Pro-Choice Activists Challenge the Guardian’s Pictures of Fetal Tissue
Is the Guardian showing the truth?
Hit the Medium paywall? Read on Substack here.
Content Warning: This article contains pictures of aborted fetal tissue from pro-choice sources.
The Guardian’s Views on Abortion
A few weeks ago, the news source The Guardian published an article that claimed to show aborted fetal tissue. But are their pictures accurate?
First off, let me point out that The Guardian, though it purports to be a mainstream news source, strongly supports abortion. At the bottom of each article that mentions abortion, The Guardian says the following:
The end of the right to abortion in the United States will have devastating consequences around the world. A half-century ago, the Supreme Court's landmark Roe v Wade decision inspired a new era of reproductive freedom in dozens of countries.
The court's reversal will empower anti-abortion voices everywhere, threatening reproductive freedom and the right to control one’s destiny.
The Guardian views reproductive choice as a fundamental human right and will pursue this story even after it recedes from headlines, with a focus on the people most impacted by restrictions.
So as a publication that passionately supports abortion and doesn’t claim to be neutral, bias might be expected.
However, as I will show, this article crosses the line of bias and embraces outright dishonesty.
Accurate Pictures of Fetal Tissue?
The article in question in The Guardian tries to prove that aborted embryos/fetuses are just tissue with no recognizable features.
However, even pro-choice activists are admitting that the article, and the photos, hide the truth.
Here is a meme that was made out of the Guardian’s photos. The Guardian claims that the “tissue” in the pictures was obtained from abortions up to ten weeks. The meme was spread far and wide on social media.
However, even pro-choice activists are admitting that the meme, and the photos, hide the truth.
Pro-Choice Activist Shares a Photo of Her Own Aborted Fetal Tissue
On a pro-choice forum on Reddit, a woman with the username “BackgroundPea7785” shared a photo of her aborted fetal tissue. BackgroundPea7785 took the abortion pill and photographed the embryo that came out of her uterus.
The picture, as you can see, shows a developing human with arms and legs, complete with fingers and toes.
Here is the embryo enlarged, so you can see the details:
For the rest of this post, I am going to use the word “baby” to describe this fetal tissue. This is because although I have no judgment toward pregnant people who feel they need to choose abortion, I believe that a developing human with arms, legs, fingers, toes, a heartbeat, and a brain is, in fact, a developing baby.
BackgroundPea7785 says she conceived on April 5 or 6 of this year, and her abortion was on May 28. This would make her baby seven weeks and three or four days old. Counted from the last menstrual period, as most doctor’s offices do, this would be just over nine weeks of pregnancy.
BackgroundPea7785 states:
I am extremely pro choice under any circumstances and for any reason. I wanted to share these as I’ve seen some possibly misleading info in regards to what an embryo might look like at this stage.
My tattoo should be proof that these are my photos. I do have a video as well, hard to see toes as it still looked like there was a tail of sorts but clear fingers, eyes etc.
She later clarified that she meant “was not hard to see toes.” Elbows, hands, feet, and toes are clearly visible in the picture.
Here is a close-up of the hands of an embryo at the same age. This picture comes from the site Endowment for Human Development, which isn’t affiliated with the pro-life movement.
The Trauma of Seeing an Aborted Baby
Although BackgroundPea7785 says that she doesn’t regret her abortion, she admits seeing her baby was traumatic:
It felt like my heart stopped when I looked at it because it was a blob in my hand when I expected to see a blood clot instead. It was very smushed looking until I placed it in water.
[I]t was extremely traumatizing for me even though I am so pro choice and knew I was making the right decision…I did not keep it, I respectfully disposed of it…
She later admits that this “respectful” disposal meant flushing her child down the toilet. She says, “I live in a rental, and it’s medical waste, I wasn’t going to bury it.”
Other Pro-Choice Activists Weigh In
One woman posted a response saying that she too had seen a developed baby after her miscarriage. Another described seeing a similar-looking miscarried baby in the restroom toilet of the grocery store where she worked after a homeless woman miscarried there.
Other comments admitted the Guardian article was misinformation. One commenter said, “Thank you for contributing to the discussion. It's extremely important we double triple check our facts especially if we want to make a change.”
Another wrote, “Thank you so much. Those 4-9w graphics going around are terribly misleading and honestly just more fuel for pro-lifers. There's nothing wrong with facing the truth of our cause.”
A third person was confused because the photo in the post looked so different from pictures of “pregnancy tissue” she’d seen in other (presumably pro-abortion) sources:
…I don't know if it's possible for it to look almost human or so much more developed at 7.5 weeks than the images of aborted pregnancy tissue I've seen in articles.
I don't doubt the OP…I'm just confused how it can be so much more developed than other tissue I've seen is all… I'm really confused, I know an embryo/fetus will grow at different rates depending on the pregnant person but can it really look almost human-ish at 7 weeks?
She seems to be having trouble accepting that she’s been lied to.
An Abortion Clinic Worker Comments
An abortion worker chimed in, giving a possible reason why photographs taken after an abortion may not always show recognizable remains:
I work at an abortion clinic and I literally covered my mouth when I saw this because I never thought I would see that.
Because they're removed with suction, it's extremely rare to see anything other than a sac at this point because everything else is too fragile and ends up blending in with the rest of the tissue to the point where it's unrecognizable.
Later, however, she seems to contradict herself, saying “I work at an abortion clinic (that does surgical AB) and this looks real to me.”
This worker reveals that one possible reason recognizable babies didn’t appear in some of the early Guardian photos was that the powerful suction completely destroyed them. The Guardian doesn’t mention this.
Mocking the Aborted Baby and Pro-Lifers
Several commenters mocked the photos or used dehumanizing language to describe the embryo/baby.
In the picture, BackgroundPea7785 is also holding a marijuana joint. One person commented, “A picture of tattooed hand holding petri dish with an aborted fetus and a joint. That deserves to win Pulitzer.”
Another said, “I can just imagine an old mega-Christian woman looking at that picture and fainting.”
Others said the photos were “interesting.”
None regarded the aborted baby as a person or a child, despite his or her appearance.
I use the term “his or her” because biological sex is determined at conception. Though we know that actual gender doesn’t always line up with biological sex since some people are trans. Nevertheless, the baby is at no stage an “it.” Also, a baby at this stage is developed enough to have unique male or female anatomy, though all these parts are still developing. If she were a girl, this embryo already had ovaries.
Another Dishonest Pro-Choice Article
Despite evidence proving that the Guardian’s pictures were false and misleading, the Huffington Post attempted to defend them. Their article mentioned that there were “commenters online saying this is not what the early miscarriage tissue they passed looked like.”
They explained this away by saying, “This could be because of the blood that accompanies a miscarriage.”
The article doesn’t explain how blood could be mistaken for a developed embryo with fingers and toes.
Joan Fleischman, who shared the photos, said “I’m not going to invalidate anybody’s experience. But I’ve never seen an embryo under nine weeks.”
But the Guardian article claims to present aborted babies at nine and ten weeks as well. So even if what Fleischman says is true for her, what about those babies?
The Huffington Post quoted an abortionist saying, “It’s important for people to understand we’re not talking about something highly developed at all.”
However, a baby at seven weeks has a heartbeat, brainwaves, developing eyes with retinas and eyelids. She’s been able to respond to touch for almost a week.
This article originally appeared on Live Action News.
Sarah Terzo is a supporter of the Consistent Life Ethic, a philosophy that values all human life. CLE supporters oppose capital punishment, war, euthanasia, and abortion, work against poverty, and advocate for racial justice. We oppose all forms of legalized killing.
Read more about the Consistent Life Ethic here.
One key question in the pro-life/pro-choice debate is whether an embryo/fetus in the womb is a human being. Is she a baby or just a collection of cells or tissue?
You may be surprised to find out how some pro-choice leaders have answered this question. Read this free e-booklet to find out more.
To join Medium, and be able to read all my articles without the paywall, click here. (I will get a commission from your subscription fee, which supports me and my writing.)
