A fetal heartbeat as indicator of human life has been mentioned in numerous posts in this thread either explicitly or implicitly making the analogy relevant especially considering that the marker of detectable heartbeat occurs at around at six week mark of gestation.
no, the word in question is heartbeat. A word you used repeatedly. heartbeat does not equal heart rate what we have here is a failure to communicate
Yeah, that isn't anything from NIH, just their library. Unless you think libraries endorse all ideas within them, which they absolutely do not.
It would have been simpler to say that you were wrong and that wasn't an NIH study nor a reflection of a position by NIH, which it isn't. Then I am happy to address the rest of it.
NO. The word is "heart". People keep telling me the "heart does not exist" therefore you cant have a heartbeat. Please dont make me take the time to link to the double digit times someone has made that claim. As for heart rate, it is literally the numeric attribution to the number of HEARTBEATS per minute. You can not have a heart rate without a heartbeat. What to Know About Your Heart Rate and Pulse
LOL. Too funny. It's ok to admit them, along with Johns Hopkins, UF Health and the Cleveland clinic all call it a heartbeat. Maybe next time...
Only if you don't know what a "library" is. Most of us do. I suspect you do as well, but are pretending you don't in this context. I already provided the NIH definition of heartbeat, which is not something that exists at 6 weeks. That wasn't from their library, which, in case you don't know, is a collection of other people's writings, but actually from them.
You apparently know as little about non sequiturs as you do fetal cardiac development. Abortion Opponents Hear a ‘Heartbeat.’ Most Experts Hear Something Else. (Published 2022) “The consensus among most medical experts is that the electrical activity picked up on an ultrasound at six weeks is not the sound of a heart beating and does not guarantee a live birth. The sound expectant mothers hear during a scan is created by the machine itself, which translates the waves of electrical activity into something audible. Doctors are partly to blame for the confusion. Many physicians whose patients are excited about a desired pregnancy will use the word “heartbeat” to describe the cardiac activity heard on an early ultrasound. The word has even crept into the medical literature.” “What you see and hear on an early ultrasound is embryonic activity — electrical currents being sent through cells that will develop at a much later time into a heart,” said Dr. Gabriela Aguilar, an obstetrician-gynecologist and a former fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health, which supports access to abortion. In September, representatives of the A.C.O.G., which supports the right to abortion, said in a Senate hearing that “while contemporary ultrasound can detect an electrically induced flickering of a portion of the embryonic tissue at about six weeks gestation, structurally and in function, a fetus’ heart develops over the entire course of pregnancy.”
I posted this link in another thread from the ACOG explaining to people writing about reproductive health issues the scientifically/medically correct terminology to use. https://www.acog.org/contact/media-center/abortion-language-guide Some people prefer to be correct in their writings, others just like to write "stuff."
I think that the greatest percentage of viable pregnancies terminated happened in the 1930s. Everything I have read said it was for economic reasons.
Exactly this. If I had a daughter and she wanted an abortion I would fly her to a state or country where she could get one. These rules are really just making poor people keep their unwanted pregnancies.
This comes immediately to mind. GOP Fundraiser Elliott Broidy Accused of Coercing Woman Into Having Abortion Trump's Lawyer Negotiated Payment to Pregnant Playboy Model While the story is over four years I have little doubt that Mr. Broidy paid for an abortion for Ms. Bechard and I have little doubt that he also donated to and/or raised campaign funds on behalf the same vehement anti-abortion theocrats who want to outlaw the procedure across the board.
I suspect over time the sloppy use of the term heartbeat, for seemingly harmless reasons, will get corrected now that it has been co-opted by the Christian Taliban forced birthers, and many of those hospital sites that use the terminology on websites etc will stop doing so.
And the pro-abortion advocates will never have to face the negative consequences of their own policy positions because all pro-abortion advocates have already been born. The abortion argument, when we're being honest about it, really boils down to ethics versus convenience. Rationalizing and legalizing abortion genuinely makes everything easier (for everyone already born), but that should not be our identity as a country or a culture.
And the overwhelming majority of anti-abortion advocates will never have to face the life threatening consequences that the plaintiffs in this lawsuit faced. Women denied abortions sue Texas to clarify exceptions to the laws Nor would they have to face the consequences of an abortion ban that the families of these women faced. Death of a dentist in Ireland denied an abortion has worried doctors who say history may repeat in U.S. Polish abortion law protests over woman's hospital death https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/18/poland-abortion-protest/ I suspect that the so called prolife advocates will rationalize those deaths on the basis that the deaths of a small number of women who were denied abortions is a necessary albeit tragic price to pay if it could save the lives of hundreds of thousands of embryos and fetuses which they consider as human as the women who passed away.
Hopefully not much longer. I reached out to UF Health yesterday and told them that their sloppy use of terminology is now being used by certain right wing entities to justify a medically/scientifically inaccurate position in opposition of a woman's right to an abortion or to drastically limit that right. I wrote that I doubted UF would want to be used in that fashion, especially when their usage is incorrect, and provided the link to the ACOG for the correct terminology. They have not acknowledged the contact yet. So until the time it is corrected, if they correct it, continue to use the "Baby and Me" terminology and not the scientifically accurate verbiage
Life-threatening complications for maybe 1% of abortions does not justify the other 99%. We have and should have exceptions to any anti-abortion rule where the life of the mother is threatened. But even if such exceptions exist, you still support abortion, which says all you really need to know about this argument. They’re real and sympathetic cases, but they’re rare cases, and you’re using 1% of cases as a Trojan Horse to shoehorn in the other 99%.
