65

10 comments

[–] ratherbecomes 38 points (+41|-3)

Fair enough point. Always good to spread scientific truth.

Though really, I don't care how 'alive' the embryo is and I don't bother arguing that anymore. It's in my body? I get to decide what to do with it, fullstop.

[–] kalina 22 points (+25|-3)

you know what's funny - I have never seen pro lifers advocate for mandatory organ donation.

Like, you're 'pro life', right? And when someone dies although you could have potentially allowed them to survive that's murder? So what if someone needs a new kidney and you could donate one but say no? Weirdly people generally have no problem understanding bodily autonomy in that case. You don't have to donate your organs even if it means someone else dies. But it's somehow completely different when it's an embryo that is literally a parasite on the mother's body and might also kill her.

[–] DarthVelma 20 points (+23|-3)

Yup. They can't even take your organs to save someone after you're dead unless you consented in life. They want to give fetuses more rights than any actually born person. And they want women to have less rights than a corpse.

[–] Every-Man-His-Own-Football 12 points (+12|-0) Edited

That combination is ideologically informed through concepts like the soul's existence from conception and bodily integrity after death. But there are probably material reasons why these ideas persist. For outlawing abortion the control of reproduction is pretty obvious, and from a study about living kidney donation in Switzerland: 65% of donors were women, while 64% of recipients were men. Among donations between (heterosexual) life partners, 73.8% was from woman to man, 26.2% from man to woman. https://sci-hub.st/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0041134504017373

[–] kalina 9 points (+9|-0)

that's sad. women are raised to be so giving that we even give our organs to men. just like how many men leave their wives when they get cancer while the other way around the women tend to not only stay but take care of them.

I said that to a "pro-life" man once and he said it was because the pregnancy was "natural" (unlike organ donation).

[–] Rollo 18 points (+18|-0) Edited

Though it doesnt take that long. The heart has developed by 9/10 weeks. When you go for first dating scan at 7-8 weeks you can see and hear the heartbeat.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/when-does-a-fetus-have-a-heartbeat

5 weeks - two tubes formed, and fused. blood flows through it creating tubular beat. 6-7 weeks walls formed that create the chambers. 9 weeks - four chambers of heart formed.

Here's an illustation, kind of blurry though shows the stages.

https://images.huffingtonpost.com/2013-01-18-Screenshot20130117at7.46.46PM.png

[–] isaredcup28 18 points (+18|-0)

I think it's very important to show the facts. TRAs are always distorting and denying science. Let's not do the same. Thank you for the info!

[–] Rollo 16 points (+17|-1) Edited

Ya, I'm pro choice too but info is important.

The development of the heart shouldn't be used as a cut off for abortion anyway.

I'm pregnant for the first time now. It was really surprising how quickly the organs start forming, and how soon the embryo looks human like. But again, that shouldn't be the deciding factor in abortion availability.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRXP7XFriKXZ0yPdP5NAIx4jqJzhQ0JoSEIJQ&usqp=CAU

10 week embryo. Though its really tiny.

[–] PeakyLen 7 points (+11|-4)

I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing.

To be honest I was blown away that there is a heart beat at only 6 weeks, but this makes a lot more sense.