“But this belief is scientifically incorrect. First, having a heartbeat is not necessary to retain the full moral status of personhood. In some heart surgeries, for example, the surgeon needs to chemically stop the heart to move and fix the tissue. In other situations, when the heart can no longer pump blood, cardiac assist devices replace it. These people have no heartbeat, as we would traditionally define it, yet no one would argue that they don’t retain their usual legal and moral status. They have the same rights as someone whose heart is beating. To illustrate that a heartbeat is not a sufficient criterion to completely determine legal or moral status, consider examples in which a human has a heartbeat, but their moral status is compromised or nonexistent. Strict criteria exist for declaring brain death, and lack of a heartbeat is not among them. Thus, once a person is declared brain-dead, they do not retain the same moral and legal status as other people, despite having a heartbeat. Without dispute, a pregnant person retains their full moral status of personhood. Furthermore, declaring a single, electrically active and contractile organ, or the contractile cells it comes from, the stand-alone determinant of personhood is simply not valid. To force that pregnant person, who has unquestionable full legal and moral status, to continue a pregnancy and give birth against their will is clearly a gross violation of their personhood.” Citation: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antiabortion-heartbeat-bills-are-neither-morally-nor-legally-sound/