• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-abortion video showed stillborn baby — not fetus

OKgrannie posted this on another thread earlier today.

So you admit that there is no fundamental visual difference between a fetus aborted at 19 weeks and a still born at 19 weeks
 
I really don't understand why CMP felt the need to use a picture of still born baby from unrelated source and put it into an undercover documentary video. You don't ever want to do that no matter the reason because it can be misleading and would naturally lead to predictable attacks from the other side. The cost outweighs the benefit. People can just google for what a 19 week fetus looks like without having it shown in the video unless the fetus was actually part of the event during the documentary. Not to mention it harms the family whose still born baby was used in such manner without their direct permission.

It's unfortunate.

If you think about it for even ten seconds....I think you will completely understand.
 
I don't know whether it is legal or not...I suspect that it is legal BUT for a movement that differentiates between what is legally right and what is morally right.....they sure tossed that concept out the door with respect to this picture. I can only imagine how I would feel !!!!

that some one used your photo for a political viewpoint that you oppose? I suspect you would be mad, however making some one angry is not inherently morally wrong
 
I really don't understand why CMP felt the need to use a picture of still born baby from unrelated source and put it into an undercover documentary video. You don't ever want to do that no matter the reason because it can be misleading and would naturally lead to predictable attacks from the other side. The cost outweighs the benefit. People can just google for what a 19 week fetus looks like without having it shown in the video unless the fetus was actually part of the event during the documentary. Not to mention it harms the family whose still born baby was used in such manner without their direct permission.

It's unfortunate.
It is to sensationalize the issue.

As I said in an earlier post, they do themselves a great disservice by manipulating the truth, altering video and being deceptive.

Of course the other side is going to call them out. They should!

Same thing with their Poster Child Abby Johnson. She makes literally unbelievable accusations and folks just accept what she says and say "prove otherwise". Seriously?
 
The woman gave permission for the photo to be published. If the group violated copyright law, then they violated copyright law, but this seems within Fair Use Doctrine.

From the article linked to in the OP:

Citing the woman’s Facebook post, Planned Parenthood said the photo was used by the Center for Medical Progress “without her permission [and that] she believes it is an illegal use of the image.”



It also seems that the group did not attempt to deceive anyone as to the nature of the photograph - pointing out only that it was a child at the end of the 2nd Trimester. :shrug: that's what a baby looks like at 20 weeks.


Also from the same link:


The anti-abortion-rights group targeting Planned Parenthood is acknowledging that its most recent video used an image of a stillborn baby that was made to look like an aborted fetus
.



It says quite a lot for our side and about yours that the best argument we can make is to simply show what it is abortionists do, while the most energy on your side is spent trying to keep us from doing so.


Your side doesn't seem to be able to present it's case without deception and lies.
 
that some one used your photo for a political viewpoint that you oppose? I suspect you would be mad, however making some one angry is not inherently morally wrong

No, for using the picture of my stillborn child - and putting it out there - bringing up memories that are awful to relive.
 
only to those who cant read, which would seem to be a bigger group than you would think
No, how many people really pay attention or bother to read. But, that's besides the point. The cost outweighs the benefit. You can't clean up the mess that shouldn't be necessary in the first place. And how about the hurt on the family involved in this who didn't ask for it?

As for me, I don't condone such tactics.
 
what privacy rights? she published that photo in the guardian and it was used again under the fair use doctrine. 1st amendment anyone?

An excuse for a shock hack organization is noted.
 
If it was previously published, I have no idea if legally they did anything wrong.

But for a group of people that pretend to care that while something may be legal, there are moral issues........they seemed to toss that concept aside with ease.

I agree. Nothing in my comments said what CMP is illegal. But what they are certainly are massively dishonest, hack organization that relies upon not the law to persuade people, but by images that are released to "shock" people into submission while presenting half truths, and flat out lies.
 
that some one used your photo for a political viewpoint that you oppose? I suspect you would be mad, however making some one angry is not inherently morally wrong

So, if you had had a child that was stillborn with severe physical deformities and a pro choice group used it to illustrate why abortion at that stage should remain legal, that would be okay?
 
So you admit that there is no fundamental visual difference between a fetus aborted at 19 weeks and a still born at 19 weeks

No , I am not saying that.
I have never seen an aborted fetus at 19 weeks gestation.

I did go into early labor when I was about 20 weeks gestation between my second and third child.
My husband and I were looking forward to a new little one and our children were looking forward to a little brother or sister.
My doctor was out of town so my husband drove me to the ER. We were hoping they could stop the labor and I continue my pregnancy and have a healthy baby.
The nurse in the ER gave me a pregnancy test and told my husband and I that I was no longer pregnant.
The doctor covering for my doctor did not want to come that night and perform the D and E ( commonly referred as a dismemberment abortion ) so they gave some meds to try to stop the labor and said the doctor would perform the
D and E the next day.

Then they took me to my room.
When I was transferring from the gurney to my bed the fetus was expelled and I accidentally saw how malformed it was.
My doctor later told me even if I carried it longer it never would have lived.
He said it so malformed that pathology could not even tell if was a boy or a girl.
 
are you implying that a fetus aborted at 19 weeks and a still born at 19 weeks look fundamentally different?

Well, if the aborted one passed through the hands of PP it's probably missing (let me rephrase that, "had chopped from it") a bunch of parts that the stillborn would have retained.
 
read the article "The photo had been published with permission by The Guardian last year."

Shes not upset about the photo just at who was using it and she probably doesnt have a suit under the fair use doctrine

No, it would fail the Fair Use test because

1) there was no criticism of the picture itself
2) there are public domain images that would fulfill the same purpose
3) misportraying it as a product of abortion (which could also lead to a slander lawsuit)
4) they used the entire image
 
From the article linked to in the OP:

Fair Use Doctrine.

She said she was okay with the images of her child being published. :shrug: She may be upset now and I can understand why, but she signed the papers and made pictures of her child part of the public record.

Also from the same link:

That's right. Are you going to argue that there is a significant developmental difference between a child 20 weeks old and a child 20 weeks old?

The group used the child to demonstrate what a 20 week old child looked like. :shrug: again, if you find that upsetting, why? Does it look awfully like a human child to you?

Your side doesn't seem to be able to present it's case without deception and lies.

:lamo All we have to do is show the images, and show the video. And yes, before you come back, we also get to release the unedited video. Because exposure of the Abortion industry, like exposure of the slave industry, makes it stink.
 
So your defense is "It's legal"???

Well, the opening posts were "she should sue". And since it seems that the accusations of falsehoods have pretty much fallen on their face, that's all they really have left.
 
That is a lie.

No, it is not. That's how the image got published.

She gave permission to The Guardian. Not to CMP

Sure. Just as every single person here who has ever posted a funny picture or a political cartoon in this threads did not get permission from the original owner of that image before doing so.

Fair Use is the legal doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.

When you publish something, you release it. :shrug: If the organization had tried to use that image in a commercial venture, then she would have a legal case.
 
I am wondering why the group that begs us to look beyond law and look toward morality all of a sudden gives that concept up to post some pictures of a womans still born child for the sake of politics
 
Well, the opening posts were "she should sue". And since it seems that the accusations of falsehoods have pretty much fallen on their face, that's all they really have left.

I think my first post was she should sue. I don't think anyone else said that.
So you can fault me for being upset they made her stillborn baby look like it was an aborted fetus.

The anti-abortion-rights group targeting Planned Parenthood is acknowledging that its most recent video used an image of a stillborn baby that was made to look like an aborted fetus.

The Center for Medical Progress posted a new link on its video late Thursday, adding that one of the images was actually a baby named Walter Fretz, born prematurely at 19 weeks.

Anti-abortion video showed stillborn baby — not fetus | TheHill

I can only think of the heartbreak that woman is going through.
I miscarried a little one about the same age of her stillborn one.
I feel her heartbreak.
 
Last edited:
She said she was okay with the images of her child being published. :shrug: She may be upset now and I can understand why, but she signed the papers and made pictures of her child part of the public record.

She did not say she gave CMP permission to use the picture. Did you miss year2late's post showing the lady's FB post about it?



That's right. Are you going to argue that there is a significant developmental difference between a child 20 weeks old and a child 20 weeks old?

Whaaat?


The group used the child to demonstrate what a 20 week old child looked like. :shrug: again, if you find that upsetting, why? Does it look awfully like a human child to you?

No, it misrepresented it to look like an aborted fetus, they ADMITTED to this.


Anyone with half an ounce of compassion for a woman who had lost her child would not agree with this. So far, only one antichoicer has had the integrity to say it's wrong.
 
She did not say she gave CMP permission to use the picture

That's right. She gave permission for it to be published. Once it is published, it is part of the public domain. Her complaint now might be understandable, but has about the same legal basis as you claiming that I don't have the right to quote you in this reply, since I didn't ask you if I could.


Is there a significant developmental difference between a 20 week old child and a 20 week old child. Simple question, with an obvious answer.

No, it misrepresented it to look like an aborted fetus, they ADMITTED to this.

As I recall they stated that they did no such thing, but said that they used it to show what a 20 week old child looked like.

Anyone with half an ounce of compassion for a woman who had lost her child would not agree with this. So far, only one antichoicer has had the integrity to say it's wrong.

:shrug: I'm fine with saying they should choose a different image going forward - they don't have to, but it would be the right thing to do. Probably they just looked up publicly available images of 20 week old children, and used the one they deemed best - which they can do because everyone who has published those images have made them part of the public domain.

But given that we are living in a time period of cutting open the skulls of children whose hearts are beating and laughing about it all because, hey, what is funnier than dead babies in a box?, consider me a little jaundiced about your appeal to compassion.
 
Isn't this what you guys keep telling us....just because it is legal doesn't mean it is the morally right thing to do?

This is the difference between a real pro-lifer and someone that is just pro-fetus. A person that is just pro-fetus could give a rats ass what happens once they are born. Not for one second did these pro-fetus-ers consider how the stillborn's parent's might feel.:(
 
Ok I watched the video in the OP again where Holly O 'Donell describes the 19 week old fetus.
At about the -4:30 mark of the video they show the fetus on a small metal dish with a metal instrument ( scissors ? ) by it.

I looked up a blog that was posted by Walter Fretz's mom which had several photos of Walter ( and a couple of photos with her 2 daughters holding Walter also)

I did find the photo of Walter being held in the hands that is toward the CMP video at about the -1:30 mark but I could not find the first photo in the video of him on a metal pan.

Was the metal pan and the instrument in the first photo " shopped in"? I don't know. Also the first photo on the metal pan did not have the umbilical clip that was shown in the later photo.

Here is the link to the Blog with the photos and the story of Walter that Walter's mom posted.

https://f2photographybylexi.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/walter-joshua-fretz/
 
Back
Top Bottom