Ultrasound: The Anti-Science Left’s Bugaboo

Abortion extremists are the new Luddites.

Remember Ned Ludd from your grade-school history lessons? He was the Occupy Wall Street agitator of his time — a phantom leader of early 19th-century British textile workers who vindictively smashed spinning jenny power looms to bits in a desperate bid to halt technological progress.

Now, it’s radical feminists hysterically stoking fear and loathing of machines. Revolutionary developments in sonography have endangered their agenda of unrestricted abortion on demand, at all times, no questions asked. The popular diagnostic tools that give parents and doctors around the world an increasingly vivid window to the womb fundamentally undermine Planned Parenthood’s dehumanizing propaganda.

With more and more pregnant women over the past three decades changing their minds about abortion after seeing and hearing the life growing inside of them, the peeved pussyhat brigade is on a mission:

Ultrasounds. Must. Be. Stopped.

The latest salvo in the wimmin’s war on sinister sonograms? It’s a doozy of a screed this week published by Moira Weigel, “writer and a doctoral candidate in comparative literature at Yale University,” in the Atlantic Monthly magazine originally titled, “How the Ultrasound Pushed the Idea that a Fetus is a Person.”

What a patriarchal jerk, that insidious Mr. Ultrasound is, pushing around such sexist lunacy as the idea that unborn babies are alive!

The original subheading of the article is even better (er, worse): “The technology has been used to create an imaginary ‘heartbeat’ and sped-up videos that falsely depict a response to stimulus.”

Weigel sneered that “there is no heart to speak of” in a six-week-old fetus and used “heartbeat” in scare quotes to assert her scientific authority. She similarly employed those scare quotes to deride “life,” “baby” and “baby bump.”

After actual medical experts and parents exposed Weigel’s Neanderthal ignorance of basic embryology, the ridiculous claim was removed and a sheepish noncorrection correction appeared at the end of the biology denier’s piece for the once-august Atlantic Monthly.

“This article originally stated that there is ‘no heart to speak of’ in a six-week-old fetus,” the editors’ note admitted. “By that point in a pregnancy, a heart has already begun to form. We regret the error.” (Read it in smarty-pants “Saturday Night Live” character Emily Litella’s “Neeever mind” voice for full effect.)

Next in the anti-science Atlantic’s investigative series: How X-rays pushed the idea that humans have skeletons! How microscopes pushed the idea that microorganisms exist! How electroencephalograms pushed the idea that human brains send electrical impulses! A deep dive by the intrepid Weigel into the world of “imaginary” bones, bacteria and beta waves will no doubt yield a Pulitzer nomination if not a Nobel Prize.

Curiously, Weigel raised no objection to the appalling use of ultrasound by Planned Parenthood operatives to harvest unborn baby parts. In 2015, the Center for Medical Progress exposed how Dr. Deborah Nucatola, the abortion giant’s senior director, boasted of using “ultrasound guidance” to improve the quality of coveted organs (“a lot of people want liver”). Ultrasound machines helped their harvesters “know where they’re putting their forceps” to score better prices.

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver,” Dr. Nucatola chirped, “because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

Ironically enough, we don’t need ultrasound to see quite clearly, through the ghoulish words and barbaric deeds of abortion zealots like Quack Doctor Wanna-be Weigel and Dr. Nucatola, that having a heart doesn’t always guarantee humanity.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

Rate This Article:
Author

Michelle Malkin is an American conservative blogger, political commentator, and author. Her weekly syndicated column appears in a number of newspapers and websites. She is a Fox News Channel contributor and has been a guest on MSNBC, C-SPAN, and national radio programs. Malkin has written four books published by Regnery Publishing. She founded the conservative websites Twitchy and Hot Air.

Latest comments
  • Liberals can NEVER admit that the object of abortion is human life, because once they do, their cause will be lost. That is why the insist on referring to the baby as a fetus or zygote or mass of cells.

    • I know lots of liberals, but have never met one with a high school science education who would deny that a “fetus” or “zygote” is alive, human, and an incipient new individual.

      • You obviously have not heard liberals debating abortion.

      • Perhaps, but as a matter of agenda, coming from their leaders, that can’t be a thing. As long as the validation and invalidation of certain human life according to the Party line plays in the background noise in their heads, they can keep up the cognitive dissonance indefinitely.

      • Really? If that’s so they’d admit to killing a Baby, not an unviable tissue mass….

        • People are free to define “baby” any way they want as it is not a medical or scientific term. Very few people, however, would say a baby is instantaneously produced the moment an egg is fertilized.

          • Constitutionally there’s a legal definition what people think doesn’t matter. The entire point of this article is advances in science since Roe v. Wade prove a fetus is not a tissue mass but a human being. Any point past fertilization is hypocritical legalese bull shit. Roe v. Wade is bad law based entirely on ignorance snd it will one day future be overturned.

            Sent from my Boost Mobile Phone.
            ——– Original message ——–From: Disqus Date: 1/26/17 1:10 AM (GMT-05:00) To: trownot@gmail.com Subject: Re: Comment on Ultrasound: The Anti-Science Left’s Bugaboo
            “People are free to define “baby” any way they want as it is not a medical or scientific term. Very few people, however, would say a baby is instantaneously produced the moment an egg is fertilized.”

            Settings

            A new comment was posted on Freedoms’s Back

            Stuart Hurlbert

            People are free to define “baby” any way they want as it is not a medical or scientific term. Very few people, however, would say a baby is instantaneously produced the moment an egg is fertilized.

            1:10 a.m., Thursday Jan. 26

            |

            Other comments by Stuart Hurlbert

            Reply

            to Stuart Hurlbert

            Stuart Hurlbert’s comment is in reply to

            John Johnson:

            Really? If that’s so they’d admit to killing a Baby, not an unviable tissue mass…. Read more

            You’re receiving this message because you’re signed up to receive notifications about replies to disqus_8PNqP3fotf.

            You can unsubscribe
            from emails about replies to disqus_8PNqP3fotf
            by replying to this email with “unsubscribe”
            or reduce the rate with which these emails are sent by
            adjusting your notification settings.

          • Sorry, scientists and everyone else have known that a human fetus was human centuries (at least) before Roe vs Wade.
            As far as scientists and doctors are concerned, “human being” is not a scientific term, so anyone can define it any way they like.

  • Once again we see the evil baby slaughter industry’s problem with reality. If women ever accept the fact that the baby moving around inside them is a person the abortion industry is going to lose a lot of business.

    Fortunately for the baby slaughterers a large number of people have seared their conscience to the point that they no longer have a moral problem murdering their unborn child.

    • But how about before the zygote or early embryo is doing any “moving around”?

      • I think we have to take it one step at a time. Drunk driving laws were gradually changed to lower the threshold for what was considered to be drunk driving. I would like to see us get to the place where abortion is totally illegal, but I’m not willing to pass on a good next step. Having the woman see the child before it is killed would be a good step even if it is done on an ultrasound screen.

        • That way they at least will know what exactly they are having done. Excellent idea!

  • The degenerate democRats / liberals get crazier by the second. The bottom line is they just want to be able to murder (defined as killing a human being with malice and forethought). A fetus or zygote found in the womb of a human female after sexual contact with a human male is and will always be a human being. That mass of cells as the liberals like to call it will not develop into a chicken, dog, cat, fish or any other species or life form. Once the human egg cell is penetrated by a human sperm cell the result is an early stage human being. Nobody can prove otherwise however it is easily proved that in a matter of months this will be a fully developed male or female human being whose life began at the moment of conception.

    • Life is continuous across generations and does not “begin.” The development of a new individual and its physical independence, from the mother is a gradual process, and there is no “magic moment.” The stage at which one decides to call it a “baby” or a “human being” is not a medical or scientific question. It is a philosophical or religious or linguistic one.

      No one doubts that the unfertilized egg, zygote, embryo, late term fetus, newborn baby are all equally “alive” and equally “human.” The moment when a heart becomes visible or a heartbeat detectable might be used arbitrarily and legally to determine when certain legal rights might be conferred on a developing individual. But that is also not a medical or scientific decision.

      • I agree with you. Which is exactly why “science” itself is powerless to guide us to moral actions or decisions. The (scientific) “can” of new discoveries clashes with the (philosophical, theological) “should” of those discoveries. As a long-tenured professor of Research design and Statistics in a Christian seminary, I have had this discussion with students many times.

        • And I taught experimental design for 25 years. Evidence suggests it is good for intellectual health!

      • “Life is continuous across generations and does not ‘begin'”??? That is nonsensical. Once the human female egg is penetrated by the human male sperm cell, there is the beginning of a new human life. You can call it what you want, but it is what it is. If conception does not take place, a new life has not begun. If conception takes place, that is the “begin”ning.

  • If a fertilized egg is a human being, a citizen of the United States, with full protection under the Constitution, then we have the case of one citizen living inside the body of another.

    If, in good conscious, the mother did not want to become pregnant, and took all precautions, or was raped, and the will of the mother is: “I do not want this person living in my body,” then which citizen’s rights take precedent? Remember, the fertilized egg did not ask to be put in another’s body, just as the mother did not ask for the pregnancy.

    • It’s always a heart wrenching situation when for whatever reason, a woman does not want or is unsure about the life inside her. I do not in any way minimize that. A couple of points though. First, we know statistically pregnancy from rape and birth control failure is rare. Sadly, most abortion is performed for convenience of the mother. Second, it has always been the theme of the United States to stand up for those citizens most vulnerable or without a voice. How successful we have been at that in the past is not the point, we’ve done both good and bad in that respect admittedly, but should our failures now excuse allowing the most vulnerable group ever to be denied life simply because someone else, one single person, does not want them?
      Yes, the mother did not ask for the child any more than the child asked to be here, but her entire biology is geared to reproduce, to sustain life, so in a sense the decision was made by forces beyond her ultimate control. The only way to justify abortion is to dehumanize the baby. Going through a tough situation is not justification.

      • I’m sure you’ve heard this a thousand times, but a fertilized egg is not a baby.

        if ‘the decision was made by forces beyond her ultimate control’ she then has to assess the situation and make a decision as to what to do. That is blocked if the government steps in her way and forbids it.

        • I understand your perspective, although I feel as if you disregarded the bulk of my statement, but a teenager is not a baby, neither is a toddler. The point is, these are all valid stages of human life. The fertilized egg is a stage. Is it less valid than the baby stage? Does it have less potential? Also, you’re assuming that in the cases you mention, women would decide to abort in that fertilized egg stage. Even if one assumes that is okay to do, is that really feasible? In cases of contraceptive failure for example, it’s not likely a woman would even know until the embryo is way past the fertilized egg stage.
          Her need to figure out what to do ideally should be along the lines of coming to terms with the reality of pregnancy, even if it’s difficult. I don’t mean that flippantly, what I’m saying is we all run into tough trials, some worse than others, but it’s not always about how to escape it at all costs. I also understand that there are lots of people out there that are not spiritually minded and their hearts are hard. They would probably opt to abort, and likely do so with far less justification. That said, abortion is the law, but the fact that it constantly shifts as science reveals more is telling. I will admit that I would be pleased if abortion were illegal, or never have been made legal at all, but that is not the goal. No one is going to make it illegal. What we pro life people want is for our tax money to not fund it. After all, the secular world does not fund Christian mission trips or outreach adoption centers with tax money, and that’s perfectly fine, but it’s silly for the secular world to expect tax money for something that violates our faith and that we actively work against. It’s tyranny and very much offensive. Sort of the way you feel about the Government blocking a woman’s right to abortion, except your fear is not a reality and likely will never be.

          • Very well said, with insight and compassion.

          • @americanscott:disqus
            I challenged you on “baby” because you used it as propaganda. If you consider yourself a fair debater, such spin takes away your credibility. I had to ignore other parts of your statement to write one sentence confronting you on it. If I had wanted to be harsh, I would have done this:
            >> The only way to justify abortion is to dehumanize the baby <>> I also understand that there are lots of people out there that are not spiritually minded and their hearts are hard. <<<
            Again, propaganda. Why did you combine these two? Spiritual, religious, theistic people make bad decisions that destroy others all the time. "Spiritual-minded" people sometimes harm others, and they can be monsters. And atheists like myself can be filled with compassion and wisdom. For you to link "not spiritually minded" and "Hearts are hard" is propaganda. You lower your credibility with such statements.

            To your credit, you finally take a stand against funding abortion. I am against tax funding abortion, tax funding Planned Parenthood, and most especially, I am against people who use abortion as birth control. That's where I put my energy, opposing unwanted pregnancy. I wish it were true, as you say, that what pro life people want is 'for our tax money to not fund it.' I wish it were true. It is not true. Pro-life people want the government to outlaw abortion. They will take destroying the funding as a step towards that goal.

        • A fertilized egg is a stage of pregnancy. It will not turn into a cat or a dog or a fish. It will be a human being. So, yes, it IS a baby, regardless of the stage.

    • Constitutionally speaking… THE RIGHT TO LIFE takes precedence… one citizen faces a traumatic situation, the other faces a Totally undeserved DEATH Penalty, At the very least, a judge should rule because the citizen under the death penalty deserves due process, not arbitrary whim.

  • EXCELLENTLY WRITTEN!

  • “…that having a heart doesn’t always guarantee humanity.”

    And having a brain doesn’t guarantee intelligence.

  • The right is anti-science, too! Denying climate change as well as the anatomical, ecological, economic, and ethical realities which make raising (and killing!) animals for food unsustainable. And just as the only honest way to confront the reality of abortion is to view an ultrasound, the only honest way to be a meat-eater is to kill the animal oneself.

  • “….having a heart doesn’t always guarantee humanity.” Far too many in the world today fall under that ‘fact!’ One Kermit Gosnell may top the list. I would guess that many of the “born and unborn,” that this evil destroyed, would have made a significant contribution to humanity, had this “inhuman” been denied birth!

  • If we take the Left’s non-definition of a “baby” at face value and then apply that same principle to their stand on animal rights, we see a big disparity in their ability to think and reason. Can we stop the development of harp seals, elephants, tigers, bald eagle embryos? If we did do that, they would be screaming that we were commiting genocide on these animals. Please, somebody on the Left, explain to me how that to abort an animal fetus is genocide, and yet it is NOT genocide to abort a HUMAN fetus. And please, no tap dancing.

  • Abortion is murder. Michelle, you are such a brilliant writer!! Keep it up!

leave a comment