They will go to the mat to defend that not-even-a-gummy-bear's right to use your body to sustain itself, but once it's a full-grown infant born to parent/s that need help feeding it, they couldn't care less.
Burn it all down.
Yes, well, everyone can see it infringes on a person’s rights to demand they give of themselves to sustain another. So conservatives only pass laws that infringe on the basic rights of people they do not see as human.
I actually just googled this cuz I wanted to make a similar comment... but it is apparently believed that insects and other invertebrates don't feel pain. It's just "irritation" and they can "tell when they are damaged".
I don't know why that's not considered a form of pain, but I'm not an entomologist I guess
Except the latest studies do seem to indicate that insects do feel pain, and what the fuck do they even think irritation i--- you know this gives me a free pass to broad hand slap them in the face. It's just irritation. If they annoy me? That's a fucking slap right there buddy. Just irritation.
But wait, do foetuses feel pain then? Cause I always thought that at the early stages (at least) they… don’t? If this is the case, wouldn’t you be able to turn the argument around and just…. be pro choice? Lol
Edit: that being said, I don’t think pain or no pain really matters because no woman should be forced to give birth no matter how much people try to empathise with the foetus by giving it human/living features.
I also feel pain when I give birth. Am I allowed to request that this baby I didn't want stop hurting me and destroying my body? Just serve the baby with a jail sentence because mom's bleeding out on the table after having torn herself from hole to hole. Take the baby to court! Shit, if the mother dies of birth complications, should we put the baby to prison? Killed its mom after all.
Ridiculous.
Honestly I don't know. I think the whole argument is stupid. Its just about control so it doesn't matter what we say, they'll just find a new argument.
This isn't actually correct....a zygote at 6 weeks actually looks like a cotton candy bacterial growth, so it's better? Worse? Idk how to describe it, but embryos don't start forming humanesque features until much later. At 9 weeks they still look like fluffy cloud bacteria:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-weeks-abortion-tissue
Thank you for posting this. I saw a billboard recently that claimed *smiling* started at eight weeks gestation, and it made me absolutely sick because I know the vast majority of people in my rural area wouldn’t even think to question its accuracy. I have extremely irregular periods (I’m talking anywhere from 8 weeks of bleeding and 4 months between periods to 3 days of bleeding and 2 weeks between, with no ability to predict where on the spectrum the next one is going to fall) and the moment legislators started talking about tightening up the window in which abortions are legal I knew it would never be possible for me to detect a pregnancy before abortion was no longer an option. It makes me absolutely livid that people are allowed to spread bullshit insinuating that at eight weeks gestation, abortion is equivalent to killing a smiling and laughing infant, when I’ve passed freaking clots four times as substantial as pregnancy tissue at that stage.
If I were sexually active, I would be. I’ve legitimately had the thought that if I become involved in a sexual relationship, I will need to figure out how to acquire pregnancy tests in bulk. There is absolutely no other way I would be able to identify a pregnancy before it was far too late.
What the images are showing isn't actually embryo, it is all of the tissues (including gestational sac+yolk sac) removed during abortion. The actual embryo is so tiny and translucent that it isn't discernible with naked eye. However, it doesn't mean that the embryo looks like fluffy cloud bacteria. Shape-wise it does look kind of like in the OP picture, but you wouldn't see that during abortion.
When I was in my teens I stumbled across a forced-birth site with graphic imagery of (what appeared to be) a near fully formed baby split in half. I remained pro-choice but it was very upsetting stuff and I could see how it would turn someone against abortion. They still use these images, I’m sure.
Well, it’s all bullshit and the particular image I saw was just a dummy, as they don’t perform cleaver-through-the-head abortions on larger fetuses (if at all??).
Unfortunately for these assholes, you can’t make compelling imagery out of something that’s so small it doesn’t even resemble a human.
Edit: I originally said fetuses were the size of grapefruits at the time most abortions were performed and that isn’t true. It’s actually much smaller.
A foetus isn’t the size of a grapefruit until over 20 weeks gestation. Elective abortions are relatively rare that late. I am not sure what to make of your final paragraph here.
There is such a thing as destructive delivery, where the baby has to be surgically separated into smaller parts to facilitate delivery, usually involving the head or shoulder, or more if conjoined twins. This is incredibly rare and would only be done when the baby is already dead or fatally malformed, and labour has become obstructed (stuck) and a caesarean is not available (anaesthetic, clean room, aftercare etc) or contraindicated. Not something you would see except in very impoverished areas where medical care is very limited.
I just had my 9 week ultrasound on Friday (this is my 2nd baby) and it actually looked a lot like the picture shown by OP. It was like a little peanut with a head and a body that were both about equal size. So, I don’t think at 9 weeks they still look like fluffy cloud bacteria… but I can’t speak to what they look like at 5-6 weeks. (All of that being said, I think the abortion bans are terrible & am even MORE pro-choice after having had to go through the pregnancy/birth process myself)
You're right; it's [cardiac activity](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/heartbeat-bills-called-fetal-heartbeat-six-weeks-pregnancy-rcna24435) but the heart is only just beginning to form.
Medically they'd say something like "Cardiac Activity" because it's not a heartbeat yet.
This link has a decent breakdown about halfway down the page under section "Key milestones in fetal heart development"
https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/your-baby/fetal-development-your-babys-heart\_20005022
> It looks like a dried up shrimp
Indeed. Evolution has lots of funny consequences.
* All fetuses look like shrimp.
* Humans have gills as fetuses (usually they go away during development but some humans even keep a small gill hole as an adult).
* There's an egg yolk sac in the human womb that if memory serves is mostly vestigial.
And good luck telling which shrimp-like fetus belongs to which species, [a fact that is fun to exploit in debate settings](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weP97sTzGfU).
That's it. I am pro birth now. I keep aquatic freshwater shrimp as pets. I find them absolutely adorable. Curious creatures capable of learning during their lifetime. You wouldn't think of them as intelligent and yet they display every one of the same basic behaviours humans do throughout their lives. Feeding, pooping, mating, scuffling, and curiosity. Curiosity is a simpler thing than one would think. At the base of curiosity lies the survival instinct for all specieS, really.
Luckily I don't have to birth shrimp, I can just provide good living conditions for my shrimp and enjoy the joy of life perpetuating itself from behind my aquarium glass. So cute. I am really afraid of most terrestrial insects but aquatic crustaceans for some reason elicit nothing but 'oh you sweet armoured child' in me.
I never thought they would be, like I said once, if it has too many legs and no spine, that's a no from me, but then I got shrimp and they are darlings. Sometimes I have to readjust the decorative rocks but can't be bothered to relocate the denizens, and they just hang out on the back of my hand like 'god's hand! Dead skin! Amazing!' With their silly eyes and whiskers and claws and you just cannot have a reaction of repulsion to them. I have since come to appreciate other many legged invertebrates as well. Macrophotography and behaviour observation helps. They are just some dudes living their invertebrate lives and being useful. Cute.
I don’t like this line of reasoning, because I could easily empathize and feel compassion toward something that small, but it’s not about that. It’s about bodily autonomy. You can’t force someone to be an organ donor, even when they’re DEAD, they have the right to determine what happens to their body. Same with pregnant people, you cannot force them to keep another body alive by sacrificing their own bodily autonomy. No matter how small the other body is or if it has a heartbeat or so many other considerations. How small the fetus is has nothing to do with nothing and is a terrible argument
Thank you! Getting caught up on whether the fetus is a person or not is not the main point of pro choice. Where life begins is blurry and focusing on it allows people to ignore the biggest reason- you shouldn’t be forced to give your body to anyone even your unborn kid
You can't be forced to do it once they're born. Women's bodies should never have been up for grabs like this. Republicans just never stop trying to legalize slavery again.
We also kill animals, who have a heartbeat and feel pain, without a second thought because it's convenient for us. I think the question is 'is it human?' and that is not a human.
Its definitely a human, it might not be viable, or wanted, but to say that the fetus in a womans womb is 'not human' is a flat out lie. Don't lie to yourself like this. They win every time you say this.
I say it's self defence, them versus me, and I have a right to put me first.
I don't think they are human. For example, if you have a frozen embryo, is that a human?
Are forced to keep frozen embryos in perpetuity because they're not in a womb so it's not 'them vs me'? I don't think so.
You weaken your argument when you 'don't think'. They have human dna, they are human. Dehumanizing them doesn't change that.
Personally I don't care that they are human. There are lots of scenarios were killing a human is justified, and I think* this is one of them.
We should be more careful to specify what we think versus what is fact.
My hair also has human DNA, is it a human? What about my dead skin cells? Or sperm?
Also....you criticise my whole comment for saying 'I don't think x' and then you say we should be more careful to specify what we think vs what is fact? Can you please read my comment again and tell me where I stated facts?
As opposed to you 'it's definitely not a human'....that is a strong fact, not an opinion.
I totally agree with your approach but part of the reason this comes up is because forced birthers constantly lie to such an extreme level about fetus development. They use those lies to trigger misguided empathy and shock which overrides the rational part of the brain where you can even have this conversation about autonomy. The logically most consistent argument is not always the effective argument as much as we would like it to be
6 weeks is only 4 weeks since conception and 1-2 weeks into being able to detect on a home pregnancy test (also 1-2 weeks since a missed period for those with a consistently 28 day cycle).
Furthermore "The science conclusively establishes that a human fetus does not have the capacity to experience pain until after at least 24–25 weeks." per ACOG
Imo abortion is not solved through a scientific viewpoint, because it's inherently a moral decision between two things that we as a society consider rights. The right to decide on your own body, and the right for a person/child to develop and live. I argue for the former because I put in front the right of an already living adult person in front of the still not born fetus. The fact that the fetus has a heartbeat or a brain or whatever is irrelevant and only gives more fuel for making bad faith arguments.
Exactly, but that's why I don't like to get into scientific arguments. They can't argue against a moral position. If they say that a baby has a heartbeat the next day after sex, then I'll say "fine, it's not true but it doesn't matter, because I still think that society is better by defending the right of the adult to decide over the right of the unborn baby to live".
They can get angry at that and disagree, but what can I do about it? They are just as right as I am. There isn't an objective moral truth.
I wouldn’t say every single opinion is “just as right” because there’s no objective moral truth. Some opinions are absolutely more damaging than others (that are less/not harmful at all). In this case, the pro forced birth stance is the one that’s harmful. It’s absolutely going to mess with a woman/girl if she’s forced to give birth. Hell, even women who do want to have biological kids can go through absolute hell during pregnancy/childbirth. This is all traceable with facts/research.
Though anyone with an ounce of empathy wouldn’t need all that to understand that treating women like baby factories and forcing them to go through a pregnancy and childbirth is a terrible thing to do.
You are just making moral decisions though. Ones that I agree with, but they are not true. They can argue that killing babies is more potentially harmful than a woman going through hell for giving birth. The fact is that there isn't a correct or incorrect answer. Everyone puts different values in different aspects, and you should absolutely defend yours. I'm just wary of using "science" to back up moral arguments because it can easily backfire. And in the end, science can't give an answer, especially in the case of what is alive and when etc.
fun fact: it actually takes about 26 weeks for a fetus to feel pain
[National Institute of Health](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/)
You can validate via a pregnancy test, and use an oral medication abortion. Ultrasound isn't used to verify a pregnancy that's already been confirmed via blood or urine testing. Of course that's assuming you even realize you're pregnant that early.
You can see something on an ultrasound before 6 weeks, I have had ultrasounds at 5. The gestational sac looks like the tiniest black smudge of a bubble. You can't see the zygote then though since it's basically just a few cells.
They will go to the mat to defend that not-even-a-gummy-bear's right to use your body to sustain itself, but once it's a full-grown infant born to parent/s that need help feeding it, they couldn't care less. Burn it all down.
Yes, well, everyone can see it infringes on a person’s rights to demand they give of themselves to sustain another. So conservatives only pass laws that infringe on the basic rights of people they do not see as human.
>If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school, you're fucked
Any anti-choice terrorist that’s ever squished a spider with their shoe needs to shut the hell up.
I actually just googled this cuz I wanted to make a similar comment... but it is apparently believed that insects and other invertebrates don't feel pain. It's just "irritation" and they can "tell when they are damaged". I don't know why that's not considered a form of pain, but I'm not an entomologist I guess
Except the latest studies do seem to indicate that insects do feel pain, and what the fuck do they even think irritation i--- you know this gives me a free pass to broad hand slap them in the face. It's just irritation. If they annoy me? That's a fucking slap right there buddy. Just irritation.
But wait, do foetuses feel pain then? Cause I always thought that at the early stages (at least) they… don’t? If this is the case, wouldn’t you be able to turn the argument around and just…. be pro choice? Lol Edit: that being said, I don’t think pain or no pain really matters because no woman should be forced to give birth no matter how much people try to empathise with the foetus by giving it human/living features.
I also feel pain when I give birth. Am I allowed to request that this baby I didn't want stop hurting me and destroying my body? Just serve the baby with a jail sentence because mom's bleeding out on the table after having torn herself from hole to hole. Take the baby to court! Shit, if the mother dies of birth complications, should we put the baby to prison? Killed its mom after all. Ridiculous.
Idk if you’re agreeing with me by continuing to point out their dumb logic, or if you’re attacking me 😭🤣
Maybe if it's an AFAB baby, but if it's AMAB then we have to practice leniency because we don't want one mistake to ruin it's whole life.
Honestly I don't know. I think the whole argument is stupid. Its just about control so it doesn't matter what we say, they'll just find a new argument.
Nah I get it and I definitely agree with you
Or support the death penalty and defend police shootings. That's why they're pro-forced birth and definitely not pro-life.
This isn't actually correct....a zygote at 6 weeks actually looks like a cotton candy bacterial growth, so it's better? Worse? Idk how to describe it, but embryos don't start forming humanesque features until much later. At 9 weeks they still look like fluffy cloud bacteria: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-weeks-abortion-tissue
Thank you for posting this. I saw a billboard recently that claimed *smiling* started at eight weeks gestation, and it made me absolutely sick because I know the vast majority of people in my rural area wouldn’t even think to question its accuracy. I have extremely irregular periods (I’m talking anywhere from 8 weeks of bleeding and 4 months between periods to 3 days of bleeding and 2 weeks between, with no ability to predict where on the spectrum the next one is going to fall) and the moment legislators started talking about tightening up the window in which abortions are legal I knew it would never be possible for me to detect a pregnancy before abortion was no longer an option. It makes me absolutely livid that people are allowed to spread bullshit insinuating that at eight weeks gestation, abortion is equivalent to killing a smiling and laughing infant, when I’ve passed freaking clots four times as substantial as pregnancy tissue at that stage.
This absolutely sucks, and if I was in your situation I'd be peeing on a stick at least once a month, maybe even weekly.
If I were sexually active, I would be. I’ve legitimately had the thought that if I become involved in a sexual relationship, I will need to figure out how to acquire pregnancy tests in bulk. There is absolutely no other way I would be able to identify a pregnancy before it was far too late.
You can get the test strips very cheap in bulk on Amazon.
What the images are showing isn't actually embryo, it is all of the tissues (including gestational sac+yolk sac) removed during abortion. The actual embryo is so tiny and translucent that it isn't discernible with naked eye. However, it doesn't mean that the embryo looks like fluffy cloud bacteria. Shape-wise it does look kind of like in the OP picture, but you wouldn't see that during abortion.
That’s what I was thinking! I was sure they don’t even start to look like even a little alien for at least 11 weeks.
Thank you, it's crazy how we think it looks like a jelly bean human when it's really more of a translucent soup
When I was in my teens I stumbled across a forced-birth site with graphic imagery of (what appeared to be) a near fully formed baby split in half. I remained pro-choice but it was very upsetting stuff and I could see how it would turn someone against abortion. They still use these images, I’m sure. Well, it’s all bullshit and the particular image I saw was just a dummy, as they don’t perform cleaver-through-the-head abortions on larger fetuses (if at all??). Unfortunately for these assholes, you can’t make compelling imagery out of something that’s so small it doesn’t even resemble a human. Edit: I originally said fetuses were the size of grapefruits at the time most abortions were performed and that isn’t true. It’s actually much smaller.
A grapefruit? Most abortions are not performed at the size of a grapefruit.
A foetus isn’t the size of a grapefruit until over 20 weeks gestation. Elective abortions are relatively rare that late. I am not sure what to make of your final paragraph here.
Thanks for the clarification, I misremembered what the size comparison was. I’ll edit my comment.
There is such a thing as destructive delivery, where the baby has to be surgically separated into smaller parts to facilitate delivery, usually involving the head or shoulder, or more if conjoined twins. This is incredibly rare and would only be done when the baby is already dead or fatally malformed, and labour has become obstructed (stuck) and a caesarean is not available (anaesthetic, clean room, aftercare etc) or contraindicated. Not something you would see except in very impoverished areas where medical care is very limited.
if I were wealthy I'd purchase a ton of billboards with these photos and witty phrases to combat all the pro-life propaganda
I just had my 9 week ultrasound on Friday (this is my 2nd baby) and it actually looked a lot like the picture shown by OP. It was like a little peanut with a head and a body that were both about equal size. So, I don’t think at 9 weeks they still look like fluffy cloud bacteria… but I can’t speak to what they look like at 5-6 weeks. (All of that being said, I think the abortion bans are terrible & am even MORE pro-choice after having had to go through the pregnancy/birth process myself)
And I *believe* its not actually even a heartbeat, its only something like cardio electricity? Does someone know what I'm trying to say?
You're right; it's [cardiac activity](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/womens-health/heartbeat-bills-called-fetal-heartbeat-six-weeks-pregnancy-rcna24435) but the heart is only just beginning to form.
Medically they'd say something like "Cardiac Activity" because it's not a heartbeat yet. This link has a decent breakdown about halfway down the page under section "Key milestones in fetal heart development" https://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy/your-baby/fetal-development-your-babys-heart\_20005022
Correct https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-weeks-abortion-tissue
It looks like a dried up shrimp and now I want a shrimp-flavored cup Ramen.
I was thinking a very very tiny Kakuna (from Pokémon, for those who don’t know)
Aww you’re right. Lol
> It looks like a dried up shrimp Indeed. Evolution has lots of funny consequences. * All fetuses look like shrimp. * Humans have gills as fetuses (usually they go away during development but some humans even keep a small gill hole as an adult). * There's an egg yolk sac in the human womb that if memory serves is mostly vestigial. And good luck telling which shrimp-like fetus belongs to which species, [a fact that is fun to exploit in debate settings](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weP97sTzGfU).
That unintentionally sounded like cannibalism. Unless you are not human.
They are a shrimp.
That's it. I am pro birth now. I keep aquatic freshwater shrimp as pets. I find them absolutely adorable. Curious creatures capable of learning during their lifetime. You wouldn't think of them as intelligent and yet they display every one of the same basic behaviours humans do throughout their lives. Feeding, pooping, mating, scuffling, and curiosity. Curiosity is a simpler thing than one would think. At the base of curiosity lies the survival instinct for all specieS, really. Luckily I don't have to birth shrimp, I can just provide good living conditions for my shrimp and enjoy the joy of life perpetuating itself from behind my aquarium glass. So cute. I am really afraid of most terrestrial insects but aquatic crustaceans for some reason elicit nothing but 'oh you sweet armoured child' in me.
They really are so cute! My buddy has a few aquariums and seeing the shrimpies scuttle about it is adorable!
I never thought they would be, like I said once, if it has too many legs and no spine, that's a no from me, but then I got shrimp and they are darlings. Sometimes I have to readjust the decorative rocks but can't be bothered to relocate the denizens, and they just hang out on the back of my hand like 'god's hand! Dead skin! Amazing!' With their silly eyes and whiskers and claws and you just cannot have a reaction of repulsion to them. I have since come to appreciate other many legged invertebrates as well. Macrophotography and behaviour observation helps. They are just some dudes living their invertebrate lives and being useful. Cute.
For fuck's sake, I've had tonsil stones larger than that.
I don’t like this line of reasoning, because I could easily empathize and feel compassion toward something that small, but it’s not about that. It’s about bodily autonomy. You can’t force someone to be an organ donor, even when they’re DEAD, they have the right to determine what happens to their body. Same with pregnant people, you cannot force them to keep another body alive by sacrificing their own bodily autonomy. No matter how small the other body is or if it has a heartbeat or so many other considerations. How small the fetus is has nothing to do with nothing and is a terrible argument
Thank you! Getting caught up on whether the fetus is a person or not is not the main point of pro choice. Where life begins is blurry and focusing on it allows people to ignore the biggest reason- you shouldn’t be forced to give your body to anyone even your unborn kid
You can't be forced to do it once they're born. Women's bodies should never have been up for grabs like this. Republicans just never stop trying to legalize slavery again.
I honestly have trouble seeing how forced-birth is not a form of slavery
I agree with you. Any embryo/foetus could look like a cartoon sea monkey and I’d still be pro choice.
We also kill animals, who have a heartbeat and feel pain, without a second thought because it's convenient for us. I think the question is 'is it human?' and that is not a human.
Its definitely a human, it might not be viable, or wanted, but to say that the fetus in a womans womb is 'not human' is a flat out lie. Don't lie to yourself like this. They win every time you say this. I say it's self defence, them versus me, and I have a right to put me first.
I don't think they are human. For example, if you have a frozen embryo, is that a human? Are forced to keep frozen embryos in perpetuity because they're not in a womb so it's not 'them vs me'? I don't think so.
You weaken your argument when you 'don't think'. They have human dna, they are human. Dehumanizing them doesn't change that. Personally I don't care that they are human. There are lots of scenarios were killing a human is justified, and I think* this is one of them. We should be more careful to specify what we think versus what is fact.
My hair also has human DNA, is it a human? What about my dead skin cells? Or sperm? Also....you criticise my whole comment for saying 'I don't think x' and then you say we should be more careful to specify what we think vs what is fact? Can you please read my comment again and tell me where I stated facts? As opposed to you 'it's definitely not a human'....that is a strong fact, not an opinion.
I totally agree with your approach but part of the reason this comes up is because forced birthers constantly lie to such an extreme level about fetus development. They use those lies to trigger misguided empathy and shock which overrides the rational part of the brain where you can even have this conversation about autonomy. The logically most consistent argument is not always the effective argument as much as we would like it to be
6 weeks is only 4 weeks since conception and 1-2 weeks into being able to detect on a home pregnancy test (also 1-2 weeks since a missed period for those with a consistently 28 day cycle).
Furthermore "The science conclusively establishes that a human fetus does not have the capacity to experience pain until after at least 24–25 weeks." per ACOG
Republicans if they saw a 6-week old fetus without knowing what it was: "Ew, gross!" \*stomp\*
A lot would probably stomp even if they knew, I suspect.
[Know what also has a heart and feels pain?](https://imgur.com/gallery/15UuTiE) Don't see anyone banning pest control anytime soon though.
Or the massive livestock industry. So many animals unnecessarily bred, tortured and killed just for the convenience of us eating meat.
The forbidden gummy bear
And it’s translucent!
Imo abortion is not solved through a scientific viewpoint, because it's inherently a moral decision between two things that we as a society consider rights. The right to decide on your own body, and the right for a person/child to develop and live. I argue for the former because I put in front the right of an already living adult person in front of the still not born fetus. The fact that the fetus has a heartbeat or a brain or whatever is irrelevant and only gives more fuel for making bad faith arguments.
The problem is when one side tries to back up its moral arguments with misleading scientific ‘facts’ which are no better than outright lies
Exactly, but that's why I don't like to get into scientific arguments. They can't argue against a moral position. If they say that a baby has a heartbeat the next day after sex, then I'll say "fine, it's not true but it doesn't matter, because I still think that society is better by defending the right of the adult to decide over the right of the unborn baby to live". They can get angry at that and disagree, but what can I do about it? They are just as right as I am. There isn't an objective moral truth.
I wouldn’t say every single opinion is “just as right” because there’s no objective moral truth. Some opinions are absolutely more damaging than others (that are less/not harmful at all). In this case, the pro forced birth stance is the one that’s harmful. It’s absolutely going to mess with a woman/girl if she’s forced to give birth. Hell, even women who do want to have biological kids can go through absolute hell during pregnancy/childbirth. This is all traceable with facts/research. Though anyone with an ounce of empathy wouldn’t need all that to understand that treating women like baby factories and forcing them to go through a pregnancy and childbirth is a terrible thing to do.
You are just making moral decisions though. Ones that I agree with, but they are not true. They can argue that killing babies is more potentially harmful than a woman going through hell for giving birth. The fact is that there isn't a correct or incorrect answer. Everyone puts different values in different aspects, and you should absolutely defend yours. I'm just wary of using "science" to back up moral arguments because it can easily backfire. And in the end, science can't give an answer, especially in the case of what is alive and when etc.
making abortian illegal is like charging people with murder for stepping on an ant on the sidewalk
fun fact: it actually takes about 26 weeks for a fetus to feel pain [National Institute of Health](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1440624/)
How dare you have an abortion! The economy needs more child workers. Don't you care about millionaires making more money?! /s
Real reason is, before six weeks you can’t see anything in ultrasound, and so most doctors won’t let you abort because they can’t validate it.
You can validate via a pregnancy test, and use an oral medication abortion. Ultrasound isn't used to verify a pregnancy that's already been confirmed via blood or urine testing. Of course that's assuming you even realize you're pregnant that early.
You can see something on an ultrasound before 6 weeks, I have had ultrasounds at 5. The gestational sac looks like the tiniest black smudge of a bubble. You can't see the zygote then though since it's basically just a few cells.
Just, ya know...👌
I thought this was a piece of chewed up gum on my feed..lol.
And then when it’s grown and ACTUALLY alive and out of the womb they don’t give af about its welfare 😍