Election Denier Denies Science
-
OK, suddenly the Republican doesn't look that bad
WTF is wrong with these people? Does she honestly think this is going to win her the election?
-
OK, suddenly the Republican doesn't look that bad
WTF is wrong with these people? Does she honestly think this is going to win her the election?
@Doctor-Phibes She won the last one! Just ask her.
-
@Doctor-Phibes She won the last one! Just ask her.
@George-K said in Election Denier Denies Science:
@Doctor-Phibes She won the last one! Just ask her.
Yeah, there's a pattern. Say unbelievably stupid shit that none of your followers have the balls to deny - then deny the democratic process.
-
@George-K said in Election Denier Denies Science:
@Doctor-Phibes She won the last one! Just ask her.
Yeah, there's a pattern. Say unbelievably stupid shit that none of your followers have the balls to deny - then deny the democratic process.
- You disrespectful foreigner! She is PRESIDENT OF EARTH! I know that for a fact - saw it on Star Trek.
- I fail to understand why she is considered a force in the Democratic Party (unless one considers "force" in conjunction with "mass").
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
- You disrespectful foreigner! She is PRESIDENT OF EARTH! I know that for a fact - saw it on Star Trek.
- I fail to understand why she is considered a force in the Democratic Party (unless one considers "force" in conjunction with "mass").
@George-K said in Election Denier Denies Science:
- You disrespectful foreigner! She is PRESIDENT OF EARTH! I know that for a fact - saw it on Star Trek.
- I fail to understand why she is considered a force in the Democratic Party (unless one considers "force" in conjunction with "mass").
I was totally going to reply with F=ma.
-
- You disrespectful foreigner! She is PRESIDENT OF EARTH! I know that for a fact - saw it on Star Trek.
- I fail to understand why she is considered a force in the Democratic Party (unless one considers "force" in conjunction with "mass").
-
https://www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html
But what exactly do we mean when we talk about a "fetal heartbeat" at six weeks of pregnancy? Although some people might picture a heart-shaped organ beating inside a fetus, this is not the case.
Rather, at six weeks of pregnancy, an ultrasound can detect "a little flutter in the area that will become the future heart of the baby," said Dr. Saima Aftab, medical director of the Fetal Care Center at Nicklaus Children's Hospital in Miami. This flutter happens because the group of cells that will become the future "pacemaker" of the heart gain the capacity to fire electrical signals, she said.
But the heart is far from fully formed at this stage, and the "beat" isn't audible; if doctors put a stethoscope up to a woman's belly this early on in her pregnancy, they would not hear a heartbeat, Aftab told Live Science. …
… according to experts, the term “fetal heartbeat” is misleading and medically inaccurate.
“While the heart does begin to develop at around six weeks, at this point the heart as we know it does not yet exist,” said Dr. Ian Fraser Golding, a pediatric and fetal cardiologist at Rady Children’s Hospital San Diego.
Instead, at six weeks, the embryo will develop a tube that generates sporadic electrical impulses that eventually coordinate into rhythmic pulses, he said. …
-
I wondered at what week one can reasonably talk about a heartbeat.
But does it matter whether that point is at six weeks or at 14 weeks? I think at 14 weeks it's rather unambiguous and one can hear the actual sound.
None of the two extreme positions in this matter ever made sense to me. They both indicate that the person lacks the ability to see grey tones. If you allow abortion in the first 12 weeks, everybody is equally unhappy. Problem solved.
-
I wondered at what week one can reasonably talk about a heartbeat.
But does it matter whether that point is at six weeks or at 14 weeks? I think at 14 weeks it's rather unambiguous and one can hear the actual sound.
None of the two extreme positions in this matter ever made sense to me. They both indicate that the person lacks the ability to see grey tones. If you allow abortion in the first 12 weeks, everybody is equally unhappy. Problem solved.
@Klaus said in Election Denier Denies Science:
If you allow abortion in the first 12 weeks, everybody is equally unhappy. Problem solved.
LOL
-
I wondered at what week one can reasonably talk about a heartbeat.
But does it matter whether that point is at six weeks or at 14 weeks? I think at 14 weeks it's rather unambiguous and one can hear the actual sound.
None of the two extreme positions in this matter ever made sense to me. They both indicate that the person lacks the ability to see grey tones. If you allow abortion in the first 12 weeks, everybody is equally unhappy. Problem solved.
@Klaus said in Election Denier Denies Science:
But does it matter whether that point is at six weeks or at 14 weeks? I think at 14 weeks it's rather unambiguous and one can hear the actual sound.
Hearing it is irrelevant. The question is whether it's there or not. Not being able to hear it simply means that your technology isn't good enough. It used to be a ear on the abdomen and that wasn't good enough. Then it became a stethoscope, and then ultrasound, which allowed you to actually "see." After all, if a tree falls...
At 6 weeks there is tissue that is contracting, rhythmically, to move what will be blood through what will be vascular tissue. Is it a heart? I don't know. Is it a "beat?" I don't know. It is a regular contraction of tissues. That which we call a rose...
There are many neonatologists and embryologists who will disagree with Dr. Golding's assessment.
Planned Parenthood, back in February, said "A human's beating heart" develops by 6 weeks.
None of the two extreme positions in this matter ever made sense to me. They both indicate that the person lacks the ability to see grey tones. If you allow abortion in the first 12 weeks, everybody is equally unhappy. Problem solved.
Totally agree with you.
This is, to a great extent a disagreement on semantics. Whether it's a heart or not, whether you can hear it or not are irrelevant. Each side will use whatever argument to bolster their case.
A better question for the President of the Earth Union is whether she supports abortion at 36, rather than 6 weeks. Why is that question never asked? But to ask that question is to answer it.
As @Klaus said, make everyone unhappy.
Works for me.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@Klaus said in Election Denier Denies Science:
But does it matter whether that point is at six weeks or at 14 weeks? I think at 14 weeks it's rather unambiguous and one can hear the actual sound.
Hearing it is irrelevant. The question is whether it's there or not. Not being able to hear it simply means that your technology isn't good enough. It used to be a ear on the abdomen and that wasn't good enough. Then it became a stethoscope, and then ultrasound, which allowed you to actually "see." After all, if a tree falls...
At 6 weeks there is tissue that is contracting, rhythmically, to move what will be blood through what will be vascular tissue. Is it a heart? I don't know. Is it a "beat?" I don't know. It is a regular contraction of tissues. That which we call a rose...
There are many neonatologists and embryologists who will disagree with Dr. Golding's assessment.
Planned Parenthood, back in February, said "A human's beating heart" develops by 6 weeks.
None of the two extreme positions in this matter ever made sense to me. They both indicate that the person lacks the ability to see grey tones. If you allow abortion in the first 12 weeks, everybody is equally unhappy. Problem solved.
Totally agree with you.
This is, to a great extent a disagreement on semantics. Whether it's a heart or not, whether you can hear it or not are irrelevant. Each side will use whatever argument to bolster their case.
A better question for the President of the Earth Union is whether she supports abortion at 36, rather than 6 weeks. Why is that question never asked? But to ask that question is to answer it.
As @Klaus said, make everyone unhappy.
Works for me.
@George-K said in Election Denier Denies Science:
As @Klaus said, make everyone unhappy.
The irony is, the masses of people who don't shout the loudest about abortion would probably be fine with this. It's those who want either one extreme or another who would complain.
Back in the UK, abortion is really a non-issue for most people. It's very rarely raised as a topic for political discussion.
-
@George-K said in Election Denier Denies Science:
As @Klaus said, make everyone unhappy.
The irony is, the masses of people who don't shout the loudest about abortion would probably be fine with this. It's those who want either one extreme or another who would complain.
Back in the UK, abortion is really a non-issue for most people. It's very rarely raised as a topic for political discussion.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Election Denier Denies Science:
Back in the UK, abortion is really a non-issue for most people. It's very rarely raised as a topic for political discussion.
I suspect that's the case in most of Europe.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Election Denier Denies Science:
Back in the UK, abortion is really a non-issue for most people. It's very rarely raised as a topic for political discussion.
I suspect that's the case in most of Europe.
@George-K said in Election Denier Denies Science:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Election Denier Denies Science:
Back in the UK, abortion is really a non-issue for most people. It's very rarely raised as a topic for political discussion.
I suspect that's the case in most of Europe.
It used to be the case that it's a total non-issue in the last 20 years.
But that is changing, at least in Germany. And of course those who want to change the middle ground that served us very well for decades are the "my body my choice" types. They don't like it that women who want to abort within the first 12 weeks have to go to a mandatory consultation in which potential alternatives are discussed (such as adoption). And they want to get rid of the 12 weeks limit, too. It seems to be an influx of the American "pro choice" extremists.
-
@Klaus said in Election Denier Denies Science:
But does it matter whether that point is at six weeks or at 14 weeks? I think at 14 weeks it's rather unambiguous and one can hear the actual sound.
Hearing it is irrelevant. The question is whether it's there or not. Not being able to hear it simply means that your technology isn't good enough. It used to be a ear on the abdomen and that wasn't good enough. Then it became a stethoscope, and then ultrasound, which allowed you to actually "see." After all, if a tree falls...
At 6 weeks there is tissue that is contracting, rhythmically, to move what will be blood through what will be vascular tissue. Is it a heart? I don't know. Is it a "beat?" I don't know. It is a regular contraction of tissues. That which we call a rose...
There are many neonatologists and embryologists who will disagree with Dr. Golding's assessment.
Planned Parenthood, back in February, said "A human's beating heart" develops by 6 weeks.
None of the two extreme positions in this matter ever made sense to me. They both indicate that the person lacks the ability to see grey tones. If you allow abortion in the first 12 weeks, everybody is equally unhappy. Problem solved.
Totally agree with you.
This is, to a great extent a disagreement on semantics. Whether it's a heart or not, whether you can hear it or not are irrelevant. Each side will use whatever argument to bolster their case.
A better question for the President of the Earth Union is whether she supports abortion at 36, rather than 6 weeks. Why is that question never asked? But to ask that question is to answer it.
As @Klaus said, make everyone unhappy.
Works for me.
Planned Parenthood, back in February, said "A human's beating heart" develops by 6 weeks.
And just like that, they changed the definition, LOL.
