichicago.org/explore/whats-here/exhibits/you-the-experience/the-exhibit/your-beginning/prenatal-development/
Sorry, this doesn't look like the products of early abortions.
"... those who want to participate in reaching a consensus about the kind of law that ought to be passed now."
Oh, are we reaching consensi now? Since when do you seek consensus with racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, white nationalist, Christian, fascist, bigoted, colonialist haters? Look, go ahead, kill your kids. Kill 'em 'cause they're female, kill 'em 'cause they're male. Kill 'em 'cause you don't really like the father, or you were drunk, or it's not convenient to have a child right now, at this stage in your career. Kill 'em at two weeks, kill 'em at two months. Kill 'em after they're born, when they're lying there bawling for your tit. Hell, kill 'em when they're 30 years old, I don't give a damn. Poison them at breakfast. Run 'em over with cars. Throw 'em off buildings like the Muzzies do. Knock Your Selves Out, Ladies. Just be sure you don't use an assault rifle. That might make some sensitive underrepresented-type person feel unsafe.
Oh, I forgot transphobic. Transphobic too, fer sure.
A human soul, perhaps. A human life, yes, which will evolve until Her Choice, or her Choice, do us part. Granny, too.
It was simpler with woodcuts.
@Ann Althouse
“When I look up when the sex can be determined I'm seeing "around 18 to 22 weeks."”
Ann, you are one of the most intelligent women I know. There is no possible way you are truly this ignorant about such an important topic.
Okay, it’s been a few years since you were of child bearing age, I’ll give you that, and I’ll forgive you for not knowing that sex can be determined - via ultrasound - as early as 12-14 weeks these days. However, you should at least be familiar with the knowledge that sex is determined the MOMENT of conception, given that sperm carry either the X or the Y (and eggs always the Y). In fact, there are blood tests that can be done as early as 7 weeks after a missed period (or 5 weeks from conception) that can determine the sex of the baby.
Freeman Hunt: Thank you! That is an excellent paper. It's hard to imagine how anyone other than an abortion zealot would could support legalizing an abortion after CS23 which is approximately 56 days when you see how well-developed a fetus has become.
I cannot fathom why viability is at all relevant to setting a developmental time limit for abortion. It's akin to arguing that a person on a ventilator or another medical device can be terminated merely because that person will not be able to survive without medical support. By 8 weeks (roughly CS23), a woman should reasonably know if she has now missed 2 periods. Waiting longer for an abortion is simply immoral.
- Krumhorn
However, my memory of that development..continuum..exhibit is that it was in an open airy space where you would casually encounter it, not the darkened room weirdness its in now.
we rarely see what such tissue really looks like
The “Drama of Life Before Birth,” the famous Lennart Nilsson photo essay and cover story, appeared in Life Magazine in 1965.
If we rarely see it, it is because we have covered our eyes.
I have no doubt the pictures at the link are what they claim to be. It's disingenuous to point to the remains of an embryo after it's been scraped of the uterine wall, though. It's like running over somebody with a steamroller, then pointing at the puddle of goo and saying, "see, that's not a real person!".
I am a pretty pro-choice libertarian, FWIW.
Althouse questions what she might find on the web, but apparently thinks the Guardian is above suspicion unless other press outlets write otherwise. That trust in the news media is not widely shared.
As Gallup reported yesterday (emphasis added): "Just 7% of Americans have 'a great deal' of trust and confidence in the media, and 27% have 'a fair amount.' Meanwhile, 28% of U.S. adults say they do not have very much confidence and 38% have none at all in newspapers, TV and radio. Notably, this is the first time that the percentage of Americans with no trust at all in the media is higher than the percentage with a great deal or a fair amount combined."
That's one unsexy baby, honey. That was Ann. That's Roe, Doe, or Elena in her prenatal identity. That was me, too. All's fair in lust and abortion?
Why don't we listen to Michael K?
He's clearly the expert.
"Plenty of medical articles have real images. Here, for example. CS means Carnegie stage. CS13 is about 32 days."
32 days from ovulation, not from the first day of the last period, so you have to add 14 days to that to get to our usual way of talking about weeks, I believe. So that would be about 6.5 weeks.
"However, you should at least be familiar with the knowledge that sex is determined the MOMENT of conception..."
Oh, please. That's just insulting. You should know that you are using "determined" in a different way. I was speaking of human beings observing and determining what is the case, not facts coming into existence unobserved by human beings.
Krumhorn:. Nice try but viability via medical ventilator is a mechanical support system. I believe that the pro-choice women are saying that they do not want to be a mechanical ventilator for a fetus that they do not want to carry the term. They claim that they are a human being with rights to preside over their own bodies in a way that they deem fit and are willing to suffer the consequences thereof. In other words women are not machines or robots or the property of beta males.
I'd like to see the more moderate politicians of both major parties in the United States get together and pass a law.
No. We're not going to do that.
Democrats don't get to steal elections and then be all "oh, now we want to get together and pass some bi-partisan legislation we can all agree on."
Sorry, lady. That day is in the past.
You're in the middle of a Civil War, ma'am. After the war, we'll talk. Until then it's every man for himself.
My first reaction was: "these are quite compelling photos that would convince a lot of voters that some early stage abortions should be permitted." (I think this is consistent with the Althouse view.) But then I saw the arguments that these are not accurate photos, and I remember seeing an MRI of my son in utero at (hazy recollection) about two months in utero (or about seven months before his birth) And he was identifiable as a person in that MRI (1985 vintage -- I presume the technology has improved a bit) with a head and arms and legs and (do I remember correctly?) a beating heart. I do believe this is the appropriate way to make this decision -- state by state and month by month (or week by week) -- but I'm not as sure that this will result in looser or stricter restrictions on abortion.
gilbar, when you start arguing in good faith I will think about chiming in.
But your very first post here clearly demonstrates your lack of good faith, and with personal attacks by Drago and others guaranteed here I see no reason to even interact with those who want to discuss in good faith.
Too many bad apples here these days.
They should show the tool they used to bring that tissue out of the woman.
A piece of fruit looks a lot different after you run it through a blender.
"32 days from ovulation, not from the first day of the last period, so you have to add 14 days to that to get to our usual way of talking about weeks, I believe. So that would be about 6.5 weeks."
My point stands: The Guardian photos are politically motivated bullshit.
Resembles cotton. I’m not a doctor, but Michael K was and his opinion in an informed one.
"Rabel said...
I support your effort to bring clarity to the issue but if you read carefully you'll see that the 9 week photo is only of the gestational sac with the fetus, which would have recently developed from the fetal pole and would be clearly visible though still small, removed."
Agree. Here's a diagram from Pampers which clearly shows the placenta and sac at six weeks with the embryo inside.
https://www.pampers.com/en-us/pregnancy/pregnancy-calendar/6-weeks-pregnant
Here's the six-week embryo with the sac clearly shown in the photograph on the left
https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/pg60-61.jpg?quality=85&w=1500
When an egg and a sperm join a unique individual DNA is formed. The egg and sperm are determinate, cannot develop, and can only live for 24 hours to five days. The individual formed by their union can develop and can live for 70 years on average. That individual is a human being from the moment of conception, of the formation of an individual DNA. There's just no other scientific way to look at the facts. And, furthermore, as I understand the issue, the actual legal dispute is about whether to say that this human being has human rights, given that it's small and developing.
You were once an unborn individual.
If it contains full compliment of DNA, is genetically distinct, it is a human being. And you "recoil" at Josef Mengele's work.
"If one does a Google search you come up with a lot of things, but what is true? Some of the pictures are medical illustrations, which heighten clarity. Some are photographs that I don't know are not "doctored" and that have captions that may or may not be true."
And yet you accept these as factual?
"Here is a photograph that shows the stages from 5 weeks to 9 weeks."
OK, your blog.
I don’t vouch for The Guardian’s presentation. I’m showing it to you and watching to see what response is made to it. It’s out there and people are motivated to verify it or refute it.
To your question: 15 weeks came out as a suggestion by Lindsey G. You know, a bit before survival of the child is plausible, but well after our betters around the world have set the limit.
Reaction? Oh the horror! Death and destruction all around. The Midwife's Tale come to life!
OK, where's the D counter offer.
Best I can tell they are afraid to make any offer. Full term loses moderated. Anything shorter loses the true believers.
Hell no there will be no 'honest" discussion... there are no honest brokers on the left.
Speaking of axiomatic truths, why do people care what happens after their death to their spouse, their children, etc.? Not everyone, but most do.
If it contains full compliment of DNA, is genetically distinct, it is a human being.
Yes, barring Her Choice, and assuming the safe sanctuary of her mother's womb, and her father's arms, granted with the informed consent of their first choice, that single, fertilized cell will evolve, and, is, in fact, a human life in our primordial phase. A baby, an object of pure empathetic quality, to raise that is the hardest job you will ever love. A fetus, a technical term of art, for social distance.
As someone who formerly had to dissect mouse embryos at early stages, the pictured content is clumsily dissected and misleadingly displayed.
For one thing, most of the tissue that your eye is seeing is decidua, the endometrial wall supporting the embryo; this naturally looks like unstructured "just clumps of tissue" but it's a distraction. And they view of the embryo is obscured by the sac.
You'd want to look inside the sac to see the embryo. So a competent scientist could cut away the decidua and sac and not mangle the embryo within.
Then, you're looking at an embryo on low power, composed of cells which are just translucent. You'd need to look at higher power, and with a better background for contrast. And you'd have to have a pretty good eye to pick out the key features of development at the various stages.
To really see all of the amazing structural features developing in the initial weeks, it would be easier if the embryo were appropriately stained.
The most clearly visible early structural milestone is the development of the heart. Around 3 weeks in humans, the heart forms from scattered primitive blood vessel tubules into a single tube with blood flowing through it, and by week 5 it has looped and partitioned into a multiple chambered heart. The valves are still forming and it develops a bit more but it is mostly formed and functional already at this stage. By this time point, the brain is not quite as recognizable, but there is a neural tube and spinal cord.
Bottom line -- you can't see any of this in the pictures shown.
The sex of a baby can be determined shortly following conception, but probably not without changing or aborting the process in progress.
Lots of people keep saying that we need to get religious viewpoints out of the law. But . . .
I favor prohibiting murder.
The Bible says, don't murder.
I am an atheist and care not what the Bible says.
Do I need to stop opposing murder?
Ann, what's with all the fuzzy white stuff blocking our view so we can't see the actual embryos? In case anyone wants to see what they really look like:
At 5 weeks: https://www.google.com/search?q=embryo+at+5+weeks+photograph&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiS9NHkxO36AhV5rnIEHcv6ByIQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=embryo+at+5+weeks+photograph&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoECAAQQzoFCAAQgAQ6BggAEAUQHjoGCAAQCBAeOgQIABAeOgcIABCABBAYUL8IWO0aYPEeaABwAHgAgAE7iAHDBJIBAjEymAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=aZRQY9KbFfncytMPy_WfkAI&bih=739&biw=1536&hl=EN#imgrc=MjZH0ssFeoHFYM
At 8 weeks: https://www.medicinenet.com/image-collection/first_trimester_8_weeks_picture/picture.htm
At 20 weeks (just before "viability"): https://www.google.com/search?q=embryo+at+20+weeks&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjSr4n4w-36AhXprnIEHTj-CLUQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=embryo+at+20+weeks&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQDDIFCAAQgAQyBggAEAUQHjIHCAAQgAQQGDoKCAAQsQMQgwEQQzoGCAAQCBAeOgYIABAHEB5QtglYmRBgqydoAHAAeACAAT-IAdYBkgEBNJgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nwAEB&sclient=img&ei=hZNQY5LZKOndytMPuPyjqAs&bih=739&biw=1536&hl=EN#imgrc=efpFizqozHHLqM&imgdii=qcNtYDUVV5enIM
Ann, What's with all the fuzzy white stuff blocking our view so we can't see the actual embryos? In case anyone wants to see what they actually look like:
At 5 weeks: https://www.google.com/search?q=embryo+at+5+weeks+photograph&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiS9NHkxO36AhV5rnIEHcv6ByIQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=embryo+at+5+weeks+photograph&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoECAAQQzoFCAAQgAQ6BggAEAUQHjoGCAAQCBAeOgQIABAeOgcIABCABBAYUL8IWO0aYPEeaABwAHgAgAE7iAHDBJIBAjEymAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=aZRQY9KbFfncytMPy_WfkAI&bih=739&biw=1536&hl=EN#imgrc=MjZH0ssFeoHFYM
At 8 weeks: https://www.medicinenet.com/image-collection/first_trimester_8_weeks_picture/picture.htm
At 20 weeks (just before "viability"): https://www.google.com/search?q=embryo+at+20+weeks&hl=EN&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=739&ei=C5VQY7CDOsSl1QH2t7SYBw&iflsig=AJiK0e8AAAAAY1CjG3rC_-BAAqw5RcM-caiqiOFkdtjW&ved=0ahUKEwjwtJayxe36AhXEUjUKHfYbDXMQ4dUDCAY&uact=5&oq=embryo+at+20+weeks&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIFCAAQgAQyBggAEAUQHjIHCAAQgAQQGDoICAAQgAQQsQM6BQgAELEDOgsIABCABBCxAxCDAToICAAQsQMQgwFQAFiNIWC9I2gEcAB4AIABY4gBuQmSAQIyMpgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nsAEA&sclient=img#imgrc=TpDai2lStHpIMM
Ann, What's with all the fuzzy white stuff blocking our view so we can't see the actual embryos? In case anyone wants to see what they actually look like:
At 5 weeks: https://www.google.com/search?q=embryo+at+5+weeks+photograph&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiS9NHkxO36AhV5rnIEHcv6ByIQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=embryo+at+5+weeks+photograph&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoECAAQQzoFCAAQgAQ6BggAEAUQHjoGCAAQCBAeOgQIABAeOgcIABCABBAYUL8IWO0aYPEeaABwAHgAgAE7iAHDBJIBAjEymAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=aZRQY9KbFfncytMPy_WfkAI&bih=739&biw=1536&hl=EN#imgrc=MjZH0ssFeoHFYM
At 8 weeks: https://www.medicinenet.com/image-collection/first_trimester_8_weeks_picture/picture.htm
At 20 weeks (just before "viability"): https://www.google.com/search?q=embryo+at+20+weeks&hl=EN&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=739&ei=C5VQY7CDOsSl1QH2t7SYBw&iflsig=AJiK0e8AAAAAY1CjG3rC_-BAAqw5RcM-caiqiOFkdtjW&ved=0ahUKEwjwtJayxe36AhXEUjUKHfYbDXMQ4dUDCAY&uact=5&oq=embryo+at+20+weeks&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIFCAAQgAQyBggAEAUQHjIHCAAQgAQQGDoICAAQgAQQsQM6BQgAELEDOgsIABCABBCxAxCDAToICAAQsQMQgwFQAFiNIWC9I2gEcAB4AIABY4gBuQmSAQIyMpgBAKABAaoBC2d3cy13aXotaW1nsAEA&sclient=img#imgrc=TpDai2lStHpIMM
There’s nothing that stirs maternal instincts more than something tiny and defenseless. That’s what the pro abortion forces have to override.
I have to cast my vote with Freeman Hunt and several others who say the photo in the Guardian is unadulterated nonsense at best propaganda at worst. There is clearly evidence available of fetal development at various stages the Guardian claims to illustrate and they look nothing like this.
The argument belongs in the states, should have been there for the last 50 years and I assume that most states that permit abortion with controls will end up agreeing with the Europeans that first trimester: yes; second and third: almost never. One would hope that those defending abortion to the moment of birth will see the light at some point.
n.n said...
The sex of a baby can be determined shortly following conception, but probably not without changing or aborting the process in progress.
Genetic testing -- including sex -- can be performed after in vitro fertilization. A single cell can be removed at around the 8-cell stage (3 divisions) and the DNA collected for analysis; this does not usually affect the viability of the embryo and the structures will form normally despite losing this fraction of the cells at the early stage.
Look up pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGID).
If you read the article the description of the photo included in this post is "Finally, above is a number of gestational sacs on one petri dish, showing the progression in growth from five weeks of pregnancy to nine weeks. The sac grows 1mm a day."
This is an image of the gestational sacs - not necessarily the embryos which appear to have been removed before these photos were taken.
The article was very carefully written to imply but not state that these images represent the total 'products of conception'.
Gotta birth these babies so we can jab 'em.
Jab mom too so those tissues can baste in that covid jab goodness for around 9 mo.
Then keep that goodness flowing with mom's breast milk.
To save Grandma..or something.
Can a ventilator seek recompense if someone kicks the power cord out of the wall and patient dies?
Discuss legal ststus of unborn as it relates to intent.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Not being a female (yes, as opposed to our newest SC justice, I know what a woman is), I've never had a compelling personal interest in whether or not abortions were legal or available or whatever. Aside from the occasional article here and there, I have pretty much avoided the issue and just figured that sometimes, women got abortions because they felt a need somehow. And that that was okay.
In the last few years, as I have paid more attention to the topic and gotten deeper into it, the less I see is a "need" and the more of a "want". Because inconvenient. The harder progs push on this, the further away I find myself from "It's okay".
It is embarrassing beyond belief that I have gotten to the age that I have without recognizing the humanity of those millions who never were, because they never had a chance. May God have mercy on my soul.
Even if the photos weren't misleading, the point is that the development of a human being is a PROCESS. You can't look at even accurate depictions of some early stage in the development of a child and say, Oh that doesn't look like a baby, so it's OK to kill it.
At WHATEVER gestational age you legalize abortion, you are authorizing the killing of a human being. Please own that. You may justify or rationalize it, but own what you're doing.
A single cell can be removed at around the 8-cell stage (3 divisions) and the DNA collected for analysis
Yes, shortly, when there is redundancy.
Ann Althouse said...I'm putting it after the jump out of deference to that opinion, but I think this picture is important to confront for those who want to participate in reaching a consensus about the kind of law that ought to be passed now.
Let's agree that pictures of fetuses at various points of development are important to confront for those who want to participate in reaching a consensus about abortion law.
Why stop at 9 weeks, though? You'd support showing pictures at later points of development, wouldn't you? Why not show the result of abortion at 15 weeks, 20 weeks, 22 weeks--at the gestational stages being proposed as the "line" in various states?
Has Althouse dislosed whether she had an abortion?
Althouse's non-"viable" uterus has more interest in pre-covid abortion discussions than jabber-walkies intent on setting up generations of kids for spike/mrna/lipid nano particle contamination.
..for the sake of liability protection.
Any proper legal scholar in the public sphere would address.
Step up.
If someone who wants to allow abortion after 8 weeks is a zealot, is someone wants to prohibit all abortion a zealot?
Lefty Mark: "...with personal attacks by Drago and others guaranteed..."
Another Lefty Mark "guarantee" goes right down the drain. Where it belongs. With all the others. And its getting crowded down there.
Looks like its just about time to snake out the Lefty Mark Failed Guarantee Drain.
Not to worry. Lefty Mark will soon have that drain filled again...I guarantee it.
If a person can be considered dead when his brain shows no activity, why should fetal tissue be considered alive before brain activity begins?
"Major Newspaper Publishes Completely False Pictures of Unborn Babies"
"...“Each of the images in the article show a gestational sac but clearly the embryonic and fetal human beings have been removed from the images,” Francis told the DCNF."
"...“Open any human embryology textbook and you will see that the images in the Guardian article do not reflect the reality of human development. Either the Guardian and the physician quoted in the article think that we are stupid, or they don’t believe their readers deserve to have factual information.”
https://www.lifenews.com/2022/10/19/major-newspaper-publishes-completely-false-pictures-of-unborn-babies/
"...Each of the images in the article show a gestational sac but clearly the embryonic and fetal human beings have been removed from the images,” Francis told the DCNF."
"...“Open any human embryology textbook and you will see that the images in the Guardian article do not reflect the reality of human development. Either the Guardian and the physician quoted in the article think that we are stupid, or they don’t believe their readers deserve to have factual information.”
Major Newspaper Publishes Completely False Pictures of Unborn Babies
Mason G said...
Not being a female (yes, as opposed to our newest SC justice, I know what a woman is), I've never had a compelling personal interest in whether or not abortions were legal or available or whatever. Aside from the occasional article here and there, I have pretty much avoided the issue and just figured that sometimes, women got abortions because they felt a need somehow. And that that was okay.
In the last few years, as I have paid more attention to the topic and gotten deeper into it, the less I see is a "need" and the more of a "want". Because inconvenient. The harder progs push on this, the further away I find myself from "It's okay".
It is embarrassing beyond belief that I have gotten to the age that I have without recognizing the humanity of those millions who never were, because they never had a chance. May God have mercy on my soul.
10/19/22, 8:44 PM
Hear!! Hear!!!
As expected, here is Drago and his moderator approved personal attack.
Enjoy your dumpster fire of a blog, Althouse.
Those pictures show a small developing baby human body after being blended up and bleached.
If that doesn't make you feel sick to your stomach, I feel sorry and disgusted.
Blogger PeteDOC said @ 10/20/22, 5:26 AM
"If a person can be considered dead when his brain shows no activity, why should fetal tissue be considered alive before brain activity begins?"
If I could give you a 99.99%+ chance that a person with no brain activity would have a return of brain function within 60 days would you still be allowed to kill them?
Funny, only extremely sanitized images are shown. The left believes it is perfectly fine to abort a baby at any stage of development, but showing people what they are killing is considered inappropriate. Would they be upset if a picture of a gallstone or excised tumor were shown? Why sanitize the images if they believe aborted babies aren't human life.
I think it is telling that they claim it is a woman's choice yet fight attempts to require an ultrasound or education about the development of the fetus so the woman can make an informed choice. They also claim it is healthcare, yet are perfectly fine when abortions are performed in facilities with substandard equipment by doctors without admission privileges.
This compelled me to go back and look at the ultrasound photos of our youngest daughter. Taken every two Weeks up until birth.
As i've argued before.
We have established that th rapidly dividing fertilizer egg indeed alive. It is therefore undeniably human. This fact not speculation.
the posited is, basically, when is it a acceptical to kill it. That is the question.
Judging from the lack of a definite answer from democrats we can conclude that the answer is political not moral. While the rest of us face a moral delemma.
The Supreme Court has already determined that this is not a constitutional issue. So the commerce clause does not apply.
Each state must decide what they can live with and we can proceed from there.
Althouse said: "That's a useful question and I've asked it at times, but this post is about the need for a basic law that a solid majority can agree on. Those who think abortion should be guaranteed as the woman's private decision throughout pregnancy still can agree that it's better to have some access than none — 9 weeks or 15 weeks or whatever this consensus process will yield."
The vast majority of actual people DO support a basic position that would probably put the cap at 12-15 weeks, but the point is that you will never get Democrats of power and influence to agree to any limits.
After a first trimester abortion, the contents of the uterus are examined carefully by clinic personnel. They have to identify and account for all of the embryo's body parts: two arms, two legs, skull, etc. They have to do this to verify that there are no parts remaining in the woman's uterus.
The arms look like arms, the legs look like legs. These parts can be passed on to others for research purposes; in fact, they can be sold at profit for these purposes.
Perhaps the best approach is to make "day after" abortion medication legal and easily available to all women everywhere, such that they would be free and encouraged to take the medication 24 hours (or so?) after they have had sex. (This for those who do not already have effective birth control means in place, e.g., regular use of birth control pills or fitted with an I.U.D.).
In the meantime, and/or as an alternative, women should demand their lovers wear prophylactics during sex...without exception.
Readering said...
If someone who wants to allow abortion after 8 weeks is a zealot, is someone wants to prohibit all abortion a zealot?
Don't have a link, but a recent poll found that 57% of Americans find "abortion allowed until birth" (which is the unofficial but actual position of essentially every single Democrat on the ballot this year) to be "extreme"
29% found "no abortion except for rape, incest, or LIFE of the mother at stake" "extreme".
So if you're looking for "abortion extremists", look at the Left
Ann Althouse said...
"However, you should at least be familiar with the knowledge that sex is determined the MOMENT of conception..."
Oh, please. That's just insulting. You should know that you are using "determined" in a different way. I was speaking of human beings observing and determining what is the case, not facts coming into existence unobserved by human beings.
Except you can pull a single cell and confirm at any point in time
Post a Comment