Abortion stops a beating heart

[panterapat]

Abortion stops a beating heart.

Can anybody refute this?

 

[draper]

Yeah. But I've been around the block on the this matter many times with Christians on this matter and frankly it isn't worth my time anymore.

Edit: Wait sorry, by refute, do you mean, proove wrong, or find a reason to still support abortions?

Cuz my answer is based on the latter.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Yes. The 'heart' has to exist for abortion to stop a beating heart... so before the heart is formed... that wouldn't be true.


Not a 'real' answer, but it's not a 'real' question is it?

 

[ZaraDurden]

Dangerous pregnancies can stop 2 hearts instead of 1.

 

[Ryoko Ozaki]

Panterapat, until the first kick is felt the baby is not alive. I'm sure that "beating heart" was a metaphor for living baby, correct? Because when the baby first gains life, a quick electric current is zapped through the brain which starts the heart, which causes the baby to kick for the first time therefor abortion isn't killing any sensate being.

 

[revolutio]

Abortion stops a beating heart.

Can anybody refute this?

Why would anyone need to? Stopping life is commonstance in society, we eat the by-products of it on an everyday basis with little complaint.

The question is: Why does the beating heart being stopped in an abortion matter more than the beating heart of a cow in a slaughter house?

Actually now that I think about it I can refute that, there are abortions that occur before a heart has been physically defined.

 

[Ryoko Ozaki]

Yup, and even if so my beliefs are that the baby would just find another body.

 

[Volos]

Does a beating heart indicate a life? No.



A person can be brain dead but still have a beating heart.



The heart is just a muscle and that does not the thing that makes that person a person, it is the brain that does that. Before I can consider a fetus a baby it needs to have a functioning brain. If I remember my basic anatomy and physiology classes the brain starts operating somewhere between weeks 14 and 16. the majority of abortions take place well before that time.

 

[Random Poster]

Because when the baby first gains life, a quick electric current is zapped through the brain which starts the heart, which causes the baby to kick for the first time therefor abortion isn't killing any sensate being.

Umm, that's not true. The heart beats regularly at day 21, and brain waves aren't detected until day 40.

 

[panterapat]

I'm really disheartened by some of the above replies. I expected some regard for the value of human life. It is absurd to compare the life of a human to the life of an animal. It is sad how far we can fall when we ignore the survival of the most helpless of our society.

 

[Ryoko Ozaki]

Oh, well I knew it was something like that, but I didn't know the specifics. lol Of course, does a beating heart really show sensate life, or just the preparing the fetus to recieve it?

 

[Jet Black]

Panterapat, until the first kick is felt the baby is not alive. I'm sure that "beating heart" was a metaphor for living baby, correct? Because when the baby first gains life, a quick electric current is zapped through the brain which starts the heart, which causes the baby to kick for the first time therefor abortion isn't killing any sensate being.

that must be some sensation for the mother.

 

[Fiendishjester]

Just to feed the fire a little bit: Because the baby may be physically alive (though it probably isn't,) does that mean it is mentally alive?

Secondly, is being physically alive the only sign of life? For example, if I were living in a 5ft by 5ft cube with no windows, doors, or exits, and I was permanently hooked up to some kind of never-ending IV, I would not consider that being alive. Sorry to use so strange an example, but a more germane one could possibly be solitary confinement in a prison. I would equate these two with death, not life.

Lastly, hypothetically, if you knew the child was going to have a sorrowful life, would you let it live? I would much rather be dead than live a painful, horrible existence.

 

[gladiatrix]

Abortion stops a beating heart.

Can anybody refute this?

1. Simple answer: Does abortion stop a beating heart? Yes, depending on the timing of the abortion (if the abortion occurs after +30 days). In all mammalian embryos, the very first organ system that develops is the heart/circulatory system for circulating blood to the developing embryo(after 30 days and HERE). BTW, the heart isn't formed until after 30 days and doesn't "beat" until then, so by this criterion panterpat should be okay with all forms of birth control and abortions that occur before then because no "beating heart stops", eh??!! Think about it.....

2. The real purpose of the anti-choice bumpersticker slogan==>This is really a disingenuous way of impling that abortions are stopping a human life, hence a "murder" has been committed, but is that necessarily the truth? There is more to a living human BEING than a beating heart, otherwise the criterion for death would be cessation of the heart beat and that is NOT the case (brain-death is the criterion now). However, the bumpersticker phrase "abortion stops a beating heart" is intend for no other reason than to raise rancorous emotions against those who favor abortion as an option for dealing with an unwanted pregnancy (a really cheap shot!).

Let's explore this question of "life" and what anti-choicers really mean when the say "life".......

Anti-choicers are always saying that "life" begins at conception??? What do they really mean by that? Most of them are theists, who really mean God implants a "soul". However, most will hesitate to admit that that is what they mean because they know good and well there is no evidence for a soul nor can they prove when such an "endowment" takes place (provided one could prove that such a thing as a soul exists.

Christians just get hoist on their own petard with the soul argument. A soul is important to Christians because that is the medium through which they experience eternal life. It is our "badge" of superiority over the rest of creation. This notion that it's okay to kill, eat, and experiment on animals is supposed to be because they don't have souls. What is really funny here is that many other religions believe that not only animals have souls, but so do "inanimate" objects like rocks, trees. Without some kind of empirical evidence, how does one decide which if, any religious viewpoint on the soul question, is correct?

The question of just when a fetus gets this all-important soul arises. What many anti-choicers are ignorant of is that according to the early Church fathers, life did NOT "begin at conception". Aquinas and Augustine, following Aristotle's lead, declared that a male embryo acquired a soul at 40 days and the female embryo did so at 90 days. This is Christian example that leads to one big philosophical problem, namely the logical impossibility of precisely defining the "ensoulment line" (the "bald-hairy" distinction problem). For instance is beard not a beard after 5 days? 30 days? Or how can one precisely draw a line between day and night? The "hairy-bald" problem with the fetus, is how could one draw the line as to when the fetus gets a soul, which is impossible because the fetus is continually growing.

I would disagree with the proposition that "life begins at conception for the following reasons. Actually the egg and sperm are "alive", as is every functioning cell in the body of the woman in whom a conception may occur. All cells are BIOLOGICALLY alive in that they meet the 7 criteria biologists associate with life:

1. presence of carbon-All living things contain carbon. With few exceptions, carbon is found exclusively in association with living things.
2. organization & complexity-All living things exhibit remarkable organization in their body plans and when compared to non-living things are extremely complex.
3. metabolism-All living things absorb, convert, store, use and release energy in a variety of complex chemical reactions.
4. homeostasis-Living organisms regulate metabolic processes to maintain a "steady state".
5. response to stimuli-Living things respond to a variety of stimuli (Ex. temperature, moisture, concentration of chemicals, llight, scent, etc.)
6. growth-An organism continues to increase in size (even bacteria do this) til maturity is reached.
7. reproduction-Living organisms produce generations of like organisms.

This is what scientists mean when they say something is "alive", so

• Is a fertilized egg "alive"?===>Yes
• Is a zygote(3-7 day old pre-implantation) "alive"?===>Yes
• Is an embryo (before 8 wks., post-implantation) "alive"?===>Yes
• Is a fetus[older than 8 wks] "alive"?===>Yes

The real question is not is a conception/zygote/embryo/fetus "alive" and "human'", but when is it a human being. or a "person".

THE QUESTION OF "PERSONHOOD"

If the end of an individual's life is measured by the ending of his/her brain function ( brain-death as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical to at least agree that a "person's" life begins with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument ("brain-birth")? Anti-choicers like to fling about the MYTH that brain-waves appear as early as 40 days. However, the most recent finding show that intermittent brain-waves, don't appear until the 24th week, (give or take a week) when they begin to activate auditory and visual systems. The brain nor the neural network connecting the brain to the rest of the body aren't complete until shortly after this time. Brain-waves resembling those of
a new-born baby don't appear until the 26th WEEK.


THE DILEMMA OF THE MICROPREEMIE

Now consider this fact.. No micropreemie under 23 weeks has ever survived for more than a few hours. Many of them that small (23 weeks), even if they live (2% survival at 23 weeks), have severe neurodevelopmental defects (30% of surviving 23 week preemies) because they weren't sufficiently developed to respond well to life-support. This is primarily due to the fact that the fetal lungs are so immature. There is no technology on the horizon that can improve the prospect of survival because of this limitation. Given these developmental facts, it would seem logical to assume that a "person" is not there until after the 22nd week. (Remember that 50% of abortions occur before the 7th week and 90% have occurred by the 12th week, there is no brain to speak of at this time).

Let's go back in time before the 23rd week, back to the beginning. The vast majority of conceptions (~65%) DO NOT result in a successful pregnancy. (NOTE: A pregnancy is defined as the successful implantation of a zygote in the endometrium or uterine lining---it takes 3 to 7 days after fertilization for the dividing egg to reach the uterus). They are simply washed out as part of the endometrial detritus when a woman has her period (many women have conceived, but the zygote never manages to establish itself in the endometrium).

If the zygote manages to establish itself, the lucky resident (the embryo) is still not out of the woods because 30-40% of these 1st trimester pregnancies are spontaneously ABORTED (70% show gross chromosomal abnormalities incompatible with life). The bottom-line is that +65% of all conceptions fail (a conception does not a successful pregnancy make!)

Anti-choicers often quote Psalm 139:"Truly you have formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb. Remember that conception takes place in the Fallopian tube and the zygote takes up to 7days to reach the uterus. There is NO justification for claiming that ensoulment occurs at conception (where does it say so?). If one is aware of early Christain history, there is no theological basis for making such a declaration (remember Aquinas and Augustines' definition). There is also no reason to ban birth control devices that interfere with ovulation AND implantation of the zygote (trophoblastic stage). This is especially true when one considers that God seems to considers 65% of these 7 day old "humans" to be expendable at some point before the end of the first trimester (either don't implant in the lining or are spontaneously aborted)

If God really endows each and every conception (fertilized egg) with a soul (what theists REALLY mean when they say the conceptus is "alive" and a "person", not merely biologically alive), that makes GOD AN ABORTIONIST, and the biggest mass murderer of all time. (If one believes that personhood begins at fertilization)

When it come to abortions (the only reason we are really having this "personhood" discussion),50% have occurred on or before the 7th week and 90% have occurred before the 12th week. A functional brain is the sign of life as a person. AT this point NO person exists...not til after 22 weeks (really a bit early, because none survive that young anyway). A useful guide line here the one used by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology which sets the time for considering a fetus to be viable at 20 weeks. One thing to remember here is that only ~16,000 abortions occur after the 20th week, and one has to have one really good reason to get an abortion after 20 weeks.

The long and the short of it is that it isn't possible to be a person unless one is developed to a point where one can potentially experience and express that personhood (however limited that capacity might prove to be, i.,e., severely handicapped infants). In other words, let's assume a soul exists, it needs a physical vessel in order to function in this world, no matter how limited that functioning may prove to be. One thing, bringing up PEOPLE (those already born and accepted as PERSONS) who are asleep, unconscious, in a coma, or profoundly handicapped either at birth or through accidental injury is NOT an argument because they are already here and this argument constitutes a "red herring" (changing the subject to avoid arguing about the fetus). This is an argument over the personhood of the fetus not those already here. The same holds true for comparing a fetus to a slave. Slaves are fully developed beings and their social postion had nothing to do with their physical development and even at the beginning of the nation were still accorded them the status of persons, only "three-fifths" of a person, but still accorded personhood status in the original Constitution (Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3; Article I, Section 9; Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3). NOTE: This is the infamous"Three-fifths Compromise")

References:

1) When Did I Begin?by Catholic theologian Dr. Norman Ford. 1988. C.U.P., pages 39-43, 193

2) Criteria for life from any up-to-date biology textbook. Embryonic development can be verified using a current textbook on medical physiology and/or mammalian embryology

3) New Republic: Abortion and the Brain

4) The Extremely Immature Newborn—The Dilemma of the Microbaby

5) Abortion statistics from the Center for Disease Control and the nonprofit Alan Guttmacher Institute which collect the only national abortion statistics. Guttmacher counts more abortions because it directly surveys clinics.

 

[feral]

Capital punishment stops a beating heart. Can anyone refute *this*?

You're right panterapat...it is sad that we ignore the survival of the most helpless in our society. The elderly are often mistreated in 'rest' homes where they will die after years of mistreatment and being ignored. Our government doesn't care if their health needs are met, no one seems to care if their mental and emotional needs are met, and many could care less about their wisdom and experience.

Oh...you weren't referring to the unborn, who aren't part of society, were you...?

 

[ej]

People will never agree on this topic, because of the range of different views on when and how life commences...

Some believe that making love has the POTENTIAL to bring life... ie the soul exists prior to conception

Some believe that before the fetus has the physiology to live outside its mothers body, it is not a viable creature.

Some believe that until a baby is born, it is not a viable creature.

These are all different shades of the same colour... perhaps in the future, people might begin to murder children under the age of eighteen because they are not financialy independent and their lives would be better without that child?

 

[Ryoko Ozaki]

I beleive that the child will just be reborn in another mother. I even thought like this in the days that I was Christian, for reasons unknown which makes me wonder if I was a Buddhist monk in my past life(or one of them) since a dream about being a Buddhist monk was the thing that made me start studying Buddhism.

 

[BarbB]

Panterapat, until the first kick is felt the baby is not alive. I'm sure that "beating heart" was a metaphor for living baby, correct? Because when the baby first gains life, a quick electric current is zapped through the brain which starts the heart, which causes the baby to kick for the first time therefor abortion isn't killing any sensate being.

What do they teach in Biology, my young friend?

 

[BarbB]

Dangerous pregnancies can stop 2 hearts instead of 1.

Agreed, but dangerous pregnancies do not comprise the majority of abortions. Convenience, embarrassment, and birth control do.

 

[BarbB]

Actually now that I think about it I can refute that, there are abortions that occur before a heart has been physically defined.

Leaving aside the idea that a cow matters more than a human being, most abortions occur in the 2nd month or after. The heart starts beating around 3 weeks when most non-observant women might not even realize they are pregnant.