This is an impression column.

In one news cycle this week, there were two stories about babies in the womb getting a lot of attention at the same time. Both focus on what science can tell us about fetal humanity.

The first was the feel-good, humorous part on the Today Show. They discussed a recent study from Durham University in the UK showing that babies in the womb like certain foods consumed by their mothers and dislike others. Kicker? Babies, like us, express these preferences with unmistakable facial expressions.

Observed in stunningly clear 3D ultrasound, the babies frowned when their mothers ate kale (friendly, kid) and smiled when their mothers ate carrots. It was charming and fascinating to see their little faces show the same satisfaction or disgust that people of all ages do.

I wanted one of the Today Show hosts to break the warm laughter around the studio table. No limit. Because that’s what the abortion lobby is talking about when it proposes legislation codifying unrestricted abortion access.

Like many others, it was unclear whether anyone around the table understood that this study exposed the pursuit of unverified abortion access as horrific. I was sitting in cognitive dissonance.

Meanwhile, in Georgia, gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams was ill-considered about the very scientific method medical professionals use to detect fetal heart activity in early pregnancy. During her live panel discussion, Abrams said: It’s a sound made to convince people that men have the right to control women’s bodies…”

manufactured sound. The scientific party has a hard time fully accepting such influences.

It took only minutes for the scientific community and various medical experts to refute Abrams’ false claims. But hey, if the right can lie big, then doesn’t the left deserve a baseless conspiracy theory in itself? Fair is fair, right?

Poor Glen Kessler Washington Post Fact Checker jumped on Abrams to help, stating on Twitter that the ultrasound machine was picking up “electrical activity” produced by the fetus. Relentlessly drugged him for his allegations.

i am not a scientist. I am not a cardiologist. I am not an ultrasound technician. But five times in my life, I’ve been to an obstetric appointment and heard that magical, rhythmic, hissing sound. Doctors have clearly labeled what the heart does: the developing heart of a baby that beats to sustain life.

And, three times at follow-up appointments, I lay down on that examination table while the nurses searched for sounds, only to be met with heartbreaking silence.

A devastating silence.

Stacey Abrams is able to nullify the sound produced by the fetal heart tissue coming to life in order to justify her horrific plan to kill the fetus at will if need be. But those of us who have lived for the assurance of that sound, and those of us who have been devastated by its absence, know better.

We know it as the difference between human life and death.

I know many people who support abortion rights for different reasons. And I can make that argument in good faith with those who say what they mean and insist on intellectual honesty. I think it should be possible.

But don’t misrepresent yourself by trying to annihilate the unborn child’s scientifically proven humanity, as Abrams and Kessler did this week. Let’s: Whether it is morally right to end the life of the most vulnerable, most innocent, most defenseless human being.

Dana Hall McCain writes about public policy, faith and culture AL.comFollow her on Twitter @dhmccain for her thoughts on these topics and more.