New abortion technique being marketed as “natural” … y’know, because murdering unborn babies is the most natural thing in the world to abortion advocates

Is taking the life of an unborn baby something that is considered to be “natural?” If you ask the developers of a new device that can supposedly abort a baby in just five minutes, then the answer is yes.

The device, officially called SoftTouch, was developed back in the year 2011 by a Harvard-trained physician named Doctor Joan Fleischman. According to EarlyAbortionOptions.com, the procedure is typically used by women who are anywhere from five to ten weeks pregnant, although women who are 12 weeks pregnant can also use SoftTouch so long as a doctor says it is okay.

The abortion procedure uses a small aspirator and a flexible tube to remove the fetus from the mother’s womb in just three to five minutes. The website touts that SoftTouch produces minimal discomfort for the woman, and even describes the procedure as “noninvasive and natural,” as if ripping an unborn child out through the birth canal like it’s a cancerous tumor is something that is “natural.” Nevertheless, the website talks about SoftTouch as if it’s the greatest invention mankind has ever created, claiming that it has numerous advantages over the abortion pill and that “it is completed in one visit and our patients leave the office knowing that the pregnancy is over.”

The truth is that regardless of the methods used to perform an abortion, the act of ripping a baby out of the womb and then justifying it by claiming that it’s “not a human” or “just a clump of cells” is sick and highly unethical. Indeed, the way in which some people (particularly those on the left) talk about abortion as if it’s as natural as putting peanut butter on a slice of toast is sick, as well as a clear sign that our country, in many ways, is spiraling down a path of moral decay. (Related: Abortion is a big business: Nearly $1 billion per year is generated from murdering babies.)

Last week, The Daily Wire reported on a college student from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville who admitted that taking the life of a two-year-old would be perfectly okay. The student’s argument, which was made on camera, was centered on the twisted idea that there’s “no difference” between killing a tree and killing a two-year-old child, since, as the student put it, both the child and the tree lack the ability to communicate like an adult and therefore lack sentience.

“The fact of the matter is, if without communication, we have no way of knowing if you’re sentient or not,” the student explained in the video, which was filed by a Students for Life Regional Coordinator named Brenna Lewis. “I mean, it’s no different than this tree. It’s alive. But is it sentient?” When Lewis pointed out the obvious flaw in comparing a two-year-old human being with a tree, the student responded with more nonsense. (Related: The goal of the abortion industry is to save money through depopulation and make a profit through the sale of baby body parts.)

“Okay, can the two-year-old talk to me?” he asked. “In some instance, I’m fairly certain that is. But generally speaking the child still has the inability to communicate. And until we determine that as such, at what point does sentience become an issue, we can’t really debate whether or not that is the situation or not.”

Obviously, there is a severe lack of respect for human life that is spreading like a plague throughout the United States, and it appears to be getting worse. As conservatives, we must restore the idea that the lives of the unborn are precious, and that they deserve to be protected. After all, the basis for any civil society is how well its people treat the weakest and most vulnerable among them.

Follow more news on the abortion industry at Abortions.news.

Sources include:

DailyCaller.com

DailyWire.com