New York Times claims unborn babies don’t have a heartbeat

The only way abortion advocates and the liberal can justify killing babies in abortions is to take away their humanity. Because if unborn children are truly just clumps of cells instead of unique human beings then abortion is no big deal.

Read Why Abortion Proponents Deem Murder ‘Essential’

For decades, the scientific world has known that unborn children are living human beings whose lives begin at conception. Their hearts begin beating before any mother knows she’s pregnant and their body begins to develop very quickly, — well before abortions are routinely done to end their little lives.

But, in its latest bit of scientific revisionism, the New York Times falsely claims unborn babies don’t have a heartbeat.

This new terminology is not based on facts or scientific evidence. It’s based on an agenda that supports abortion on demand. “Embryonic pulsing,” for example, is such a vague description that it is hard to understand precisely what it means. And it appears to have been used that way on purpose.

The Texas law banning abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy is based on a singular premise disputed by many medical experts: that once an ultrasound detects electrical cardiac activity in an embryo, its heart is beating and a live birth is on the way.

At this very early stage of a pregnancy, however, the embryo is the size of a pomegranate seed and has only a primitive tube of cardiac cells that emit electric pulses and pump blood.

New York Times

Language has long been a battleground in the political struggle over abortion, and the sparring now centers on a word with deep resonance: “heartbeat.”

New York Times Falsely Claims Unborn Babies’ Hearts Aren’t Really Beating  LifeNews.comNew York Times Falsely Claims Unborn Babies’ Hearts Aren’t Really Beating  LifeNews.comNew York Times Falsely Claims Unborn Babies’ Hearts Aren’t Really Beating  LifeNews.comRead More“when:24h allinurl:lifenews.com” – Google News