4 ms·

> Some doctors who opposed the bans say the term was developed as political tactic to win support for the bills. Isn't this what all political bills are though

> Some doctors who opposed the bans say the term was developed as political tactic to win support for the bills. Isn't this what all political bills are though? Often the fight over this stuff is over language? I mean we still have the Patriot act - no one feels the need to redefine how we talk about that one? Also, considering this: > “What’s interpreted as a heartbeat in these bills is actually electrically induced flickering of a portion of fetal tissue that will become the heart as the embryo develops.” Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced flickering" of sorts? Seems weird for the newspapers to not at least call the bills what the legislators are calling it and then explain why in long-form why they're wrong.

me_me_me 7y ago
> Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced flickering" of sorts? You need a heart to get heartbeat. This is already a slippery slope argumentation. Is gutted fish without a head alive just because its muscles are spasming?
- taborj 7y ago
  > Is gutted fish without a head alive just because its muscles are spasming? The difference being that a gutted fish will not eventually turn into an alive fish. But the "electrically induced flickering" detected in a mother's womb will, in fact, turn into a heart, inside a "blob of cells" that will, in fact, turn into a human.
  - me_me_me 7y ago
    no, it might and that is a big difference. Because it doesn't have to develop into heart. What about case where twins are developing and one cannibalizes the other? Is that a murder now?
  - Xylakant 7y ago
    8th week is so early the risk of loosing the embryo naturally is still very high. I know more than one couple that lost embryos at that stage - my mother in fact, multiple times. So that blob of cells is very much still in the “might turn into a human” state.
    - taborj 7y ago
      My mother-in-law had this happen several times as well. But "might not turn into a human" is, in my opinion (and my mother-in-law's), insufficient reason to allow abortions for any reason, up to (and in some cases, after) the moment of birth. You might turn out to be a murderer; you wouldn't appreciate it if we preemptively threw you in jail.
Qwertystop 7y ago
> Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced flickering" of sorts? My reading is that the argument is not that a heartbeat isn't "electrically induced flickering" but that the thing flickering should not yet be classified as a heart, and so it's disingenuous to call it a heartbeat.
Xylakant 7y ago
> Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced flickering" of sorts? I don’t think the criticism is on the “electrically induced flickering” part of the statement. The entire embryo at that stage is about the size of a kidney bean. There’s no heart to speak of, and probably no audible beat. (Doctors, correct me here)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sparrish 7y ago
It is a heartbeat. It is a human baby with separate DNA from his/her mother. It is life. If we found a similar 'clump of cells' on Mars, the headlines would be filled with "Life found on Mars!" They feel the need to change the language to obfusticate the truth. Innocent life must be protected.
- foolrush 7y ago
  If they found a blob of cells growing inside of a human woman on Mars, they would say “Look we found a human woman on Mars!” There is literally no heart there. Downvotes. By dudes. Fuck this cesspool. Consider the woman involved here before you idiots force your regressive legislations.
- fortydegrees 7y ago
  >Innocent life must be protected. I think this is the commonly attacked premise for abortion, roughly along utilitarian lines.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  It doesn't pump blood. It's not a heart.
  - andrenth 7y ago
    Is it also not a human being? Is it not a life?
    - gtf21 7y ago
      Inasmuch as a the millions of sperm/eggs that don't make it is a human being, it doesn't really have any human characteristics yet.
      - sparrish 7y ago
        That's just not true. The science is very clear on that. "Weeks 6 to 7 Arm and leg buds start to grow. Your baby's brain forms into 5 different areas. Some cranial nerves are visible. Eyes and ears begin to form. Tissue grows that will become your baby's spine and other bones. Baby's heart continues to grow and now beats at a regular rhythm. Blood pumps through the main vessels." https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm
gtfratteus 7y ago
I have no strong opinions on whether life begins at birth or conception, but I highly doubt this "electrical flickering" argument is going to be very persuasive amongst the general public. It seems quite transparent that they're just trying to dehumanize the fetus in order to help their political agenda. When pregnant women go in for ultrasounds from now on, is the doctor going to start calling it "electrical flickering?" My guess is not because it is a heartbeat for all intents and purposes except legalizing abortion.
mcphage 7y ago
> Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced flickering" of sorts? A heartbeat is an "electrically induced flickering", yes. Neon lights are also "electrically induced flickering", but I wouldn't call that a heartbeat.

me_me_me 7y ago

> Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced flickering" of sorts? You need a heart to get heartbeat. This is already a slippery slope argumentation. Is gutted fish without a head alive just because its muscles are spasming?

taborj 7y ago
> Is gutted fish without a head alive just because its muscles are spasming? The difference being that a gutted fish will not eventually turn into an alive fish. But the "electrically induced flickering" detected in a mother's womb will, in fact, turn into a heart, inside a "blob of cells" that will, in fact, turn into a human.
- me_me_me 7y ago
  no, it might and that is a big difference. Because it doesn't have to develop into heart. What about case where twins are developing and one cannibalizes the other? Is that a murder now?
- Xylakant 7y ago
  8th week is so early the risk of loosing the embryo naturally is still very high. I know more than one couple that lost embryos at that stage - my mother in fact, multiple times. So that blob of cells is very much still in the “might turn into a human” state.
  - taborj 7y ago
    My mother-in-law had this happen several times as well. But "might not turn into a human" is, in my opinion (and my mother-in-law's), insufficient reason to allow abortions for any reason, up to (and in some cases, after) the moment of birth. You might turn out to be a murderer; you wouldn't appreciate it if we preemptively threw you in jail.

Qwertystop 7y ago

> Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced flickering" of sorts? My reading is that the argument is not that a heartbeat isn't "electrically induced flickering" but that the thing flickering should not yet be classified as a heart, and so it's disingenuous to call it a heartbeat.

Xylakant 7y ago

> Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced flickering" of sorts? I don’t think the criticism is on the “electrically induced flickering” part of the statement. The entire embryo at that stage is about the size of a kidney bean. There’s no heart to speak of, and probably no audible beat. (Doctors, correct me here)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

sparrish 7y ago

It is a heartbeat. It is a human baby with separate DNA from his/her mother. It is life. If we found a similar 'clump of cells' on Mars, the headlines would be filled with "Life found on Mars!" They feel the need to change the language to obfusticate the truth. Innocent life must be protected.

foolrush 7y ago
If they found a blob of cells growing inside of a human woman on Mars, they would say “Look we found a human woman on Mars!” There is literally no heart there. Downvotes. By dudes. Fuck this cesspool. Consider the woman involved here before you idiots force your regressive legislations.
fortydegrees 7y ago
>Innocent life must be protected. I think this is the commonly attacked premise for abortion, roughly along utilitarian lines.
bryanlarsen 7y ago
It doesn't pump blood. It's not a heart.
- andrenth 7y ago
  Is it also not a human being? Is it not a life?
  - gtf21 7y ago
    Inasmuch as a the millions of sperm/eggs that don't make it is a human being, it doesn't really have any human characteristics yet.
    - sparrish 7y ago
      That's just not true. The science is very clear on that. "Weeks 6 to 7 Arm and leg buds start to grow. Your baby's brain forms into 5 different areas. Some cranial nerves are visible. Eyes and ears begin to form. Tissue grows that will become your baby's spine and other bones. Baby's heart continues to grow and now beats at a regular rhythm. Blood pumps through the main vessels." https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm

gtfratteus 7y ago

I have no strong opinions on whether life begins at birth or conception, but I highly doubt this "electrical flickering" argument is going to be very persuasive amongst the general public. It seems quite transparent that they're just trying to dehumanize the fetus in order to help their political agenda. When pregnant women go in for ultrasounds from now on, is the doctor going to start calling it "electrical flickering?" My guess is not because it is a heartbeat for all intents and purposes except legalizing abortion.

mcphage 7y ago

> Isn't a heartbeat in general to be considered an "electrically induced flickering" of sorts? A heartbeat is an "electrically induced flickering", yes. Neon lights are also "electrically induced flickering", but I wouldn't call that a heartbeat.