NIH does not refer to it as a heartbeat as I provided their definition of heartbeat, which does not occur at 6-7 weeks. I'll go with the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the NIH definition of a heartbeat.
I have literally given links of the NIH calling it a heartbeat that early. You can disagree, but stop acting like the links do not exist.
Okay, please provide that link here. I have yet to find the link to NIH that you claimed you provided. I am happy to provide you the NIH link in which they define heartbeat in a way that would exclude what you are trying to claim is a heartbeat.
From a study on miscarriage rates posted on the NIH's own Library of Medicine site. They parnered with Harvard Medical School in the study: Embryonic heart rates below 90 beats per minute at 6 to 8 weeks of gestation have been shown to be associated with a high likelihood of subsequent first trimester demise.... We evaluated sonograms of singleton pregnancies at 6 to 8 weeks to determine the relationship between heart rate and first trimester outcome in four gestational age Embryonic heart rate in the early first trimester: what rate is normal? - PubMed.
Library of medicine is just a collection of journal articles written by people who aren't connected to NIH. It is not their position. It would be like claiming a library endorses every idea in it. Nobody would make that claim if they weren't dug in. BTW, that paper is not written by anybody from NIH. So to label that as a partnership is just factually false.
Again, they are using those terms loosely in the sections of their websites that are dumbed down for public consumption. They are unfortunately likely to continue that practice so that low information readers can follow the subject matter. I understand you and others have come across this misuse of terminology, most likely written before Dobbs made this issue a much more significant one, and seized upon it to support your medically inaccurate position, but that language is nonetheless scientifically and medically incorrect. Because of this inaccurate use of terminology, The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has published on their website the " ACOG Guide to Language and Abortion." "This guide is designed to help inform language choice for those writing about reproductive health to use language that is medically appropriate, clinically accurate, and without bias." The ACOG says to avoid use of the term "fetal heartbeat" stating, "Until the chambers of the heart have been developed and can be detected via ultrasound (roughly 17-20 weeks of gestation), it is not accurate to characterize the embryo’s or fetus’s cardiac development as a heartbeat." In another section they state, "It is clinically inaccurate to use the word “heartbeat” to describe the sound that can be heard on ultrasound in very early pregnancy. In fact, there are no chambers of the heart developed at the early stage in pregnancy that this word is used to describe, so there is no recognizable “heartbeat.” What pregnant people may hear is the ultrasound machine translating electronic impulses that signify fetal cardiac activity into the sound that we recognize as a heartbeat." According to the ACOG, the medically correct terminology to use is “Embryonic cardiac activity” before eight weeks of gestation and “fetal cardiac activity” after eight weeks of gestation." ACOG Guide to Language and Abortion If you really are a lawyer, you know 85% of the people who come home and discover it broken into and their property missing claim they were "robbed." Common use term, but 100% inaccurate from a legal perspective. They were the victim of a burglary, not a robbery, and no matter how much the term is being used incorrectly, it is still incorrect usage. Here the ACOG is clearly telling you there is no such thing as a fetal heartbeat, it doesn't exist in science/medicine. So you either pay attention to the actual medical information or the "Baby and Me" sections of health care provider websites.
Not when you put it in context. Hitler wanted a better society too. But he thought the way to get there was to exterminate millions of Jews and other minorities. Now don't go nuts because because you think I compared you to Hitler.
Nope. Tilly already posted it. You going with the NIH means you believe there is a heartbeat at 7 weeks.
So first there was no medical use of the term heartbeat. Just dumbing it down. Then the claim was "it isnt an NIH link". Then I link you to a HARVARD study hosted on an NIH platform. The NLM is married to the NIH it is literally a part of the NIH. Here is nother study hosted on the NIH site: Fetal cardiac function during the first trimester of pregnancy The heart rate (HR) increases between the 5th week of gestation and 9th week of gestation Note that not only do all of these internal studies (not dumbed down for the public) call it hear beat, heart rhythm etc. Many actually point to the fact that a lack of said heart beat, or the slowness of at 6 weeks is of great concern.
Based on the logic that a heartbeat, in and of itself, is the principle indicator of human life, wouldn't removing life support from an individual whose brain has ceased to function but still has a beating heart as the result of medical intervention be considered a form of murder?
Cute. Now show me where anyone should disagree with what I said: "... I am picturing a better society where we don't just eliminate so many before they ever have a chance to be productive humans." I gave no numbers and no way of accomplishing it. The statement was open and broad. You guys always say you arent pro abortion, so I assume you too want yo see "a better society where we dont just eliminate so many before they ever have a chance to be productive humans". And as for Hitler. I think he was not *checks notes* trying to save those viewed as unimportant.
No. No one is stopping that heart. Nature is taking its organic course. One is the active cessation of a beating heart and one is the inactive allowing of the heart to beat freely until it no longer is capable.
I'm picturing a better society where we don't take away the right of people to have control over their own bodies. You agree?
