to think that there is no need to show a 3rd tri 4d ultrasound...

[KatAndKit]

...on a Sky news story about abortions. Given that 90 odd percent of terminations take place early on in the first trimester. Showing a 4d image of a fully developed baby wasn't necessary or appropriate for the story.

[scuzy]

images say a thousand words and often have more of an impact but I am not familair with the news story.

[KatAndKit]

Yes but if the "impact" is that people think that women are turning up to abortion clinics and being able to terminate a 7 month fetus on demand, then that is very misleading.

[KatAndKit]

And on the story they are showing a belly with a nice big bump on it. Most terminations take place at 6-12 weeks when there is no sign of a bump. Using these sort of images is ammunition to the anti-choice camp.

[hairytaleofnewyork]

Yanbu. It's sick.

[knowitallstrikesagain]

YANBU to think it is misleading. After all, anyone who has an abortion knows that a baby is the final outcome of a full term pregnancy.

I am, however, totally at war with myself over abortion issues. I always thought I was pro-choice but would not want to see the limit increased to abortion any time up to birth, which I have been informed is truly pro-choice. As it is, with the limit of 24 weeks, I would still be uncomfortable showing an image of a 24week 3D image. Nobody can avoid knowing roughly what a baby looks like at each stage, and it is an emotive enough issue as it is.

[bemybebe]

YANBU, totally misleading and sensationalist.

[fedupofnamechanging]

They should have shown what a foetus looks like in the 6 - 12 weeks of development, in order to reflect what is most common. However, if they showed a foetus that is at 22 weeks gestation, then it is still below the limit at which terminations are legal, so you can't say they are 'wrong' to do so.

I think that if people have terminations, then they ought to be fully informed , as to what exactly they are terminating. It's not just a bunch of cells.

[CrunchyFrog]

"not just a bunch of cells."

Course it is. So are you.

Does any woman really not understand that what is in her uterus is a potential baby? REALLY? Are hundreds of women each week just popping in for a quick abortion in their lunch break because they sluttily shagged around without regard for the consequences?

Pro-life "but" arguments are baseless and irrational. Either it's OK to abort or it isn't. If it's OK to abort a baby with a chromosomal disorder, then it's OK to abort any baby. If it's OK to abort a baby when the mother has been raped, then it's also OK to abort a baby where the mother engaged in consensual sex that she might have even enjoyed. And if it's OK to terminate at 23 weeks, then it's OK at whatever stage because there is no difference in what you are doing other than in the details of the procedure.

Pro-life "but" arguments are disablist, misogynist and seek to control women. I was pro-life/ anti-choice as a much younger person, but I cannot reconcile those "but" arguments. I can't place less value on the life of a foetus who is disabled. I can't make a moral judgement based on a woman's sexuality.

Basically, if you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

[fedupofnamechanging]

Crunchy frog, there is a difference between an embryo in early development and a foetus in later development - that's why we have cut off points.

I disagree that abortion is either wholly right or wholly wrong - I think there are times when it is better than going ahead with a pg, and I would not tell another woman that she could or couldn't choose this. However, I do think that people who choose it, can't complain if they see on the telly, a feature about termination which shows the foetus at the stage of development that is within the legal termination limit.

[BionicEmu]

Personally I don't care whether people are pro or anti-abortion, or somewhere in the middle. I just wanted to clear up a few things.

I have spent many years of my career working in paediatric pathology. I have seen and examined thousands of "products of conception" (first trimester losses), and have seen (but not examined) thousands of "social terminations" (abortions.) I have also been involved with assisting with later losses.

IMHO, there is a clear difference between a first trimester pregnancy and a second trimester pregnancy. A first trimester pregnancy simply has the possibilty of creating a fetus. A surprisingly large number will never be viable. In the first trimester you honestly do just have a "bundle of cells". The rate of first trimester losses is surprisingly high (sorry, do not have figures on me), and of these I would estimate that 95% show no evidence of a fetus. They are merely placenta and decidua and were never going to progress to a baby.

Once you get past approx. 15 weeks, and have had scans showing healthy growth and fetal heartbeat then yes, in the majority of cases that will lead to a baby.

And yes, at 22 weeks, within the termination limit, a fetus does look more-or-less like an actual baby. They obviously don't look quite "right" as there is lots of development still to be done. TBH the majority of terminations at this time are medical terminations, largely because the fetus would never survive.

As somebody above said, most abortions are in the first trimester. So realistically you are ending the possibility of a baby.

In essence, I just wanted to point out the huge swing and difference between first and second trimesters, and that's all I have to say on the matter.

[McHappyPants2012]

yanbu there is a huge diffrence

www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-7-weeks
www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-20-weeks

[AutumnSummers]

It's pure propaganda. YANBU.

[entropygirl]

Having had an early term miscarriage I totally agree with the statement that 1st trimester products of conception only have the possibility of becoming a baby....

So really 1st trimester abortion and contraception are not such different processes. (NB. Obviously it is better to use contraception for a whole host of reasons).

Thanks for that interesting view point.

[KatAndKit]

I disagree. Having had two early term miscarriages I think there is a massive difference between ending a first trimester pregnancy and using contraception (which is supposed to prevent a pregnancy from starting in the first place)

To compare having an abortion with using contraception is unfair.

[RichManPoorManBeggarmanThief]

Well I guess that you could argue that the copper coil, which prevents implantation but not conception is a super super early abortion, if you wanted to be totally black and white about it and say that there's no difference between 1st trimester and 2nd trimester terminations.

Personally, I feel that there is a difference

Anyway, YANBU- the news story is very misleading.

[Thetokengirl]

YANBU
Bionic well said.

[muffinflop]

As someone who's had a few 1st trimester miscarriages and a 2nd trimester abortion I can say there was a huge difference. The baby I had at 21 weeks was definitely a baby. The early miscarriages were in no way, shape or form baby shaped but did just look like a mass of cells.

But, back to the original OP, if the pictures weren't relevant to the news story then YANBU

[hairytaleofnewyork]

Well said bionic

[DoubleGlazing]

YANBU. Very misleading and unnecessary.

[Reallyfaroutlookinghat]

YANBU!

[tb]

I was always aware of what a foetus looked like at various stages of development as the school biology department had them preserved in jars and used to wheel them out when we studied human reproduction.

[LineRunner]

I think that an image of the commonest stage when termination takes place - an embryo of less than 13 weeks - would be the least misleading.

But why these pictures anyway?

[sashh]

Have you ever noticed that all pictures they show are of normal development? Maybe they should show a scan of a baby with no brain?

I know someone who has their US picture of their 'first child', but she had an abortion because the baby (and she thought of her as a baby not a foetus or an embrio) had no brain and no chance of life.

OP YANBU

[NapaCab]

YADNBU, KatandKit - the 'pro-life' brigade constantly want to make it seem to the average person that abortions involved fully developed foetuses when, as you say, the vast, vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester.

It really annoyed me recently when I saw an interview with Ron Paul and Jay Leno where Ron Paul put out his position on abortion and says that he doesn't have a problem with the morning-after pill but that 'an 8 lb, 8 month foetus, can we really say that the mother has the choice on whether it should live or die?' or words to that effect. And this from a pracising OB-GYN .

I couldn't believe someone who practices medicine could put out a lie like that. It is pretty much impossible to obtain an abortion for a foetus at 8 months unless the mother's life is in immediate danger or something, which would be extremely unusual.

I actually checked the law on abortion in a range of countries and very few permit abortion after 12 weeks, except in the case of medical emergency, and some not even for that. Canada and the UK are two of the few developed countries that allow abortion up to 24 weeks. In the US, it varies between states but basically a third-trimester abortion doesn't even really exist in practice, AFAIK.

[NapaCab]

Sorry it's actually 22 weeks in the UK and in Canada, apparently, there is no time-limit for abortion on demand.