I've been reading what you've given me all night. But...I also want to know a few things. How do you explain the abortion pictures that are out there.
If you really want I can provide you with the URL's of pediatric pathology sites. There are lots of such pictures there usually of fetal demise in utero or some of actual abortions for fetal anomaly.
The partial birth abortion pictures...
I've never seen an authenticated one.
the saline abortion pictures...
They would have to be pretty ancient if they are real since it hasn't been used for about 20 years but again who authenticated them? (they're still listed in NY statistics but prostaglandin abortions are defined as saline there - much like 20+ weeks is defined as "late term" in Kansas statistics).
the ones that show the graphic contents of numerous abortions all thrown together?
Who authenticated them? (also see below)
Or the one of the 21-week-old fetus undergoing spinal surgery grasping the surgeons hand?
That's a pretty amazing surgery and actually you have it reversed - the surgeon is the one doing the 'grasping' as a photo op. What does that have to do with abortion?
I mean, you can talk till you're blue in the face about the viability and human qualities of the embryo/fetus...but how is that supposed to mesh with the photos? And if most abortions are performed on what is called a mass of cells...where do the pictures come from to begin with?
If you know how to use a microscope you can see human(adj) qualities at the blastocyst stage. Now human features do not show - by definition actually - until after the embryonic phase is finished.
Well instead of the fraudulent - most likely - and unaunhenticated pictures from the Anti Abortion Propaganda Industry (AAPI) (It's one of their best sellers) take a look at what the most common result of an abortion would actually look like. The most common type - representing 85% of abortions - would be a suction aspiration performed at less than 12 weeks. At that stage remember we are talking of an embryo/fetus that is mainly gelatinous watery materials and is easily removed by gentle suction - much like the old dental suction used to clear saliva from your mouth.
What a 12 week abortion would look like.
But I'm having trouble with what some pro-choicers describe and what the pictures have shown. I mean little hands and feet and faces and stuff...how is this all supposed to fit together? How can "it" just be a product of conception without personhood or sentience yet look just like a little us? Are these supposed to be doctored photos or are they real just part of the few and far between abortions?
I really don't know. I have seen the same photos on different sites describing different types of abortion (saline on one site - PBA on another). Some of them are certainly pictures of the after effects of later abortions but I've seen hydrocephalics and anencephalics frequently when the full view is available. One of the famous "bucket" shots on AbortionLiesTv shows just such a fetus. They are deceptive in that they are not the norm and are never authenticated.
As an interesting side note I've seen the same picture claiming "saline abortion" on both the "abortiontv" site and the British SPUC site despite the fact that such methods are not a part of the British abortion methods where a prostaglandin and induced labor was and is normally the preferred method of mid second trimester abortion.
I've also seen a number of fetuses that were described on those sites as "burned Saline abortion" results which might fool those who did not know better because of the coloring, and skin is 'loose'. For anybody who has seen fetal demise though, that has remained in utero for a while, and where maceration is evident, the pictures are familiar.
I've seen many claims of mid trimester abortions but can not remember seeing lanugo hair on any of them.
A number of the pictures, to anybody who has actually seen fetal demise in the second or early third trimester are obviously purposely distorted. By this I mean that the head is too small and the trunk too well developed (they aren't mainly head with a very thin trunk, as they should be, but more in the proportions of a full term infant). For this reason I suspect some of them are outright fakes and a ready source of such fakes would be the manufacturer who supplies Heritage House and this model will show what I'm talking about. (check the prices on these items and you'll understand what I refer to as the Anti Abortion Propaganda Industry (AAPI).
I'm really trying here Eileen...and the arguements you pose along with what you have provided makes perfect sense. But it still won't mesh with what I've seen. When I see tiny bodies that appear perfect I naturally equate them with you or me or my own kids. How are we NOT supposed to feel this way?
That - of course - is the purpose of the pictures. Present them as if every abortion was done at that late stage and find the "best specimens" and word the captions as if there were no woman involved or if there was she was getting too big for her prom dress and decided to have an abortion instead of buying Richard Simmons tape. If you are careful how you capture them on camera the camera can lie and if actual pathology pictures are used the reasons for the abortion may never show in the final print. Also in some cases of genetic termination the reason may not be visible. Now you might not choose a termination in such circumstances but I think it cruel at times to deny such a woman an abortion. I also think she should be permitted to decide what her limits are and be compassionately permitted to recognize those limits by terminating HER pregnancy if that's her choice.
But I'm most concerned with the 5-6 babies in a bag shot...I don't know who is supposed to authenticate them...but this particular one was taken in a Houston clinic.
I doubt very much it was taken in any "Houston Clinic".
ALL medical facilities have particular protocols for the handling of tissue removed from the human body in surgical procedures. Whether the tissue consists of cancerous tumors, or limbs, or aborted fetuses or embryo's they all fall under the heading of Biohazardous Waste and there are regulations for their handling.
The disposal companies for such waste is one possible source for such pictures - along with any of the (gloved) handlers of this 'waste'. BTW
ADDITION TO THAT POST
Several years ago SPY magazine blew the lid off this in a great article titled: "Fetus Frenzy! Toss 'Em! Swap 'Em! Collect 'Em All". The story concerned some people who in 1988 swiped about 5000 preserved fetuses from an Illinois pathology lab. Apparently they originally intended to use them for a propaganda tool by staging burial services across the country.
Other reports include Randall Terry leaving one in his carry on luggage for the shock value at air port security x-ray. Some of the fetuses were used to reassemble body parts, and put in dishes for photographic propaganda sessions ala Priests For Lies. Tim Murphy, one of the supposed fetus snatchers, was quoted saying "In most of the bags, I couldn't really see anything except the placenta and the formalin".
However, they had a storage problem because the packages leaked. Joe Scheidler is reputed to have stored some in his children's playhouse in his backyard . The fetus that was shoved in Clinton's face a few years ago came from this lot. Scheidler says he keeps his on his desk and adds soy sauce to the water to make it look "real yucky".
Lots of 'respect' for fetuses from those guys!!!
Ritght???
Eileen