Generally, from 6 ½ -7 weeks is the time when a heartbeat can be detected and viability can be assessed. A normal heartbeat at 6-7 weeks would be 90-110 beats per minute. The presence of an embryonic heartbeat is an assuring sign of the health of the pregnancy.
Once a heartbeat is detected, the chance of the pregnancy continuing ranges from 70-90% dependent on what type of ultrasound is used.
I don’t think your argument about the heartbeat not really being a heartbeat is doing a good job making any sort of point you are trying to make.
It is clear you two don’t like me using the word “life.” I understand you aren’t willing to have the debate on any sort of terms that makes it seem like you are in favor of snuffing out a life. That’s understandable. But I also get the feeling you aren’t even willing to consider what I am trying to say, so I will move on. Don’t bother responding again to correct my terminology and I won’t with you. Deal?
Irrelevant to what? To the moral question? I agree. Irrelevant to most voters that hold an opinion on abortion laws? I disagree. It is clearly relevant to a lot of people or else it wouldn’t be a debated topic.
Care to cite this claim?
Yes. A single mother on government assistance plus a part time job isn’t so terrible a life as to justify the killing of an unborn baby. Like I mentioned earlier, there are thousands of pregnant women risking their life each month traveling long distances from South America crossing our Southern border illegally in dangerous situations hoping to have the CHANCE to give birth to a baby here and raise it in our version of poverty.
You’re memory is indeed failing you. My reference to your 90% claim was when you said this:
Reread what I wrote to you and you’ll see I specifically said “agree” in reference to your claim that the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester.
Incorrect. No one is forcing mothers of unwanted children to keep them.
So the internet is helping drive teen pregnancy down? Ok. If you say so. Since conservatives aren’t trying to abolish the internet, I guess that means you agree with me that conservative policies are unlikely to increase the rate of teen pregnancies and are therefore unlikely to increase the abortion rate.
You are confusing a policy in which individuals can choose whether or not to vaccinate with a policy that prohibits vaccination. A policy allowing people to choose whether or not to be vaccinated does not make sex less safe generally. The choice itself is what may or may not make sex less safe for that particular individual only.
Sounds like a few anecdotes at best or a completely made up “phenomenon” at worst.
No, but this guy does. And he directly contradicts your claim that a c-section is a bad idea.
That’s up to her. But taking a class x drug that is necessary for the treatment of a serious illness in the mother is not the same thing as having an abortion.
What do you mean? I know you’re not saying it’s “child abuse” to give birth to a baby that is likely to have down syndrome?