So we are moving the goalposts now? Brain function has ZERO to do with this thread of her comment. And to see some people here say "your wifes doctors didnt say that" and such nonsense to defend Abrams is really sad. The list is now: NHS Planned Parenthood My wifes OB's (one a UF grad) Johns Hopkins UF health NYU health. SCIENCE calls ot a heartbeat and has for some time. But yeah, all of a sudden some doctors are in the media saying there is no heartbeat. Nothing political about that I assume. But sure lets move on to brain function. (We dont euthanize adults that lose brain function, so not sure why a lack of brain function levels should be the marker. But thats a different thread.)
The list of medical institutions clearly calling it a heart and referring to it as beating at 6 weeks is now: The NHS Planned Parenthood My wifes OB's (one a UF grad) Johns Hopkins University UF health NYU health Cleveland Clinic Are we done with this silly claim? We will track these sites to see of the terminology is suddenly removed for political expediency.
Simple question, can you have a “heart beat” if you don’t have a functioning heart? ‘Heartbeat bills’: Is there a fetal heartbeat at six weeks of pregnancy? Electrical impulses are not real heart beats which can be heard around 10 weeks which is when you probably heard it.
If a heartbeat is to be the primary marker for the beginning of human life should it also be the marker for the end of life or in other words should a person be kept on life support indefinitely if he/she still has a beating heart ?
Tell that to Johns Hopkins, Cleveland Clinic, UF Health and others that I linked that says a heartbeat is detected at 6 weeks. I have no interest in these doctors NOW changing the verbiage in the midst of this debate. We went at 6 weeks. Many of these MAJOR health institutions mention ultrasounds at 6 weeks. What happened to follow the science? Are UF, Hopkins, Cleveland, NHS etc just wrong? I gave you the links and the quotes.
Taking someone off life support and letting nature take its course is not the same as actively using instruments to end their life. That is still a crime. Passive vs active. Regardless, that isnt the debate here. The debate here is Abrams stupid (unscientific) political lie. Almost every major institution I have researched calls it a beating heart. Which makes her scientifically wrong and her assertion about men is based on that unscientific political lie.
I think there are different definitions for heart beat based on what a doctor tells a patient and what a doctor discusses amount other medical professionals. The heart does not have all the structures to function as a heart at 6-weeks, I don't think there is any question about that. But the tissue making up the heart at 6 weeks is moving, in fact it is moving at 4 weeks. The four chambers of the heart are not formed until around 17-20 weeks according to the Am College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. I found this quote from the following article ‘Heartbeat bills’: Is there a fetal heartbeat at six weeks of pregnancy? that encompasses the differences. Nisha Verma, an OB/GYN spoke on behalf of ACOG And I think that is the point Abrams is making, the 6-week activity should not be conflated with a functioning heart. But 6-weeks is critical to politicians because it is often too late for a woman to decide to end her unwanted pregnancy, hence being controlled by a politician instead of the patient doctor relationship, where it should be decided.
You’re not understanding. I’m not debating that modern equipment can pick up sounds from what will become the heart at 6 weeks, or even earlier. Again, I said it is misleadingly used to justify eliminating abortion from the earliest possible time. It’s a collection of cells at that point - if they wanted a real developed heart marker it would be the 10th week when the heart is fully developed into a mini organ, but that’s not the purpose of people pushing heartbeat cutoffs. And as VA wrote, brain activity would be a much better milestone.
So your ok with killing adults based on brain activity? Not allowing them to die naturally, but actively killing them? And the developed heart is also a clump of cells. Just more developed. But again. She claims there is no heartbeat. That is the base of her claim, yet a plethora of major medical institutions disagree.
Abrams is behind and putting all her eggs in the abortion basket, no telling what else she may come up with.
We just respect you to much to explain it in little words. But if you want to argue about it, we're here for you.
Cmon Phil. Thats not fair. People early on were telling me that my wifes OB didnt say that and that there is no heartbeat. I just gave link after link from major medical institutions that disagree and clearly call it a heartbeat. That makes Abrams whole argument mute. Her argument is based on there being no heartbeat. Any further argument should be aimed at UF health, Cleveland Clinic , The NHS, Hopkins, NYU etc... It would be nice if when faced with facts that sometimes people just said. "Wow. My bad. Looks like we didnt get this right"
No one wants to continue to argue with you as you don't seem to understand what a "real" heart beat actually is. Regardless, even when you are presented with other links that say calling those electrical impulses heart beats is a misrepresentation of medical facts you aren't changing your mind and neither is anyone else.
This is supposed to be about football a sport that saves us From the everyday political things we have to suffer through.
How did an accurate but colorful characterization of a salient point get to 9 pages when all the stupid shit Hershel says is only 8 pages?
I'm late to the party on this, but think you have a couple things wrong. The debate over whether it's a heartbeat or not is entirely relevant. Why? Because the notion that a heartbeat exists changes one's perception of the developmental status of the fetus. If one perceives that the fetus is more developed than it actually is, it may influence their decision regarding an abortion. Do you disagree? The other thing is that Abrams did not blame the sound on men. If you read the quote again, she said that men use the manufactured sound to control women's bodies. There is an important nuance here. Your suggestion about men creating the sound seems to indicate that doctors are manufacturing the sound (otherwise who else would manufacture the sound?), but Abram's suggestion is that men (in this case, which I think relate more to politicians and judges) are making decisions about abortion laws based upon certain criteria (6wks/8wks/heartbeat etc.). Sorry about all the parenthesis; just trying to add clarifying comments.
She didn't blame anyone for making up the sound. She blamed men for their policy decisions based upon a manufactured sound. This isn't a bridge too far, you just have to peel back a couple of layers to understand. And yes, the distinction is relevant (see my previous post).
