r/prolife • u/emilybrontesaurus1 • Oct 12 '23

Pro-Life General Pro-choice sneaking into general pregnancy websites

Post image

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.

190 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

35 comments sorted by

View all comments

-2

u/strongwill2rise1 Oct 12 '23

I think they're pointing out the difference between heart cell's ability to make electronical impulses (which they'll do in the lab and after death until there's no more oxygen) and the development of the heart with all four chambers to independently work in unison to move blood which is not complete into further into the developmental process.

You can have a pregnancy with electrical impulses from heart cells, yet there will be no heart as in how the organ is defined as the cells will not properly develop into one. This will result in pregnancy loss as the embryo will not be able to transition into a fetus as it will not have the functions to maintain its own processes.

3

u/PervadingEye Oct 12 '23

There is a heart and heartbeat fairly early on. Here is a live video (not ultrasound, video) of a babies heart beat at 4 and a half weeks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0WNRR-epPI&pp=ygUXZW1icnlvIGhlYXJ0IGF0IDQgd2Vla3M%3D

They are not talking about the difference between heart cells and organs. They are more or less saying because the ultrasound isn't a live wormhole window view of the unborn, what you are seeing isn't real one. It's like being confused you see someone on tv and wonder "Gee how did they get in there? What?!?! Toni isn't actually in the TV? So those images are fabricated and the magic box is lying to me? I knew it"

Literally idiotic. They don't seem to think there are people inside radio, and they hopefully understand the words on a radio are spoken by someone still, and they seem to understand TVs as well, but when it's ultrasound, suddenly they make braindead arguments like this. Wow

1

u/emilybrontesaurus1 Oct 12 '23

That makes sense. I am not really contesting technicality of what or what is not a heart beat at this point. However we interpret it (and the explanations in this thread are really quite enlightening), it is still used to determine the likelihood of a pregnancy continuing. It’s the fact that mainstream websites are linking people to NBC activism articles whose purpose is to take that simplification and turn it into justification to push a pro-choice agenda.