Have you ever wondered what fetal tissue actually looks like in the early stages of pregnancy? Poppy Noor got hold of some pictures from the MYA network and apparently it looks vaguely like a jellyfish. Here's a picture showing tissue at nine weeks:
It doesn't really look all that human, does it?
Seems at odds with the likes of: https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302
There is no scale on those Mayo drawings.
“ This is everything that would be removed during an abortion and includes the nascent embryo, which is not easily discernible to the naked eye.”
It’s interesting. Most of the people who have abortions might not really be interested in democrats otherwise.
“The Times/Siena poll also asked a 2024 trial heat question pitting Biden against Trump. This showed the same pattern: college-educated voters favored Biden by 20 points, while working voters preferred Trump by 16 points. Keep in mind that working class voters are likely to far outnumber college voters in that election just as they did in 2020 and as they are likely to do this November.”
Tell me again why I should worry about this so called working class? I’m doing well. I don’t need much of anything from the government. Why on earth would I waste my time trying to help people who don’t even seem to want it?
https://theliberalpatriot.substack.com/p/the-democrats-working-class-problem
Prospects, like everything, change over time. Yours will too, conceivably for the worse. So it's not about caring so much for anyone else. Working class or not. (Fairly sure you're working class as is but nice that you're "doing well" for yourself.)
I don't have a Times subscription because I refuse to give those fuckers money, but I'd very much like to see what definition of "working voters" they're using.
Odd term, "working voters." Does it mean the same thing as "working class?"
Because you know what? In 2020 workers clearing less than 50K a year (that is to say, those making below the median (more or less) preferred Biden to Trump by ten points. That would seem to indicate a pretty strong working class preference for Biden! Biden was also massively the choice of working class Democrats in the primary.
So either somehow, there's been a twenty-six point swing in favor of Trump, from -10 to +16... or this guy, or the poll, are misrepresenting things somehow. Gosh, I wonder if a guy calling himself "Liberal Patriot" on substack who wants the Democrats to shut up about the culture war could have an axe to grind?
The average Trump voter is a non-college-educated, self-employed, white guy in his 50s making anywhere from 50-100k a year or more. Sometimes a lot more. They've got boats and a trailer for their hunting gear and all that shit. These aren't "working class" people; they're Joe Plumbers with a chip on their shoulders who think minorities have "too many" rights these days. The same petit-bourgois shopkeeps who have been the vanguard of every fascist movement since ever.
If memory serves me right Biden won all income brackets except for those making over $100K.
Couldn't agree more. Sure a lot of working class people are caught up by the hype that they are only half paying attention to, but the heart of the Republican base among the masses is the small business people, contractors and the like, just like it has always been.
Someone's discharge in the hot tub.
What a ridiculous article that MYA Network has published!
Fetal tissue??? What the heck is that. My wife had a knee replaced. In order to do the replacement, the surgeon removed a significant amount of adult human tissue; certainly, vastly more than is shown in those "fetal tissue" photos. Is a photo of that human knee tissue supposed to somehow show us an adult female human?
Look, if you have ever bought a new or late-model used car, picture in your mind's eye what it looked like to you, all bright and shiny as you took delivery.
Now look here to see "automobile tissue" before the "birth" of the actual automobile:
https://www.metalsusa.com/flat-rolled/
And at the end of the life of a car, check these photos of ''automobile tissue" as you bade a sad farewell to it at the scrapyard:
https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/old-rusty-corroded-car-parts-in-car-scrapyard-car-recycling-wrecking-machinery-parts-gm868926884-145108649
Well, there you have it--before and after photos of that car you paid all that money for, and took care of for all those days and months and years.
Look at the Mayo Clinic article linked by Rick Jones above. Then explain this: we have photos of "fetal tissue" after removal from the mother by forceps? And that is supposed to show us something useful?
Agreed. It's a deceptive use of the photograph. A fetus at nine weeks has a well-defined form with head, torso, arms, and legs, with fingers and toes as well. But it's only 3/4 of an inch in length. We're seeing a lot of other stuff in that picture, which I guess includes the placenta and amnion. The body of the fetus is either obscured or disintegrated.
I should have called it an embryo, by the standard definition. It wouldn't be a fetus until 11 weeks.
I think the point is whether these photos are any more "deceptive" than ones that have all the extraneous tissue removed and are artificially rendered to highlight the development of structures like fingernails or ears. To say nothing of the anti-choice propaganda that uses photos of live newborns to suggest that is what is being removed in an abortion.
A nine week embryo isn't removed with forceps because it's too small. A medicated abortion would be the first choice and simple suction would be the second choice. This picture includes the nascent placenta.
Perhaps not forceps; perhaps some other sort of device. But definitely not a "medical abortion" or simple suction. This is a direct quote from the article cited:
"Above is early pregnancy tissue, at four weeks of pregnancy.
"Dr Joan Fleischman, part of the MYA Network, uses a gentle handheld device that removes the tissue. This more delicate type of extraction keeps it intact."
That Mayo Clinic link's pictures are just artwork ... but it's artwork that matches MRI pictures, matches preserved embryos like the Carnegie Collection of Embryology, matches 3D ultrasound pictures...
I can see why The Guardian disables comments.
Here's an ultrasound picture of an embryo at 9 weeks.
https://www.huggies.com/en-us/resources/pregnancy/pregnancy-week-by-week/pregnancy-9-week-ultrasound
That doesn't look like the Mayo artwork to me.
At nine weeks, [the embryo] will measure approximately 1 inch. The [embryo] will resemble a green olive and weigh less than 2 grams.
In Republican dogma, that green olive gets 100% of the rights of personhood, the woman 0% of the rights to her body. It's absurd.
That doesn't look like the Mayo artwork to me, either.
But I suspect that an experienced radiologist who specializes in ultrasound imaging would say it does.
It's all about art criticism now. So which art critic gets to decide? You? Me? An experienced radiologist? The pope? Sam Alito? I'd say: none of the above.
Let's leave the decision where it was with the "compromise" of the last 50 years under Roe: with the woman.
Could someone please point out the soul in that picture?
"First breathe", per the often misquoted Bible 🙂
So Republicans are united in their support for the soulless? It figures.
To perhaps misuse the expression, Kevin is asking us to look at the bath water.
The expression uses the word "baby." There is no baby at nine weeks. The term is "embryo." So your reference to the expression doesn't fit.
(It's true expectant parents may refer to an embryo as a baby. But it's absurd to base the law on conflating those words, for the same reason we don't treat animals as children just because some pet owners call them "the kids.")
It takes a while and some play w/ Photoshop to distinguish the formation of the eyes in that fetal tissue sample, but it is there: Look ~1/2" up from the 5-17/32" mark. This embryo at the center seems closer to 1/2" in length, so perhaps it's a week (or so) earlier than 9 weeks or it's slightly under-developed? IDK, I'm not a doctor.
That clump of cells miraculously forms a human brain. Its appearance is irrelevant. Some people are hard to look at but that doesn't detract from their humanity. As to whether it has a soul, that's also irrelevant. There's no proof that anyone has a soul, but that's not a justification for killing a born human either.