Polish lawmakers move closer to banning abortions altogether, even for women who were raped, are carrying deformed babies or face health risks.

[Fandango 1,440]

I know what you're trying to get across. Just wanted you to be aware that the only source presented here to counter your quite valid point that there is no fetal heartbeat at 18 days - and that there is in fact no fetus at 18 days - is not a source that anyone of sound mind would consider taking seriously.

Umm, she admitted some can beat at 18 days, so what valid argument did she make, exactly?

As to the news link, take your pick then!

http://www.google.com/search?q=ohio+heartbeat+bill&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=ohio+heartbeat+bill&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=37F&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivnsu&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=BA0WTpT5Jaj10gHNqK1v&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=4&ved=0CBMQ_AUoAw&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=7f9b722de2d1c2f&biw=1440&bih=766

[faust-yusov 103]

so what valid argument did she make, exactly?

She politely clarified your initial assertion ("a foetus' heart beats 18 days after conception"), which she was well within her rights to do.

More than being "valid", it was an intelligent and necessary contribution to the discussion.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Umm, she admitted some can beat at 18 days, so what valid argument did she make, exactly?

As to the news link, take your pick then!

http://www.google.com/search?q=ohio+heartbeat+bill&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=ohio+heartbeat+bill&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=37F&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=ivnsu&source=lnms&tbm=nws&ei=BA0WTpT5Jaj10gHNqK1v&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=4&ved=0CBMQ_AUoAw&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=7f9b722de2d1c2f&biw=1440&bih=766

Alright, I checked Reuters and The Columbus Dispatch. Neither is talking of heartbeats at 18 days. In fact, the former makes no mention of how early a heartbeat may be detected and the latter puts the timframe at 6-7 weeks. If the bill as stated in the Dispatch article actually puts the limit at the time when a fetal heartbeat can be detected, then that would put the limit at the beginning of the 9th week which is when the fetal stage commences. Obviously, an embryo can't have a fetal heartbeat seeing that it isn't a fetus just yet. That's just one more sign that this is nothing but grandstanding legislation. Not to mention that it violates Roe vs. Wade since not the heartbeat (fetal or embryonic) but viability of the fetus is the threshold established in that ruling. Grandstanding, grandstanding and more grandstanding instead of focusing on jobs creation and real issues that Ohio needs to tackle. But I guess they have all the jobs they need in Ohio which is leaving the legislator free to waste time on legislation that is not going to do anything but waste state resources during the litigation that this is going to trigger. But hey, Ohio has funds aplenty.

[BSquared 9]

Umm, she admitted some can beat at 18 days, so what valid argument did she make, exactly?

I admitted that surely there had to have been at least ONE case with those results. (Simply because that article/Ohio doctors stated so.) --- None that I've personally heard of. My support of that statement was due to your link - my links disagreed... repeatedly.

Just some extra information: OB/GYN offices guesstimate how far along a mother is. Unless of course... they only have sex once a month, and know the exact date of conception - chances of my due date/gesational age being correct - are slim (that's why during a pregnancy, the due date often changes). The offices guess according to the size/weight of the baby. So... I could be 12 weeks pregnant but my child could be IUGR, causing it to look 9/10 weeks. This could have also been the case with the 18 day old. They could have assumed the embryo's size was that of an 18 day old, but it could have possibly been IUGR. One will never know. Unless of course, you look at the study reports (from Ohio) and followed that exact mother.

-----------

I picked this link: http://www.shewired.com/health/ohio%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cheart-beat-bill%E2%80%9D-women%E2%80%99s-reproductive-rights-roe-v-wade-peril

And this one: http://jezebel.com/5816347/ohio-house-passes-heartbeat-bill

Both stating 6ish weeks. 6x7= 42 days. Either way, Ohio passed the heart beat bill - NOT the 18 day bill.

-----------

Anyway - my original argument was that anything under 10wks gestation is considered an embryo, not a fetus. And, the chances of that embryo having a heartbeat prior to 5 weeks gestation are extremely low.

[Fandango 1,440]

I admitted that surely there had to have been at least ONE case with those results. (Simply because that article/Ohio doctors stated so.) --- None that I've personally heard of. My support of that statement was due to your link - my links disagreed... repeatedly.

Just some extra information: OB/GYN offices guesstimate how far along a mother is. Unless of course... they only have sex once a month, and know the exact date of conception - chances of my due date/gesational age being correct - are slim (that's why during a pregnancy, the due date often changes). The offices guess according to the size/weight of the baby. So... I could be 12 weeks pregnant but my child could be IUGR, causing it to look 9/10 weeks. This could have also been the case with the 18 day old. They could have assumed the embryo's size was that of an 18 day old, but it could have possibly been IUGR. One will never know. Unless of course, you look at the study reports (from Ohio) and followed that exact mother.

-----------

I picked this link: http://www.shewired....oe-v-wade-peril

And this one: http://jezebel.com/5...-heartbeat-bill

Both stating 6ish weeks. 6x7= 42 days. Either way, Ohio passed the heart beat bill - NOT the 18 day bill.

-----------

Anyway - my original argument was that anything under 10wks gestation is considered an embryo, not a fetus. And, the chances of that embryo having a heartbeat prior to 5 weeks gestation are extremely low.

I would assume - and of course it's an assumption - that there is at least more than one case of such. I doubt there is ONE 'superbaby' which would define legislation. I would also assume that they have the medical evidence to back up this claim, especially since it's attached to proposed legislation. Of course, it's not the '18 day bill'...but ask yourself why is that phrase attached to this bill? Why does it say '...as early as 18 days', if it's not possible? Sure we can attack the source of quotes here on a messageboard, but I am sure that if it was so easily disproven as being possible, then it would have been.

I took your inital post here as mostly taking umbrage with the timeframe, which you later said could be possible.

It seems we both are playing fast and loose with technical terms, since you also said this:

For that article/study, they could have found ONE baby whose heartbeat was detected at 18 days.

So I guess it's neither a baby, nor a fetus...

_____________

At the end of the day, 18 days, 40 days...it's all semantics at this point. But if it makes you feel better, I'll say:'It is possible for the developing child to have a heartbeat at 18 days'And we're in agreement that that is a factually true statement.

I appreciate the confirmation.... thank you!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

At the end of the day, 18 days, 40 days...it's all semantics at this point. But if it makes you feel better, I'll say:'It is possible for the developing child to have a heartbeat at 18 days'

Well, at the end of the day, Roe vs. Wade is the precedent and it doesn't care about a heartbeat - fetal or otherwise - but about viability. Anything violating that standard is - at current - unconstitutional. I think we can all agree that there is no viability at either 18 days or 25 days or even 40 days but rather in the neighborhood of 20-24 weeks.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog