Fetal Hearbeat


Recommended Posts

With the Dobbs decision has come many state abortion laws with varying standards.  One common standard is the fetal heartbeat.  As soon as the heartbeat is detected, then abortion either becomes illegal or subject to severe restrictions.

<Disclaimer> My personal position does not support legislating abortion bans at 6 weeks.  My complaint with the latest news is the run-around pro-abortionists are attempting by changing definitions to fit their narrative.

In response to the fetal heartbeat laws, the pro-abortionists are now altering their definition of heartbeat.

First Stacy Abrams made a poor attempt at this


"There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks.  It is a manufactured sound..."


What she said, as phrased is simply incorrect and illogical.  But she was referring to a condition that more informed individuals decided to word correctly.

Planned Parenthood has changed the wording on their website.


"an unborn baby has a “very basic beating heart” at 5-6 weeks of pregnancy."

  -- Earlier version of their website

“A part of the embryo starts to show cardiac activity. It sounds like a heartbeat on an ultrasound, but it’s not a fully-formed heart – it’s the earliest stage of the heart developing.”

  -- Current version of their website.


At least livescience had the integrity to clearly state that their article had been altered since the Dobbs decision.


And this website still shows the "accepted science" just a few weeks ago.


By the 10th week, the fetal heart will have developed fully.


The shift in the narrative all started several weeks ago when various health sites brought up the issue.


By week 5 of pregnancy, the cluster of cells that will become your baby's heart has begun to develop and pulse. 


At 6 weeks, an embryo does not have a fully formed heart. Rather, it has a cluster of cells (that eventually forms into a heart) that emits electrical signals, which can be detected on an ultrasound.


Gee, where have I heard the "cluster of cells" argument before?  If everything is just a cluster of cells, nothing is just a cluster of cells.

They're basically taking the partial birth abortion argument and downgrading it to the fetal heartbeat condition.  I guess, this is a sign of a win for pro-lifers.  They're so desperate that they're running mental gymnastics to try to push their agenda. 

We'll see how this holds up in court.  But one thing that the Dobbs decision did was make this a state matter.  So, the Supreme Court will push any attempt at a national standard back to the states.  Planned Parenthood will have to take this to court separately in each state that has such a ban.  And each state will have their own modifications to the fetal heartbeat laws because of such decisions.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I have some times mused on how entertaining it would be, as a criminal defense lawyer, to defend a murder suspect using all of the rationalizations and excuses and half-truths and hair-splitting arguments that the elective abortionists use.

That is kinda funny to think about.  

Right now, most people agree that the heart begins having rudimentary functions -- even it if is not fully formed -- at about 5 to 6 weeks.  And they all agree that it is all there at 10 weeks.  But just you watch, there will be "NEW RESEARCH" that shows it doesn't "FULLY" form until much later (probably 15 or 20 weeks).

If the science doesn't agree with you, just pay someone to change the science until it fits your narrative.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First priority: I should be able to clip my fingernails and have moles and warts and tumors and parasites removed.  Bodily autonomy is a core foundation of liberty and freedom.

Also First priority: Human beings, especially the weak and defenseless ones, must be protected by society and law.  Humans get equal protection under the law - also a core foundation of liberty and freedom.

So when does the reproductive cycle create a human, deserving of equal protection under the law?  Pretty much nobody advocates extending the status of personhood to a sperm, or an egg.  Few believe a fertilized egg or multicelled blastocyst is a human.  As the thing grows and matures, more and more people cross the "okay it's a person now" line.  Every stage crossed, brings more and more into the "it's a person" camp: A beating heart, the ability to feel pain, brain activity, indications of having a sleep pattern, reactions that indicate familiarity to certain sounds.  By the time of viability (the ability to survive outside the womb), pretty much everyone has joined the camp.  You can find some, here and there, who believe a woman should have a right to abort her born and independently living child, but probably in similar numbers as those who believe spilling seed is mass murder.

There should be room for exceptions, like the 14 year old who escapes from her evil father, in the 3rd trimester carrying his child, a child that will not survive for long and will likely kill the mother during birth.

God drops hints that can be interpreted in various ways.  He doesn't settle the matter for us.  The church does what it always does in the lack of clear and unambiguous revelation - it's best. 

In such a situation, it makes sense to let the states (or the people), make up their own minds.  Folks of similar views can go live amongst others of similar stripes, if it's that important to them.  So let Cali and Colorado be on the late end of things, and let Georgia and Mississippi be on the early end of things, and everyone else can argue about weeks, and yell in all caps, and crowbar as much emotion or reason into their arguments as they wish.  And they can vote in their states, and the strongest voices will win in that state.  And folks can argue about jumping states for abortions.   That's better than the federal government telling everyone what to do. 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/24/2022 at 10:33 AM, NeuroTypical said:

God drops hints that can be interpreted in various ways.  He doesn't settle the matter for us.  The church does what it always does in the lack of clear and unambiguous revelation - it's best.


I don't know.  He has straight up instructions for making an abortion drink in the Bible.  It's one that causes a miscarriage and instructions on it's use.  To many that shows that even the Lord supports the idea of abortion, at least in certain circumstances.

Personally, I am of the generation (that probably is driving the latest Supreme Court decisions) that is completely against abortion.  I think it is a dangerous thing to participate in no matter the circumstances in relation to your spiritual health and welfare.  Personally I may feel it is something that should be outlawed except in cases of rape, incest, or the health of the mother.

I also know much of that is driven by my religious beliefs rather than more logical ideas.  The rational me dislikes the idea of any group of religious individuals pushing their beliefs on others.  This is why I think our modern interpretations of the separation of Church and State are a good idea.  

In that light, taking a more logical though, the State (or government) should keep itself out of abortion AS LONG AS IT IS A MEDICAL ISSUE DECIDED BETWEEN A DOCTOR AND THE WOMAN.  (in otherwords, anything that is done that is NOT from a medical doctor in the arena of abortion, I have no problem with it being outlawed).  The State should not be dictating what has to be done by trained medical personnel in these types of situations.  A doctor should not have to be afraid of trying to save the life of a woman or do something in relation to keeping her healthy because the state will punish him for doing so.  A Doctor should be allowed to treat their patients to the best of their ability. 

The problem I have with many of these laws are that they are being made by those who have no medical experience, no medical training, and are not done in pursuit of saving lives or helping woman.  They are being made purely from religious views with no insight into actually helping those who may need it.  One result is that they cause doctors to be afraid of actually caring for the health of patients in certain situations.  I am not a doctor, I know I should not be telling a doctor what they can or cannot do when trying to save someone's life or health.  I think we should let doctors practice the medicine in these cases (and others), not someone in the government not connected to the situation, and even more so, most of those making the laws who have no medical training at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.