Sunday Reads: Maybe we should call it, Embryonic Cardiac Activity?

Hello…and good morning.

Quoted below:

…as I’ve watched media coverage of abortion rights in America after the demise of Roe v. Wade, and as I’ve watched conservative politicians and interest groups pen anti-abortion legislation, it’s became clear that the American anti-abortion movement has been at the forefront of redefining reality — and that they’ve succeeded in radically reshaping our understanding of human life, pregnancy, and parenthood to be far outside of the bounds of scientific consensus, of common sense, and of anything human beings have believed for most of human history.

Read the rest of the thread at the link above…but here’s some more thoughts on the “heartbeat” laws. Here in Georgia, many Abortion Activists are referring to these draconian laws as “Fetal Cardiac Activity” Laws, but I think even that is a bit too friendly. It should be called out for what they are…Embryonic Cardiac Activity Laws! because embryos don’t have hearts.

Quoted below:

…obstetricians say the term “fetal heartbeat” is misleading, and that this scientific misunderstanding, among countless others, may contribute to negative public opinion toward abortion.

To wit: though pulsing cells can be detected in embryos as early as six weeks, this rhythm — detected by a doctor, via ultrasound — cannot be called a “heartbeat,” because embryos don’t have hearts. What is detectable at or around six weeks can more accurately be called “cardiac activity,” says Robyn Schickler, OB/GYN and fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health. The difference between “cardiac activity” and “heartbeat” may seem linguistically minimal, but Schickler and others argue otherwise. At this stage, she says, what doctors can detect is essentially communication between a group of what will eventually become cardiac cells.

“From very early on, different cells are programmed to do different things for what is eventually a fully functioning human body,” says Jennifer Kerns, an OB/GYN and professor at the University of California in San Francisco. “These are cells that are programmed with electrical activity, which will eventually control the heart rate — they send a signal telling the heart to contract, once there is a heart.” It is this early activity which ultrasounds detect — not a heartbeat.

Quoted below:

In fact, “fetus” isn’t technically accurate at six weeks of gestation either, says Kerns, since “embryo” is the scientific term for that stage of development. Obstetricians don’t usually start using the term “fetus” until at least eight weeks into the pregnancy.

But “fetus” may have an appeal that the word “embryo” does not, Kern says: “The term ‘fetus’ certainly evokes images of a well-formed baby, so it’s advantageous to use that term instead of ’embryo’ — which may not be as easy for the public to feel strongly about, since embryos don’t look like a baby,” she explains. “So those terms are very purposefully used [in these laws] — and are also misleading.”

Quoted below:

“It is very common to use non-medical language to publicly talk about a medical procedure,” said David Cohen, professor of law at Drexel University’s Kline School of Law.“The law needs precision in order to know exactly what is being regulated,” Cohen said. “So in medicine it would be by using medical terminology.”

Cackovic, the fetal medicine specialist, said the current “heartbeat laws,” are based only on “our amazing technological advances” that allow detection of the earliest signs of embryonic cardiac activity, “and nothing else.”

On to the cartoons:

Yes, I know it is a bit heavy on Georgia stuff…

So this is the actual cover:

Oh boy….

One last link, and yes it’s a Georgia one:

That’s all for today, this is an open thread.

18 Comments on “Sunday Reads: Maybe we should call it, Embryonic Cardiac Activity?”

  1. Minkoff Minx says:

    I wonder if any of my family or old friends are going to this shithead’s shitshow:

  2. Minkoff Minx says:

    You want to see something disturbing as hell. Look at the twitter hashtag #SAS2022

  3. Minkoff Minx says:

    We already knew this:

  4. dakinikat says:

    What the world needs now is less religion like these dicks.

    • NW Luna says:

      Condoms? WTAF? I wonder what state it is. Well, Walgreens is going to lose some customers!

      • NW Luna says:

        Wisconsin. Also the store policy is to have another employee or the manager ring up the purchase, which is what happened in this instance. The clerk should have got another clerk in the first place instead of telling the customer he couldn’t ring them up. Wonder if that clerk also refuses to ring up cigarettes, booze, and cosmetics.

  5. dakinikat says:

    I put this up a few days ago in the comments but not sure everyone saw it. I’m so tired of men thinking they can control the women in their lives even if the women have left. They get outraged and violent if women don’t comply.

  6. dakinikat says:

  7. dakinikat says:

  8. NW Luna says:

    Trans-identified kids aren’t banned from sports — of course they can play sports. They play on the team for their sex. Simple.

    That cartoon with the large person and the same person has the captions wrong. The small one is the girl or woman who is getting jumped on by the boy or man who identifies as trans and who is heavier, taller, has larger hands, longer arms, longer legs, more powerful muscles than any of the females on the team. Estrogen doesn’t appreciably decrease strength in men, and it does nothing to reduce the physiological advantages of male puberty. Lia Thomas has a ‘wingspan’ more than a foot and a half wider than any of the young women he competes against. He also retains functioning male genitals and, as reported by women teammates, sometimes gets erections as he watching the young women change clothes and shower. Besides the invasion of their privacy, he also stole a young woman’s place on the team.

    • NW Luna says:

      • quixote says:

        We have people in a different physical class, and it’s A-OK to have them in unfair competition because the losers are only those livestock aka women.

        And people seem to be incapable to noticing the problem. The mindset that takes away fundamental rights to body autonomy (because why not? it’s just women) is the same one that sees no problem with ignoring women’s rights everywhere. Women’s sports, changing areas, even prisons where women can’t choose to leave. It’s just women. Why would they matter?

        Then they get into a complete cognitive pretzel because, zomg, the Repubs, for their own reasons, and anti-trans. They’re not pro-women, they’re anti-trans, but let’s ignore the distinction. It’s as if they said the sky was blue (so they can blame rain on Dems) and everybody had to insist no! the sky is red! because the worst thing in the world would be to “agree” with a Repub.

        It’s not “agreement” when it’s about an obvious fact, recognized for different reasons.

  9. dakinikat says:

    • quixote says:

      “why do they find it acceptable to deny the same protections”

      because it’s not about equality — as in equal protection under the law, as in rule of law.

      It’s about using anything you’ve got to put yourself on top. That might be a convenient legal statute, it might be an AR-15. But it’s never about the “lower orders” using the same thing to get equal rights.

      Equal rights to them are the problem. Not the solution.