Emergency: My friend is pregnant

Let’s be clear about this: I refuse to refer to a zygote as a person. For the same reason, I won't call a two-day-old cluster of cells a person either. If someone else wants to label it that way, fine, go ahead.

Sean Grant85 said:I don't think that last photo shows what's actually happening. I saw somewhere on an official medical website that a fetus doesn't really start looking human until the third month of development. Is this 56-day one way too early, or just some Photoshop job?

And which "official medical website" are we talking about here? 😁It's a university site from Michigan. These images belong to a project funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Apparently, that’s just "whatever," right?

If you want to see more: http://www.wprc.org/fetal.phtml

Besides, who in their right mind would bother making fake fetal montages just to mislead the public? 😬

*

And yeah, I already read those quotes on the second trimester page, so save your breath and don't bother quoting them to me. 😬

Somewhere, our friend Septic posted a series of photos by that famous 3D artist—it’s clear the fetal shape is already well-developed by three months. Honestly, they probably drew that line at 2.5 months, right after which abortion becomes illegal. Logically speaking, before that arbitrary line is drawn, an embryo shouldn't look this much like a human being. This one from 56 days looks incredibly human—no sane person could just cut through a life like that.

The point is, protesters storm hospitals and shove photos of four-to-five-month-old fetuses in everyone's faces, trying to force the idea that a murder occurred. They even showed the film Silent Scream in a school to illustrate how abortions are performed on six-month fetuses here in the USA—basically implying that girls should never be allowed to seek an abortion.

Sean Grant85 said:I think Septic posted a series of photos about this somewhere once.

Yeah, I remember that.

Sean Grant85 said:They also showed that movie, Silent Scream, at a school once.

We actually watched that movie back in my high school during religion class. 🙄 My specific class skipped it, but there was this one kid in the classroom next door who nearly passed out from the intensity of it. 😁

So this is the thread, right?

But the link isn't working anymore.

But even on that site I linked, there’s a mention of Lennart Nilsson. 🙂

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/nilsson.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

Exactly—that’s the Nilsson guy. I remember seeing reports about how he captured those incredible shots showing the transition from an embryo to a fetus and eventually into a baby...

I recall hearing somewhere that the legal line is drawn at 2.5 months after conception—after which things change legally. Looking at that specific image, it looks halfway formed and doesn't even resemble a person yet. But now, looking at that 56-day shot, it actually looks human—so what's the point? What difference does it make?

Megan Reed said:I remember that one.

They showed that movie at my high school during a religious studies class—well, my specific class didn't watch it, but some kid in the classroom next door nearly fainted from the shock. 🙄 😁

It just goes to show how the pro-life crowd will use any tactic imaginable to manipulate people into avoiding abortion. Personally, I find the whole approach deeply flawed. If these activists are truly as morally driven and uncompromising as they claim, then they should be the ones providing warm homes and financial lifelines to the women and mothers who choose to carry a pregnancy to term. They ought to be right there by their side through the entire pregnancy and for years afterward until the child reaches adulthood—showing them firsthand that the child was raised well and is ready for life.

The pro-life movement seems to specialize in creating guilt complexes and constant judgment, only to vanish when things get difficult—leaving young women and mothers to face isolation and social stigma alone after they decide to give birth. It makes it easy to see why some women ultimately choose abortion. For me, though, the moral weight remains—because what we see in that image isn't some trivial matter; you can't just casually decide to end a life.

Perhaps a more effective solution would be limiting abortion access to the 6-week mark—it’s simple logic. This would essentially force both women and their partners to stay proactive and make timely decisions regarding their choices.

Eh, look, that’s just a legal technicality. Ten weeks.

http://winter.home.texas.net/embryo57d.gif
http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/images/scan11.jpg
http://blowthetrumpet.org/images/12week186x247.jpg

At 10 weeks (which counts as 12 weeks since the start of the last period)

The fetus measures roughly two and a half inches from crown to rump.
Fingernails are starting to take shape.
Around the 8 to 10-week mark, the fetus starts making tiny, erratic movements, though you won't feel them just yet.
You can pick up the fetal heartbeat using electronic monitoring.

Look, if you want to dodge unnecessary discomfort and messy complications, an abortion should happen around the 6-week mark from the start of the last period. I know plenty of women don't track this closely since irregular cycles are common—but let’s say there’s no sign of anything after 40 days. You take a pregnancy test immediately; results are instant, giving you maybe a day or two—five at most—to process everything before proceeding with the procedure. At that stage, the embryo isn't even developed enough to be recognizable as looking like a human being.

Sean Grant85 said:Is this 56-day one a bit premature, or is it just Photoshopped?

I really hope it isn't fake. I actually found it by searching Google for "human embryo."

Here’s another site with similar photos.

embryo

edit: I'm no biology expert, but it's an embryo during the first trimester, then it becomes a fetus.

Calling a 56-day-old specimen an embryo is a stretch—it’s clearly a fetus by now. Isn't that how it works?

There’s one specific fact that we really ought to be more concerned about, though it seems to have been glossed over in this discussion... if these pro-life activists are already this worked up, I'm honestly surprised nobody has brought this up yet.

Which demographic of women is responsible for the highest number of abortions?

Back in 2003, the number of reported abortions hit 10,999, marking yet another steady decline compared to previous years. The numbers tell a pretty clear story if you actually bother to look at them: we saw a steady decline from those 19.9 million peaks back in '95 down to just 12 million by 2002. It’s like watching a slow leak in a tire—it doesn't happen all at once, but you can definitely see the pressure dropping year after year. (See Table 1 and Graph 1 for the full breakdown).

(...)

The number of young women under 19 seeking abortions is on the rise. Back in 2002, that figure sat at 7.8%, but by 2003, we saw 494 adolescents undergo legal procedures, which bumps that percentage up to 8.3%.

Looking at the data, the women seeking abortions fall most heavily into the 30 to 39 age bracket (see Table 2). It’s also worth noting that a significant majority—66.1%—are actually married. When you factor in that 34.9% of those seeking the procedure already have two children (that's 2,066 individuals, according to Table 3 and Graph 3), it really drives home the reality that abortion is being utilized essentially as a method of birth control.

***

So, according to the data, teenagers are being scapegoated for about 8% of all abortions. In reality, the lion's share—roughly 66%—comes from women in their 30s who are typically married and already have two kids at home.

Let’s say we’re looking at a group that's largely well-educated, holds steady jobs, is financially comfortable, and identifies as Catholic.

You know, there’s always that specific group of women who act like they’re still stuck in high school, trying to pull all those teenage antics even though they’re well into their thirties—usually dragging their husbands along for the ride. 😁It’s pure madness when people act without a single thought for the consequences. How does a mother, already struggling with two kids, just decide to end the life of an unwanted third child? Someone please try explaining that logic to me, because I certainly can't make sense of it.

And then you’ve got these self-righteous moralists lecturing eighteen-year-old girls who have no high school diploma, no job, no money, and absolutely zero support system... honestly, it feels like they're shouting at the wrong target.

If they’re willing to force a thirteen-year-old victim to carry a child against her will, I can't even begin to wrap my head around how they'd handle these mothers. 😠

Let's not forget that in America, only about 6% of women actually use oral contraceptives. God knows how many others aren't using any form of birth control at all. Then we act surprised when the abortion numbers climb so high. It’s pretty obvious, isn't it? 😳

And there you have it—those are the cold, hard facts that just tear everything down.

The main thing is that these eighteen-year-old kids here finally read the fine print... yeah, right. Sure, let’s all just march straight into hell because we're such pathetic losers who'll hook up with anyone who happens to pass by. Oh, absolutely. 😈 😈 😈

Megan Reed said:So, when looking at total abortion numbers, teenagers only account for about 8%—they aren't the "culprits." The lion's share (66%) comes from women aged 30-39—who are mostly married and typically already have two kids.

Let's assume many of them are educated, employed, well-off, and even Catholic.

That means they are the ones who were active at 16—with their (?) husbands 😁—without considering the fallout. How does a mother of two then decide to kill a poor, unwanted third child? Ha? I'd love for someone to explain that logic to me.

Meanwhile, our dear moralizers lecture 18-year-olds who lack schooling, jobs, money, or support... it seems they are barking up the wrong tree.

These people would force even a 13-year-old victim to carry a pregnancy, so what is their stance on these mothers? 😠

There—those are the crushing facts.

This is exactly what I’ve been DRUMMING ON ABOUT!!!!
I can somewhat grasp why certain girls choose abortion—there's usually a heavy justification for such an act. But what I am trying to wrap my head around are these mothers who already have two or three children and go for an abortion for "other" reasons. Someone claims it isn't a big deal because they just don't want more kids. It's possible they are finished having children, but how do they live with their conscience? I'm trying to understand. If they are struggling financially, maybe it makes sense. But if they are wealthy and educated, I fail to see a compelling reason among them.
One woman claims her conscience is clear because she doesn't have time to dwell on it—she's too busy managing the household, the family, and raising the kids she already has. Is that actually possible...?

Sean Grant85 said:I doubt anyone would still call a 56-day-old organism an embryo. It feels more like a fetus to me at that stage. Isn't that right?

Every medical site I’ve looked at says it's considered an embryo until the 60-day mark. I'm just going by what I've read. 🙂

Sean Grant85 said:This is exactly what I’ve been preaching!
I can somewhat empathize with women choosing abortion when they have a really heavy, valid reason for it. But what I'm trying to wrap my head around are those mothers who already have two or three kids and still go through with an abortion for other reasons.

Here’s one extreme case.

I know a woman who had forty-five abortions. Why? Because her husband is an alcoholic and does whatever he wants without ever consulting her.

So, where does that leave us? Most people probably aren't dealing with situations like that. But you can never truly know someone's reasoning since you aren't living in their house or inside their head.

Megan Reed said:The main thing is that these eighteen-year-olds actually read the fine print... right? As if we’re all just heading straight to hell because we’re spineless enough to follow anyone who crosses our path. Give me a break. 😈 😈 😈

This is exactly why I can't stand these protesters!!!
I was at the Holy Spirit cathedral a while back—saw two absolute lunatics. One girl, maybe nineteen, greasy hair, meticulously rearranging pictures of the Virgin Mary and various church brochures just to make sure everyone noticed. Then there was this twenty-five-year-old guy, looking rough, playing guitar in the corner. Just mindless strumming echoing through the hall. People were turning their heads in annoyance. It even made the local news—how they were distracting young women trying to focus on their confession.

Jessica Perez93 said:Every medical site out there claims an embryo lasts up to 60 days. I didn't just make that up.🙂

I know you aren't making it up—but we really need to look at that ultrasound for a 56-day fetus. To me, it doesn't even look like an embryo. It’s gotta be some error on the website.