doctor's pics going viral of what early pregnancy tissue ACTUALLY looks like... and a lot of women find it comforting

[butters]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...pc=U531&cvid=c5eb7b68e2f24c3281d504d7b7c16d3e

a lot of women who choose to terminate a pregnancy in its early stages often are 'surprised, shocked and relieved' when they choose to take a look at the actual tissue removed. it looks nothing at all like a baby, in any way, shape or form. These tissue samples were photographed without magnification and after any blood from the womb lining was rinsed off.

The doctor appreciates the pictures—a direct contrast to some of the pics more commonly used for either medical information or propaganda—are unlikely to change the minds of those rabid pro-lifers but they are intended more for that small subset of women who opted to get an early termination as it helps put their minds more at ease.

pregnancy tissue from weeks four through nine, collected by the manual aspiration method of abortion. (Photo: Dr. Joan Fleischman, MD, MPA/MYA Network)© Provided by HuffPost
https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA13fbRi.img?w=534&h=523&m=6

 

[Philthy_Phil]

It might not look like much but it has the intelligence of a trumptard.

 

[adrina]

That's giving more credit to the trumptards than
they deserve.

 

[SubzeroGirl]

I don’t even like it when people show me pictures of their ultrasound babies, no way I’d want to see tissue.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

It might not look like much but it has the intelligence of a trumptard.

That's giving more credit to the trumptards than
they deserve.

At least the clump of cells knows it's a clump of cells.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1582775645876387841

 

[butters]

I don’t even like it when people show me pictures of their ultrasound babies, no way I’d want to see tissue.

probably because you have images of an embryonic "baby" in your head from the stuff that's been pushed... the real images are of the immature sac and 'threads', resembling something more along the lines of a jelly fish, or the thread-like formation of fungal mycorrhizae

 

[ll74]

The people who yell about "baby killers" don't care enough to understand what they are commenting on. They're the ones who believe babies are involved in abortion and that hearts beat at 6 weeks. Their god feels trump your actual pregnancy information

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

It’s good to see this discussion focusing on questions about different stages of fetal development. Acceptance of the fact that at some point before birth, abortion is no longer about removing tissue and clumps of cells is encouraging. In the later stages of pregnancy, elective abortion becomes tragic. And while the percentages of late term abortions is small, available data indicates the raw numbers are in the thousands each year in the US. The pro-life Lozier cites some startling estimates from the CDC and the abortion-friendly Guttmacher Insitute.

“CDC projections, based largely on voluntary state reporting and abortion provider survey data from the Guttmacher Institute, a former affiliate of Planned Parenthood, estimate that roughly 1%, or over 15,000, abortions are performed after 20 weeks annually in the U.S.”

They cite a study (Who Seeks Abortions at or After 20 Weeks? - Foster - 2013 - Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health - Wiley Online Library , Foster and Kimport, 2013.), published in Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, a journal of the Guttmacher Institute, that “marks a notable departure from previous statements by abortion rights advocates that late-term abortions were rarely elective.” Authors Foster and Kimport highlight the characteristics of women seeking abortion at or after 20 weeks gestation. The authors acknowledge that, in fact, wider “data suggests that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.”

 

[ll74]

It’s good to see this discussion focusing on questions about different stages of fetal development. Acceptance of the fact that at some point before birth, abortion is no longer about removing tissue and clumps of cells is encouraging. In the later stages of pregnancy, elective abortion becomes tragic.

I don't see a need to restrict abortions at all, but viability is the best measure for compromise.

Many prolife folks misunderstand the procedure because anything after conception is "baby killing" and their god tells them about all the evil. Compromise for these folks has never been and never will be possible.

Most prochoice folks support the viability measure established in recently discarded Roe precedent. Most prochoice folks don't support abortion up to birth. (Regardless of party affiliation). If you just listened to the right wing campaign bullshit, you'd never know this fact.

 

[PaxNurgle]

I would agree that some compromise, between the "Ban any and all abortions from after fertilization" and "Lets allow abortion in all cases even two days before scheduled birth" needs to happen. Both positions are, in my opinion, equally fucked. I think after a point- four to five months (That is between 17-20 weeks) is not at all unreasonable to restrict, if not outright ban, abortions at that stage- UNLESS THE FETUS IS NOT VIABLE AND A WOMEN'S HEALTH IS ENDANGERED. This last part needs to be clear.

 

[Dribble]

I don't see a need to restrict abortions at all, but viability is the best measure for compromise.

I agree. And if Republicans want to decide where "viable" is...let them pay for those medical expenses of keeping an embryo alive.

 

[lovecraft68]

Is this before 15 weeks?

I'm very much pro choice, but I have to admit that a fifteen week cut off isn't insanity, you're past the first trimester at that point, and that's taking into account a full 40 week term.

It does give pause for thought about why anyone should wait that long, and want to go past it barring of course a sudden revelation of either a threat to the mother's life or serious issue with the baby.

 

[ll74]

Is this before 15 weeks?

I'm very much pro choice, but I have to admit that a fifteen week cut off isn't insanity, you're past the first trimester at that point, and that's taking into account a full 40 week term.

It does give pause for thought about why anyone should wait that long, and want to go past it barring of course a sudden revelation of either a threat to the mother's life or serious issue with the baby.

There are many reasons why an abortion is either chosen or necessary. That's why it's a woman's choice to make with consultation of her doctor.

 

[butters]

I would agree that some compromise, between the "Ban any and all abortions from after fertilization" and "Lets allow abortion in all cases even two days before scheduled birth" needs to happen. Both positions are, in my opinion, equally fucked. I think after a point- four to five months (That is between 17-20 weeks) is not at all unreasonable to restrict, if not outright ban, abortions at that stage- UNLESS THE FETUS IS NOT VIABLE AND A WOMEN'S HEALTH IS ENDANGERED. This last part needs to be clear.

pregnancies being terminated in late stages are actually deliveries... as any gynae doc can tell you

a pre-term evacuation of a pregnancy due to complications risking the life of the mother may or may not result in the end of the foetus' life, depending on the specific complications and viability of that specific case. I have never heard of ANY woman carrying a pregnancy to, say, 35 weeks, then deciding they want a termination just because. If a healthy, largely developed foetus is being rejected by the host, then it would come down to a case of an early delivery not the murder of some baby on a whim, and the child would no doubt go up for adoption.

IF the USA medical system gave the same access & support to parents as the UK did, the fifteen weeks, even 12 weeks can be a viable cut-off point in most instances. Some tests cannot be done until later on in a pregnancy, and sometimes other complications occur later on. The system here just isn't set up to support that time-limit, especially when financial considerations are added into the mix. IF the pregnant could have full and economic access to reproductive health care... pill/implant/condoms/other methods + 'morning after pill' etc..., and timely, non-bankrupting medical intervention in the case of just-discovered pregnancies/pregnancies with big problems/non-viable foetuses + full exceptions for later term issues, then i'd happily see 15 weeks as a cut-off point.

 

[AlexBailey]

Is this before 15 weeks?

I'm very much pro choice, but I have to admit that a fifteen week cut off isn't insanity, you're past the first trimester at that point, and that's taking into account a full 40 week term.

It does give pause for thought about why anyone should wait that long, and want to go past it barring of course a sudden revelation of either a threat to the mother's life or serious issue with the baby.

It's almost random how long it can be after a mother gives birth before she is fertile again, and during that time her body can be experiencing all kinds of hormonal changes, weight fluctuations and whatnot. Their menstrual cycle may not have restarted so they don't have that to use as a gauge, and many women don't realize they are pregnant again until after the first trimester while they have not yet fully assessed what effects pregnancy has had on their body.

The decision really does not belong to politicians.

 

[LupusDei]

Each actually "elective" abortion is a failure somewhere else in the society in which it occurs. But blaming the woman for it is... victim blaming, basically. Yes, even when she's a "crazy bitch" seemingly clearly choosing it as lazy contraception substitute for her own convenience after a fun party (for the record, I don't actually believe anyone ever is in that position all that cheerfully and voluntarily even if facade is maintained).

Yes, one might think it could be a good idea to set some limitations for, well, perceived moral reasoning. But if we do, we have to discuss one or two terms that both are rather much more fuzzy we would like to admit: "medical necessity" and "viability".

Viability, perhaps it could be acceptable as a theoretical question: could the baby be possibly saved if someone blown the mother's head clean off right now? But naively, "viability" must be when we could somehow remove the -- presumably unwanted -- baby from the mother's body without too much damage and it would survive with whatever medical attention we are able and willing to commit. And presumably the expense of that commitment of resources would be picked up by the state (or whatever entitled agency) right? Did I said that's naive to expect? It's so much more practical and plainly cheaper to imprison and fully provide the mother till the natural delivery, right? Yeah, some little slavery always was so convenient after all.

Now, "medical necessity" could even be seen as subset of "viability" in the broader sense. If it can't possibly survive, it can be aborted, right? If it likely kills the host before it can survive without the carrier it can't possibly survive, right? But how about suicide as the likely cause of death of said host? Does that count as medical necessity?

No, the last isn't a theoretical question: there's places on this damn Earth where leading cause of death for teenage girls is suicide because of an unwanted pregnancy.

So, yeah, at the end of the day the only one who can take the decision of a necessity (medical or otherwise, where whatever otherwise can be turned into "medical" with enough pressure) is the pregnant person herself. No, even when there's whatever proof it's deadly to try to keep it going, you can't make the decision for her even then (unless, of course, she's already unconscious and in acute danger), only provide facts for her to consider. No "medical" case is ever 100% determinative at the time that decision has to be taken.

So, if she says it has to be cut out, and you say, no it's "viable!" then you should take over. If you can't, well, it's not viable. If you can but don't, it's on you. And never on her.

 

[tnman03]

The article was deceptive in it only showed some embryonic tissue and not the 10-week-old fetus.

https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Fetal_Development_-_10_Weeks

Empowering and enabling women to make informed pro-choice decisions for themselves is a positive act. Trying to mislead by only showing some tissue is foolhardy. A pro-choice decision made by pregnant females rests upon their shoulders, not the government.

I'm not an abortion proponent but I'm also not going to judge any woman who has done so or chooses to do so and I will lean toward voting to help regain the right to self-decision for pregnant women.

 

[adrina]

I would agree that some compromise, between the "Ban any and all abortions from after fertilization" and "Lets allow abortion in all cases even two days before scheduled birth" needs to happen. Both positions are, in my opinion, equally fucked. I think after a point- four to five months (That is between 17-20 weeks) is not at all unreasonable to restrict, if not outright ban, abortions at that stage- UNLESS THE FETUS IS NOT VIABLE AND A WOMEN'S HEALTH IS ENDANGERED. This last part needs to be clear.

Hate to be the broken record here, but I have yet to hear of one single case of that. It's been trotted out as some extremist propaganda point meant to induce hysteria for, quite literally, decades. This needs to be understood. In all the years I have been actively paying attention to abortions, news, health issues, women's issues and abortion news I have never seen one verified and documented case of elective abortion right before birth. Yet here it is, again, being tossed around as if it is something valid to use as a basis for law. Doesn't that sound strange to you? Does it sound rational?

Isn't it about time we dispensed with pandering to the hysteria?

 

[PaxNurgle]

I actually agree with you. And my issue is, the pro-life extremists fail to make the distinction between the hypothetical scenario I have described above, and, for example, morning-after contraception, where the fetus is little more than a cluster of embryonic cells. This is what I find so alarming.

To them, the "Killing Babies" thing is nothing more than drumming up hysteria for their ultimate goal- repression and control of woman's bodies.

In some states, there is already legislation being considered that would effectively ban all forms of contraception- birth control pills, even condoms. You would think that if these people were so seriously pro-life, they would be all on board with making contraception as free and available to everyone as possible, with the goal of preventing unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. But the fact that the opposite is the case, shows that ending abortion isn't really their end game.

 

[domroger]

I don't see a need to restrict abortions at all, but viability is the best measure for compromise.

Many prolife folks misunderstand the procedure because anything after conception is "baby killing" and their god tells them about all the evil. Compromise for these folks has never been and never will be possible.

Most prochoice folks support the viability measure established in recently discarded Roe precedent. Most prochoice folks don't support abortion up to birth. (Regardless of party affiliation). If you just listened to the right wing campaign bullshit, you'd never know this fact.

With advances in post natal care viability of premature babies has been recorded as low as 24 weeks so abortion limits should reflect this.

 

[ll74]

With advances in post natal care viability of premature babies has been recorded as low as 24 weeks so abortion limits should reflect this.

It should never be a blanket timeframe. Every pregnancy should be based on viability of that case.

 

[adrina]

I actually agree with you. And my issue is, the pro-life extremists fail to make the distinction between the hypothetical scenario I have described above, and, for example, morning-after contraception, where the fetus is little more than a cluster of embryonic cells. This is what I find so alarming.

To them, the "Killing Babies" thing is nothing more than drumming up hysteria for their ultimate goal- repression and control of woman's bodies.

In some states, there is already legislation being considered that would effectively ban all forms of contraception- birth control pills, even condoms. You would think that if these people were so seriously pro-life, they would be all on board with making contraception as free and available to everyone as possible, with the goal of preventing unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. But the fact that the opposite is the case, shows that ending abortion isn't really their end game.

What I find alarming is that women are given so little respect that we have some hypothetical scenario which has never been documented to have occurred being given relevance in a discussion about the legality of abortion. It's... frankly astounding. It has no place in the discussion.

This is the hysteria - we are pandering to people who not only believe that elective abortions happen moments before giving birth, but who also can't even tell the difference between a fetus and an infant.

It is beyond irrational that it is even given any repetition. That it has gained the traction that it has is disgraceful.

 

[domroger]

It should never be a blanket timeframe. Every pregnancy should be based on viability of that case.

No disagreement on my part ,but induced birth is a thing after 24 weeks.
Whatever the concensus is that it should be between a woman and her doctor and no one else.

 

[butters]

The article was deceptive in it only showed some embryonic tissue and not the 10-week-old fetus.

https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Fetal_Development_-_10_Weeks

Empowering and enabling women to make informed pro-choice decisions for themselves is a positive act. Trying to mislead by only showing some tissue is foolhardy. A pro-choice decision made by pregnant females rests upon their shoulders, not the government.

I'm not an abortion proponent but I'm also not going to judge any woman who has done so or chooses to do so and I will lean toward voting to help regain the right to self-decision for pregnant women.

except the embryonic tissue IS what forms the foetus. The images show material up to 9 weeks, unmagnified... what you've posted shows the highly magnified development at 10 weeks, at a size of a mere 40mm, less than half a centimeter.

from the original link:

The photographs, published on Oct. 19 in The Guardian, have gone viral, spurring claims that Fleischman somehow removed some of the tissue or manipulated the images.

But other doctors HuffPost spoke with confirmed that what Fleischman did was rinse the blood off the tissue and photograph it without magnification. With the blood rinsed away, the tissue appears white.