Christian mayor inflames Norway abortion debate by posting picture of fake 12-week foetus in palm of a hand


#1

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2551660/Christian-mayor-inflames-Norway-abortion-debate-posting-picture-fake-12-week-foetus-palm-hand.html
[LIST]
*]Jørgen Kristiansen posted photo of 12-week-old foetus on Facebook
*]Image shows 5.5cm figure with fingers and toes being held in a hand
*]Norway’s government currently discussing plans for abortion referrals
*]Doctors may be able to refuse to refer patients if ethically opposed
*]Mayor condemned for posting ‘anti-abortion propoganda’ that is ‘a lie’
*]Under Norwegian law, women can obtain termination up to 18 weeks
[/LIST]


#2

It doesn’t seem that he was lying. Maybe that really is what a fetus that age would look like.

I thought they were a lot hairier at that stage though, for some reason.


#3

That length is correct.

babycenter.com/average-fetal-length-weight-chart

And as for being able to make out fingers and toes, I can vouch for that from personal experience. :slight_smile:


#4

The doll, is probably a little chubby for a baby at a gestational age of 12 weeks, and the head maybe a little more egg shaped and less round (though from ultrasound pics, their heads look round at 12 weeks, from my own experience). But otherwise looks correct. babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-12-weeks


#5

I am vehemently against abortion, though, I would welcome anyone who felt truly repentant about this sinful crime into the church with open arms, if they would not do it again.

That being said, I find these images of aborted fetuses to be vile. I understand the passion pro-lifers have [being one of them] but these images cross an unforgivable boundary. I do not have to view morbid crime scene pictures in order to hate the sin and crime of murder. The same applies to abortion.


#6

This was not a picture of an aborted fetus. :shrug: Did you even go and look at the picture? It was a scale doll of a fetus that 12 weeks gestation.


#7

I am not sure whether or not the model of a fetus is accurate but I fully support his right to post that. Personally, I run a pro-life Facebook page and I often post pro-life stuff to my ow personal timeline as well. If you’re interested in checking out my pro-life Facebook page, you can do so here:

facebook.com/DefendingtheSanctityofLife?ref=hl


#8

My 12 week ultrasound picture was my favorite. Baby was still small enough to fit completely within the picture on the monitor, but you could see the hands/fingers and feet.toes. Also the face is visible, along with the belly, spine, skull, and major arm and leg bones.


#9

:thumbsup:


#10

The article is so clunkily translated, that I am not sure if they are outraged because the Mayor inappropriately used his office to participate in the debate, or because they thought the doll was real. The image pretty obviously rubber (at least when captioned as “fake”)

I am not even certain which side, the pro-life or pro-abortion, is “inflamed”. :shrug:


#11

Yea, I looked it up. The hair covering the body lanugo doesn’t come in until about four months in.
Fingers and toes are not webbed, ears and teeth are buds, not quite the tiny scale '“baby” that the politician was holding, but a pretty good representation all the same.

It is kind of gross hearing what happens with all that hair, but it maybe makes things like a dropped soother wiped off on a sleeve less worrisome, knowing what else goes into the babies mouths even before they are born.:eek:

I wouldn’t recommend looking up images on the internet though. Most of the images are cute enough, but in the main they are disturbing, especially if there is an inkling that any of them may be real. I mean, it is death we are witnessing.

There was nothing sensationalist or disturbing about the fetus doll in the politicians hand though. It was tastefully real, and not in any way a depiction that should be called a lie, in my opinion.


#12

How kind of you.


#13

Sarcasm?

The Church has a few retreats/programs for those who had an abortion to come in, heal, and atone.

I think its called Rachels Retreat?


#14

Yes. Sarcasm.

Ask the Church for atonement, yes. A fellow sinner, nah.


#15

As noted, this was a highly sanitized plastic model, not one of those bloody photos.

But the bloody photos DO have a valid use. There simply are an awful lot of nearly invincibly ignorant people out there convinced that abortion is nothing more than the removal of an offending blob of tissue. These people NEED reality checks as much as early 19th century slave owners needed to be confronted with the real, genuine humanity of slaves. Folks back then used similar ruses to uphold their subhuman delusions (prohibitions on teaching slaves to read, selling married slaves separately, encouraging slave fornication for breeding sake… All these things were used to “prove” black people were savages, not really humans like us…). People need to have these evil self delusions shattered.

I personally saw video footage in high school of an open heart surgery in biology class in a human anatomy lesson. There was no anger and outrage in spite of all the blood spilled. The only reason pro-choicers are upset about abortion images being shown is that they don’t WANT to see what abortion really is. Maybe they should wonder why seeing what it really is is so upsetting?


#16

ushmm.org/

Never forget, unless the images cross an unforgivable boundary.


#17

Gonna disagree with this. Unlike traditional crime-scene photos, the point of pictures that show the result of abortion is 1. To draw back the veil of lies perpetrated by pro-abortion crowds that paint abortions as being gentle, sun-filled experiences, and 2. To emphasize the point that babies in the womb are human.

That feeling of disgust and horror that you get from viewing these pictures is exactly what the pro-abortion crowd NEEDS to feel…because that is the emotion one feels when looking at a murdered human being, not at a disposed clump of tissue.


#18

For those who haven’t clicked on the original link to see the story with the uber-biased headline …

This photo was included in the OP’s story. The Daily Mail piece was “anti-” to its use … but to its credit, it posted the photo rather than just alluding to it.

This model demonstrates the truth of a child’s development at a certain stage.
Even in most of the details (not*** all *** - but that is where the pro-abort bait and switch begins).

Some points about it:

  • So, before this mayor published the photo - the ***Norwegian abortion debate ***was ever-so-much “nicer”?

  • Some people are more “inflamed” about a nice, clean, accurately sized, human looking*** model *** being used - than the actuality of seeing a real child (per abortion) in pieces, salt poisoned or acid burned to death at 12 weeks??

  • Or more inflamed by a “fake” model being used in place of … (a muddier “less human looking” actual unborn child in utero via an ultrasound scan?)

  • “Christian” in the headline is being used as a perjorative IMO. Class warfare. Were he an agnostic with the same view - would his faith (or lack of it) lead off the headline? :nope: IMO

  • In comparison with some of the photos on LifeSiteNews - the fingers and toes look correct on the model … the eyes (or eyelids) do look more well developed than the 12 week foetus pictures*** there ***… more like the 16-week … but of course the point of the mayor’s publishing it would seem to be to save such children from being aborted (voluntarily through this appeal to the mothers … or doctors who’d refuse to do it anymore once confronted with the truth well presented).

  • By calling it a “Norway abortion debate” the story implies (IMO) something scholarly was going on until this unsavory intrusion by the “Christian” mayor and his “fake” evidence. Which has now made the high-minded exercise of intellect :rolleyes: an emotionally charged exercise against “unity” concocted by a provacateur trying to impose a theocracy upon Norway (with his shameless photo of a harmless little baby in a human hand (for scale) – and implying that such ought not be killed deliberately if the right people want it to be? :rolleyes:

Many good pro-lifers get derailed or silenced by pro-abortion attacks upon how one must present the pro-life case (i.e. ideally not at ALL; or ineffectively; or with such a scrupulous attention to manners and niceties that even bringing up the subject is … vile). :banghead:

The pro-life dilemma is that while something must be done to stop this horror in the present and future - most pro-lifers know and love someone (or many MANY someones) who have already made the abortion mistake. And the highest minded pro-lifers would rather have those people forgiven of their past sin(s) ( … as far as the east is from the west) by Jesus (who makes all things new) :signofcross: than forever in sackcloth and ashes or branded with a *** worse*** scarlet letter “A” forever.

Some of the most inspiring pro-life people are those women who publicly “regret their abortion(s)” and are saving children today through their witness. And are accepted and welcomed (not castigated and excluded) by the pro-life community … with the exception of people who imagine themselves to be superior by their exclusion (there are always people like that … and many more tempted to be like that).

This mayor may save a life or two through his efforts. :thumbsup: Apparently he has struck a nerve.

Which is less important than turning the heart of some mother toward the LIFE “choice” :love: - but a necessary prerequisite in some cases for it to happen.

What I find “fake” is the journalistic objectivity implied in the neutral word “debate” in an otherwise pro-abortion hit piece headline. I suspect it’s a business decision by the Daily Mail to play to the pro-abortion segment of their readership (knowing that pro-life people will also read it, by the by).


#19

Esieffe. You said in post 5 (bold and ul mine):

I am vehemently against abortion, though, I would welcome anyone who felt truly repentant about this sinful crime into the church with open arms, if they would not do it again.

That being said, I find these images of aborted fetuses to be vile. I understand the passion pro-lifers have [being one of them] but these images cross an unforgivable boundary. I do not have to view morbid crime scene pictures in order to hate the sin and crime of murder. The same applies to abortion.

Are you saying (?) . . . .

Regarding people who have had an abortion . . .

Quote:
I would welcome anyone who felt truly repentant about this sinful crime into the church with open arms

But regarding the Mayor or any other Pro-Lifer who uses explicit imagery to expose abortion for what it really is . . . .

Quote:
. . . these images cross an unforgivable boundary.

Do you mean this or am I misunderstanding what you are saying (perhaps you are just using the term “unforgivable” in a hyperbolic sense)?

You seem to be saying abortion is “forgivable” (which I agree with incidentally) but . . . .

. . . . . certain overt evangelistic methods or whatever else you would call it, is unforgivable (“cross an unforgivable boundary”).

Do Holocaust Museums which likewise have explicit imagery also cross an “unforgivable boundary”? Did the civil rights leaders of the 1960’s who showed explicit images of persecution of blacks cross an “unforgivable boundary” too? I can think of several other things too but I’ll just await your response and take it from there.


#20

Images of the miracle of life within the womb are not inflammatory, but are rather beautiful I think.
Images of abortions and dead babies are disturbing, but this is not why pro-abortion are inflammed, since this was in effect a baby doll in his hands. What the abortionists are inflammed about is that such imagery humanizes the in utero experience, much like ultrasound humanizes the fetus.
Pro-choice becomes a misnomer the moment they protests such imagery, for what they are doing is making every attempt to limit information that is a necessary pre-condition to make choice possible in the first place.

Imagery of living fetuses are enough to get you suspended on some Christian sites, because many Christians are so pro-abortion that whatever visually humanizes the pre-birth experience exposes the inhumanity of their pro-abortion stance.
This Norwegian politician holds life in his hand, symbolically. It would be a monster that would squeeze that hand into a fist and crush the life within. Pro-abortion recognize those implication well enough.

Pro-abortions flail wildly and hysterically as a result, for once they imagine the fetus within their own hands, they become monsters in their own eyes for choosing to squeeze. and break the trust between themselves and another human being, so frail and so helpless and dependant upon the hand that contain the fate of the unborn baby.

This is not the imagery of death and destruction. The mayors hand is a nest, and the fetus is nestling.

What comes next…


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.