Who is “they”? Why, the mainstream media, or at least very significant portions of it, of course; that portion of it will go to any length to hide the truth in order to cling to the fables they have invented, with the assistance of relevant “experts”.
In a recent edition of LifeSiteNews, John-Henry Westen writes, in part:
I thought I’d seen everything, but I was truly flabbergasted recently when The Atlantic published a bizarre article complaining about the invention of the ultrasound, and how it has been “used” to “push” the idea that “a fetus is a person.” (Imagine that!)
The author of the article even had the gall to complain that the ultrasound has been used “to create an imaginary (!) 'heartbeat,’” asking “What is a fetal heartbeat? And why does it matter?”
The article was so riddled with glaring factual errors about embryology and other topics, that The Atlantic was eventually forced to issue a 176-word correction to the piece!
This is the madness of the pro-abortion position. And THIS is how far the pro-abortion media will go to defend the “right” for mothers and fathers to kill their own children.
The January 24, 2017 article, by Moira Weigal, is How Ultrasound Became Political, and has the following synopsis:The technology has been used to create sped-up videos that falsely depict a response to stimulus. [“Sped-up”? How long does it take to tear a baby apart? Sped-up, or slowed-down, it is possible in videos like ‘The Silent Scream’, to see the baby’s violet reaction to being murdered. ]
Then comes the Editor’s note:Editor’s note: This article has been significantly revised since original publication. Please see correction note below.*
Well, let’s have a look at the “correction” first. It reads:* This article originally stated that there is "no heart to speak of" in a 6-week-old fetus. In fact, the heart has already begun to form by that point in a pregnancy. The article also originally stated that an expectant mother participating in a study decided to carry her pregnancy to term even after learning that the fetus was suffering from a genetic disorder, when in fact the fetus was only at high risk for a genetic disorder. The article originally stated, as well, that Bernard Nathanson headed the National Right-to-Life Committee and became a born-again Christian. Nathanson was active in, but did not head the committee, and was never a born-again Christian, but rather a Roman Catholic. The article originally stated that many doctors in 1985 claimed fetuses had no reflexive responses to medical instruments at 12 weeks. Finally, the article originally stated that John Kasich vetoed a bill from Indiana's legislature, instead of Ohio's legislature, after which the article was incorrectly amended to state that Mike Pence had vetoed the bill. We regret the errors.
The saying, “closing the door after the horse has bolted” comes readily to mind.
Anyway, the article commences:One of the first measures that Republicans in the 115th Congress proposed was the “Heartbeat Protection Act.” On January 11, a group led by Steve King of Iowa introduced a bill that would require doctors nationwide to “check for a fetal heartbeat” before performing an abortion, and prohibit them from completing the procedure if they found one. In December, Republicans in the Ohio state legislature put forth a similar measure. Governor John Kasich vetoed it, observing that such a law would almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutional, but approved a 20-week abortion ban. [Don’t you just love that – checking for a heartbeat as a sign of life is “unconstitutional”? ]
OK, that’s enough of an introduction. The article then wanders off into a smokescreen detailing of the history of ultrasound designed to show that it just wasn’t meant to be used to tell pregnant women the truth about the developing life in their wombs, so what right does anyone have to expose that truth? Nope, it’s a very inconvenient truth, and the MSM must do everything possible to suppress it.
Opponents of the heartbeat bills have pointed out that they would eliminate abortion rights almost entirely—making the procedure illegal around four weeks after fertilization, before many women realize that they are pregnant. These measures raise even more elementary questions: What is a fetal heartbeat? And why does it matter? [Of course – what does it matter when high incomes are at stake?]
The idea would have been unthinkable before the advent of a technology developed in 1976: real-time ultrasound. 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.” [Those damn scientists – getting it right for once!]
Since the mid-1990s, opponents of abortion have deployed ultrasound in their attempts to restrict abortion access. Five states have enacted “informed consent” laws, which require doctors to show their patients ultrasound images, and in some cases to describe the images, before performing an abortion. Two of those laws have been struck down by state courts. Twenty other states require a doctor to at least offer to show a woman seeking an abortion ultrasound.
Responses