Stacy Abrams Says…..”6 Week Fetal Heartbeat Is Manufactured”

Idiotic argument. No wonder so many of these dudes from PGH are on ignore. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

That wasn’t an argument, just a simple statement of fact.

Don’t believe it? Put a bill in front of congress that bans 3rd trimester abortion and see how many dems vote for it.

I would say it would be a vast majority as long as it had language which allowed medical concerns. But we’ll never know since it’s a “state issue”. How many republicans would vote for an all out ban on 1st trimester abortions? Aren’t those equally ridiculous positions? I’d be willing to bet that more republicans in congress would vote for a 1st trimester ban than democrats would vote for third trimester abortions.

I would say it would be a vast majority as long as it had language which allowed medical concerns. But we’ll never know since it’s a “state issue”.

We’ll you’d be wrong because late term bans have been tried and only Manchin and Jones crossed over, Bob Casey went the other way. Sanders, Warren and Klobuchar didn’t vote because they were running for President and didn’t want their actual positions (pro abortion until birth or longer) put out there.

How many republicans would vote for an all out ban on 1st trimester abortions?

Quite a few I’d imagine, certainly not as many as dems that’d be against late term though.

Aren’t those equally ridiculous positions?

I’d say they are and neither side is truly representative of the general population. If you’ve gotta err on one side or the other (no restrictions or an outright ban), imo you’ve gotta go with the ban. Otherwise it’s straight up barbarism.

Next time I accompany a birthing person to an ultrasound exam I'm going to ask the tech to replace the heartbeat with baby babble.

My stance on abortion is the democrats stance. Republicans are the silly folks that want no abortions. Very few people at all want 32 week abortions. That’s a republican boogie man and lie. Nearly everyone agrees that the conversation should be about viability rather than silliness like fetal heartbeat. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

This right here is the problem, people actually think that democrats have a pragmatic view when they do not. Republican candidates should welcome the debate and hammer home their actual stance at every opportunity.

Without getting into the minutia of the bill you’re referring to, those bills have been poison pilled each time. None have ever simply said, no abortions after 32 weeks and the excepts are X, Y etc. From my limited recollection, there were defunding attempts tied to Planned Parenthood and Medicaid as well. Also, if I recall that bill also lack some medical provisions. The biggest issue that arises is genetic abnormality, which would allow termination/abortion of children that’s I’ll be born with Down syndrome.

Since I’ve never suggested or stated I supported a “no restrictions” abortion you’re rephrasing the vote question to support your view, not what’s being discussed. Can’t change hypothetical in the discussion so that you’re suddenly right. I said that more republicans would vote to eliminate even 1st term abortions that democrats would vote to support 3rd term abortions.

If the 3 choices were no abortions, 20 weeks and no limitations, I suspect the concensus would fall in that middle group. And that’s what the law should be.

This right here is the problem, people actually think that democrats have a pragmatic view when they do not. Republican candidates should welcome the debate and hammer home their actual stance at every opportunity. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

People believe democrats have a pragmatic view because it’s true. The people out their passing abortion bans are republicans. What’s at all pragmatic about that approach. State legislators are hammering home the republican view, no abortions at all and no exceptions. The republicans push through 6 week bans and total bans. What other view have republicans shown except banning abortion.

If republicans in states like Oklahoma, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri and Alabama were not pushing total or near total 6 weeks or less bans, then your argument might hold a little water but the reality is evident from the republicans actions not their words.

That’s a strange thing to say when you have proven, repeatedly, in this thread that you don’t even know what the democrat platform is.

Dim-retards claim EVERYTHING they don't want to deal with is "manufactured" - the border crisis, the opioid crisis, the national spike in crime, Hunter's laptop...

Given how pathetically tone-deaf they are on virtually everything, why would we be surprised to learn they can't even hear an unborn child's heart beating softly in a mother's womb? Originally Posted by lustylad

You about as medically inclined as you are economically!



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

You realize of course that you are arguing against those who wish a Theocracy and deny scientific fact

To return to the topic of the OP:

The science says that life not only begins at conception as both egg and sperm are already living cells. Their joining ensures continuity of life.

That biological principle covers all cellular life. An amoeba or paramecium is no less alive than the sperm cell, the egg cell or the fertilized egg and the subsequent dividing cells that form the4 fetus. This is life.

Anything else is just a discussion of differential ethics.

Having worked in health care where I was exposed to end-of-life decisions, I recognize that there are times when the best option is the just least-worst choice. I recognize that this can also be true for pregnancy.

Has anyone here been with someone who faced with choosing chosen to slowly bleed-out from a tumor on the lower bowel or face more chemo and radiation therapy or another surgery? This is a tough set of choices for the conscious, mentally competent patient and his surrounding family.

In the case of a patient who is incapable of giving informed consent, deliberately choosing life or death (to "pull the plug") for whatever previewed good reason, is always rough on the chooser.

Before a life-or-death decision is made to abort a pregnancy, the expectant mother and any other parties involved, should see a real-time sonogram of the fetus and then pay a visit to a day care facility . . .before deciding to go ahead and kill the baby.

There are usually other options besides death.

Before a life-or-death decision is made to abort a pregnancy, the expectant mother and any other parties involved, should see a real-time sonogram of the fetus and then pay a visit to a day care facility . . .before deciding to go ahead and kill the baby.

There are usually other options besides death.
Originally Posted by ICU 812

You do not get...the majority of Americans do not consider it murder before a certain stage.

Do you visit a hatchery before eating eggs in the morning?

Someone doesn’t know much about chickens.

Or someone doesn't know a lot about eggs...but I think we can all agree that an egg isn't a chicken.

Someone doesn’t know much about chickens. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Unless they are headless chickens... WTF is squad leader!