I just got to the prenatal development chapter of my human anatomy textbook and realized it’s mostly a review for me.
No big deal.
-
View high resolution
Oh this is going to be a fun one!
After conception, embryological cells begin differentiating into different germ lines (three to be specific) and tissues. So anti-choicers like to say that the heart of a fetus begins beating at 20 days.
And…they’re sort of right…kind of.
By 20 days, tissue that will eventually form a functional heart has formed. Heart tissue is pretty cool because it uses electric signals to beat. It’s a little more complicated than that, but that’s the gist of it. Well, this small amount of tissue can contract (because of the electrical charges present in it) which is what the anti-choicers call the “heart beat”.
But it’s not actually a heart beat. It’s just contractions from a differentiated form of cardiac tissue. The heart is nowhere near developed to even be recognized as what we would call a heart. And it’s not pumping blood yet. Which…is sort of the point of a heart beat.
Love,
Rabble
Rebloggable was requested
(Also, I think “Rabble me this” might be my favorite introduction to a question ever.)
-
I’m going to be making some posts. Thoughts?
They’re going to discuss the various things about pregnancy in a more medical/scientific way because the body is amazing and it is seriously COOL to see everything it can do. Here is what I’m planning:
- A post about embryology: the terms we use, fetal developmental stages, and gestational age
- A post about how a body menstruates and what happens in the body that causes the menstrual cycle
- A post about how a body senses it is pregnant and maintains that pregnancy
- A post about thins that happen to the body during a pregnancy and the common complications or symptoms people have throughout a pregnancy
- A post about common reasons why a spontaneous abortion would occur
- How our bodies make sperm and eggs
Are there any other posts ya’ll would like me to write up about the body (it doesn’t just have to be about pregnancy)?
Love,
Rabble
Are you going to go into detail on the process of fertilization? I’ve wanted to know more about that for a while.
Related to menstruation and how we produce eggs - do you know details about how hormonal birth control works beyond what Planned Parenthood and the like have on it? Like, what exactly do progesterone and estrogen do to regulate ovulation? It’s been a while since my one semester of biology…
Thanks, Rabble! It’s awesome having someone around who studies medicine.
-
"Human Development" Flickr set, © All Rights Reserved (lunar caustic) →
Gestational sac intact^.
A 6mm embryo is identified which shows a possible heart bulge on the anterior
surface. No limb bud is seen^.
An embryo from an ectopic pregnancy which is approximately 3 to 4 weeks
estimated gestational age from conception. It was 0.5 cm long. See larger view for detail^.
Approximately 6 weeks estimated gestational age from conception, 8 weeks from LMP. Shot with 105 mm Micro-NIKKOR lens with 2 off camera SB-800’s. Specimen is submerged in alcohol^.
For another amazing image of a 6 - 7 week embryo: farm4.static.flickr.com/3396/4618437757_33c40f4875_b.jpg (also seen below)
This is an approximately 6-7 week estimated gestational age 19mm embryo from conception, 8-9 weeks from LMP. Features include finger rays and cerebral hemispheres. Shot with NIkon D700 with 105 mm Micro-NIKKOR lens with 2 off camera SB-800’s. Specimen is submerged in alcohol. View in large to see the detail^.
Embryo received with membranes intact. 1.6cm. EGA approximately 6-7 weeks from conception^.
Embryo received with membranes intact. 1.6cm. EGA approximately 6-7 weeks from conception^.
This is an approximately 6-7 week estimated gestational age 19mm embryo from conception, 8-9 weeks from LMP. Features include finger rays and cerebral hemispheres. Shot with NIkon D700 with 105 mm Micro-NIKKOR lens with 2 off camera SB-800’s. Specimen is submerged in alcohol. View in large to see the detail^.
This is an approximately 6-7 week estimated gestational age 19mm embryo from conception, 8-9 weeks from LMP. Features include finger rays and cerebral hemispheres. Shot with NIkon D700 with 105 mm Micro-NIKKOR lens with 2 off camera SB-800’s. Specimen is submerged in alcohol. View in large to see the detail^.
This was taken with a Nikon D200 and a 105 mm micro Nikkor with 3 SB-800’s off camera, fired with an SB-900 on camera, commander mode, TTL. Uncropped version^.
Notable in the this fetus is an extraembryonic coelom in the umbilical cord. Loops of intestine are seen as a bulge of orange material in the cord near it’s attachment to the abdominal wall. These loops will withdraw at arould week 11. If these do not return, the condition is called an omphalocele^.
CR 3.6cm. For perspective the foot length is 0.6 cm which is about the same length of the embryo in the following picture on the photostream at 3 - 4 weeks developement. You will need to view on black to get a feeling for the detail. Use the magnifying glass button above the photo^.
Fallopian tube with extruded placenta and embryo still within amniotic sac. The embryo is approximately 6-7 weeks EGA from conception. Image taken after submerging in 95% alcohol with a Nikon D3s and 105mm micro Nikkor lens and 3 off camera SB800’s fired with an on camera SB900… TTL in manual mode 1/250, f51^.
___________________________________________________
Roll-over images for information on age and click through to flickr set to see larger sizes with more detail. Keep in mind that this is MACRO photography and these specimens are measured mostly in millimeters or sometimes centimeters; they’re incredibly small and NOT to scale whatsoever.
-
Correcting allies’ form.
They’re not babies, they’re fetuses. They don’t have brain cells. Their lives aren’t “destroyed”. All they are is a lump of cells. There is a cutoff for when abortion is NOT allowed because that’s when they get the brain cells and start to form into an ACTUAL baby. God. All this fucking guilt tripping propaganda is making me sick.
So… no. That’s not quite right.
Pretty early on, cells differentiate into layers, form an internal space, lay down the trackwork for a spinal cord, skeleton, brain… as soon as it’s a certain size there needs to be a heart to pump oxygen and nutrients to cells, and surprisingly early there’s a brain to stimulate developing muscles to twitch, and abortion is still legal.
(The “lump of cells stage” is more of an embryo thing, less of a fetus thing, fyi.)
Abortion is theoretically protected up to 24 weeks by the Supreme Court. It is possible, though rare and unlikely, for neonates delivered at or slightly before 24 weeks to, with truly fantastic modern medical intervention, survive and finish development outside the womb, sometimes with no developmental problems.
The brain is, at that stage, still not sufficiently formed for the idea of consciousness to be entertained (by doctors or the fetus!) — this presents an interesting case and gets into the theoretical ethics of artificial wombs; these fetuses are undergoing what is normal fetal development in an outside environment. They are still pre-persons in many ways, but our definitions haven’t developed a word to describe them. It’s the sort of question that I enjoy, because it makes me think about humanity in critical ways.
Back to the topic at hand, there’s also the consideration that there isn’t really a secret wellspring of frivolous late-term abortions, especially because the later one goes the more serious a procedure it is, and the more attractive carrying the pregnancy to term may be in comparison.
Plus, consent arguments, like I’ve posted links to before.
-
Ban of abortion after 6 weeks passes Mississippi House →
JACKSON, Miss. — A Mississippi House bill would effectively ban abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
The bill would require doctors to search for a fetal heartbeat before performing an abortion and, if a heartbeat is found, would make going ahead with the procedure illegal.
The bill passed the House on Wednesday and now goes to the Senate, where a similar bill died in committee.
House Judiciary B Committee Chairman Andy Gipson, R-Braxton, says the bill will ban 90 percent of the abortions in the state because most women seek abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detectable.
The bill allows exemptions if the woman’s life is at risk or no fetal heartbeat can be found. There are no exemptions for rape and incest victims.
The bill is among several supported by anti-abortion groups.
___________________________________________________
This is an embryo at 6 weeks LMP (or about 28 days since fertilization):
Actual size 4-6 millimeters!
Up to 6 1/2 weeks calculated from the 1st day of the last menstruation cycle, no embryo can be visualized yet, therefore merely a gestational sac can be seen.
But, yeah, whatevs. This sounds like a great law to pass.
This directly challenges Roe v. Wade. Mississippians? Contact your senators. This is some bullshit.
-
That awkward moment when antis tell me that if I’d just look into fetal development I’d change my mind about abortion.
Been there, done that.
Embryonic/fetal development:
- The Visible Embryo
- UNSW Embryology
- Embryology online course
- The Multi-Dimensional Human Embryo
- Prenatal development table
- Prenatal development wiki
- The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 8th Edition (first chapter is viewable)
I’m informed and more prochoice than ever before. How’s the anti-science propaganda treating you?
Yeah, I wrote both of these:
…and alla these:
- Medication Abortion
- …and how to take care of yourself during one
- Suction Aspiration
- Comparison of Abortion Pill and Surgical Abortion
- Dilation and Curettage (D&C)
- Dilation and Evacuation (D&E)
- Induction Abortion
- Intact Dilation and Extraction (IDX)
…so I think I’m good on the education.
(via lilithlaquim)
-
An Abridged History Of The Imagery Of The Human Embryo →
I just found this when looking for sources for my thesis chapter on fetal imagery. This is a great breakdown, and the exhibition it links to has a lot of information. This is a fantastic resource.
-
Pro-Choice
I feel like I’ve been seeing a lot of pro-choice propaganda lately. You hear all the typical arguments, that the mom should have a say in her life… That the baby is not really alive… It would be worse off for the mom to have the baby because she cannot take care of the kid… etc etc…
How can people be so selfish? I mean, I’m a teen girl, I get it. I understand how totally life changing and devastating it would be to become pregnant right now. How hard my life would become and how I could never go back to the way I was before. It would be so easy just to make that baby go away.
But it wouldn’t be about just me anymore, and pretending like I was the only one who had a say in it is disillusioned and wrong.
I watched a video in health class once showing a baby being aborted. The baby was literally struggling inside his mother’s womb to get away from the tools the doctor was using. I watched it writhe in agony as it was slowly being killed. You cannot watch something like that and then turn around and say the baby isn’t truly alive, or that it cannot feel yet. The proof is clear as crystal.
So I am all pro-choice… pro-choice for the CHILD. Shouldn’t they have a say in what happens to them?
And as for who would take care of the child if they were not aborted… as hard as it would be, I would take in any child if I knew that it meant they would be saved from abortion. And I sincerely mean that.
Oh my god. They’re showing The Silent Scream in schools.
This is why that movie is wrong: The Facts Speak Louder Than “The Silent Scream”
-
mediumtrip asked: “And what happens when sperm and egg collide? Oh wait. that’s right. you get pregnant with a baby.” It is NOT a baby until 8-9 months in the pregnancy. “You can spew all you want about how some people believe it isn’t alive yet.” Dude, this is not a matter of belief. It is NOT alive until it has a heartbeat and basic bodily functions. It’s not ME, it is basic SCIENCE. “I am one of the many who do believe it’s the beginning of life.” SCIENCE. SAYS. FETUS. Okay? SCIENCE. Not just opinion. SCIENCE.
Science changes so frequently it is impossible to keep up with everything they say today versus everything they say a week from now. You’re entitled to your opinion but I do not agree.
Science, you guys, it moves SO FAST that there’s no way we can know the difference between a ball made up of several hundred cells and a full grown baby.
-Jess
Okay, come on. I’m pro-choice - pro-abortion even, given that I agree with statements (I believe you’ve made) about how if you believe in abortion as a right, then it should always be one, and people should have the right to abortions whatever their motives for getting one (within reason) - but this is just a sad defense.
It’s bugged me for a while that the pro-choice stance doesn’t determine any limit between ‘ball made up of several hundred cells’ and ‘baby’, except sometimes in the case of saying that the baby needs to be autonomous in terms of it’s organs functioning independantly of the mother. Without some sort of link - call it the ‘essence’ of being a baby versus the ‘essence’ of being a fetus - this isn’t really much of an argument: there needs to be a clear dileanation between the two. And even in the latter case, where autonomy is granted to the now-baby because it’s out of the womb: why? It’s still dependant on the mother, often times even her organs still (breastmilk and the like), so again I don’t get how you differentiate the two so absolutely.
Finally, the patent recourse to positivism is disturbing. ‘Science’ may agree with you (or at least certain subsections of ‘science’ and certain experiments and opinions therein), but science isn’t the house of truth - there are extra-scientific truths, and to fall back on ‘well science says it’s so’ shows a complete lack of rigour in trying to argue this point.
And again, so not to give the wrong idea, I’m pro-choice through and through, but that’s precisely why I’m annoyed by this. If you see missing links in an argument you support (these problems bug me too, as I’ve said, and I don’t have an answer to them at all), then it should pain you somewhat for those missing links to go unspoken for in arguments over a subject you care about. We won’t convince anyone by just saying “Well, science says so” - there needs to be more care put into the subject.
Sorry to harp on this more, but I felt it worth to go through this response:
There isn’t a clear line because fetal development doesn’t move at an exact and standardized rate, and as of now, we don’t have a way to test for viability, or even a consensus on what viability is. Any cut-off period would be fairly arbitrary and more of a compromise than anything.
But that’s pretty much my point. If we’re going to say that abortion’s okay because there’s a clear-cut difference between fetus and baby, then we need to be able to point to such a clear-cut distinction. Where we’re not able to do that, we should scrape the argument, because it’s not helpful. Not that there aren’t lots of good arguments for being pro-choice, I just don’t think this is a good one because of structural reasons, which is sad because it’s one of the most common ones I see.
This discussion is only relevant to a small percentage of people who get abortions. I can’t find any record of a preemie surviving after less than 21 weeks gestation (the youngest surviving preemie suffered brain hemorrhage, digestive, and respiratory problems, and her twin died), and the Guttmacher Institute puts 1.5% of all abortions as occurring after that point. By the time abortions near or post-viability take place, it’s usually because of some health problem with the pregnant person or fetus that prevents the pregnancy from being safely carried to term.
I’m sorry, and I really don’t mean this in any aggressive sense, I just don’t understand what this is responding to in what I said. I mean, it’s interesting, and I’m glad I know that now, I just don’t see what you meant to do by saying that. If you meant to use that as a dividing line between baby and not-baby, then I don’t really think that works, because using ‘viability’ as a calculus here just causes problems (as I’ll say more of below).
I think it was Judith Jarvis Thomson, in her violinist essay, who said the right not to be pregnant (bodily autonomy) is not the same as the right to the death of the fetus. That’s the discussion that should be happening - not whether or not someone should be forced to remain pregnant. Of course, then you get to the risks of severe health problems in premature babies, and the trauma of labor and birth, and that’s a whole ‘nother ethical debate that would be more relevant if elective post-viability abortions were a common occurrence (though I think first we’d need to address why those abortions were being performed and how to reduce the need for them).
I agree full-heartedly. That was actually the essay I was thinking of when I said that there are other pro-choice arguments that work much better than this arbitrary ‘baby/non-baby’ distinction. That essay is actually what convinced me to be pro-choice, and I still hold it as being a phenomenal piece of ethical philosophy. Spot-on.
At any rate, a baby isn’t dependent on one sole person. It can be formula-fed and cared for by anyone, not just its biological mother. We’re all socially dependent on others in one way or another, but none of us are biologically dependent on another person, using their oxygen, nutrients, and antibodies, and residing inside them for months at a time. So, that’s that difference.
I do disagree here though. True, a baby isn’t dependent on one person after birth, it’s caught up in a nexus of relations that help develop it, both socially and biologically. Though a baby doesn’t use the oxygen of a person, it does use the nutrients and anti-bodies from what I understand (I’m getting most of this from discussions I’ve had with a neuroscience roommate of mine, so it could be wrong): babies develop a lot of their antibodies early on by being in contact with both males and females*, and though you said that babies don’t have to be fed breast milk to stay alive (there is formula fed stuff), I don’t think that’s a sufficient reason to consider them at all autonomous, at least by the standards of the fetus v. baby argument I’m talking about here. So while we’re all caught up in a nexus of human interrelation, just by being-there, we’re not nearly as dependent as a baby is, even biologically.
So the point of what I was trying to say is that there’s lots of logical and scientific barriers in the way before we could adequately use the fetus v. baby argument justifiably in defense of being pro-choice. Due to that though, I agree with you, we should be focusing on arguments that are much more logically/scientifically sound. I hope that clears things up.
*I don’t meant to imply here in any way that a baby is better off in the company only of a mother and a father (i.e. negating any sort of non-traditional relationship in raising a baby), hence why I used males and females here. It’s important that a baby - again, only if I’m correct in the above statement, which I might not be - in contact with males and females during their early development, but those males in females don’t necessarily have to be a mother and a father or any variation thereof.
Oh, that’s not why I think abortion’s okay! I’m not someone who uses the “it’s a fetus, not a baby,” argument, but I think it is an important distinction to make for those new to the discussion. People use the word “baby” to conjure up an image of a chubby, gurgling 3-month infant, when most abortions occur when the embryo has only just started to look like a shrimp. The anti-abortion side uses emotional manipulation by displaying [often doctored, mislabeled, or fake] pictures of late-term abortions, and that seems to be the most popular image of abortion that comes to mind. Abortions before 9 weeks of pregnancy make up over 60% of all abortions in the United States, when the embryo is less than an inch long, and making the comparison between that organism and a newborn infant seems dishonest to me.
For me, it’s more of a clarification point than a justification for abortion, though I think it’s helpful to have a basic understanding of fetal development (especially brain function) when debating and giving out information.
That’s the reason I threw the viability bit in there. This is a pro-choice blog, so I mention it a lot. I think if we’re talking about right to bodily autonomy vs. right to death of the fetus, the ability to survive outside the womb becomes relevant, because post-24 weeks or so, death of the fetus is not necessarily inevitable once removed from the uterus. But, like we’ve said, there isn’t a bright red line between viability and non-viability, and inducing labor of a healthy fetus at 24 weeks, risking severe and lifelong health problems, is an entirely new ethical dilemma.
My point was that a fetus depends on one person only - the pregnant person. A baby depends on whoever cares for it. It’s the difference between being inside another human being and being physically separated from them that I’m trying to emphasize. A baby still relies on other people to feed it and all, but it’s not going to die if you take it from someone’s arms.
Perfect world scenario, people would be able to get abortions as soon as possible, and this debate would be largely unnecessary.
Well, perfect world, there wouldn’t be unwanted pregnancies, but you know what I’m saying.
(Source: prettybeingme)
-
mediumtrip asked: “And what happens when sperm and egg collide? Oh wait. that’s right. you get pregnant with a baby.” It is NOT a baby until 8-9 months in the pregnancy. “You can spew all you want about how some people believe it isn’t alive yet.” Dude, this is not a matter of belief. It is NOT alive until it has a heartbeat and basic bodily functions. It’s not ME, it is basic SCIENCE. “I am one of the many who do believe it’s the beginning of life.” SCIENCE. SAYS. FETUS. Okay? SCIENCE. Not just opinion. SCIENCE.
Science changes so frequently it is impossible to keep up with everything they say today versus everything they say a week from now. You’re entitled to your opinion but I do not agree.
Science, you guys, it moves SO FAST that there’s no way we can know the difference between a ball made up of several hundred cells and a full grown baby.
-Jess
Okay, come on. I’m pro-choice - pro-abortion even, given that I agree with statements (I believe you’ve made) about how if you believe in abortion as a right, then it should always be one, and people should have the right to abortions whatever their motives for getting one (within reason) - but this is just a sad defense.
It’s bugged me for a while that the pro-choice stance doesn’t determine any limit between ‘ball made up of several hundred cells’ and ‘baby’, except sometimes in the case of saying that the baby needs to be autonomous in terms of it’s organs functioning independantly of the mother. Without some sort of link - call it the ‘essence’ of being a baby versus the ‘essence’ of being a fetus - this isn’t really much of an argument: there needs to be a clear dileanation between the two. And even in the latter case, where autonomy is granted to the now-baby because it’s out of the womb: why? It’s still dependant on the mother, often times even her organs still (breastmilk and the like), so again I don’t get how you differentiate the two so absolutely.
Finally, the patent recourse to positivism is disturbing. ‘Science’ may agree with you (or at least certain subsections of ‘science’ and certain experiments and opinions therein), but science isn’t the house of truth - there are extra-scientific truths, and to fall back on ‘well science says it’s so’ shows a complete lack of rigour in trying to argue this point.
And again, so not to give the wrong idea, I’m pro-choice through and through, but that’s precisely why I’m annoyed by this. If you see missing links in an argument you support (these problems bug me too, as I’ve said, and I don’t have an answer to them at all), then it should pain you somewhat for those missing links to go unspoken for in arguments over a subject you care about. We won’t convince anyone by just saying “Well, science says so” - there needs to be more care put into the subject.
There isn’t a clear line because fetal development doesn’t move at an exact and standardized rate, and as of now, we don’t have a way to test for viability, or even a consensus on what viability is. Any cut-off period would be fairly arbitrary and more of a compromise than anything.
This discussion is only relevant to a small percentage of people who get abortions. I can’t find any record of a preemie surviving after less than 21 weeks gestation (the youngest surviving preemie suffered brain hemorrhage, digestive, and respiratory problems, and her twin died), and the Guttmacher Institute puts 1.5% of all abortions as occurring after that point. By the time abortions near or post-viability take place, it’s usually because of some health problem with the pregnant person or fetus that prevents the pregnancy from being safely carried to term.
I think it was Judith Jarvis Thomson, in her violinist essay, who said the right not to be pregnant (bodily autonomy) is not the same as the right to the death of the fetus. That’s the discussion that should be happening - not whether or not someone should be forced to remain pregnant. Of course, then you get to the risks of severe health problems in premature babies, and the trauma of labor and birth, and that’s a whole ‘nother ethical debate that would be more relevant if elective post-viability abortions were a common occurrence (though I think first we’d need to address why those abortions were being performed and how to reduce the need for them).
At any rate, a baby isn’t dependent on one sole person. It can be formula-fed and cared for by anyone, not just its biological mother. We’re all socially dependent on others in one way or another, but none of us are biologically dependent on another person, using their oxygen, nutrients, and antibodies, and residing inside them for months at a time. So, that’s that difference.
(Source: prettybeingme)
-
View high resolution
just perfect.
I hope Ansley doesn’t mind that I quote her every time I see this lie pop up.
“First, I will direct you here: http://feministsforlife.org/
Feminism, in fact, has a long legacy of being pro-life. Nearly all the women in the original women’s rights’ movement were strongly pro-life.
I see abortion as a repressive institution used to deny a woman’s basic biology and, somehow, convince here that her biology is “wrong.” By trying to make ourselves men, we devalue what it means to be a woman. We should be taking back this amazing ability we have to create unique human beings not trying to suppress it as much as possible.
I believe in working to eradicate the reasons women get abortions - poverty, pressure from family and friends, stigma against pregnancy, rape, - just as much as I work to abolish abortion.”
As to your point that a fetus is not a human being:
“Secondly, the major issue in the abortion debate completely centers around - is the unborn a human being? If the unborn aren’t human beings, then I have absolutely no problem with abortion and having one would absolutely be a medical right. If the unborn are human, then we are condoning murder. There are several separate steps we have to take here - 1. Does life begin at conception? 2. If so, is this new life human? 3. If so, are the unborn human beings?
1. So, are the unborn human? Science tells us unequivocally, yes. Any basic embryology textbook will confirm this. “The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, thezygote.” Here’s a large list of quotes from science confirming this fact.
And lest I get more trolls saying “BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SPERMZ?” Sperm and egg are haploid cells - reproductive cells that only have half as many chromosomes as a re needed to create a new entity. In our case a sperm has 23 chromosomes from the father and an egg has 23 (n) chromosomes from the mother.
When these two haploid cells combine, they also combine their DNA creating one, diploid zygote with 46 chromosomes (2n). This zygote has entirely unique DNA - this new entity (I’m avoiding the word “being” here) is neither father nor mother.
2. Ok, so life begins at conception. Glad we got that straight. So this thing in its mother’s womb is alive, but is it human?
The answer to this is also yes. A human never gives birth to anything other than a human. The DNA within the zygote and developing embryo, fetus, etc, is uniquely human DNA. Therefore, it’s human. This one’s pretty simple.
This thing is alive and it’s human.
3. Yeah, but is it a human being?
Again, yes. Here’s a short summary of succinct arguments from Scott Klusendorf - a leader in pro-life apologetics.
Size
When someone brings up that the unborn is so small that it shouldn’t have the same rights as a newborn, then it can be shown that the size of a born person doesn’t matter to their value. A lineman in the NFL is obviously larger that a figure skater, but that doesn’t make him any more valuable as a person. A toddler is smaller than an adult, but they should be granted the same human rights to live. Thus, the unborn are nearly always smaller than a newborn, but that doesn’t mean that they have any less value.
Level of Development
Pro-choicers will often say that the unborn is less developed than a newborn, so they are not fully human. A newborn is less developed than a toddler. A toddler is less developed than an adolescent, and an adolescent is less developed than an adult. Even a mentally handicapped adult might not be as developed as a toddler. In all of these examples we wouldn’t think of killing a person because they aren’t as developed as someone else. But many believe we should kill the unborn just because they are less developed and can’t function as a newborn does.
Environment
Of the four parts of the SLED test, environment or location is probably used the most for justifying abortion. Just because people aren’t able to see the unborn, then they often think that it doesn’t deserve the same human rights as the born child. If you go from one room to another or walk from one house to another, you have the same value. What is unbelievable is that a premature baby can be delivered and given to the mother, but if that baby was just a foot away inside the mother it could be killed. Your geographical location has nothing at all to do with your value as a human being.
Degree of Dependency
A popular argument is that the unborn is less of a human because it is dependent on its mother for life. Through many stages of our lives we are dependent on certain people or machines for our well-being. Some are on kidney machines or pacemakers. The handicapped may be dependent on others just to assist them in routine daily functions. The elderly in nursing homes are dependent on the staff for support. The unborn is relying on the level of dependency from the mother that it is supposed to receive at that stage in life.(Source)
So let’s go over some pro-choice arguments as to why the unborn aren’t human beings.
Dependency - Infants are entirely dependent on their parents - without them they would die. Are infants human beings?
Sentience - A person with permanent brain damage or in a coma has little to no sentience. Are they human beings?
Pain - There was a little girl born in 2000 who can’t feel pain. Is it morally permissible to kill her simply because she won’t feel it?
Mental Function - Since when does our level of mental function or ability make us more or less human? People with down syndrome have a much lower IQ than those without, but we agree people with down syndrome are human beings, yes? And where does this stop? Should people in MENSA be considered more complete human beings than you and I? More than 90% of fetuses determined to have down syndrome are aborted. I don’t care what your reasoning in, that’s genocide and it’s wrong.
Many pro-choicers (I’m not necessarily saying you, just addressing the point) say that fetuses only become human beings at the point at which they can live outside of their mother’s womb. This is really arbitrary.”
Brilliant commentary is brilliant.
Arguments can be directed to inboxes.
I’mma let you finish, but my Human Genetics textbook has the best description of fertilization of all time. (Plus it has diagrams, which are pretty awesome for people who don’t like reading huge blocks of text).
The “moment of conception” is a fictitious concept invented by anti-choice and anti-contraception advocates. The moment to which these anti-choicers are referring is the moment a spermatozoon breaches the corona of an oocyte. At this moment, the spermatozoon nucleus contains a haploid number of chromosomes and the oocyte contains a diploid chromosome count. This means that not only is the combined cell in question triploid, but the gametic chromosomes have not yet fused to create a singular zygotic nucleus. In order for a “new, distinct organism” to form, the oocyte must complete meiosis II, the spermatozoon cellular body must degenerate, both sets of DNA must undergo replication, and a mitotic spindle must be assembled. The two gametic sets of chromosomes do not meet until the first mitotic division of the zygote.
Additionally, one may notice that at no point are any of these cells dead. Neither apoptosis nor necrosis occur, meaning that life does not “begin,” but rather, is transferred between generations. Fertilization is not a special, magical, or soul-binding moment. In fact, the biochemical reactions that take place during fertilization are simplistic compared to some of the molecular interactions that take place in human cells on a regular basis.
I would also like to point out the irony in your attempt to appropriate Trisomy 21 for your anti-choice cause. Your (flawed) description of fertilization implies that a human cell must contain 46 chromosomes to be human, and that the state of perfect euploidy is the only criteria for humanity. This is not only incorrect, but also highly offensive to any individual with an aneuploidy, micro- or macrodeletion/duplication in hir genome.
A cell is the fundamental unit of life, and all cells in the bodies of most people are considered human cells. Human gametes are human cells and the resulting zygote is a human zygote. By definition, a zygote is an organism and it is human.
So let’s talk about human rights. I am willing to cede all rights currently afforded to born (but legally minor) humans to zygotic humans. If I were to have custody of my biological child who required an organ transplant to survive, and I were the only compatible donor, does that child have the right to my organ?
Legally, the answer is simple: no. Despite the fact that I am responsible for the well-being of that child, despite the fact that I brought that child into the world via my personal choices, and despite the fact that this child will die if I consider living organ donation too inconvenient for my tastes, I am not legally a murderer if I tell my child “NO.”
This is because we recognize the bodily autonomy of human beings in our society. Regardless of how horrible a person you may think me to be for denying my child an organ, I still retain the right to decide what happens to my body. The same principle applies to abortion: an induced abortion serves to sever my connection as a donor to the embryo or fetus in question, and it is the only method we currently have to ensure my ability to say no to bodily donation. Should we develop the technology to transplant embryos or fetuses mid-gestation at some point in the future, it would be ethically correct to revisit the abortion issue.
Now, I’ve made this argument before, and anti-choicers always respond with the same two arguments:
“Oh, but if you just do nothing, your baby will be born! But if you do nothing to the dialysis patient, they will die.”
Any individual who makes this argument is severely underestimating the impact of pregnancy and childbirth. Given the number of pregnancy complications and common side-effects and the fact that nearly half of delivery patients experience maternal* morbidity, carrying a fetus to term is not a passive action. It is an active donation that requires sacrifice on the part of the donor.
“Yeah but you had sex, you had to know that could result in being pregnant”
Consensually engaging in PIV intercourse does not negate my right to refuse bodily donation. In the above scenario, I clearly had a child knowing that it could have any number of medical issues, yet I still am not required to give it any part of my body against my will. Regardless of who had sex with whom, all humans retain jurisdiction over their bodies, and no human has the right to use another’s body without hir consent.
TL;DR: Yes, fetuses are human. No, they don’t have special, magical, body-hijacking rights.
-
Month one
Mommy
I am only 8 inches long
but I have all my organs.
I love the sound of your voice.
Every time I hear it
I wave my arms and legs.
The sound of your heart beat
is my favorite lullaby.Month Two
Mommy
today I learned how to suck my thumb.
If you could see me
you could definitely tell that I am a baby.
I’m not big enough to survive outside my home though.
It is so nice and warm in here.Month Three
You know what Mommy
I’m a boy!!
I hope that makes you happy.
I always want you to be happy.
I don’t like it when you cry.
You sound so sad.
It makes me sad too
and I cry with you even though
you can’t hear me.Month Four
Mommy
my hair is starting to grow.
It is very short and fine
but I will have a lot of it.
I spend a lot of my time exercising.
I can turn my head and curl my fingers and toes
and stretch my arms and legs.
I am becoming quite good at it too.Month Five
You went to the doctor today.
Mommy, he lied to you.
He said that I’m not a baby.
I am a baby Mommy, your baby.
I think and feel.
Mommy, what’s abortion?Month Six
I can hear that doctor again.
I don’t like him.
He seems cold and heartless.
Something is intruding my home.
The doctor called it a needle.
Mommy what is it? It burns!
Please make him stop!
I can’t get away from it!
Mommy! HELP me!Month Seven
Mommy
I am okay.
I am in Jesus’s arms.
He is holding me.
He told me about abortion.
Why didn’t you want me Mommy?Every Abortion Is Just …
One more heart that was stopped.
Two more eyes that will never see.
Two more hands that will never touch.
Two more legs that will never run.
One more mouth that will never speak.If you’re against abortion, re-blog this
A fetus doesn’t get to be 8 inches long or learn to suck its thumb until nearly the end of the second trimester. This is what an embryo at 4 weeks looks like:
It’s less than half an inch long. It can’t hear, think, or feel. The neural tube, which becomes the brain and spinal chord, has only just closed.
Studies show fetuses can’t feel pain until late in the second trimester at the very earliest, because their brains are not developed enough. It’s also been suggested that they exist in a state of sedation by chemicals in the amniotic fluid surrounding it.
Bollocks to this poem.
-
View high resolution
I hate this shit with the passion of a thousand firey suns. They pass these out to children and make them cry to imagine these tiny, perfectly formed babies.
Let me drop some knowledge on ya. This is a 7-week embryo:
8 weeks:
9 weeks:
10 weeks:
12 weeks:
Look how cool those are! Think about how awesome it is that we develop from a tiny shrimpy thing into beings with arms and legs and faces! All you do when you disseminate propaganda like this is encourage ignorance and knee-jerk reactions. I suppose that’s good for the anti-choice movement, though, isn’t it? After all, if you encouraged your followers to think critically, you run the risk of them realizing that your entire movement is bullshit.
Um, all I have to say is that if I am teaching my child about their baby sibling, I would probably prefer the “teensy little babies”. Can we please fucking remember, before we jump on things like this, that some people WANT children and might want to use THESE in regards to their other children and that’s perfectly freakin’ okay? Unless this picture is missing a shitton, I do not see anything that would make one believe it’s made to be anti-choice propaganda. And since it says “how your baby grows” on the side, it looks like a guide for parents who WANT children.
There’s nothing wrong with that.
Stop. Projecting.If you’re okay with giving your kids romanticized, inaccurate information about how they and their siblings develop, whatever. Personally, I think it’s a lot cooler to see how we actually develop. In fact, I wrote two posts on fetal development in first two trimesters of pregnancy, because I thought it was so interesting. You can read about embryonic development and fetal development at the links. I’ve posted the video below before on how our face develops in the womb, too (the good stuff starts at about 00:31). Look! It’s like…crustacean, sloth, pig, person! It’s amazing!
I reblogged this from a well-known anti-choice blog. These tiny plastic babies are handed out by anti-choice groups to promote the idea that as soon as an egg is fertilized, it looks like a tiny, perfectly-formed baby. That’s yet another fairly well-known tactic of theirs. If you’ve ever seen Jesus Camp, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about, and why this kind of thing is so harmful.
This is likely from a pro-life site using the same strategy. Any legitimate baby/pregnancy website is not going to use those pictures or figures, because they are lies. People want to know what is going on inside them and how their child is developing. I’m not correcting this picture because I’m a baby-hater, or because I’m projecting. I’m correcting it because it’s wrong and because it’s cheap emotional blackmail. You’d know that if you had even a passing familiarity with what I’ve written before.
(Source: kandacelee, via crackerhell)
-
Bébinn: For All Your Pro-Choice Needs!: "If you're pro-choice, shouldn't you respect my choice to be pro-life?" →
[deleted for brevity]
The difference is that criticism has substance and attacks beliefs and points made, while hate has no substance and attacks the person. You think the people who are trying to take away our rights are going to listen if we say “Please?” You think they’ll suddenly come to the realization that we are actual people who deserve the right to our own bodies if we ask nicely? Please. I don’t give a fuck if someone doesn’t like swearing and aggressiveness - if they do, they don’t belong in the debate. Hell, I’m surprised they’re even on a blogging site, talking about such a controversial topic as abortion. People are going to get pissed on both sides. If you can’t see the argument because you’re distracted by the f-bomb, step away and think about whether or not this debate in this space is right for you. It’s not up to me to make you comfortable.
I know pro-lifers. I know they are just as diverse as any other political group out there. You don’t have to tell me that.
Oh, and laughing forever at this: “Also, as far as I know, being oppressive is not on the list of what “pro-life” stands for.” Pretty sure fighting to remove reproductive options, as well as deliberately spreading misinformation, lies, and propaganda about sex, sexuality, contraception, and abortion, as well as belittling and trivializing the people they claim to care for, all fit in pretty nicely with oppression.
I don’t care about “fetus” vs. “baby.” I understand why people do: Technically, it’s a fetus until it’s born, and the anti-choice side deliberately uses the term “baby” to evoke the cute, squashy, big-eyed two-month old, rather than this:
[7-week embryo] [Sweet Jesus that’s terrifying]
-but I’m not going to decide that for a pregnant person. Some people getting abortions think of the embryo as nothing more than a parasite; some people getting abortions think of it as a baby. I’m never going to call it one when not referring to someone who prefers the term, but it’s not one of the points I stick to.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Reblogging just for the fetus picture because that is terrifying. Good God that might be in my uterus some day 0_0
Haha, right? I think it’s pretty freakin’ sweet, though. Looking up embryonic and fetal development was super-interesting. Like - aaahhh, I used to have webby hands! And eyes on the side of my head!
Wait. Wait. I have something that will freak you out even more.
OH MY GOD.
Theme: Linear by Peter Vidani
