There is plenty of room for disagreement on this topic, but let's at least get our facts right,
@mchammer and
@bystander.
I don’t think what she said is true (wouldn’t be the first time). Pregnancy is defined as 2 weeks after last period (14 days). Thus in the example she gave above the child would be 4 weeks old, not 6 weeks. What a maroon.
If a woman is tracking her cycle, and it's supposed to be every four weeks, then six weeks is two weeks after she should have menstruated. To say "right after" meant as soon as it could happen. But the count between periods starts regardless.
The start of pregnancy (called "gestation") is universally defined as the first day of a woman's last period. For example,
this comes from the Cleveland Clinic:
When does a pregnancy start?
The start of pregnancy is actually the first day of your last menstrual period. This is called the gestational age, or menstrual age. It’s about two weeks ahead of when conception actually occurs. Though it may seem strange, the date of the first day of your last period will be an important date when determining your baby’s due date. Your healthcare provider will ask you about this date and will use it to figure out how far along you are in your pregnancy.
According to the same link, a heartbeat can normally be detected at around 6 weeks of pregnancy:
At about 6 weeks, your baby's heart beat can usually be detected.
Thus, the time between missing a period (4 weeks) and a detectable heartbeat (6 weeks) is 2 weeks -- just like AOC said. Many women have irregular cycles, so being 2 weeks late is a regular occurrence.
The bottom line is that you either think the fetus is a human life, or you don't. And if you do (as I do), then abortion is morally indefensible whether anyone is willing to adopt or not. If you don't, then it's not.
I don't know why anyone bothers debating this topic beyond this point. You either believe a fetus at a particular age is a human life, or you don't. That factor completely drives the decision, and no amount of debate or discussion will ever change anyone's mind.
People talk about the abortion debate as if they have THE answer. But every conceivable (pun intended) definition of the start of life is inherently arbitrary. I think we can all agree that a widely diffused assortment of carbon, oxygen, etc. is not life. Over the course of years, those atoms will combine into chemicals, get ingested into a body, form an egg and a sperm that unite, and then grow as a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus, which then passes out of the womb, begins to breath on its own, eat solid food, walk, etc. -- and eventually grow into an adult who can hold down a steady job (or so the parents hope). The assortment of atoms is clearly not a life, and the fully grown adult clearly is a life. Somewhere along this continuum, a transition occurs. Stating when that transition occurs is inherently arbitrary.
In fact, it is arbitrary to insist that there be a single point in time where the transition happens. It is only natural that people want to believe that one instant there is not a life, and then POOF, there is a life. That's what drives people to attach meaning to definable moments such as conception, viability, or birth. But I don't see any compelling reason that this has to be so.
I personally (and, admittedly, arbitrarily) believe that:
- until the point of conception, there is no life at all;
- at the moment of birth, there is complete life; and
- in between, there is growing quantity and quality of factors that are part of the overall picture of what life is.
Thus, in my not so humble opinion, abortion should be permitted more freely in the early phases, and less freely in later stages. The fact that this is entirely arbitrary doesn't bother me in the slightest.
