Flashback Friday.
You have likely seen photographs of fetus’ that seem to float in a dark womb. The first of these were taken by Swedish photographer Lennart Nilsson. One of his photographs graced the cover of Life magazine in April of 1965.
Nilsson’s images forever changed the way that people think about pregnancy, mothers, and fetuses. Before Nilsson, the visual of a fetus independent from a mother was not widespread. His pictures made it possible for people to visualize the contents of a woman’s womb independently of her body. Suddenly, the fetus came to life. It was no longer just something inside of a woman, no longer even in relationship to a woman; it was an individual with a face, a sex, a desire to suck its thumb.
Once the fetus could be individualized, the idea that a woman and her fetus could have contrasting interests was easier to imagine. In many countries even today, the idea that helping pregnant women is helping fetuses and helping fetuses means helping pregnant women is still the dominant way of thinking about pregnancy. Pro-choice and other fetus-defenders, such as those who want it to be illegal to smoke during pregnancy, used these images to disentangle the interests of the woman and the fetus. The vulnerability of Nilsson’s subjects, free-floating in space, made it easier to portray fetuses as in danger.
There is power in visualization and its technological advance and these images were a boon to the pro-life cause. Ironically, it was abortion that made these images possible. Nilsson posed the fetuses to look alive, and gives no indication otherwise, but they are actually photographs of aborted fetuses.
Although claiming to show the living fetus, Nilsson actually photographed abortus material obtained from women who terminated their pregnancies under the liberal Swedish law. Working with dead embryos allowed Nilsson to experiment with lighting, background and positions, such as placing the thumb into the fetus’ mouth.
— Quote from the University of Cambridge’s history of the science of fetal development
Liberal abortion rights laws resulted in a product that was used to mobilize anti-abortion sentiment. Today it is par for the course to have been exposed to images like this. And the rest is history.
Originally posted in 2009.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 123
Larry C Wilson — April 30, 2009
Of course photographs lie. They show only what the photographer wants them to show.
Elena — April 30, 2009
It's a bit difficult to get good lighting inside someone's womb, yeah. And think of the complications if sticking a camera up there resulted in a miscarriage.
I guess the appeal to the people who are opposed to legal abortion is that in these pictures there is no woman, only the embryo or fetus, floating in a vacuum.
It also contrasts with the pictures of "aborted" fetuses they show to gross out people, cut up and bleeding.
Vidya — April 30, 2009
I suppose my first reaction to finding this out was relief. I had always assumed that these romanticized photos were actually taken inside a woman's body and therefore the product of horrific (even if officially 'consensual') sexual-surgical violation. (If the abortions in question were surgical ones, of course, this is still true, yet at least that knowledge reinscribes the act of bodily violation and medical-sexual violence against women into our reading of them, in a way that the 'wow-isn't-it-amazing-that-we-can-now-see-inside-bodies' discourse usually associated with these photos tends to erase.)
EKSwitaj — April 30, 2009
Photographs can lie but, more importantly, they always involve some sort of framing: what is or isn't shown, what's in focus and what isn't, etc. This is true whether you're photographing an embryo, taking happy snaps on vacation, or (like me) are a dedicated amateur trying to play with reflection, refraction, and the oblique gaze.
Issa — April 30, 2009
I love these photographs. I purchased a book of Nilsson's photos when I was pregnant, enjoying looking at each stage of development. I assumed that these fetuses were not in the womb during the pictures. The lighting seemed to make that clear. That doesn't detract from them, though - they are still awesome pictures! I do think it's funny that anti-abortion people would latch on to images made possible by abortion.
opminded — April 30, 2009
Vidya, of all the comments ever posted here yours, well, is startling in its uniqueness and perversity.
Anyway, the photographs have completely changed the abortion debate. Professors can no longer refer to the babies as "products of conception" or "unwanted tissue", because the students have all seen these photos and know the truth: a fetus is a living, yet to be born, human being.
That doesn't mean that the abortion debate is an open and shut case, but at least many of the rhetorical lies can be finally discredited.
SarahMC — April 30, 2009
Of course one can refer to the "babies" as unwanted tissue. To many women, that's exactly what it is - unwanted human tissue. that, at some point, begins to resemble something humanish.
Do you think women are actually so stupid as to be unaware that they're carrying human fetuses when they're pregnant?
Dubi — April 30, 2009
Sarah - at least from my experience, seeing the human form does change things emotionally, if not rationally.
In general, with existing 3D imaging technology, it's possible to take pictures of real live fetuses that (with some additional touch-ups) can look no less good than these. e.g.: http://microiod.livejournal.com/1585.html (yeah, that's me'boy) - and these are hardly the high-techiest of them all.
Ellen — April 30, 2009
I am with Sarah, First, I think it is paranoid to think professors called fetuses “products of conception” or “unwanted tissue.” In fact, I have never heard them called anything other than fetuses and embryos by my professors.
And Dubi, while that is very true when a baby is wanted. It's not so true when an abortion is planned.
Ellen — April 30, 2009
And thanks for posting this. I never knew they were aborted. Like Vidya, I thought they used some kind of scope, which always confused me because you couldn't see the uterus at all. There is usually no extra room between the fetus and uterus.
Issa — May 1, 2009
@SarahMC I ask that same question about legislation to have women view ultrasounds before an abortion. Do they think women haven't considered what's happening and will suddenly change their minds after seeing a picture?
Sabriel — May 1, 2009
Vidya- Thank you for voicing that sentiment about the medical-sexual violation that is implied when you talk about setting up photography inside a womb that way. I had never thought about it much, figuring that everything was consensual and not visualizing the procedure that would have to take place. Now that I think about it that way, I too am glad that the photos are of aborted fetuses.
gem — May 1, 2009
Interesting discussion. My brother and his wife had in-vitro fertilization. They have a "true" photo of the four embryos which were implanted. It was and remains startling to look at especially I think because I've been accustomed to Nilsson's type of photos.
anna — May 1, 2009
i am pro choice but i am weirded out by all the euphemisms here, and why am i the only one who is really uncomfortable now that i know these pictures are not of living things, as we are led to believe? so whatever they are, they're not alive anymore, but they've been constructed to look alive, plus in actuality they are humans in very early, pre-birth form. i am just so weirded out.
Elena — May 1, 2009
@Issa: Do they think women haven’t considered what’s happening and will suddenly change their minds after seeing a picture?
There is a current between opponents of legal abortions to view women as the "victims" of their male partners and the "abortion industry", yes. They *do* think that women are stupid and without agency.
Cecil — May 1, 2009
I am with Anna, it is a little bit weird that we are looking at dead things that are constructed to look alive...
Stef — May 1, 2009
When I was a kid in the late 60s, my dad used to take me to the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. One of my favorite exhibits was a room full of preserved embryos and fetuses lined up to show the progression of development. There was an explanation that they came from nonviable pregnancies or something like that. (This was before abortion was legal in the US.) They weren't lit so as to pretend they were alive, and I get being weirded out by that, but I grew up used to the idea of seeing preserved dead fetuses. (And that also makes me feel amused by the fuss over those human body exhibits that use real corpses.) I wonder if the museum still has that exhibit. The map doesn't show it.
Lindsey — May 2, 2009
@Stef: The last time I went to the Museum of Science and Industry (within the last five years, at least) the exhibit was still there.
O — May 18, 2009
I really find is surprising that people cannot empathize at all with an opposing point of view. I mean serious mental gymnastics are going on here to not see the other side.
"I guess the appeal to the people who are opposed to legal abortion is that in these pictures there is no woman, only the embryo or fetus, floating in a vacuum."
Wow... could you be any more biased to your own point of view? If the pro life movement were actually about restricting choice to women, they'd be outside Starbucks, not abortion clinics.
They believe there are people, without rights, being persecuted not because of what they are, but because of where they are. The reason they like these pictures is it shows their side.
Seriously, if these were pictures of black slaves, it would be a clear bias on your part to say "I guess black rights campaigners like these pictures because it doesn't show the whites and what they have to go through". You are horrifically misjudging these people, who genuinely believe millions of people are being killed unjustly. How is it difficult to see that?
Also "I think it's funny prolifers would latch on to these pictures". Funny like how Human Rights groups would latch on to pictures "only made possible by human rights abuses"? The point isn't that they got some cool snaps for their photo album.
amy — May 25, 2009
crazy!
amy — May 25, 2009
crazy again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
real name is anne x — May 25, 2009
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Sociological Images » Pro-Life Politics And The Erasure Of The Pregnant Woman — June 11, 2009
[...] a similar phenomenon, check out Lennart Nilsson’s fetus photography. tags: politics, reproduction/abortion| Permalink| White Privilege And The Trouble [...]
Kristina — June 15, 2009
Dead or alive, this is what they look like. They are not blobs.
Anonymous — June 25, 2009
O - you are incorrect in saying "Also “I think it’s funny prolifers would latch on to these pictures”. Funny like how Human Rights groups would latch on to pictures “only made possible by human rights abuses”? The point isn’t that they got some cool snaps for their photo album."
as these photos do not attempt to display the horrors of human rights violations. They merely show what a fetus looks like (albeit, deliberately posed and lighted to look more human). The photos do not say "these fetuses were aborted, look how horrible it is." They do attempt to say "this is what a fetus looks like."
your analogy would be correct if the hypothetical pictures were simply of a black man in no other context, on a black background. Then the hypothetical "anti slavery movement" would "latch onto them" and say "this black man looks like a human just like us, maybe we shouldnt enslave them."
though i do agree, the reason pro-lifers use these pictures is not BECAUSE it fails to show the woman in strife, they use them because the pictures show fetuses as independent human beings. It is because of this independence that they are powerful. If the picture showed the fetuses inside a woman, perhaps with a "cross section" of flesh missing to show the humanoid fetus, they would be less powerful because of the lack of independence of the fetus.
Anonymous — June 27, 2009
Theres nothing wrong with killing fetus'. Its fun and they taste good on Rye bread with mayonaise.
Sociological Images » Motherhood As Women’s “Most Sacred Birthright” — July 2, 2009
[...] turning her into a faceless baby incubator (like in these editorial cartoons and not unrelated to this photography). Ryan writes: “It’s clear what’s most important in this [...]
Anonymous — January 15, 2010
Actually some of the photos are taken from alive fetuses within the womb. Some are from taken from aborted ones. Nilson said he took pictures of alive fetuses in the womb using special technology called an endoscope. He also photographed ones that were not alive and that had been aborted. Nova interviewed Nilsson here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/nilsson.html
Whether these fetuses are dead or alive it does not change anything. This is really what they look like. Most biology book say that human life begins at conception. How could a fetus, that comes as a result of two human parents, be anything but human.
Shelby Adams — January 15, 2010
Actually some of the photos are taken from alive fetuses within the womb. Some are from taken from aborted ones. Nilson said he took pictures of alive fetuses in the womb using special technology called an endoscope. He also photographed ones that were not alive and that had been aborted. Nova interviewed Nilsson here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/nilsson.html
Whether these fetuses are dead or alive it does not change anything. This is really what they look like. Most biology book say that human life begins at conception. How could a fetus, that comes as a result of two human parents, be anything but human.
Asan — March 6, 2010
sämst det står ju inga förklaringar om hur bilderna är tagna osv
leslie — April 16, 2010
Wow. Here I am, pro-choice to a point, looking at these images and physically torn because the pictures are of dead fetuses.
I believe abortion is a woman's right. I do know the fetus feels pain after the 10th week, so thats where my choice agreement stops, unless in terms of fetal demise or other problems that would result in death otherwise.
i have often found myself comforted by these images, and imagined some kind of camera, like the kind used during surgical procedures used for this. there are so many ways to experiment with the final picture. my heart is very sad. my very 19wk pregnant heart...
The Power of Images in Environmental Movements » Sociological Images — May 3, 2010
[...] also our post on how photographs of the fetus changed how we think about pregnancy and abortion and, for an interesting controversy regarding [...]
Tom M. — September 1, 2010
My 5-year-old son loves these pictures. For a parent, they still make a great early visual aids when you get asked "that question"... :)
(I just didn't tell him they were dead. But then again, he believes in the Tooth Fairy...)
bea — September 1, 2010
so, they are fetuses. that's what they look like, dead or alive. and it does not whatsoever budge my opinion on free abortion for all.
the photos are absolutely amazing.
Siobhan Considine — January 22, 2011
Abortion is murder. It is wrong to drink, smoke and take drugs when you are pregnant and it is also wrong to murder the unborn baby just to suit your life style or because you are too afraid to face up to people and tell them what happened. In the great scheme of things what is 9 months of carrying a baby that you can then give up for adoption.
JackDharma — January 24, 2011
Actually, the fact that these images were of aborted fetuses is not ironic at all. It actually makes the right-to-life people's case stronger: "Look at the babies who have been aborted!"
The Case for Killing Babies in the Name of God | ***Dave Does the Blog — April 28, 2011
[...] pro-choice advocate, about the charge. After all, when we think of fetuses, we tend to think of well-developed proto-babies (realistically or not), and it’s just difficult to not think of them as actual infants that [...]
On the (Rest of the) Net. « The Early Bird Catches the Worm — May 13, 2011
[...] These iconic images, taken by photographer Lennart Nilsson for Life magazine in 1965, and later used for pro-life propaganda materials, have actually been taken of aborted embryos, not living fetuses in the womb: [...]
Christina — May 19, 2011
I am really surprised at all the people who didn't realize those images were of aborted fetuses. I thought that was an obvious fact. They're not inside a womb ... how could they be anything *but* aborted (or miscarried) fetuses?
Fetal images — May 21, 2011
[...] Visualizing The Fetus В» Sociological Images Apr 30, 2009 … Technically speaking, most of these images are of either embryos or fetuses. Until the fetus is … [...]
Undoubtedly » Blog Archive » actual fetus pictures — May 30, 2011
[...] Visualizing The Fetus В» Sociological Images Apr 30, 2009 … The beautiful photos, further, romanticized the fetus, discouraging abortion. ….. (realistically or not), and it's just difficult to not think of them as actual infants that [. … [...]
Amber Hooper Henderson — July 18, 2011
These were not aborted. The photo's were taken by an endoscope.
Some of the ages are wrong on the photos.
Here is the link to correct the ages http://www.lennartnilsson.com/child_is_born.html
Amber Hooper Henderson — July 18, 2011
www.ehd.org
none of those are aborted.
Lari — July 21, 2011
I believe that if we say a person dies when the heart stops then we should say that a person begins their life when their heart first starts to beat, as early as 2 or 3 weeks after conception. I think that the fact that some of these unborn children weren't alive when their pictures were taken doesn't really matter. The point of the pictures was to capture their life while they were in the womb and I think that was done perfectly. I love how it depicts the personalities of the unborn babies to show the precious life that begins right inside of another human being. When I look at these pictures I can't help but think of how absolutely marvelous a gift it is to be a woman, to have the ability to bring another into the world. I have a niece on the way, my sister's 20 wks, and being able to see how developed she is right now makes me smile:) I'm so grateful for the photographer!
Blix — August 5, 2011
The arguments for abortion are valid-to those who think they know best about another person's life. Playing God is arrogance, and thinking one knows the plan for these fetuses/babies' lives is just that. No one can choose their own life, so why try to control another?
The Right to Kill « Thinking Sociology — November 3, 2011
[...] Sociological Images: Visualizing the Fetus: Blog Image Of Life Magazine Cover of 18 week old fetus by Lennart Nilsson Share this:Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Tagged: abortion, biological birth, Culture, ethics, fetal viability, Human rights, morality, personhood, pregnancy, pro-choice, pro-life, social birth, unbornchild rights, viability, women's rights Posted in: Culture, Gender / Sexuality, Health, Politics, Race / Ethnicity, Religion, Social Class ← Multiracial Families Feeling the Tensions of Race Be the first to start a conversation [...]
friday feminaust ~ Scarlett Harris | feminaust ~ for australian feminism — February 2, 2012
[...] To me, a feotus is not a baby, it’s just a mass of “unwanted tissue” as I read on a Sociological Images post. I think we need to start making the ideological shift that will remove the taboo from [...]
Kadigan — August 28, 2013
Is there nothing to be done about the virulently uneducated, anti-woman/anti-choice comments here?
I understand the interests in free speech, but really, this is getting abusive.
An academically oriented blog like this should be a safe space for all people, and an open space for scientific honesty.
srm — December 1, 2013
This grouping of photographs along with commentary presents a unique presentation of a pressing issue that is very controversial. The images
of the fetuses at their release time were some of the first of their kind. Even
today these images bring an uncommon sight to many viewing the images. As
sighted in the commentary above, after these images were released they were
used by many pro-life organizations. However, the irony was that many of these
images turned out to be aborted fetuses.
Upon reading this I immediately thought of the ethical implications of
the photographers actions. The photographer worked with lighting and even moved the thumb into a fetus’s mouth. Truthfully, these actions leave me with an unsettling feeling. I appreciate art and science and how the two converge but think there should be limits or at least a generated conversation about the
implications of ethical or unethical decisions.
These photos along from being controversial in themselves
represent a much bigger debate concerning abortion. Abortion is an extremely
personal and touchy subject matter. Everyone seems to have his or her own
adamant opinion about what the government should do or what a mother shouldn’t do. Personally, I believe it is possible to be pro life and pro choice.
Ultimately, it should be the mother’s choice to her own body.
srm — December 1, 2013
The social stigmas surrounding the controversy of these photos are reflective of the society they were primarily shown to- western society. The differing bonds and connections between mothers and babies differ across the planet. We can see these differentiations through the habits that have formed and the public display of acceptance for different acts of motherhood. These differing acts range from breast feeding norms to how we respond to a crying baby. Just as these practices differ, in some cultures and societies abortions are more prevalent and widely accepted. Because of the differing social norms prevalent among people around the world we must remember to view works with cultural relativism. Cultural relativism even applies to analyzing and criticizing ones own culture's subcultures.
It is interesting to note that subcultures within our own american and western societies deem these photographs noteworthy and works of art. It is amazing how while societies and those who live within them are so fast to judge others (ethnocentricity) we are even able to criticize those who inhabit our own society.
This type of critical thinking keeps societies with a healthy balance of differing thoughts. However, if others actions are not respected these strong differing opinions can sometimes turn destructive. At the end of the day, just as we are taught to respect others who may live, think or act differently than us- we must remember and apply these same principles to our culture. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Just as you feel your opinion or way of thinking is right it is important to realize that others feel the same way.
These photographs are reflective of so many things: society, family, life, death, bonds, art and so many more powerful underlying meanings. These photographers get people thinking and pose ethical questions to the public. Works like this whether you agree with the moral implications or not- do offer a starting point for dynamic cultural conversations.
Emily Lett Has Disturbed the Lies of What Abortion is, Now Anti’s Trying to Create More Lies to Cover Their Former. | Pro Abortion - Pro Life — May 16, 2014
[…] violent and there are no babies involved, alive or dead. Anti-choicers are invested in the visual, which is why they’re so attached to using misleading pictures of fetuses from stages much later in pregnancy than when most women get their abortions. The sheer honesty of […]
Sociopress.cz » Moc fotografie: Život před narozením? — May 28, 2014
[…] WADE, Lisa. VISUALISING THE FETUS. Sociological Images [online]. 2009 [cit. 2014-05-28]. Dostupné z: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2009/04/30/visualizing-the-fetus/ […]
Tess — November 8, 2014
Why does anyone on here think guilting/instilling fear/arguing will change someone's mind. If you are pro-choice, your choice and you will do so. If you are pro-life, then that's your choice and it is so. Trying to shove your own ways of living and ideas at others is a waste of time and good energy. You get all upset and solve nothing. Solutions anyone? Not that I see.
sad — November 9, 2014
My heart is broken.
How Fetal Photography Changed the Politics of Abortion » Sociological Images | Mark Solock Blog — November 10, 2014
[…] http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2014/11/07/visualizing-the-fetus/ […]
AnyBeth — November 13, 2014
For about 6 months last year, what was presumably a pro-life group bought television adspace by which they spread misinformation about abortion, largely by lying about fetal development. Using the same pictures, they gave four different fetal ages, starting with the youngest. (I figure changing it because of complaints.) First they said 4 weeks (at which point there is no fetus, but rather an embryo). Then 8 weeks, still an embryo, and good luck telling it apart from any mammal at a similar developmental stage. Then 12 weeks (fetal, but looks alien and has transparent skin). Finally 4 months, closer, but no.
The graphics they displayed showed a fetus that was probably at least in the 8th month. How you can really tell is that it had eyelashes but no lanugo (fine fetal hair) and on its well-formed fingers were fingernails to the end of the fingertips. It would be incredibly rare for a fetus so developed to be aborted. That's well-into the stage at which, were there something wrong, delivery is almost always the safest way to end the pregnancy.
The pictures didn't disturb me, but the sheer misinformation and attempts at manipulation enraged me. Trying to suggest a pregnant woman has a fully-formed little person, fingernails and all, inside her 2-4 weeks after fertilization? Ludicrous!
Christine Nectarine — November 21, 2014
"Pro-choice and other fetus defenders..." Was that meant to say "pro-life"?
Derder Der — December 9, 2014
Many women later in life (like after they have a child that they want) realize what they actually destroyed back when they had their abortion, and face severe emotional trauma and regret. By frosting over the actual act with euphemisms like "Pro-Choice" instead of Pro-Abortion, some less educated females may disassociate themselves from the reality of what is living inside of their bodies. For a group that claims to be pro-science, I would think that you would find it empowering to give females all the relevant information concerning their bodies. No?
The Revealer — The Patient Body: Visual Politics of Abortion — November 7, 2017
[…] elimination of women from the “life” of a fetus had profound significance. As Lisa Wade, a professor at Occidental College, wrote in […]