The Atlantic has decided to promote a bit of leftwing orthodoxy that rejects science. Not surprising considering it is about the one religious sacrament of the secular left — killing kids. Since the dawn of time, the godless have sacrificed children for harvests, as acts of power, as acts of selfishness, because they’re considered burdens, etc. Nothing has changed, except now they call sacrificing for harvests “population control.” The latest desperate act to ignore the science is to re-write what an ultrasound does and does not do and what is shows and does not show. The article is written by someone who seemingly has never had a child and seen her own child’s heartbeat. Also, it is not written by a scientist, but someone getting a doctorate in comparative literature. Knowing that, let’s proceed.
At six weeks, the “heartbeat” is not audible; it is visible, a flickering that takes place between 120 and 160 times per minute on a black-and-white playback screen. As cardiac cells develop, they begin to send electrical pulses that cause their neighbors to contract. Scientists can observe the same effect if they culture cells in a petri dish.
Doctors do not even call this rapidly dividing cell mass a “fetus” until nine weeks into pregnancy. Yet, the current debate shows how effectively politicians have used visual technology to redefine what counts as “life.”
Notice the conundrum right there. The left says we cannot ban abortion at twenty weeks due to fetal pain because most women are typically well into pregnancy before either realizing it or realizing they want an abortion. In other words, they are not getting ultrasounds at six weeks. In a normal pregnancy, the ultrasound is often done around 18 weeks, but sometimes around 10 weeks to chart a due date.
Since the mid-1990s, opponents of abortion have deployed ultrasound in their attempts to restrict abortion access. ….
These measures are based on two assumptions: First, that an ultrasound image has an obvious meaning. Second, that any pregnant woman who sees an ultrasound will recognize this meaning. Science does not bear either assumption out.
Note that she says “science does not bear either assumption out.” This is anti-science at its finest. Science actually does bear that out for anyone who has actually seen their child in the womb with an ultrasound. Who are you going to believe, a leftist who wants to kill kids or your own eyes? Look at the picture above. That “image has an obvious meaning” does it not? There’s a person inside someone.
Even at eight weeks the head and body are distinctly human. It is not a clump of cells or tissue in there. It is a baby. Now, here’s the thing. We get to what this woman really is after at the end of her anti-science screed.
But pregnant women aren’t the only audience for forced ultrasounds. Like many other uses of this technology across history, The Hearthbeat Protection Act enlarge the fetus in the public eye, while edging women out of the picture.
There you go. This is about selfishness. In the “ME ME ME” culture of today, this woman wants everyone to reject science because it might force people to look at a child instead of a woman.