Ultrasound Pictures Seem To Show Babies In Womb Reacting To Flavors Eaten By Mothers

Yesterday, Stacey Abrams took to a stage campaigning (again) for Governor of Georgia. She made the bizarre statement,

“There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks. It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.”

And then today, NBC Today accidentally contradicted the dehumanizing narrative she’s pushing to justify her pro-abortion views. Perhaps NBC didn’t get the memo that Abrams was going with a dehumanizing anti-science narrative, so they didn’t realize their morning story would contradict her. Otherwise, I doubt they would have run it just hours after she blasted ultrasounds and preborn humans. But one of their leading stories was that “images from researches show that babies in the womb can possibly react to flavor.”

Basically, unborn humans are SO human that, not only do they have heartbeats, but they can even “smile over carrots and scowl over kale inside the womb.” And you can see this through ultrasound. The same ultrasound that Abrams is trying to say is just manufacturing a fetal heartbeat to oppress women.

Does Abrams think there’s some kind of vast conspiracy theory amongst OBGYNs everywhere to oppress women by manufacturing a fetal heartbeat to trick them into thinking they’re carrying a child? It’s weird, y’all. Perhaps she’s referring to a 2017 article by The Atlantic titled, “How Ultrasound Became Political,” which says that “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.” That’s pretty much what a heartbeat is in an adult, too. It’s electrical signals that contract and relax the heart. The “beat” part, or the thumping sound you hear, is from the vigorous pumping of blood through opening and closing valves. Tiny hearts can’t beat nearly as hard (or loud) as larger hearts, so it makes sense that the electrical impulses are the only way we could identify the heart beating.

By the way, the very first thing you read when you open the article is an italicized notification that “This article has been significantly revised since it’s original publication,” which never inspires confidence because those are only the corrections they were forced to make due to the overwhelmingly objective incorrectness.

Stacey Abrams’ statement is splitting hairs, really. Because if there’s a visible electrical flickering ‘heartbeat’ at 6 weeks, as The Atlantic article and the actual science indicates, then that means there IS a heartbeat at 6 weeks, whether or not it produces a sound sufficient to be heard on an ultrasound. So even if the thumping sound itself is an auditory representation of the electrical impulses of the beating heart intended to provide an auditory experience that is more impactful on new parents, the heartbeat itself isn’t manufactured. Abrams clearly says, “There is no such thing as a heartbeat at 6 weeks.” And that’s just not true. There IS such a thing as a heartbeat at 6 weeks.

Hilariously, a bunch of people have jumped on this story to back Stacey Abrams by basically saying she’s right and that a baby’s heart doesn’t start to make an audible “beat” until 10 weeks. And I’m like, so you’re admitting that the baby has an audibly identifiable heartbeat at 10 weeks, which means it’s a human with a beating heart? Perfect. I’ll take it. And if there’s an audibly identifiable heartbeat at 10 weeks, then how are they not sufficiently human to garner legal protections from someone murdering their body? As some have said, it would be one thing for pro-abortionists to say that a 6 or 10 week old preborn human with an identifiable electrical or auditory heartbeat isn’t worthy of life, thus isn’t worthy of legal protection from murder. But don’t pretend like the heartbeat itself doesn’t exist. It can clearly be seen and heard.