Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Just for comparison. GRAPHIC!

This is preemie Amillia:



Below are (relatively) intact pathology specimens from abortion facilities. I chose photos that, like the baby Amillia picture, show the entity in question with adult hands, for scale.

Prochoicers, maybe you can understand how uninformed, ignorant hicks might see these formless blobs of worthless disposable tissue and be confused and think that they looked like babies.

*

WARNING: GRAPHIC!

*

WARNING: GRAPHIC!

*

WARNING: GRAPHIC!

*

WARNING: GRAPHIC!

*

WARNING: GRAPHIC!

*

WARNING: GRAPHIC!
Saline. That's why the skin is so red.


Another saline, dead longer and thus the blood has blackened.


And again, saline causing the subcutaneous hemorrhaging that turns black as the blood gets old.


D&X from Dallas. For some reason they just decapitated this fetus/blob of formless tissue without any recognizable human features.

22 comments:

Sam said...

I keep waiting for someone to comment on how these aren't children...does anyone else hear the crickets chirping...

GrannyGrump said...

Well, Tlaloc has already made it clear through other comments that even now, going home, Amillia isn't an organism, much less a baby or a person. She is still on supplemental oxygen.

Which, of course, means that for the final years of his life Christopher Reeve wasn't an organism either, since he needed a vent.

Rachael said...

Either that or they'll try to argue:

1)These are images of stillbirths or abortions which were preformed to remove a fetus which had already died naturally (skepticism and denial)

2)Fetuses aren't aborted that late term (denial)

2)Late term abortions are preformed rarely and are justified in the cases of of life threatening circumstances to the mother or birth defects (justification with denial).

You might be interested in this video exploring two premature stillborths due to a late term abortion, explaination of the indentifying characteristics of a late term abortion and verification of the gestational age.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aos0L3ni9Hs

GrannyGrump said...

Well the decapitated one is "Baby Malachi" and I know the guy who took the picture.

L. said...

Sam, they`re not children -- they`re aborted fetuses. Happy?

So, where are the women who aborted these babies? The graphic photos don`t tell the whole story.

Rachael said...

Well L.,
Our focus in this entry is proving the humanity of the unborn, not justifying the mother's reasons for decapitating and buring the babies. And tell me, what's the difference between a fetus and a neonate, premature baby? Just location?

GrannyGrump said...

Well, L, these women chose not to come forward and say that they were the ones that ordered the deaths. It would be interesting to know who they were and what was so all-fired important that it was worth an innocent human being being put to death over.

L. said...

Show me all the graphic photos you want -- I would still have a late-term abortion myself, in certain situations. Remember -- when I was pregnant and selecting an OB/GYN, one of the questions I asked was, "Do you do late-term terminations, in case something goes wrong?" So I think I understand where some (though probably not all) of these women were coming from.

What`s the difference between a fetus and an extreme premie? Big difference: one is inside a womb, perhaps causing physical/mental risks to its mother, necessitating its removal and likely (though not definite) demise.

Rachael said...

L.,
Late term abortions preformed in the case where the mother's health is in danger or the fetus is non-viable is only a small percentage of late term abortions. And even in the case where the pregnancy is life-threatening to the mother, every attempt should be made to preserve the health of the mother and child (in keeping w/ the Hypocratic Oath), and this could be done with an early delivery of the live child and intensive medical care. However, the majority are because the girl/women did not know or denied she was pregnant until late into the pregnancy or her social circumstances/support changed where she felt she would not be able to parent. The only difference between the dead late-term fetus and the premature baby is the perceived "wantedness" of the child by it's parents. Both viable fetuses, one is alive and calls for intensive medical care and may have a future, and the other, discarded in the name of "choice"

L. said...

I`ve never been able to find good stats on reasons for late-term abortions. All of the people I know who had them did so for health reasons, and I would have done the same if I had been in their circumstances.

It`s not always a matter of "unwantedness."

Tlaloc said...

"Prochoicers, maybe you can understand how uninformed, ignorant hicks might see these formless blobs of worthless disposable tissue and be confused and think that they looked like babies."

Of course I can understand your confusion. Just as I can understand a person seeing a mannequin and mistaking it for a real person. But the outside form is not the end of the matter. The inside is rather important and inside not one of those fetuses had a working biological system. Not one of them was able to carry on the life processes for themselves.

Not one of them was anything more than tissue. Tissue that was developing toward being a baby, certainly, and maybe even tissue that was close to being a baby. But as they say close only counts for horseshoes and hand grenades.

Tlaloc said...

"Which, of course, means that for the final years of his life Christopher Reeve wasn't an organism either, since he needed a vent."

Technically true but the reason that being an organism is important is because it would seem to be part of the definition of being a human being and I've suggested that we regard human being as a threshold that once reached is only recinded by brain death.

In that way I would say an undeveloped fetus is neither an organism nor a human being whereas reeve was a human being but not an organism after his accident.

Tlaloc said...

"1)These are images of stillbirths or abortions which were preformed to remove a fetus which had already died naturally (skepticism and denial)

2)Fetuses aren't aborted that late term (denial)

2)Late term abortions are preformed rarely and are justified in the cases of of life threatening circumstances to the mother or birth defects (justification with denial)."


Well skepticism (1) is always justified given the rather severe credibility problems the pro-life movement has. 2 would appear to be false. 3 (which you also label as "2") is certainly true: late term abortions are very very rare, accounting for something like .5% of all abortions. How you conflate "accurate" with "denial" amuses and confounds me simultaneously.

Anonymous said...

Tialoc, your ignorance and sarcasm isn't even worth a reply.

Tlaloc said...

"Tialoc, your ignorance and sarcasm isn't even worth a reply."

So you reply to say you won't reply. I like irony.

A.D.H.D. said...

Anonymous, your logic is truly flabbergasting...Your denial of actual statistics brings a word to mind...I can't think of it...uhm... Oh yah, the word was ignorance.

Liberal said...

To all of you claiming that these fetuses are "tissue," sure, they are tissue. Live tissue. Removing it from a food source will cause "dead tissue". Through every single cell travels nerves that transmit pain to the brain. If someone takes a chunk out of my gut, I'm going to feel it. My tissue is alive. The fetus tissue is also alive. Take a chunk out of the fetus tissue and the fetus is going to feel it. Take a chunk out of me and I'll cry out. You'll hear me. Take a chunk out of a fetus and his or her screams are muffled. Muffled screams, muffled screams, muffled screams. I don't hear it. You don't hear it. Why? because it is still in the womb... living, until you rip it out in chunks. THEN its dead. Any woman who doesn't want to have a baby, don't lie down with a man. If its rape and you don't want to raise the baby, THAT should be the "choice," not life or death. Give the fetus a chance to live and a loving home to live in with parents desperately wanting your child! What? You are afraid of the birth process? Grow up! Without the "birth process" the whole human race would be extinct. CHOOSE LIFE! You don't have to stick around and be a part of it. Ripping an infant out of the womb is murder. There is no justification to it.

Lillian said...

I'll bet all of these "pro-lifers" arguing for the sake of a "young human being" have never even thought about what they would do if they were in a position where your life ends if you carry a dangerous pregnancy to term.

You're assuming these are methods of birth control!
And while pictures do not lie, they rarely tell the entire story, either.

Put yourself in that position for once.
If you agree that you would abort if it meant your life, then your argument is null and void. If you say that pro-choice people have no business claiming the abortions just under the strictness of medical conditions, then you have no business claiming "choose life, every time" if you YOURSELF can argue for your own circumstances.

Furthermore, I've seen enough little crosses and bleeding-heart "moral" women vying for pro-life laws.
It's useless.
Abortion is an issue that will never change, and it's insane that it gets pulled into politics.

Ask yourself... if you vote for candidates because they're pro-life, what has your pro-life President done in the last EIGHT YEARS to change it?

Consider other points of view, for once.

Kathy said...

Lillian,

Actually, a great many women do make just that choice.

I know of one story in my community and I've read of many others world-wide in which pregnant women were diagnosed with some form of cancer and counseled to abort so that they could have the most powerful chemotherapy drugs available to give them the best chance of life. They refused. Some of them lived; others died.

In the case I know of, the woman held off of drugs until the baby was 30 weeks old, at which point the pregnancy was terminated by C-section (30 weeks is the age where 90% or more babies survive, and also where they survive with the fewest disabilities) and the baby lived, though in the NICU for a while, being a premie. The mother died a few weeks later from cancer. It was possible that she would have lived had she started aggressive therapy earlier, but more likely she would have died. Had she had an abortion, the baby definitely would have died.

Fwiw, she did not carry the pregnancy "to term" -- that point is at 37 weeks. She carried the baby past viability up to the point where he had the best chance of life, while still allowing her a possibility of life.

There are really very few cases of an abortion performed to save the life of the mother. Tubal pregnancies are the most commonly known ones. After the baby is viable, there is no reason for an abortion -- the pregnancy can be terminated by a live birth using induction or C-section. The abortion procedure (after viability) is very similar to a normal birth, except that the intent is to have the baby dead on arrival. If a woman can't survive birth, she has little hope of surviving abortion.

There are some people who wear the label "pro-life" who would deny an abortion if the woman's life is threatened. I and everybody else I know would not fall into that group, because if the mother dies, the baby dies. If the baby is viable, then as I've already said, abortion merely ensures his or her death even while live birth is a possibility.

The fact that a tiny percentage (I think it's less than 1/10 of 1%, but another may have more accurate facts) of abortions are done to save the mother's life does not make it any less horrible that the remainder are done primarily for social reasons.

I'll ask you to consider another point of view as well -- if you were pro-life, what would you have had President Bush do? Remember that we are under a Constitution which limits his powers -- he can't just issue an edict that abortions except to save the life of the mother are illegal, as much as we would wish him to.

GrannyGrump said...

I've considered other points of view. Especially health and life of the mother considerations.

My best friend had to have three pregnancies terminated in the third-trimester due to life-threatening maternal health issues. Those terminations are called Daniel, Rebecca, and Mary, who were delivered by emergency c-section. How would it help a woman with a life-threatening condition to take additional time and effort before or during the pregnancy-terminating procedure to make sure that the baby is born dead? How can additional intrusive acts, bringing with them their own risk of complications, do diddly-squat for the woman's well-being?

Women with health problems get referred for unwanted abortions by doctors who are either too lazy, too afraid of a lawsuit, or otherwise personally motivated. What kindness is it to abandon these women to the lies and despair their doctors are peddling? Especially when there are no maternal health conditions for which abortion is the standard, or even recommended, treatment.

All too many women get sold unwanted abortions this way.

Some women are fortunate enough to stumble onto doctors who will be honest with them. It shouldn't be a matter of fate or kismet or sheer dumb luck. Women should be entitled to this kind of care in the first place.

Lillian said...

What would I have a pro-life President do?

I wouldn't use "pro-life" as a reason for electing him.

I fully understand the checks and balances of my own country.

It isn't about that.
I'm saying people vote on that basis.

I do not.

You're making my point.
If there isn't any way for him to pass abortion laws, then why are people demanding a president against abortion?

Think about it.

Kathy said...

Because the current president-elect has promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act which will make abortions even more numerous. I wasn't too thrilled with the prospect of a McCain presidency, but at least he wouldn't take us a step backwards. Also, the current problem with abortion is that liberal activist judges read the "right" to an abortion into the Constitution; I can only assume Obama will appoint judges along those same lines, which will further erode life-saving laws, by judicial fiat, rather than by the Constitutional process of passing laws.