This week the Guardian, a widely circulated mainstream media outlet, ran an article featuring images of womb tissue, claiming these pictures proved an unborn baby to be nothing more than a clump of cells.
The article titled “what a pregnancy actually looks like before 10 weeks – in pictures,” shows images of “early pregnancy tissue” from the first trimester.
The images were taken on a camera that show a naked eye view of the tissue so that very little can actually be seen other than literal blobs of cells. This the Guardian claims is conclusive scientific proof that abortion is nothing more than the removal of body tissue. Pro-Life claims that a fetus is a human is therefore nothing more than “misinformation,” according to the Guardian.
“We’re just putting out the information and the facts to counter the misinformation,” abortionist Michele Gomez states. Gomez, a California abortionist, serves as the article’s sole source of medical information.
The article consciously contradicts imagery used in textbooks, claiming that “many images on the internet and in textbooks show development to be quite far along at this stage.”
Within the article, Gomez poses the question: “A lot of early pregnancy images are driven by people who are against abortion feel that life begins at conception, or by prenatal enthusiasts who want women to be excited about their pregnancy. What about people who aren’t?”
Therein lies the main point of the article. Why get your facts from “prenatal enthusiasts,” also commonly known as OB-GYNs, doctors, and scientists, when you could get your “facts” from people who aren’t excited about pregnancy, like an abortionist!
The California abortionist further states that, “for those who choose to look at the tissue, you can literally feel the tension come down. People have been on this emotional roller coaster. And they’re like, ‘You’re kidding. This is all that was?’”
By claiming to show what a pregnancy really looks like, the Guardian is trying to justify the destruction of preborn Life. Pointing to a picture of undiscernible tissue, abortionists can attempt to ease people’s consciences, saying “it’s just a clump of tissue.”
Yet it is obvious that the Guardian’s imagery does not tell the whole story about preborn Life. Even the Guardian itself knows that.
“If you zoom in on anything, including sperm and an egg getting fertilized, it’s just an incredible thing to watch,” Gomez admits, before continuing, “But that’s very different from the everyday ways we see life. That perspective to me is the most relevant – but it is somehow absent from our consciousness.”
By claiming that only what can be seen with the naked eye, that is the “everyday ways we see life,” the Guardian attempts to discredit and distract from established medical understanding of embryonic and fetal development.
“This is everything that would be removed during an abortion and includes the nascent embryo, which is not easily discernible to the naked eye,” the Guardian says of the image above taken at 9 weeks.
The question then is, if this is a picture of an aborted baby (“removed during an abortion”), why should we expect to see an easily discernible human after he or she has been mangled and destroyed beyond recognition?
Further, if the “nascent embryo” is not easily discernible to the naked eye, what would you see if you were to zoom in?
This is what you would see if you zoomed in to see an intact, non-aborted, unborn baby at that same stage of development, 9 weeks.
Abortionist Michele Gomez states that parents are surprised when she shows them the tissue, “They’re expecting to see a little fetus with hands – a developed, miniature baby… they feel they’ve been deceived.”
After looking at the images, who do you think is doing the deceiving?
By picturing post-abortive tissue with no context or explanation of what you would see if you just zoomed in, the Guardian is purposely and recklessly misleading its readers in order to promote their abortion agenda.
Rather than zooming in to show people the truth about developing babies in the womb, the Guardian chooses to show confusing images of what they call aborted “pregnancy tissue.”
Instead of quoting reputable and unbiased scientific facts about fetal development, the Guardian article gets all its information from a practicing abortionist.
Finally, if these images really tell the whole story of what “early pregnancy actually looks like,” then how does the Guardian explain its own article “The Story of Life,” that shows a beautiful, intact, human embryo at 8 weeks?
Both of the images above were published in Guardian articles. So which one is it, the Guardian?
See below: What a first trimester baby actually looks like.
The Guardian has an obvious and clear agenda; the continued destruction of human Life through abortion. Like many other mainstream media outlets, the Guardian believes the public is too dumb to look a little further about the facts of human development and will just accept whatever they have to say at face value.
Sadly, the abortion left’s attempts to deny the science of human development is nothing new. Democrat and abortion extremist Stacey Abrams recently made waves when she stated, “there is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks. It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.” Here too is another example of the left’s eagerness to deny established scientific fact and commonly practiced medical technology.
Related: Doctor Shares Story of Incredible Fetal Heart Surgery
Related: What does early pregnancy actually look like? WebMD tells a very different story!
Do not be deceived by the Guardian’s article claiming to show what “pregnancy really looks like.” In actuality, all the article truly does is further demonstrate the abortion left’s embarrassing willingness to deny and ignore scientific facts to justify abortion.