[rjsimmon]

“These are not ‘baby parts,’” Gunter says.

Yep, thems 'baby parts'.

Just as "A rose, by any other name would still smell as sweet."
A Democrat, by any other name would still be just as evil.

[glennaro]

This must be from the 1984 edition of TNR.

[mass55th]

Disgusting. Are they going to put an added value tax on them for every step of production?

[NohSpinZone]

I held my nose and read the evil “doctor’s” article. Nothing there but willful denial of basic facts and rehash of the PP’s talking points. This hag would have made a wonderful Nazi apologist. She claims that it’s not “medically correct” to call a baby a baby until it has been birth. So, she essentially would be OK murdering the baby I guess until the very end?

This kind of mindset is what we’re up against. This is why the call to defund PP is going to meet with fierce resistance. These feminazis are just as radical in their beliefs as are ISIS and Al Qaeda about their.

[envisio]

Products of conception...... which is....... a baby.

[Pollster1]

The placenta is a product of conception, as is the cord. However, when they call body parts of babies by the names of body parts of babies, it’s reasonable to conclude that what they are selling is the body parts of babies. Anyone but a liberal could understand that. “Heart”, “liver”, and “kidney” are not mere products of conception.

[G Larry]

Hey Jen!

A BABY is the ONLY “Product of Conception”.

So, your Maoist attempts at renaming are of no value.

[sten]

to say an amputated leg did not belong with the baby is absurd in the extreme.

was the leg on the baby at any point in time? yes.
then there can be no dispute it was a part of the baby.
therefore, it is a baby part.

of course, they’re concerned we’ll realize that the unborn child is actually a child and not a lump of cells (that just happen to have bones, knees, arms and legs)

[sanjuanbob]

Their mindset is that “unborn babies lives don’t matter.”

[Adder]

Not according to wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Products_of_conception

According to this definition they are the bits and pieces left behind after anything dealing with birth and the like. They are NOT bits of beings.

Stretching it to cover the parts of babies is craven.

[shhrubbery!]

Calling the tissue ‘baby parts’ is a calculated attempt to anthropomorphize an embryo or fetus. It is a false image—a 10-12 week fetus looks nothing like a term baby...

Photo below shows a baby at fetal age 10 weeks. Nothing like a term baby?
Well, aside from the fact this "fetus" has eyes, nose, mouth, ears, hands, fingers, fingernails, feet, toes, toenails, heart, liver, pancreas, spine, brain ... yep, "nothing like a term baby."

From a "fetal development" website:
"The fetus is now about 2.5 inches (6cm) length and weighs about 0.7 ounce (20 g).
The feet are almost half an inch (1cm) long.
The fetus starts moving spontaneously.
The face is beginning to look like a baby's face.
The pancreas is functioning and producing insulin.
Fingernails and toenails appear.
The baby can suck his thumb, and get hiccups."

[EternalVigilance]

I guess all those expectant mothers out there, the ones with no intent to murder their own children, are going to be surprised to learn that they’re not expecting a baby.

“Do you know what you’re having?”

“Well, we’re expecting a product of conception.”

“Oh. How interesting.”