Anti-abortion video showed stillborn baby — not fetus

[Scrabaholic]

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.
<snip>
The photo was actually of the stillborn son of a woman who claimed it in a Facebook post Friday, according to a release by Planned Parenthood. The photo had been published with permission by The Guardian last year.

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.”

David Daleiden, the founder of Center for Medical Progress, argued that the citation was present "from the very beginning."

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


================================

Makes one wonder what else they have falsified! I hope the woman who's photo they used pursues them for copyright infringement.

 

[minnie616]

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


================================

Makes one wonder what else they have falsified! I hope the woman who's photo they used pursues them for copyright infringement.

I hope sues The Center for Medical Progress for a large sum of money and that she wins her case.
I would be devastated if anyone posted photos or a video of my poor little malformed fetus that I miscarried at about 20 weeks gestation.
It must of been heartbreaking for her to see her poor little stillborn baby son in a video describing him as an aborted fetus.

 

[cpwill]

Anti-abortion video showed stillborn baby —Â*not fetus | TheHill
================================
Makes one wonder what else they have falsified! I hope the woman who's photo they used pursues them for copyright infringement.

:shrug: the point remains valid - that is what a 19 week old baby looks like.

 

[Crovax]

I hope sues The Center for Medical Progress for a large sum of money and that she wins her case.
I would be devastated if anyone posted photos or a video of my poor little malformed fetus that I miscarried at about 20 weeks gestation.
It must of been heartbreaking for her to see her poor little stillborn baby son in a video describing him as an aborted fetus.

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

 

[year2late]

I hope sues The Center for Medical Progress for a large sum of money and that she wins her case.
I would be devastated if anyone posted photos or a video of my poor little malformed fetus that I miscarried at about 20 weeks gestation.
It must of been heartbreaking for her to see her poor little stillborn baby son in a video describing him as an aborted fetus.

How can anybody believe what CMP says or shows????

I think the "by whatever means necessary" crowd does a great disservice to their cause. They end up looking like the liars that they are.

 

[minnie616]

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

Of course she is upset that the photo of her little one was " doctored " to look like it had been aborted .

It is very hard to lose a wanted pregnancy at 19 or 20 weeks gestation.
I know. I lost a very wanted pregnancy at about 20 weeks gestation.

 

[countryboy]

:shrug: the point remains valid - that is what a 19 week old baby looks like.

Yeah, teh libs are bothered by the use of stillborn images, but planned parenthood yukin' it up about baby parts over dinner and wine doesn't twitch an eyelid. :roll: More faux outrage from your friendly neighborhood libs. :roll: :roll:

 

[countryboy]

Of course she is upset that the photo of her little one was " doctored " to look like it had been aborted .

It is very hard to lose a wanted pregnancy at 19 or 20 weeks gestation.
I know. I lost a very wanted pregnancy at about 20 weeks gestation.

And yet you have no problem with the killing of a 20 week old fetus as a matter of convenience. :shock:

Just curious, since you don't believe personhood is achieved until the baby leaves the birth canal and takes his first breath, how late into gestation do you believe abortion should be legal?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Of course she is upset that the photo of her little one was " doctored " to look like it had been aborted .

It is very hard to lose a wanted pregnancy at 19 or 20 weeks gestation.
I know. I lost a very wanted pregnancy at about 20 weeks gestation.

Apparently, some anti choicers don't care who they hurt in the pursuit of their agenda. Morally superior, my butt.

 

[Crovax]

Of course she is upset that the photo of her little one was " doctored " to look like it had been aborted

once again, read the article "We never claimed that was an image of an aborted baby. It's just an illustration of what a baby looks like at the end of the 2nd trimester,"

 

[Crovax]

And yet you have no problem with the killing of a 20 week old fetus as a matter of convenience. :shock:

Well you know what they say, murder is in the eye of the beholder

 

[minnie616]

And yet you have no problem with the killing of a 20 week old fetus as a matter of convenience. :shock:

Just curious, since you don't believe personhood is achieved until the baby leaves the birth canal and takes his first breath, how late into gestation do you believe abortion should be legal?

I never said that.
I have always stated that abortions that late are for medical reasons.

An abortion at 20 weeks or later is much risker for the doctor and for the woman.
The reason for an abortion that late has be risker to the woman or the fetus than carrying the fetus to term.

If the fetus has died within the womb , will be stillborn, or is incompatible with life and may die within the womb before delivery it is safer for the woman to have an abortion because there is a high chance she will get an infection that may be life threatening if the dead or dying fetus is not expelled or extracted in a timely manner.

 

[cpwill]

Apparently, some anti choicers don't care who they hurt in the pursuit of their agenda. Morally superior, my butt.

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.

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.





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.

 

[minnie616]

once again, read the article "We never claimed that was an image of an aborted baby. It's just an illustration of what a baby looks like at the end of the 2nd trimester,"

It is an illustration of what a stillborn baby looks like...not what an aborted fetus looks like.

 

[year2late]

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

Even though they might have had a legal right....if they had a conscience they would have asked her first.

I can only imagine if I had lost a baby how I would feel if the picture of his body was used in such a manner. I would be reliving the trauma over and over again.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Seriously... What more needs debunking from these videos? No wonder they cant file a lawsuit..... No wonder Center for Medical Progress cant move forward with any sort of legal action..

 

[TheDemSocialist]

View attachment 67188837

Even though they might have had a legal right....if they had a conscience they would have asked her first.

They are ****ing scumbags with a political agenda.... What more could you expect? They throw privacy rights straight out the window with their charades.

 

[year2late]

Seriously... What more needs debunking from these videos? No wonder they cant file a lawsuit..... No wonder Center for Medical Progress cant move forward with any sort of legal action..

They destroy their own credibility with little effort.

 

[Crovax]

It is an illustration of what a stillborn baby looks like...not what an aborted fetus looks like.

are you implying that a fetus aborted at 19 weeks and a still born at 19 weeks look fundamentally different?

 

[year2late]

They are ****ing scumbags with a political agenda.... What more could you expect? They throw privacy rights straight out the window with their charades.

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.

 

[Crovax]

They are ****ing scumbags with a political agenda.... What more could you expect? They throw privacy rights straight out the window with their charades.

what privacy rights? she published that photo in the guardian and it was used again under the fair use doctrine. 1st amendment anyone?

 

[year2late]

what privacy rights? she published that photo in the guardian and it was used again under the fair use doctrine. 1st amendment anyone?

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 !!!!

 

[minnie616]

are you implying that a fetus aborted at 19 weeks and a still born at 19 weeks look fundamentally different?

OKgrannie posted this on another thread earlier today.

Just google, there's lots of evidence. Shocking, isn't it, that anti-choicers would resort to dishonesty?

Abortion - Pro Choice Views: abortion photos, pictures of aborted fetuses, bloodborne pathogens osha

Nope, those pictures aren't what they are claimed to be. Most "aborted fetuses" in photos shown by anti-choicers are either naturally aborted (miscarried) fetuses or stillborn babies. Others are rubber or plastic fakes.

Since a first-trimester suction abortion shreds the soft, jelly-like tissue of the embryo/fetus and endometrium, there is nothing to photograph in such cases. A midtrimester surgical abortion does produce fetal parts, which are treated like plutonium under today's laws regarding the disposal of "potentially infectious materials" containing possible human bloodborne pathogens (OSHA regulations). They are not available for casual photography.

Here's what Dr. Sarah Whippman, a British physician, had to say about the "aborted fetuses" depicted at AbortionTV.com:

"I think that at least some of them are actually rubber models, simply because the proportions are all wrong for them to be fetuses - in some of them, the presence of an adult hand in the picture makes it possible to tell the size of the supposed embryo or fetus, yet the proportion of head and limbs to trunk is all wrong for a fetus of this size. So at least some of them seem to be fakes. Many of the others look like term or near term babies, so it seems highly improbable that these specimens resulted from abortion - I suspect that at least a few photographs of macerated stillbirths have also been included and passed off as pictures of abortions. I've seen abortions, and they look nothing like the pictures that are touted as being representative of abortion. Too bad."

Another friend told me about some interesting information recently, which can be found in "Maternity & Gynecologic Care", 5th Edition, by Bobak and Jensen. This is a professional medical reference book used by registered nurses. I was given a quote from Chapter 40, page
1227:

"Caring for a baby who has died can be a difficult task for the nurse. It can be made more difficult if the baby has been dead for several days or weeks in utero, before birth. It may be helpful to have a colleague help in making the baby look as good as possible and in taking pictures, in some cases, decapitation or dismemberment has occured."

In other words, cases of miscarriage, stillborns, etc. can be quite gruesome, and they are not easy to deal with, even for medical professionals. Unquestionably, many of the pictures of so-called "aborted fetuses" are actually photographs of this kind of thing.

You can also see gruesome photos in medical textbooks. I'm looking at my 1997 edition of Williams Obstetrics, which shows on p. 986 what can happen as a result of erythroblastosis fetalis, a condition that occurs when the system of an Rh-negative mother produces antibodies to an antigen in the blood of an Rh-positive fetus which cross the placenta and destroy fetal blood cells. The photograph is of a "hydropic macerated stillborn infant." (Maceration is when dead tissue softens and decays after being in water.) The picture shows a very damaged baby with parts missing, its mouth open as if in pain, and skin damage and discoloration of the kind anti-abortion pictures claim is typical of saline abortions. Yet this is a picture of what can, sadly, happen naturally inside a woman's womb.

I find it unconscionable that abortion opponents misuse death and autopsy photos of stillborn babies by posting them on the Internet as "aborted fetuses", or steal fetuses and mangle them to create propaganda. How disgusting to exploit the tragic circumstances under which pictures of stillborn babies, often long dead in utero, are taken. Talk about a lack of respect for the dignity of human life!

By the way, you know that beautifully-lit, heartwarming Lennart Nilsson photo of the thumb-in-mouth fetus that shows up on the covers of magazines every once in a while? That's a picture of a dead fetus aborted (by hysterotomy) long ago, as are most "A Child Is Born", "miracle of life before birth" photographs. It just goes to show that "aborted fetus" pictures are more about politics than reality.

Post #511

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abort...d-parenthood-would-disastrous-w-220-a-52.html

 

[dolphinocean]

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.

 

[Crovax]

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.

only to those who cant read, which would seem to be a bigger group than you would think