"Not Guilty" tries to do that by invoking a pro-abort website's pic.
What does an early abortion look like?
Abortionaccess.info would have you believe that it's just a bunch of tissue in a petri dish.
The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada also tried that same trick.
Here's the problem.
Nobody shows that happened to the embryo that was aborted.
All we see is tissue. Now with early abortions, there is more other tissue-- like placenta, yolk sac or whatever-- than embryo. So the idea is to show that really what is removed are "products of conception".
Not a human life.
But the moral diffficulty with regard to abortion is not whether placenta tissue is eliminated.
It's whether a human life is eliminated.
But the pro-aborts will not show you what an aborted embryo or fetus looks like.
Because that would undermine their moral stance.
The Abortion access website got the picture of the 5 week embryo correct, as well as the relative size. If you consider that it's probably 5 weeks, zero days.
At five week six days, the embryo looks much more human. Hand plates have begun to form. By seven weeks, the embryo looks distinctly human.
But we don't see pictures of abortions of seven week old embryos on the website. Or any other period subsequent to that.
Because then the aborted fetus could be visible.
In that sense, the website is deceptive, because it makes an abortion of a 5-week embryo appear to be representative of abortions of later periods.
And it's not.
Consider that with regards to surgical abortion, 5 weeks is the earliest a provider will undertake the procedure, because the embryo has to be big enough for him to see on the ultrasound and so that he can see what's he's doing.
Admittedly, for a manual vaccuum-aspiration abortion, it's possible to perform before 5 weeks, but not typical. A woman would have to know ahead of time she was going to be pregnant; then she would have to take the pregnancy test close to her period; then she would have to get the appointment at the abortion clinic as soon as possible for her appointment to be at the five-week mark.
Not impossible, but not likely, considering the wait times.
So the picture by itself can be misleading.
And the picture of the gestational sac is totally useless, as it does not reveal the inhabitant inside.
You also have to wonder what happened to all the blood. Abortions don't happen with some kind of bloodflow.
So once again, we have a case of a pro-abort not trying to show you the reality of abortion, but instead trying to mask it.
Abortion pictures are legion on the internet. Most types of abortions are represented. I've seen abortions from 7 weeks to well past the third trimester.
It appears that this pro-abort website only wants to present a small slice of abortion reality, one that isn't really relevant to the debate. Nobody's arguing over yolk sacs.
Not Guilty writes:
I can't say exactly where all those pictures are from but I know some are from miscarriages.
I don't know how she knows this.
But given that chemical abortions are becoming more common, the distinction between natural and induced miscarriages will become moot, as induced miscarriages look exactly like natural ones.
Not guilty writes:
Combat anti-choice fiction with fact. This is what a fetus looks like, not a person.
Strictly speaking, at 5 weeks, we're talking about an embryo.
Personhood is not a matter of looks. Throughout history, personhood has been denied based on appearances.
Personhood is based on the belief that all people have intrinsic worth. As this worth is intrinsic, it exists when a human being exists.
Human beings exist at conception.
Pictures of 1st trimester abortions can be found here.
