# question about prolife sites (possibly triggery)



## frugalmum (Nov 5, 2009)

While I don't regret having the D&C I have been very fixated on wanting to know exactly what my baby would have looked like developmentally when she passed, what she looked like when she came out (I was under general for the procedure and I doubt they would have shown me anyway).

So I have been googling and have come across a lot of pro-life sites with actual pictures of terminated babies. However, I remember reading somewhere that some pro-life literature shows older fetuses saying they are younger, so, say, showing a 16 week fetus saying it is 13 weeks. Does anyone know how accurate the graphic pictures on prolife sites are? I hate to ask this question but it is really nagging at me.

I had a missed m/c so baby was somewhere very early 2nd trimester when she passed.


----------



## KristaDJ (May 30, 2009)

Usually those prolife sites go by gestational age so the baby is actually two weeks farther along than what they say. When we count pregnancy we count from last menstrual period so we are already two weeks pg at conception. The prolife sites count from conception. Other than that the pics are very accurate.








I'm sorry you didn't get to see her.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

WebMD has a slide show that has a picture for 12 weeks. http://www.webmd.com/baby/slideshow-fetal-development

I don't know if that's gestational age or the other accounting. Counting those two-or-so weeks before conception occurs is so confusing and ridiculous. Development starts at conception, and the baby is accurately as "old" as the weeks it's been developing. If you were 13 weeks pregnant by the LKMP way of counting, then the baby was about 11 weeks in gestational age.










I lost two at around the same gestation.  I'm so sorry for your loss. ((((hugs))))


----------



## frugalmum (Nov 5, 2009)

Thanks-- I am ok with not having seen her but I would like to know exactly where she was developmentally... is it possible she felt pain when she passed? That is the main thing bothering me. I was somewhere between 13-16 weeks counting from LMP.


----------



## Claire and Boys (Mar 27, 2007)

I asked my OB this and she said that it has been found that fetuses younger than 24 weeks do not feel pain. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/06/25/fetuses-weeks-gestation-cannot-feel-pain-experts-nebraska-hearing-wrong

So I would say no it is unlikely your baby suffered at all. *hugs* I'm sorry for your loss.


----------



## UnsettledMama (Dec 22, 2010)

First of all, so sorry you have to even look for these pictures. <3 I can't say for sure that the pictures are fake, but it sounds like a tactic some of those sites might use.

To get accurate pictures, why don't you try a Google search only of reputable sites?

Something like this:

site:.edu pictures of 13 week fetus

By limiting the search to .edu sites you don't have to shift through the junk.


----------



## bcblondie (Jun 9, 2009)

I think a lot of the sites go by gestational age (weeks since conception) because it makes it seem like "wow only 6 weeks along, and look how big" But really, for your baby to look that big, you'd have to be 8 weeks since last menstruation. (just for example)

But going by that, the pictures look really acurate to me. I passed my 8.5 week baby at 11 weeks and it looked just like the pictures.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcblondie*
> 
> I think a lot of the sites go by gestational age (weeks since conception) because it makes it seem like "wow only 6 weeks along, and look how big" But really, for your baby to look that big, you'd have to be 8 weeks since last menstruation. (just for example)
> 
> But going by that, the pictures look really acurate to me. I passed my 8.5 week baby at 11 weeks and it looked just like the pictures.


Yes, pro-life sites do that.

I know a woman who had to induce labor to save her life when she developed eclampsia at 22 weeks. Some well-meaning "friends" kept telling her after the fact about all kinds of babies they'd heard about that survived being born at 22 weeks. Except the sites they were sending her were using gestational age, not LMP age, and 24 vs. 22 weeks is a major, major difference in viability. Its apparently a very common tactic on some sites.


----------



## KristaDJ (May 30, 2009)

Many, MANY fetal development sites go by gestational age if not most of them. http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images-index.php This is one of the best I've even seen and it goes by gestational age; so does Visible Embryo. Not all women will conceive at two weeks from the start of their last menstrual period (probably not even most women); it's only measured that way because most women don't know when they O. When you are dealing with the kind of development that happens in the womb there is a huge difference between 7 weeks and 9 weeks (or 22 and 24 like Savithny said) so they measure it the most accurate way possible, gestational age.


----------



## bcblondie (Jun 9, 2009)

I agree. 2 weeks makes a huge difference. Especially around the age of viability, and in those very first early weeks. And especially if you are unsure on you ovulation date.

But I think the sites are playing it safe because it would suck if they went by LMP, and osmeone thought hey, the baby is just a speck at 5 weeks, and aborted, only to find out later that they were 7 weeks by LMP. Kwim? I've run into several people who thought they were 2 weeks along when they got their bfp. I'm like, no hun. You're 4 weeks. lol.


----------



## KristaDJ (May 30, 2009)

Yeah, a lot of women don't understand the way pregnancy is measured. Maybe that is something that the prolife sites are considering. Either way I wouldn't use them for the best pics of fetal development as I have seen several of them be off in their sizes/development. That EHD site has pictures and video clips and is 100% accurate as it's actual footage of babies throughout pregnancy.


----------



## bcblondie (Jun 9, 2009)

Yes I LOVED the ehd site. Used it every week with my last pregnancy. It's seriously the most amazing thing.


----------



## theboysmama (Sep 21, 2005)

on the ehd site when you look at the 6-8 wks pics and see the 7 1/2 wk "embryo" are those dates on the pics based from conception or 2 wks prior to conception? I was 7 wks 4 days (at 6pm) when I saw babies hb on u/s. I passed the baby 2 days later at 7 wks 6 days (at 7:30 pm). My baby did not look like those pics. it had some arm buds but no hands or fingers and no legs or feet yet. maybe there was something wrong? or maybe the pics I should be looking for should say 5.5 wks (but that doesn't look right either).


----------



## crayfishgirl (May 26, 2009)

I used to have the book "A Child is Born" (http://www.amazon.com/Life-Lennart-Nilsson/dp/B0014JOK9I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1293570282&sr=1-1), which showed pics from conception to birth. Although I don't recall with certainty, I believe that the gestation age is based on conception and not LMP. Lennart Nilsson has some photos on his website, although none within the age of your little one (http://www.lennartnilsson.com/child_is_born.html#).

I'm so sorry for your loss, Mama.


----------



## bcblondie (Jun 9, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theboysmama*
> 
> on the ehd site when you look at the 6-8 wks pics and see the 7 1/2 wk "embryo" are those dates on the pics based from conception or 2 wks prior to conception? I was 7 wks 4 days (at 6pm) when I saw babies hb on u/s. I passed the baby 2 days later at 7 wks 6 days (at 7:30 pm). My baby did not look like those pics. it had some arm buds but no hands or fingers and no legs or feet yet. maybe there was something wrong? or maybe the pics I should be looking for should say 5.5 wks (but that doesn't look right either).


It's from conception. It was acurate for the baby I passed. I was 8w4d from LMP and I saw tiny hands and feet with fingers just begining to form. But not really toes. What you describe seems acurate to me. But you never know for sure.


----------



## theboysmama (Sep 21, 2005)

it just amazes me how fast they grow! my baby was 7 wks 4-6 days and bc blondies baby was 8 wks 4 days and had limbs, etc. Emeric was about 14 wks and was about 3.5 inches long and full formed with toes fingers the whole deal and pepper was about the sz of a dime. there is only 6 wks between them and the growth is just amazing.

I am sorry that any of us are dealing with this. it sucks


----------

