Departing pro-abort blog editor considers himself a "mid-wife"

12/10, 8:15a: There is interesting controversy raging in the comments section of this post on the age of the preborn baby whose ultrasound photo I displayed. On closer inspection, the age listed is likely off, but only by 1-2 weeks at most.

Here are photos of babies aborted at 7 weeks after fertilization from the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform and the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. (The top left coin is a Canadian nickel.)

abortion 7 week old baby.png

As you can see, we now know very young, very small babies (5 weeks: size of pea or raisin; 6 weeks: 1/2"; 7 weeks: 3/4") are remarkably developed. I've written CBR to ask if they have any photos of babies aborted at younger ages and will post those if so....

Alongside advanced pro-life abortion recognizance, advanced ultrasound technology corroborates just how developed these very young, very small preborn babies are. Here is a slide of ultrasound photos from a powerpoint presentation I prepared awhile ago that agrees with the aborted baby photos above. Click to enlarge...

embryo 7 weeks old.pngAll this aside, and as moderator Chris pointed out in a comment, pro-aborts show remarkable intellectual obtuseness, and box themselves into a corner, by attempting to debate at what level of a baby's development is acceptable to abort. Do they really want to go there?

12/09, 6:07p: The editor of the pro-abort blog RH Reality Check, both funded by Ted Turner, is leaving for greener pastures - hopefully - since his tenure at RH surely equated to the Great Dismal Swamp.

Scott Swenson, RH Reality check, abortion, Ted Turner.jpgThis was evidenced by Scott Swenson's parting words of wit and wisdom, so he thought, this afternoon...

Instead of specializing in 1 issue area, I've had the tremendous good fortune to work with leaders in 3. People helping to ease transitions out of physical life in the Death with Dignity movement; philanthropists working for equal rights no matter how we find love in this life, regardless of sexual or gender identity... and most recently with the fascinating world of sexual and reproductive health, how we transition into physical life....

So with homosexual rights sandwiched in the middle, Scott's foci have been how to expedite the suicides or killing of the old, young, and infirmed. But there's more...

I consider myself a mid-wife in this latest role, bringing RH Reality Check from concept to reality, knowing from the start I was to facilitate the process, then let nature takes its course. The gestation period was a little longer than anticipated, but as with any healthy delivery, the pain resulted in joy.

Except Scott only believes in letting gestational nature take its course when it comes to himself. But he sure is poetic. But there's more...

You never know who they will be when change begins, but the best teachers are the people you are with in the moment.

Well, that was deep. Or supposed to be deep. But ridiculous and fraudulent.

5 week old baby, abortion, scott swenson, rh reality check.jpgWhat if Scott were watching a baby move by ultrasound "in the moment"? What would that baby teach Scott? The ultrasound still, left, is of a 5-week-old preborn, of the age Scott unequivocally thinks can be aborted. What is that baby saying to you, Scott, "Please kill me"?

What if Scott were communicating with Terri Schiavo "in the moment"? Because she could do that. terri schiavo, scott swenson, rh reality check, death with dignity.jpgShe was responsive. What would Terry teach Scott? "Please kill me by the wonderfully dignified way of dehydration and starvation over the course of 13 long days"?

Surprisingly, Scott got a tad religious, opening and closing his fond farewell with words of Mahatma Gandhi, "Be the change you seek."

You know, Gandhi, the guy who preached total nonviolence.


Comments:

His whole site was a joke: Calling abortion rights and/or gay rights "reproductive health" would be comical if it wasn't so deadly. Both result in disease and death.

Posted by: Neil at December 9, 2009 6:21 PM


Hmm...I believe he wants to euthanize us all with a lethal dose of Toxic Irony: "RH Reality Check"??? He must have thought Cheech & Chong's Up In Smoke was a serious documentary on the benefits of prescribing medicinal marijuana...

Posted by: MEL at December 9, 2009 6:42 PM


Mrs. Stalin and Mrs. Hitler gave birth too. I'm not sure I get his point.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 9, 2009 6:56 PM


There's no way that's a 5 week "preborn." A 5 week embryo looks like this:

http://www.dcteensforlife.com/images/week5.jpg

Also, you've posted pictures of "Bethany's baby" at 6 weeks, which looks nothing like that.

But I know it's a common anti-choice trick to imply that the fetus in the picture is much younger than it really is, to make it seem more like an actual baby. If people saw real pictures of first trimester embryos--during which the vast majority of abortions occur--they'd realize there's nothing to get all that excited about.

It's also common for antis to use pictures of stillborn babies and claim they're photos of late-term abortions.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at December 9, 2009 7:01 PM


Be The Change You Seek.

Hmmmm. Is that like "Be the ball, Danny." from Caddyshack?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 7:08 PM


ashley I think Jill meant 5 months.
I think this was a typo.
Nevertheless, at 5 weeks this IS a human being. It is a unique developing individual, that, if nothing interferes with it, will continue developing in the same manner that at 5 month baby does, a 5 year old does and a 15 year old does.
It is merely a matter of development.
All the rudimentary systems are in place by 5 weeks.
Just because some women, including yourself find the presence of this very tiny human baby inconvenient does not give you the right to kill it.
This is something to get excited about - 1.5 million of these "nothings" are killed each year Ashley due to them being inconvenient.

Posted by: angel at December 9, 2009 7:29 PM


No, I meant 5 week old preborn. And I linked. Wiki concurs. Scroll down the right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

Posted by: Jill Stanek at December 9, 2009 7:44 PM


If people saw real pictures of first trimester embryos--during which the vast majority of abortions occur--they'd realize there's nothing to get all that excited about.Posted by: Ashley Herzog Posted by: Ashley Herzog at December 9, 2009 7:01 PM
____________________________________________________Well, yes, I saw my daughter's tiny heart beating on the sonogram at 7 weeks, then the ultrasound technician turned the sound up, and I HEARD her heartbeat...it WAS pretty exciting.

Posted by: Pamela at December 9, 2009 8:06 PM


Sounds like he is working on a resume to become an Obama Health Czar for Cost Effective medine.

Posted by: fishydude at December 9, 2009 8:18 PM


Posted by: Ashley Herzog at December 9, 2009 7:01 PM
--------

Ashley - whether it's 5 weeks or 5 months - does "time" have any bearing on what something is?

The picture you referred to depicts a human as much as the one Jill pointed to - after all that's your point - that the preborn are not human and may be killed?

If Level of development does have bearing on what we call human, who determines the bounds? Couldn't such arbitrariness be applied to you?

By denying the humanity of the unborn you're simply making an excuse to eliminate them.

Yet, using violent shredding force to kill innocent human beings is morally wrong.

If you disagree with that, then apparently you're okay with "might makes right" and thereby condone rape, murder and every other kind of malicious violence.

Are you willing to live with the consequences of such beliefs?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at December 9, 2009 9:10 PM


This was evidenced by Scott Swenson's parting words of wit and wisdom, so he thought, this afternoon...

"Instead of specializing in 1 issue area, I've had the tremendous good fortune to work with leaders in 3. People helping to ease transitions out of physical life in the Death with Dignity movement; philanthropists working for equal rights no matter how we find love in this life, regardless of sexual or gender identity... and most recently with the fascinating world of sexual and reproductive health, how we transition into physical life."


More evidence of the connection between the 'dead babies r us' mob and sexual perversion.

These folks share a common father/mother and a sympatico world view.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at December 9, 2009 9:19 PM


Posted by: Ashley Herzog at December 9, 2009 7:01 PM

"It's also common for antis to use pictures of stillborn babies and claim they're photos of late-term abortions."

------------------------------------------------------

A H,

Please do us all a favor and use some of your journalistic training and do a little bit of independent research.

Start at square one and ask the people who publish these photos to furnish you with the verifiable sources of the images.

Then disprove the accuracy of the photos and accompanying descriptions by doing your own leg work.

Do not insult us by regurgitating stuff cut and pasted from the 'dead babies r us' blogs and web sites.

Step outside in the brisk sub zero blizzard conditions generated by man made global warming and get the blood flowing in your brain, then maybe you will be able to actually think for yourself.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at December 9, 2009 9:31 PM


I concur with the ultrasound image error. Judging by the thickness of the umbilical cord in relation to the baby's size, and the size of the opening on the baby's skull (the shadowy triangle), the facial features, the angle of his elbows and knees... he's closer to 5 MONTHS.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at December 9, 2009 9:39 PM


Who cares how old the baby is. He or she (I can't tell the gender) is beautiful. :)

Gives such hope for the world that things really can improve. :)

Posted by: Vannah at December 9, 2009 9:50 PM


Ashley: "If people saw real pictures of first trimester embryos--during which the vast majority of abortions occur--they'd realize there's nothing to get all that excited about."

-- unless, you know, they understand reproductive biology, or somethin'. Good thing for you that many people don't, Ash...

Posted by: bmmg39 at December 9, 2009 10:13 PM


Cranky Catholic, go to the link that Jill gave in the article. The photo she gave is under the 5 weeks section on the MD's website.

Posted by: WI Catholic at December 9, 2009 11:46 PM


Ashley, another thing you have to keep in mind are the different ways of calculating gestational age. Some count from the first day of the mother's last period (LMP), others count from the time of fertilization, approx. 14 days later. Here's an embryo that is six weeks from fertilization and 8 from LMP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_Embryo_-_Approximately_8_weeks_estimated_gestational_age.jpg

The one you linked to looks to be more like 3 weeks from fertilization (or 5 weeks from LMP, which is where the figure they used comes from).

This could account for many discrepancies in appearance in the pictures, especially during those first three months, when the rate of embryonic growth is astoundingly fast. Don't attribute everything to pro-lifer's lies until you've done some research.

Either way, well before the end of 12 weeks, you have something that looks very much like a baby.

Posted by: Lori Pieper at December 10, 2009 12:03 AM


I went to the website, and I think the website admin is on crack.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at December 10, 2009 12:49 AM


Cranky Catholic, it's very hard to tell, but I think the notices of the age might actually refer to the videos BELOW them. But I don't know that this quite works out either.

At any rate, the headline on the page says they are all first trimester babies, so that eliminates the idea that it could be a five-month-old fetus.

Posted by: Lori Pieper at December 10, 2009 1:42 AM


The pictures below them, I mean.

Posted by: Lori Pieper at December 10, 2009 1:44 AM


Oops, the actual description of the gestational age as figured for the embryo I linked to is here, about halfway down the page on the right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

Posted by: Lori Pieper at December 10, 2009 1:49 AM


Hi, everybody!

When talking about unborn baby´s developement, I have some links in English.

First is an amazing video of unborn baby (4D ultrasound). It proves that an embryo at 8 weeks looks exactly like a tiny baby:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1uKCchuIjM&feature=player_embedded

If Ashley says that first trimester abortion is "nothing to get all that excited about", there are some first-trimester abortion videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk5YoumaX6I

http://herestheblood.com/

I know some pro-abortion people complained about it so I think that even they know there IS something to get excited about.

When it comes to late-term abortions, it´s logic that late-term aborted babies look exactly as prematurely born babies. This is the insanity of "choice" - when someone kills a 24-week-old premature baby in the NICU, it is murder and they´ll call him a "monster", but when somebody kills a 24-week-old preborn baby in the womb, it´s normal and they call him a "doctor". :-(

There are some stories about late-term aborted babies:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=16826

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/apr/05042504.html

http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/babyhope.htm

If unborn baby doesn´t look like a baby but like a "bump of cells", why are the pro-abortion people so afraid of modern ultrasounds? Why are they trying to ban them? (I read about British abortionist who said that 3D ultrasound photos and videos should NOT be published in the media.) Why did American abortionist Harrison Hickman (in 1989) say: "Nothing has been as damaging to our cause as the advances in technology which have allowed pictures of the developing fetus, because people now talk about that fetus in much different terms than they did fifteen years ago. They talk about it as a human being, which is not something that I have an easy answer how to cure." ???

I hope I haven´t made too much mistakes in my post. Greetings from Czech pro-life movement.

Posted by: Eva at December 10, 2009 2:56 AM


Thank you Eva, your post is beautiful -- and your English is very good. I pray some of the "pro-choice" people here have the courage to look at those videos.

Posted by: Lori Pieper at December 10, 2009 4:25 AM


Jill the picture I see of a 7 week baby is very different from the sonogram of the 5 week you have posted - your baby looks much older.
To me, the baby in the sonogram has fully formed legs and arms and a fully formed head with facial features (eyes shut). A 5 week baby has the hand and foot plates developing:

check out this video: http://www.ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=27


Where is the picture from?

Posted by: angel at December 10, 2009 5:31 AM


oh my apologies Jill. 5 weeks PREBORN.
Not, IMO, a good way to post this baby's age.

It took me two attempts to get this. :(

Posted by: angel at December 10, 2009 5:36 AM


Ashley,

The only problem with the arbitrary and capricious criteria that anti-lifers such as yourself use in determining who gets a shot at living out their natural life cycle is that the criteria are.... arbitrary and capricious.

The Catholic Bishops warned in the 60's and early 70's that if one could get away with this at the beginning of life, it wouldn't be long before they turned on the elderly and the infirm. A prescient group they were.

The truth is that all humans have intrinsic dignity. Our dignity isn't something that we grow into or out of. That used to be the bedrock philosophical principle of the liberal arts. It shows you just how corrosive abortion is to the pillars of civilization.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 10, 2009 6:52 AM


No, I meant 5 week old preborn. And I linked. Wiki concurs. Scroll down the right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

Posted by: Jill Stanek at December 9, 2009 7:44 PM

Please help me understand your terminology. What is a "5 week old preborn"?

From what I've been able to figure out, it sems like you're referring to a 5-week old PICTURE because the SUBJECT of the picture is - quite clearly and obviously - older than 5 weeks, whether the gestational age is measured from gestation or LMP.

Unfortunately, with a little more research, I found that even the age of your selected image is CONSIDERABLY older than 5 weeks. I copied the following text from the bottom of your page you link to:

last modified 09/02/07

This leaves me in a quandary. I am honestly trying to understand, but I just CAN'T find ANY measure of time under which EITHER the subject of the picture OR the picture itself can - realistically and/or logically - be truthfully considered to be 5 weeks old.

Perhaps, as has been suggested above, this was a typing error. If this is so, PLEASE CORRECT IT!

Without such correction, this error MIGHT be seen, by some, as evidence that you're stretching the truth here.

Also - unfortunate as it sounds - there seem to be a few commenters here that are ready to take ANY dissembling on the issue, including, perhaps your "correction" (quoted above) to be evidence of double-talk on your part.

You DON'T want to leave open THAT possibility, do you?

Posted by: chuck at December 10, 2009 7:34 AM


Hi all,

Regarding the age of the baby in the ultrasound I posted, I've written an update. See top of post.

Thanks.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at December 10, 2009 8:46 AM


Madam Stanek said:

There is interesting controversy raging in the comments section of this post on the age of the preborn baby whose ultrasound photo I displayed. On closer inspection, the age listed is likely off, but only by 1-2 weeks at most.

This is a GOOD TRY at an appropriate correction - it only leaves A LITTLE room for interpretation as double-speak and/or dissembling.

"age listed is likely off, but only by 1-2 weeks at most."

PLEASE - check with the owner of the website where this was found and find out HOW OLD the subject of this picture REALLY IS and STATE THAT AGE - CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY - or REMOVE text concerning the age of this subject.

I don't know where YOU grew up, but where I come from, when you say "...5 weeks...off by 1 to 2 weeks AT MOST.." that means SOMEWHERE in the range of three to seven weeks. Please feel free to correct my MATH if necessary.

From all appearances, as detailed above - this fetus is more like 20 weeks old. Last time I checked, 20 is WELL OUTSIDE the range of 3 - 7 weeks.

If the age of the fetus doesn't matter, DON'T be so blatantly and obviously WRONG about the age of the fetus in your selected picture - it's EMBARRASSING!

Posted by: chuck at December 10, 2009 10:37 AM


Chuck, you goof. 20 weeks? I note you ignored the aborted baby photos I posted, which corroborate, even more than the ultrasound shot, the advanced development of very young and small preborns. Let's talk about them, shall we?

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at December 10, 2009 11:11 AM


from the same site I linked to earlier for 7 weeks:

http://www.ehd.org/movies.php?mov_id=41

the developmental change in just two weeks in phenomenal.
There are 4D ultrasounds as well that you can click on - you will see them immediately upon loading the webpage Chuck.

Posted by: angel at December 10, 2009 4:44 PM


Amazing video, Angel, thanks.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at December 10, 2009 7:19 PM


Jill, you said "... the advanced development of very young and small preborns. Let's talk about them, shall we?"

YOU may speak about ANYTHING you'd like - it is, after all, YOUR BLOG.

MY current interest, and what I choose to speak about, is the question of the picture currently shown as second from the bottom in the body of this blog entry.

There are a number of questions about this picture. Allow me to ask the first couple rather quickly so we can get on to the meatier issues.

1. WHY was this particular sonogram selected for this article. Looking at the link attached to this photo, it does NOT strike me as a particularly good selection. For one thing, from the information available in the linked website, it is exceedingly difficult - Nah, let's just say it - IMPOSSIBLE to determine WHICH caption belongs with WHICH image. In addition - although Dr Layyous may not particularly care, and YOU apparently didn't - the photograph borrowed from this site is COPYRIGHTED - see right down there toward the bottom of the page:

"All data at this web site are copyright (c)
Designed and Programmed by Dr. Najeeb Layyous
P.O Box 830038 Zahran Post Office 11183 Amman-Jordan"

2. WHY, given the weakness of support from the linked website, did you make ANY claim concerning the gestational age of this subject?

3. Finally, WHAT did you feel you had to gain from asserting that this fetus was "5-weeks preborn" and then, only after great efforts made to get you to CHANGE this assertion, allow that "age listed is likely off, but only by 1-2 weeks at most."

Frankly, given your assertion that the age of the fetus is irrelevant, your dogged determination to stick to your declared story makes NO SENSE.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. There is AT LEAST ONE simple solution to this vexing question. A call to Dr Layyous to CONFIRM the gestational age of this subject would be realtively easy.

If, as I suspect might be the case, he simply says that you cannot use the image, it SHOULDN'T be too hard to find a more appropriate image - one with some DOCUMENTATION behind it.

Now, you'll have to forgive my insolence, but it would appear that the emphasis in this blog has been placed VERY DEEPLY into the "QUANTITY" end of the spectrum rather than the "QUALITY" end. After all, there have been 10 new blog entries since this one was thrown up mid-evening yesterday.

This quantitative overrabundance DOES NOT help your cause if it comes of the cost of, frankly, SLOPPY journalism such as that evidenced in this matter.

Posted by: chuck at December 10, 2009 9:39 PM


To Ashley Herzog:

So, if the human embryo does not look like a cute, cuddly newborn yet, then it's not human?

What if a boy had no arms or legs, a hump-back, and a disfigured face, but all the internal organs were present, and he had to be on a respirator, but was fully alert, normal, and healthy otherwise? Is this a person, an embryo, or his mother's "choice" whether to let him live?

Posted by: MEL at December 10, 2009 9:59 PM


"If people saw real pictures of first trimester embryos--during which the vast majority of abortions occur--they'd realize there's nothing to get all that excited about."

"It's also common for antis to use pictures of stillborn babies and claim they're photos of late-term abortions."

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at December 9, 2009 7:01 PM

You mean "nothing to get excited about" if the baby isn't wanted?
You're spouting an old wives tale. Do you have any PROOF that the photos of late-term abortions are not authentic?

Posted by: Janet at December 10, 2009 11:30 PM


Chuck,

Did you have gas or something when you wrote that post? Bro, you need to take some mylanta next time.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at December 11, 2009 12:43 AM


Posted by: chuck at December 10, 2009 9:39 PM
------

Chuck - if the photos/ultrasound images are real and verifiable - do they depict a human being?

Or are you saying they depict something else?

What would that be?

And don't say "a fetus" because that's clearly a stage of development of a human being. I've got lots of solid medical references on that fact.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at December 11, 2009 9:50 AM


In my opinion , the mother is the master of her non sentient creation's (unborn baby) destiny. SHe is fundametally connected to the fetus. It is physically part of her. The most logical statement I can make about it is this : She creates life, therefore she has the right to take it away (when it is still part of her).

Yes , the fetus is living, but is it "alive". Is it conscious? Does it love? Can it hate? No, it does not possess these qualities, nor is it aware of its own existence. No one can remember being a fetus. If one possessed consciousness, he would recall such times. A conscious being is self aware. Consciousness is the basis for higher life forms. reflex action is not the same as consciosness.

A fetus does not even fulfill the basic philosophical premise of "cogito ergo sum", the foundational premise for the existence of a sentient being. I think, therefore I am. CONSCIOUSNESS is the prime basis for true existance , not a clump of living structurized cells (that while a great marvel of organic engineering, is not glorious as youd think, not without consciousness).

Posted by: Noje at December 15, 2009 8:48 PM


My point is, basically because a fetus is not conscious , it does not qualified as a higher form of sentient life. Complex are its mechanical components. But with no consciousness (spirit), there is no glory.

You might respond by arguing, "but it cant remember its existance because its brain hasnt developed!" . THe answer is - however you try to justify its lack of consciousness, the fact remains that it is not conscious/self aware.

If you cannot accept the idea that self awareness is the ultimate prerequisite for sentient existence , then Im afraid we cannot proceed with rational discourse.

Posted by: noje at December 15, 2009 9:10 PM