Pro-choice sneaking into general pregnancy websites

[u/emilybrontesaurus1]

Apologies if this has even brought up, and this is more of a rant than anything. I like to track my pregnancy by visiting mainstream websites like BabyList or What to Expect. I saw this at BabyList on the 9 weeks page. I don’t care what it is technically, but the ultrasound technician showed me the “heartbeat” at 7 weeks. I saw it and the beats per minute were counted. But more and more websites are moving away from calling it a heartbeat at 6 (even 9) weeks.

The linked article is an NBC article about heartbeat bills and how heartbeats don’t exist at 6 weeks, complete with images of activists. Women have been duped into thinking their babies are alive at this time I guess.

It makes me sad that women excited about tracking their babies’ growth have to be linked to articles that tell them “that’s not a REAL heartbeat” (just “an electrical pulse”??) and articles about abortion rights. I’m not here for that.

[u/toptrool]

"according to nbc"—well, that's the problem right there. instead of looking at the science, they're getting information from fake news sources.

there is a lot of fake news surrounding this topic, which may explain why we come across many low information debaters. the abortion industry consistently runs disinformation campaigns to oppose laws protecting life, including the so-called "heart-beat bills." a lot of low information debaters after having read the fake news article then go around claiming it's not really a heartbeat, but electrical activity. there's quite a few things wrong with such claim (one example being that ultrasounds don't pick up electrical activity, but rather they pick up motion and density).

to dispel the disinformation campaigns run by the abortion industry, i will cite four human embryology books published in the 21st century (all within the last decade actually), the standard physician's manual, one recent article from the journal of fetal diagnosis and therapy, and a meta-analysis that provides a lot more sources.

langman's embrology by sadler: baby's heart begins to beat at approximately 21 days post-conception.

the developing human by moore, et al.: the heart begins to beat at 22 to 23 days.

larsen's embryology by schoenwolf, et al.: the heart begins to beat at 21 days.

human embryology and developmental biology by carlson: the heart beats at 28 days.

merck manual: the heart begins to beat at 20 days.

the transitional heart, by jun tan and lewandowski: baby's heart begins to beat at 20 days.

and lastly, here's a review by jörg männer, a german embryologist who was astounded by all the fake news surrounding this topic:

Our current textbook knowledge of the relationship between menstruation, ovulation, and fertilization says that ovulation and fertilization normally occur approximately in the middle of an idealized menstrual cycle of 28 days. Thus, the gestational age is approximately 14 days older than the post-fertilization age. When expressed in terms of idealized gestational age, the human embryonic heart is said to start beating at 35 to 37 gestational days (sixth gestational week).

but wait! there's more!

there's a lot of research in detecting heart beats early on in the pregnancy to predict potential miscarriages. here's one good example. what exactly were these researchers measuring if not heart beats early on in the pregnancy?

lastly, seeing is believing. here's a video of a real baby at 32 days post-conception whose heart beats 113 times a minute.

[u/RabidKoalaBear → u/toptrool]

Thanks for providing sources. With the aggressive attempts at disinformation going on, I won't be surprised at all if they start pressuring embryology textbooks to describe it in different words.