Heartbeat? No, “Embryonic Pulsing”

June 29th the New York Times ran a report on the state of Louisiana passing a restrictive law on abortion, which bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat is felt.

But the Times has decided that Americans don’t know of which they speak:  That’s not a heartbeat that starts up in a fetus at about 6 weeks old, that’s embryonic pulsing.

You just can’t make this stuff up.  Nor do you need to look far to find more of such educated idiocy.

It continues with equally scientific and biology-defying terms and phrases promoted by National Public Radio:

“One thing to keep in mind about this law and others like it: Proponents refer to it as a ‘fetal heartbeat’ law. That is their term. It needs to be attributed to them if used and put in quotation marks if printed,” NPR Supervising Senior Editor of Standards and Practices Mark Memmott wrote.

“We should not simply say the laws are about when a ‘fetal heartbeat’ is detected. [Emphasis his.] As we’ve reported, heartbeat activity can be detected ‘about six weeks into a pregnancy.’ That’s at least a few weeks before an embryo is a fetus,” he added, also warning against the use of terms like “abortion clinic,” “late term abortion,” “unborn” and “baby.”

NPR’s “Guidance Reminder” says the terms should be avoided for inaccuracy.

Here’s a memo for Memmott:  A living human being inside a woman’s womb is still called a baby, specifically an unborn baby.  It grows, it moves, it feels, it even “breathes” to develop lungs that will breathe air shortly after birth.  Oh, and guess what??  It develops a heart beat!! It’s not a “pulse” a “shudder” a “quiver” a “throb” (maybe in a few years) or some kind of nervous twitch.  It’s a heartbeat!!

It certainly is an inconvenient truth for the abortion clinics where babies are murdered.

But now we’re playing semantics; making up terms that sound more acceptable, less condemning, less guilt-laden, and certainly less responsible.  Oh, and don’t forget more profitable.

“This new terminology is not based on facts or scientific evidence. It’s based on an agenda that supports abortion on demand,” Micaiah Bilger of LifeNews.com wrote.

“‘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.  It disguises the truth and attempts to manipulate the public into believing something different from what they know to be true,” the author added.

Bilger went on to cite scientific research conducted at the University of Oxford in 2016, which found that the unborn may develop signs of a heartbeat “as soon as 21 days of pregnancy,” adding that the bulk of the scientific literature describes these “embryonic pulses” as nothing other than a “heartbeat.”