Last Saturday, she was pulled from the womb of her dead mother in the aftermath of an Israeli airstrike in Rafah, which also killed her father and her would-be 3-year-old sister. Doctors somehow managed to revive Sabreen — a shard of hope in their otherwise relentlessly bleak duties — but it was a fragile, ephemeral existence. And five days later her family received the call that she had died.
Irrelevant. The headline is objectively confusing. In the same breath that says the baby is alive and dead and that there were angry people at a funeral.
I rewrote the title in a way that isn’t confusing in my comments. Please check it out my.
What the hell is this head line! I’ve read like five times now! What does it mean!
Second paragraph of the article:
I read the article. That’s not in question. It’s just the head line is so confusing.
No, it’s not?
It doesn’t actually say that the baby died. It says the baby was saved then there was an angry funeral for the very same dead baby they saved!
In the same same breath they say the baby is alive and dead at the same time!
Stop being intentionally contrary. The headline is confusing.
https://www.hookedonphonics.com/
The headline is confusing. And my English is better than yours.
Apparently not. The headline didn’t confuse me at all.
Irrelevant. The headline is objectively confusing. In the same breath that says the baby is alive and dead and that there were angry people at a funeral.
I rewrote the title in a way that isn’t confusing in my comments. Please check it out my.
I didn’t have any trouble. Unfortunately. It was heartbreaking to read.
If you have a problem understanding this headline, the problem is you, not the headline
Baby sabreen, saved from her dead mothers womb dies days later and is laid to rest at a mournful and sometimes angry funeral.
Now it’s understandable!
Super necessary comment bro.