4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days snubs and snobs

While pro-life themed Juno soared past the $100 million earnings mark this weekend, the critically acclaimed anti-life film 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days opened in just 2 theatres nationwide.

And while the The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences nominated Juno for Best Picture, it snubbed Sure Thing 4 Months (see below) for Best Foreign Film.

More evidence Hollywood has begun to bank on life? I think so.

You can't tell by the trailer what 4 Months is about, unless you have abortion on the brain, as I do. Wonder why they hid the sole topic of the movie, a mother's length of gestation before aborting:


MSM critics everywhere have been trying to pump life into 4 Months for several months. A New York Times critic named it the #1 movie of 2007. This week's People magazine gave 4 Months 4 stars and stamped it as its "Critic's Choice".

Awards for 4 Months are impressive: Cannes Film Festival Golden Palm, Golden Globe Awards 2007 Best Foreign Language Film, European Film Awards Best European Film, Hollywood Film Festival's Best Film, San Sebastian International Film Festival Film of the Year, Stockholm Film Festival Best Film, National Board of Review Top Five Foreign Films, Los Angeles Film Critics Association Best Foreign Film, Sight & Sound Films of 2007 Best Film, Chicago Film Critics Association Best Foreign Language Film, Toronto Film Critics Association Best Foreign Language Film, National Society of Film Critics Best Foreign Language Film, Australian Film Critics Association 2007 Best Overseas Film, yadda yadda yadda.

4%20months.jpgAnd yet the Academy snubbed it.

MSM critics are hot. Rolling Stone's Peter Travers said the snub was "one of the stupidest things that I've ever seen happen."

And Kenneth Turan of the LA Times, showing the height of snob snubbery himself, wrote, "if the foreign-language Oscar is going to be saved from becoming a laughing-stock, measures need to be taken to ensure that its choices are at least within hailing distance of what the rest of the informed film world thinks."

That's the problem. The "informed film world" has lost touch with what is a good movie, preferring the cinematic equivalent of crucifixes in urine, to true art.


Comments:

"Juno" is a pro-life film?

The screenwriter would disagree:

Topstory interview with Diablo Cody:

The movie Juno makes some powerful suggestions regarding pregnancy and against abortion. What you're take?

DC: I had one image in my mind when I wrote this. That was of Juno sitting across from Mark and Vanessa Loring being polar opposites to her, and then having to audition to adopt her baby. To me, that was the movie right there. It was a weird image, and I couldn't have gotten that if she had an abortion. She had to have the baby in order for me to execute the story.

It's hard, Jason and I wanted to make the movie as personal as we could rather than political. Juno never moralizes about the choice she makes. We never get a speech like, "I can't kill my baby." I'm pro-choice, so for me it was very important that the movie not seem to have any kind of anti-choice agenda. Um, but when she's in the abortion clinic, I think of myself as a teenager. I was kinda this anxious, phobic little kid, and I was afraid to have blood drawn. I would have freaked out if I was about to get an abortion!

Posted by: FetusFascist at January 28, 2008 10:11 AM


Oh Laura, so predictable.

Posted by: Bethany at January 28, 2008 10:33 AM


Juno really wasn't pro life or pro choice though, if you watch the movie. Both sides are essentially portrayed as either imbeciles or jerks.

Posted by: Dan at January 28, 2008 10:38 AM


You know, you don't have to agree with a movie to realize it's artistic value. There are many movies that are phenomenal, but have limited releases. "Brick", for example, was wonderful, but most of you have probably never heard of it. It was a small, low budget indie film. ALso, it's a foreign film, and there's a rather limited audience for foreign flims in the US. I think one of the most powerful movies I ever saw was called "Downfall", it was entirely in German, and I had to go downdown in Atlanta to see it, and it was a profile of Hilter's last days in his bunker. It somehow portrayed all of the characters in an empathetic, yet terrifying light. It allowed to you see how convinced that these people were that they were truly doing good, and to what desperately sick measures that belief could drive them. One woman, for example, killed her six children, then herself, because she'd rather kill them than have them live in a world without Hitler's government. She truly loved her children and wanted what was best for him- but she had a perverse and twisted view on what that was.

You don't have to agree with what a film portrays to recognize it as powerful and moving.

Posted by: Erin at January 28, 2008 10:54 AM


Well I haven't watched it myself, but I think the point is that the movie portrayed abortion as a negative choice, while it portrayed adoption as a life affirming, positive choice. The baby was considered. This is why we consider it a pro-life themed movie. Not because it is produced by a pro-life person, or anything like that.

Posted by: Bethany at January 28, 2008 10:54 AM


Bethany, but those seen as the "pro-life" side in the movie were shown as fairly unintelligent/indoctinated (the little girl outside the clinic saying the baby had fingernails) or a jerk (the woman who performed the ultrasound). Those on the pro choice side were shown in similar bad lights. It was done to emphasize Juno's contrast from everyone else, and to show she isn't a typical person, but a unique individual who doesnt fit into either category.

Posted by: Dan at January 28, 2008 11:04 AM


Dan, the girl outside the clinic was so stupid she said the right words to save Juno's baby.

You also said, "Juno really wasn't pro life or pro choice though, if you watch the movie."

Dan, she didn't abort. It was a pro-life movie.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at January 28, 2008 11:40 AM


Jill, you know as well as I, if you watched the movie, that the fetus having fingernails had absolutely nothing to do with Juno's deciscion. She was anxious and didnt like the environment.


Not aborting =/= prolife. Remember, pro choice isnt pro abortion, though you adamantly say otherwise.

She didnt like the pro-lifers either. Once again, look at the big contradiction with the woman who performs the ultrasound. She completely dismissed the girl outside the clinic, who it seems she knew from school.

Both sides were shown in a bad light. Im (grudgingly) going have to go with Laura on this. Its a story that was come up with to be a film, not to be political. Both sides were shown in bad lights. Not to mention, you cant exactly ignore the director's intent when someone puts it word for word in front of you unless you want to be ignorant about the motivation.

It was about a teenager's personal story, nothing more, nothing less. She was shown coldness and was stereotyped by both sides. She didn't like either of them. Come on now, Juno is an amazing character for the reason that she doesn't fit into any one group. She isn't an outcast, yet isn't fully incorporated. She's neither pro-life nor pro-choice. It seems shes a mix of both. As much as you wish to claim it as so, Juno is not a pro-life victory, unless you want to accept the idea as the pro-life side being indoctrinated, seemingly unintelligent, and cold towards teen mothers.

Posted by: Dan at January 28, 2008 11:49 AM


http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/89B645323FA2ABF2882573DE005C3358/$file/0516971.pdf?openelement

Jill, your side wins one in the 9th Circuit. And appropriately, in my opinion.

Posted by: Hal at January 28, 2008 11:49 AM


Dan, did you and I watch the same movie? Suddenly in the waiting room Juno saw and heard fingernails everywhere. There were close-ups of other women's fingernails. There was the heightened sound of scratching. After observing all this, she ran out of the mill. Sheesh.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at January 28, 2008 12:02 PM


In an environment where she was already anxious and mistreated.

Posted by: Dan at January 28, 2008 12:04 PM


The trailer's theme seem to point out the need for legalized baby murder.

That's like saying, if we wanted to have someone murdered and hire a hit man, it would be better to legalize murder.

ABORTION IS ALWAYS WRONG, EVERY TIME, EVERY WHERE, IN EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE, NO MATTER WHO DOES IT.

Posted by: HisMan at January 28, 2008 12:07 PM


It allowed to you see how convinced that these people were that they were truly doing good, and to what desperately sick measures that belief could drive them.

Awww...sounds something like the PC argument to me. Such a fitting comparison, Erin..thank you.

Posted by: Elizabeth at January 28, 2008 12:38 PM


Indeed, HisMan. Indeed.

Posted by: Carla at January 28, 2008 12:38 PM



You don't have to agree with what a film portrays to recognize it as powerful and moving.

Posted by: Erin at January 28, 2008 10:54 AM

The Academy saw it but didn't find it powerful and moving.

Posted by: hippie at January 28, 2008 1:21 PM



Not aborting =/= prolife. Remember, pro choice isnt pro abortion, though you adamantly say otherwise.

Posted by: Dan at January 28, 2008 11:49 AM

Are you saying pro abortion folks spend as much or more of their own money helping women choose life as they do helping them choose abortion? Because if the $ are not equal, the commitment is not equal.

If all the $ go to promote abortion access then all the commitment is to abortion.

Posted by: hippie at January 28, 2008 1:27 PM


Hippie, awesome point. Thanks!

Dan, how far along was Juno in the movie, when she went to the abortion clinic?

Posted by: Bethany at January 28, 2008 1:34 PM


hippie- I haven't had too much respect for the Academy in recent years. But then, that's just me.

Also, independent films tend to get next to no recognition by the Academy. Just the way it is.

(Seriously, though, Brick is one of the most fantastic movies I've ever seen. I'd highly recommend anyone rent it.)

Posted by: Erin at January 28, 2008 1:45 PM


Bethany, I dont think it gives specifics in terms of time period in the movie. She does dehumanize it though, at least when she first meets the adoptive parents (all in jest of course). I think shes just far enough along where it registers on the pregnancy tests. She takes something like 3 in one day to be sure shes pregnant. After that theres a short period of time and then she enters the clinic. Shes still not at the point where you can physically tell shes pregnant, I know that much, but its been a couple weeks since ive watched it.


and hippie, money is put in to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which is what a majority of abortions tend to be, as well as towards pushing for comprehensive sex ed. In the end I think that would then result in more people being ready as well as choosing to continue the pregnancy.

Posted by: Dan at January 28, 2008 2:06 PM


Bethany, I dont think it gives specifics in terms of time period in the movie. She does dehumanize it though, at least when she first meets the adoptive parents (all in jest of course). I think shes just far enough along where it registers on the pregnancy tests. She takes something like 3 in one day to be sure shes pregnant. After that theres a short period of time and then she enters the clinic. Shes still not at the point where you can physically tell shes pregnant, I know that much, but its been a couple weeks since ive watched it.

Okay. Well the fetus does have fingernails from about the 9th week, and before that the heart is already beating and there are fingers and toes, so I really wouldn't consider that girl uneducated for saying the baby has fingernails.

Most women don't even find out they're pregnant until they're about 6-7 weeks along. And the most commonly performed abortions are at 11-12 weeks gestation, when the baby can already suck it's thumb. so I wouldn't find it difficult to believe at all. Especially after seeing my fourth baby from my miscarriage, complete with little fingers and toes at only 6 weeks gestation.

Posted by: Bethany at January 28, 2008 2:15 PM


Dan, she didn't abort. It was a pro-life movie.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at January 28, 2008 11:40 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the movie "Spartacus," Kirk Douglas never had an abortion.
It must be a pro-life movie.

Posted by: FetusFascist at January 28, 2008 2:25 PM


Erin, I agree with you on "Downfall," although I'm a big fan of Julia Jentsch and wished she had a bigger role.

Posted by: Phil at January 28, 2008 2:28 PM


In the movie "Spartacus," Kirk Douglas never had an abortion.
It must be a pro-life movie.

WOW! Was Kirk Douglas pregnant?

Posted by: Bethany at January 28, 2008 2:32 PM


And the most commonly performed abortions are at 11-12 weeks gestation, when the baby can already suck it's thumb. so I wouldn't find it difficult to believe at all. Especially after seeing my fourth baby from my miscarriage, complete with little fingers and toes at only 6 weeks gestation.

Bethany, no big deal here, but I think most abortions are prior to 11 or 12 weeks.

The figures I have are 59% being done prior to 9 weeks, 19% being done at 9-10 weeks, and 10% at 11-12 weeks, all figures since last menstrual period.

It's roughly two weeks difference between the LMP age and the actual post-fertilization age, isn't it? Thus, most abortions would be done prior to the embryo being 7 weeks along in gestation.

How'd you see fingers and toes? Not arguing here, just asking - I though the embryo was about the size of a kidney bean at that point.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at January 28, 2008 2:36 PM


Jeeeeeez...

It's like saying "Godfather II" or "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" were pro-choice movies because they both had abortions in them.
You missed the whole point.

Posted by: FetusFascist at January 28, 2008 2:42 PM


Dan, you could be right about that, but still,at 9 weeks the fingernails are still present. So either way, she would have been potentially correct.

I guess you never did see my pictures of Blessing. I've posted them many times here but you only recently started posting again, so I will show them to you. Just to give you a little background, in February, I went to the doctor, just expecting a routine ultrasound. I was expecting to tell the kids that they were going to have a baby brother or sister. Then, the devastating news was told to me when they did the ultrasound- "I can't find a heartbeat". They told me that the baby had died and that I would miscarry soon. They said the baby had died at about 6 weeks gestation.

I went home, and for a week cried and waited for the baby to come. When the baby did come, I took these pictures to remember the baby by.
I was amazed, even having seen fetal pictures all over the internet before...somehow,seeing it in real life was just an unbelievable experience.

Here are the pictures:
This is a jewelry box, and a sandwich bag... the baby was the size of a lima bean. Very, very tiny:

http://www.preciousinfants.com/babyblessing111.jpg

Closeup of the baby:
http://www.preciousinfants.com/babyblessingtwo.jpg

In my hand:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/bethanyf.jpg

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/bethanyd.jpg

The baby's hands, closeup:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/babyblessing2%20%282%29.jpg

More:

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/bethanyf.jpg

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/bethanyc.jpg

Posted by: Bethany at January 28, 2008 2:52 PM


Just to let you know, the pictures where you see the baby actually sitting in my hand, you cannot see the detail as much because the baby is out of the amniotic fluid. As soon as I put the baby in a bag of water, it was almost as if it came alive.
That is how I buried the baby too..we buried Blessing under 5 Weeping willow trees.

Posted by: Bethany at January 28, 2008 2:56 PM


Dan, 11:49A.M.,

"Both sides were shown in a bad light. Im (grudgingly) going have to go with Laura on this. Its a story that was come up with to be a film, not to be political. Both sides were shown in bad lights. Not to mention, you cant exactly ignore the director's intent when someone puts it word for word in front of you unless you want to be ignorant about the motivation."

"It was about a teenager's personal story, nothing more, nothing less. She was shown coldness and was stereotyped by both sides. She didn't like either of them. Come on now, Juno is an amazing character for the reason that she doesn't fit into any one group. She isn't an outcast, yet isn't fully incorporated. She's neither pro-life nor pro-choice. It seems shes a mix of both. As much as you wish to claim it as so, Juno is not a pro-life victory, unless you want to accept the idea as the pro-life side being indoctrinated, seemingly unintelligent, and cold towards teen mothers."


Dan, You keep bringing up politics in your arguments. Abortion is first and foremost a moral issue. It has become politicized due to the intensity of the debate and various motives of politicians. God expects that we will defend on the side of life always, regardless of what governments are saying, or the law of the land. I don't think you can be a mix of pro-life and pro-choice and call yourself anything but pro-choice, or pro-abortion for that matter (I know you don't agree).

Regarding Juno, Although I haven't seen the movie yet, but that said, I have read several interviews of Diablo Cody and notice that her responses vary a bit depending on who she's talking to. I think she's playing it very smart by intentionally not taking sides. She's got both sides talking about abortion on many levels. I think there is a message here beyond just " a teenager's personal story, nothing more, nothing less".

Posted by: Anonymous2 at January 28, 2008 3:25 PM


Bethany,

I love seeing the pictures of little Blessing. Thanks for sharing. There's nothing like the truth.

Posted by: Elizabeth at January 28, 2008 3:29 PM


Bethany,

Your baby is precious. Thanks for sharing your pictures. God bless you and your family.

Posted by: Anonymous2 at January 28, 2008 3:32 PM


Bethany,
I agree with Elizabeth. I love seeing Blessing too!
I just love the tiny fingers and toes. Sweet baby.

Posted by: Carla at January 28, 2008 3:33 PM


Thank you, Bethany. Excellent pictures. I know it's an intensely personal thing for you.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at January 28, 2008 4:09 PM


Thanks so much for the kind words, everyone. :)

Posted by: Bethany at January 28, 2008 4:59 PM


Dan,

No offense, but can you translate what you wrote. I can't tell what you are saying here:

and hippie, money is put in to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which is what a majority of abortions tend to be, as well as towards pushing for comprehensive sex ed. In the end I think that would then result in more people being ready as well as choosing to continue the pregnancy.

Posted by: Dan at January 28, 2008 2:06 PM

So what is the "choice" contraceptives or abortion or continuing or what? We are still talking no money for women who need support to continue an unplanned pregnancy. I call it pro abortion cuz all the money goes to support access to abortion and none to help women continue a pregnancy. I am not against contraceptives, but once you are pregnant, they are not one of your choices. All contraceptives can fail which is why my brother has four kids, all from contraceptive failure.

Are you going to tell the lady that while you won't help her out with diapers and furniture and parenting classes and counseling and a GED class and baby clothes and so on, but you will help with contraceptive education so she doesn't get pregnant again even though she was using contraceptives when she got pregnant with this one.

Think about what you are saying. Pregnant women need tangible help, love, support, commitment, not just a fact sheet about contraceptives and a pack of pills.

Posted by: hippie at January 28, 2008 5:15 PM


I misunderstood what you had been saying, my apologies.

The prochoice organizations typically support doing whatever possible to avoid the pregnancy to begin with, meaning comprehensive sex ed, contraception, etc as I already mentioned. As for that, it typically ends there leaving it to the woman to decide, rather than the organization, whether she wishes to continue the pregnancy or not.

I agree more needs to be done in order to help pregnant women, but it is a touchy issue and will be difficult to legislate or appropriate funds to, etc.

hippie, as for your brother, thats a bad bout of bad luck, or improper use of the contraceptives. I'm sure, however (or at least hope) he enjoys the children he does have and counts them among his blessings.

Posted by: Dan at January 28, 2008 6:23 PM


I agree more needs to be done in order to help pregnant women, but it is a touchy issue and will be difficult to legislate or appropriate funds to, etc.

It's not nearly as touchy an issue as abortion, yet the pro-choice organizations aren't afraid legislate and appropriate funds towards that, are they?

It wouldn't be any harder for pro-choicers to donate to pregnant women's shelters, and other charities for pregnant women and mothers, than to donate to their local Planned Parenthood.

They simply choose not to because choosing life is not what they support in reality. Not even half the time.

Not only do they not help women in need, but they strongly discourage pregnant women and young mothers from visiting CPC's where they could be provided with free clothing, shelter, food, baby clothes, diapers, formula, transportation, referrals to support groups and other resources that are available throughout their area. They slander CPC's with no evidence against them except for unsubstantiated claims from the abortion industry. All of this, because the woman may be exposed to another option besides abortion.

In theory, pro-choice people desire options. In practice, they desire abortions.

Posted by: Bethany at January 28, 2008 7:20 PM


When I read my comment again, that question at the top kind of gives the impression that I am being snappy through the whole post, but I promise I didn't mean any of that in a snappy way. Just wanted to clarify.

Posted by: Bethany at January 28, 2008 7:22 PM


Monday, July 17, 2006
Public Health
Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers Mislead Teens about Abortion Risks

A new study released by Rep. Henry A. Waxman finds that federally funded pregnancy resource centers often mislead pregnant teens about the medical risks of abortion, telling investigators who posed as pregnant 17-year-olds that abortion leads to breast cancer, infertility, and mental illness.

87 percent of the centers reached by investigators provided false or misleading information about abortion. Under the Bush Administration, pregnancy resource centers, which are also called “crisis pregnancy centers,” have received over $30 million in federal funding. The new report assesses the scientific accuracy of the information they provide. Female investigators, who posed as pregnant 17-year-olds seeking advice about an unintended pregnancy, telephoned the 25 pregnancy resource centers that have received capacity-building funds from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Twenty of the 23 centers reached by the investigators (87%) provided false or misleading information about the health effects of abortion. According to the report:

The centers provided false and misleading information about a link between abortion and breast cancer. There is a medical consensus that induced abortion does not cause an increased risk of breast cancer. Despite this consensus, eight centers told the caller that having an abortion would in fact increase her risk. One center said that “all abortion causes an increased risk of breast cancer in later years," while another told the caller that an abortion would “affect the milk developing in her breasts” and that the risk of breast cancer increased by as much as 80% following an abortion.
The centers provided false and misleading information about the effect of abortion on future fertility. Abortions in the first trimester, using the most common abortion procedure, do not pose an increased risk of infertility. However, seven centers told the caller that having an abortion could hurt her chances of having children in the future. One center said that damage from abortion could lead to “many miscarriages” or to “permanent damage” so “you wouldn’t be able to carry,” telling the caller that this is “common” and happens “a lot.”
The centers provided false and misleading information about the mental health effects of abortion. Research shows that significant psychological stress after an abortion is no more common than after birth. However, thirteen centers told the caller that the psychological effects of abortion are severe, long-lasting, and common. One center said that the suicide rate in the year after an abortion “goes up by seven times.” Another center said that post-abortion stress suffered by women having abortions is “much like” that seen in soldiers returning from Vietnam and “is something that anyone who’s had an abortion is sure to suffer from.”

Documents and Links
False and Misleading Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers (107 KB)

Posted by: FetusFascist at January 28, 2008 8:45 PM


Bethany: "Kudos" to you for sharing the pictures of Blessing. I know it takes a lot of courage to do that, and hopefully you were able to open some eyes, minds and hearts by doing so.

Posted by: Mike at January 28, 2008 8:49 PM


Bethany, I dont think it gives specifics in terms of time period in the movie. She does dehumanize it though, at least when she first meets the adoptive parents (all in jest of course). I think shes just far enough along where it registers on the pregnancy tests. She takes something like 3 in one day to be sure shes pregnant. After that theres a short period of time and then she enters the clinic. Shes still not at the point where you can physically tell shes pregnant, I know that much, but its been a couple weeks since ive watched it.

Okay. Well the fetus does have fingernails from about the 9th week, and before that the heart is already beating and there are fingers and toes, so I really wouldn't consider that girl uneducated for saying the baby has fingernails.

Most women don't even find out they're pregnant until they're about 6-7 weeks along. And the most commonly performed abortions are at 11-12 weeks gestation, when the baby can already suck it's thumb. so I wouldn't find it difficult to believe at all. Especially after seeing my fourth baby from my miscarriage, complete with little fingers and toes at only 6 weeks gestation.

Posted by: Bethany at January 28, 2008 2:15 PM
...................................

I miscarried a 12 week fetus. I didn't see anything but a glob of tissue. Were you allowed to, or did someone remove all of the surrounding tissue and blood for your examination? I'm curious because I have never heard of such a thing as the webbing between the fingers and toes doesn't dissolve until 16 weeks gestation. Not to mention that a 6 weeker is about the size of a raisin. Was a microscope employed to help you see these fingers and toes? I don't understand how you could have seen what you say you did.

Posted by: Sally at January 28, 2008 8:59 PM


Don't you see the fingers and toes in the pictures, Sally? You don't have to understand to see them. Just look.

Posted by: Carla at January 28, 2008 9:45 PM


Laura, same old unsubstantiated claims. I'm sorry.

Mike, thank you. :) That is my hope, as well.

I miscarried a 12 week fetus. I didn't see anything but a glob of tissue. Were you allowed to, or did someone remove all of the surrounding tissue and blood for your examination? I'm curious because I have never heard of such a thing as the webbing between the fingers and toes doesn't dissolve until 16 weeks gestation. Not to mention that a 6 weeker is about the size of a raisin. Was a microscope employed to help you see these fingers and toes? I don't understand how you could have seen what you say you did.

Thank you for asking, Sally. I appreciate the way you have worded your questions to me.

In answer to your question, I made a decision after finding out about the baby's death, to miscarry naturally. If you choose to have the D & C, you will not be allowed to have the remains after it is overwith, and I couldn't bear to have my baby disposed of as medical waste.
(Also, I didn't want to damage my cervix. I want to have more babies in the future)

I waited a week after the doctors told me that I would miscarry. Each day, I hoped that the baby would really be alive and well but that hope quickly faded as I started to see blood every day when I went to the bathroom.

Then, when I was sleeping, I woke at 2:00 in the morning to a feeling like blood was gushing out of me. I knew it was time.

I rushed to the bathroom. I felt as though something was coming out.. I grabbed a bucket that was full of soap and poured the soap out of them. I used the bucket to deliver the baby, as I didn't want to miss it by sitting on the toilet.

I looked into the bucket, and the first thing I saw was a blood clot. Not having ever experienced this before, I assumed this must be the baby. But it wasn't. I looked down again and I saw the baby. It was the size of a lima bean, and there were eyes, a mouth, little fingers and toes. I felt overwhelmed and started trembling from the shock of it all.

The strangest part of this all was, that there was not much blood at this part. I think that when I felt the gushing, it was not blood. It was my water breaking. This is why the baby was separate from the amniotic sac.

I placed the baby on my hand, and stared for what seemed like hours. I was alone, and everything was silent. It was just me and my baby. It was very surreal.

It came to me that I had decided to take pictures of the baby, and I ran and got the camera. My hands were still trembling so hard that it was difficult to get a good shot. I stood very close to the light in the bathroom so that the picture would be bright enough to turn out.

After taking a few pictures, I placed the baby on top of a little bag of cotton that was in a tiny coffin (wooden jewerly box) that I had prepared for Blessing.

The next day, I placed the baby in a bag full of water. To my astonishment, the baby appeared to 'come alive'. It was SO tiny. So unbelievably tiny. Yet, unmistakingly human. I was overwhelmed with awe. I remember standing there and gazing at my baby for what seemed like hours before my family woke up.

I got the camera out, and held the bag up to the light so I could get some pictures. I didn't want to ever forget.

I didn't need a microscope, because although the baby was very tiny, you could still see everything with the naked eye.

I promise you, you can trust that I am telling the truth. I saw it with my own eyes.

Posted by: Bethany at January 28, 2008 9:52 PM


Sally, just to let you know, cause I know you will ask. Yes, there was a lot of bleeding afterwards. But it was like a period, but really heavy (sorry for the extra information). The placenta came out...and the sac, after the baby did. I bled for about 3 weeks, I believe. Although I can't remember the exact period of time.

Posted by: Bethany at January 28, 2008 9:54 PM


Laura, same old unsubstantiated claims. I'm sorry.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Google "Waxman crisis pregnancy" All of the transcripts are available.

http://reform.democrats.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1080

Posted by: FetusFascist at January 29, 2008 12:00 AM


Henry Waxman is a pro-abortion liar, and all of his "facts" are lies, laura. I have not seen one objective source yet.

As for the Abortion Breast cancer link, 29 out of 41 worldwide studies show a link between breast cancer and abortion. 13 out of 16 US studies show a link between Breast Cancer and abortion. If anyone is being misleading, it is Henry A Waxman.
http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com

Those studies that show a statistically significant link between abortion and breast cancer are as follows:

M. Segi et al., “An epidemiological study on cancer in Japan,” GANN 48
(Suppl) (1957): 1–63; L. Rosenberg et al., “Breast cancer in relation to the occurrence
and time of induced and spontaneous abortion,” Am J Epidemiol 127 (1988): 981–89; H.
L. Howe et al., “Early abortion and breast cancer risk among women under age 40,” Int
J Epidemiol 18 (1989): 300–4; A. E. Laing et al., “Breast cancer risk factors in African-
American women: The Howard University Tumor Registry experience,” J Natl Med Assoc
85 (1993): 931–39; A. E. Laing et al., “Reproductive and lifestyle factors for breast cancer
in African-American women,” Genet Epidemiol 11 (1994): A300; J. R. Daling et al., “Risk
of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortions,” J Natl Cancer
Inst 86 (1994): 1584–92; J. R. Daling et al., “Risk of breast cancer among white women
following induced abortion,” Am J Epidemiol 144 (1996): 373–80; P.A. Newcomb et al.,
“Pregnancy termination in relation to risk of breast cancer,” JAMA 275 (1996): 283–87;
J. R. Palmer et al., “Induced abortion in relation to risk of breast cancer (United States),”
Cancer Causes Control 8 (1997): 841–49; F. Nishiyama, “The epidemiology of breast cancer in
Tokushima prefecture,” shikoku Ichi 38 (1982): 333–43 (in Japanese); M. G. Le et al., “Oral
contraceptive use and breast or cervical cancer: preliminary results of a French case-control
study,” in Hormones and Sexual Factors in Human Cancer Aetiology, ed. J. P. Wolff and J. S. Scott
(Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1984), 139–47; L. Lipworth et al., “Abortion and the risk of breast
cancer: a case-control study in Greece,” Int J Cancer 61 (1995): 181–84; M. A. Rookus and
F. E. van Leeuwen, “Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias
in a Dutch case-control study,” J Natl Cancer Inst 88 (1996): 1759–64; L. Bu et al., “Risk
of breast cancer associated with induced abortion in a population at low risk of breast
cancer,” Am J Epidemiol 141 (1995): S85 (abstract 337); R. Talamini et al., “The role of
reproductive and menstrual factors in cancer of the breast before and after menopause,”
Eur J Cancer 32A (1996): 303–10; E. Luporsi (1988), in N. Andrieu et al.,
“Familial risk, abortion and their interactive effect on the risk of breast cancer: a combined
analysis of six case-control studies,” Br J Cancer 72 (1995): 744–51; T. E. Rohan (1988) in
Andrieu et al. (1995).

Posted by: Bethany at January 29, 2008 6:43 AM


Henry A Waxman on the issues

* Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
* Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
* Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
* Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)

Posted by: Bethany at January 29, 2008 8:04 AM


Sally:

Was a microscope employed to help you see these fingers and toes?

I'm sorry, Sally, I forgot to answer this question.

I had a digital camera (Canon PowerShot A550) which had a macro option on it, so I could take closeups. This is why I was able to zoom closely and largely magnify the size of the baby in the pictures. The baby was roughly about this long and this wide, in reality:

***********
***********
***********

Posted by: Bethany at January 29, 2008 8:20 AM


Woman's Right to Know
Characteristics of the
Unborn Child
Growth and Development
12 Weeks Gestationfetus gestation 12 weeks

* The neck is present and the face well formed.
* The eyelids close and will reopen at about 24 weeks.
* Tooth buds appear.
* The arms and legs move.
* All body parts and organs are present.
* The fibers that carry pain to the brain are developed; however, it is unknown if the unborn child is able to experience sensations such as pain.
* Definitive signs of male and female gender are present.
* A heartbeat can be heard with electronic devices.
* The length is about 2 to 3 inches.

© 2003 Texas Department of Health. All rights reserved. Photos: Lennart Nilsson / Albert Bonniers Forlag AB, A Child Is Born, Dell Publishing Company. Used by permission.

Posted by: mk at January 29, 2008 8:44 AM


Posted by: mk at January 29, 2008 8:50 AM


Doug,

Note number 6 on the list...

* The fibers that carry pain to the brain are developed; however, it is unknown if the unborn child is able to experience sensations such as pain.

This is at 12 weeks...unknown is good enough for me. It means it's possible. It means that a 12 week old fetus might be able to...SUFFER.

Posted by: mk at January 29, 2008 8:53 AM


Good morning, MK, and excellent points. :)

Posted by: Bethany at January 29, 2008 9:15 AM


Good Morning Bethany,

I see Laura is in fine form today...lol.

Posted by: mk at January 29, 2008 9:21 AM


oh yes, as usual. lol

Posted by: Bethany at January 29, 2008 9:23 AM


Did you have a good weekend? :) My husband and I were just playing the mandolin and guitar all weekend. I built up the callouses on my fingertips again. lol It's been a while!

Posted by: Bethany at January 29, 2008 9:34 AM


* The fibers that carry pain to the brain are developed; however, it is unknown if the unborn child is able to experience sensations such as pain.

This is at 12 weeks...unknown is good enough for me. It means it's possible. It means that a 12 week old fetus might be able to...SUFFER.

MK, it's only partially true, at best. Some such "fibers" maybe in existence but the connections to the conscious area of the brain are not made until well into the weeks in the 20s.

The fibers mentioned may be necessary for pain perception but they are not sufficient for it.

Posted by: Doug at January 30, 2008 2:18 PM


My husband and I were just playing the mandolin and guitar all weekend.

Bethany, sounds great, and I love a mandolin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y4NTXT96EM

Talk about shedding a fear tears....

Posted by: Doug at January 30, 2008 2:24 PM


Yeah that song makes me cry every time. I think I'll learn to play that one on the mandolin sometime.

Here are some videos of me and my hubby playing for fun, if you're interested:
http://bethany.preciousinfants.com/2008/01/28/me-and-hubby-this-weekend.aspx

Posted by: Bethany at January 31, 2008 8:03 AM


The fibers mentioned may be necessary for pain perception but they are not sufficient for it.

But then again, you don't really know that for sure.

Posted by: Bethany at January 31, 2008 8:23 AM


Bethany, ha! You're pretty GOOD on that mandolin. I work with an old boy who lives up on a ridge in the West Virginia panhandle, and I've been up to his place a couple times for some pickin' - I don't play anything but it makes me want to.

On the fibers and pain perception, we've certainly been around and around on it, and yes - I cannot prove there's no pain perception, but again - there isn't any good reason to think it necessarily is there, especially before some parts of the brain get developed, connected, and operational enough.

I feel that even with the "not being sure," it's outweighed by the fact that some women won't want to be pregnant, and there we are sure.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at January 31, 2008 9:02 AM


Thanks, Doug :)

Posted by: Bethany at January 31, 2008 9:55 AM


I'm actually a little surprised here. I read a review of this movie over at christianitytoday.com and it got me pretty excited that it existed. This part of CT writer, Peter T. Chattaway's, review particularly interested me:



"What's more, the final part of the film, which deals with the disposal of the aborted fetus, confronts the viewer with the procedure's bloody aftermath, and underscores how even Gabita feels obliged to ask Otilia to bury the child, rather than throw it away.

The only difference legalization would have made to this aspect of their experience is that someone else, such as a hospital staff member, would have been able to take care of the disposal. The women themselves would not have had to behold the results, but the fetus-- seen in a tight close-up that made the audience I saw the film with gasp-- would still have met the same fate. The film is so bold in portraying this reality that Jeffrey Wells, a movie blogger not known for his conservatism, praised the film, saying it affected him strongly. Wells wrote that he had helped two former girlfriends get abortions decades ago, 'so I know a little bit about what it feels like peripherally (and a little bit psychologically), but I've never felt so immersed in the hard particulars of grappling with the reality of getting an abortion until catching this film. I didn't just feel moved and shaken-- I felt changed after it was over.'

Wells also called it 'the most persuasive anti-abortion argument in any form I've ever heard, seen or read,'..."

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm just happy to hear that the brutality and turmoil of the procedure was actually portrayed openly and honestly.

Posted by: Natalie at January 31, 2008 8:10 PM