The key to victory in 2024 for the democrats lies in abortion

The quote from Abrams was that the heartbeat was manufactured. " “It [a fetal heartbeat] is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body.”  {Abrams - source previously cited].

"“There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks.” {Abrams - source previously cited].

Rebuttal. ". In fact, at 6 weeks' gestation, the baby's heart rate is about 110 beats per minute, which can be easily detected by ultrasound.”(https://lozierinstitute.org/science-at-6-weeks-unborn-babys-heart-rate-is-approximately-110-beats-per-minute/).

She's right....it's not a heart beat.  There is no heart then.  

Let us look at a credible source such as the National Institutes of Health.

Before we begin, do you Vegasgiants accept the NIH as a credible source?

I await your answer.

Vegasgiants is correct. From The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) :

It is clinically inaccurate to use the word “heartbeat” to describe the sound that can be heard on ultrasound in very early pregnancy. In fact, there are no chambers of the heart developed at the early stage in pregnancy that this word is used to describe, so there is no recognizable “heartbeat.” What pregnant people may hear is the ultrasound machine translating electronic impulses that signify fetal cardiac activity into the sound that we recognize as a heartbeat.

Until the chambers of the heart have been developed and can be detected via ultrasound (roughly 17-20 weeks of gestation), it is not accurate to characterize the embryo’s or fetus’s cardiac development as a heartbeat.

I would ask you the same question as I asked  Vegasgiants......."do you accept the NIH as a credible source?"

Yes, the NIH is a credible source if you evaluate all the sources.

Our argument is that 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. (Six weeks of pregnancy is closer to four weeks of actual development, because pregnancy is measured from the first day of a woman’s last period, before she is actually pregnant.)

That’s far from a fully formed heart, with four chambers and valves that pump blood throughout the body.
The correct medical term for what’s observed at this point is “cardiac activity,” said Dr. Sarah Prager, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University of Washington Medicine.
“It’s not until about 10 weeks that there is an actual structure that has four tubes and connects to the lungs and major vascular system like we would think of as a heart,” she said. 
It’s around 10 weeks of pregnancy that the embryo becomes a fetus. It remains a fetus until birth.
But defining a heartbeat is tricky even after 10 weeks, said Dr. Nisha Verma, an OB/GYN who spoke on behalf of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, because the heart continues to develop over the course of the pregnancy. 
It’s not until around 17 to 20 weeks, when the four chambers of the heart have developed and can be detected on an ultrasound, that the term heartbeat is accurate, according to ACOG.

I am still awaiting a response from Vegasgiants  before I proceed to answer both of you.

I am still awaiting a response from Vegasgiants  before I proceed to answer both of you.

Second request

Do you consider the NIH a reliable source?

A good and unbiased read for you both is "Detection of Functional Changes of the Fetal Heart in the First Trimester of Gestation. " by Pinto de Avila MA, et al.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279166/)

So do you take Abrams as an authority on physiology or is the NIH a higher value source?

Possible not legal and therefor requires an executive order which has already been requested to be described as an arbitrary and capricious order. The grievance of pregnancy abortion as violation of United States Constitutional Right created by an invasion of privacy described by several supreme court rulings. Female-specific amputation is the challenge that is in competition for a judgment on a American Constitutional state of the union.

 There are many reasons for the grievance, both legal and moral to proceed within an American Armed Service Court law as pregnancy while in the service of our nation hasmore complex legal hurtles. Abortion demands the question to all officers as tothe command given a woman to confess to possible murder as a U.S.                    constitutional violation of privacy found by the Supreme court. A burden notrelieved by legal motion in any acting grievance filed by oval office of the United States. It should be also noted that the process medical term know as Pregnancy abortion is older than the united Sates Constitution itself giving a reason as to why it was not ever described in a American Constitutional way in the first place. Having nothing to do with discrimination itself as fact created by Articles of Constitution. Only the abilities of all those, ALL THOSE. who both before and after Oath's sworn to preserve, protect and serve loyalty to American Constitution failed.

When life begins is not the legal issue at hand. Period. Doctor's, Scientists, and peopleall have not been instructed by rulings anyone outside the mother is legally moving for emancipation of the child before the courts. As a group by the stateor by individual child. The argument, as a legal grievance, has always been known before all state licensed judicial councils and the courts as a violation to constitutional privacy. The movement for federal and state courts of law had been requested due to the influence of legal malpractice these systems ofjustice both share as one legal state of the Union.

Within the context of this discussion, the subtopic is "Did Stacey Abrams lie about whether a heart exists at 6 weeks" The sub-subtopic is then "when does the heart first exist" and that is what my highly reliable sources are being quoted on.  The main topic is "Will abortion issues result in a 2024 Presidential victory" even though 90% of voters disagree.

Your topic of when life begins is another topic altogether.

"when does the heart first exist" Again, doens't matter the issue judical grivance is loss of American Constitutional privacy and the focus is on immigration not pregnancy. It is incidental that only women can be part of this type of immigration in court. Not a type of pregnancy. " Will abortion issues result in a 2024 Presidential victory" The answer is no the voters in America no longer vote for a Presdient of the United States of America. The voter only votes for an Exsecutive officer and nothing more Article II is inappropriatly been altured and creates conflits of intrest in whole truth. I would agree this legal constitutional matter is well outside of this debate focus. 

It should be noted that an "Association of state lisensed medical Doctors" are not qualified to dictate a self-incriminating name of a medical treatmentthat has been already found in violation of United States Constitutional Rightsto privacy by the Supreme court. At the minimum in the United States of Americathe Constitutional right to both men and a united state of law and all women isFemale-specific amputation. A women's medical treatment is a female-specificamputation. For any medical records or legislation of law to say otherwise is aviolation of United States Constitutional right and laws of patient privacy.

Yes.  You did not post anything done by the NIH.  They post studies in that library from people outside the NIH and they don't endorse them

As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more about our disclaimer.

ACOG has sn official position on this.  The NIH does not

Still what you cited is essentially from an organization that has a vested interest in abortion ( ergo misinformation regarding topics essential to the subject ).

This is not the Circumstantial ad hominem fallacy as I have cited a higher value source to counter. As you stated "NLM provides access to scientific literature"

Also "Fetal cardiac function during the first trimester of pregnancy" was published, peer reviewed and had extensive references used in the study, as well as having multiple authors. It is still "up" ( ergo it has not been deemed inaccurate). Perhaps the ACOG should have it removed, if they have valid scientific data to do so.

As for the "disclaimer" it states ..."Once publications are selected for inclusion in a database, NLM does not review, evaluate, or judge the quality of individual articles and relies on the scientific publishing process to identify and address problems through published comments, corrections, and retractions (or, as in the case of preprints, withdrawal notices). The publisher is responsible for maintaining the currency of the scientific record and depositing all relevant updates to the appropriate NLM database. NLM literature databases also archive and index articles, author manuscripts, and book chapters that may be from publications that have not yet undergone scientific review by NLM, are traditionally out of scope for the NLM collection, or have not met NLM’s standards for inclusion in a given database if a paper is deposited under" ( emphasis mine).

Science should always triumph over agenda ( except in 21st century America?).

But it's not from NIH as you said.  It's a single study representing the authors only.

ACOG is a respected medical agency that reviews all the literature.  

Never accept science based on a single source.

That's bad science

If "Fetal cardiac function during the first trimester of pregnancy" which has been published literature for over a decade, is inaccurate, then "Perhaps the ACOG should have it removed, if they have valid scientific data to do so."

In the absence of such, the article stands. 

I ask that YOU, Vegasgiants, show a publication by ACOG that shows up in a National Institutes of Health database AND supports your position.

"The NIH peer review process forms the cornerstone of the NIH extramural research mission and seeks to ensure that applications submitted to the NIH are evaluated by scientific experts in a manner free from inappropriate influences." (NIH) ( emphasis mine)

And:

" Generally speaking, if you find a journal citation in Medline/PubMed you should be just fine." (NIH Jan 10, 2023).

And 

" publications are selected for inclusion in a database" ( previously cited)

So give it up...Abrams lied.

I suggest we put this dialogue on hold until November 2024, when we will have definitive proof as to who is correct.

I ask you

Would any medical agency establish a medical position based on a single study?

It's a simple question 

We have the most respected agency in the field against the authors of this one study

Just deny that

Abrams was right

I repeat.....If "Fetal cardiac function during the first trimester of pregnancy" which has been published literature for over a decade, is inaccurate, then "Perhaps the ACOG should have it removed, if they have valid scientific data to do so."

What proof do you have about this single study idea. Here is a rebuttal...

"When Does the Human Embryonic Heart Start Beating? A Review of Contemporary and Historical Sources of Knowledge about the Onset of Blood Circulation in Man" ( J Cardiovasc Dev Dis , Jörg Männer,  2022 Jun 9.)  States that at 25 to 30 days a heartbeat of 65 bpm is found. 

Also referenced .."Schats R., Jansen C.A., Wladimiroff J.W. Embryonic heart activity: Appearance and development in early human pregnancy. Br. J. Obs. Gynaecol. 1990;97:989–994. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02469.x. "

Also referenced ..."van Os H.C., Hout J.I.T., Hermans J., Jansen C.A.M. Embryonic length, crown-rump length and fetal heart activity in early human pregnancy determination by transvaginal ultrasound. BMUS Bull. 1993;1:18–23. doi: 10.1177/1742271X9300100310. "

"The heart rate (HR) increases between the 5th week of gestation and 9th week of gestation and after the 13th week of gestation reduces. " ( previously cited and referenced by not less than 13 other studies ).

On Abrams, one can often judge the veracity of a person by looking at the universe of statements made by them. She claimed that voter suppression ( a hot topic ) caused her to lose an election. A federal judge deemed her claim to be false. She later denied  that she disputed the 2018 election, even though there was video evidence showed that she did.

I would not put my faith in comments made by any politician. She lied.

If there is do much evidence why can't you find a respected medical agency that agrees with you?

ACOG does not have the authority to remove scientific studies.    Are you kidding?

The most prestigious medical organization on this subject has an official position.  60,000 members

I'll go with them

Abrams was right

Refer to ALL my posts and comments. ( e.g. ...."When Does the Human Embryonic Heart Start Beating? A Review of Contemporary and Historical Sources of Knowledge about the Onset of Blood Circulation in Man" ( J Cardiovasc Dev Dis , Jörg Männer,  2022 Jun 9.)  States that at 25 to 30 days a heartbeat of 65 bpm is found. 

No. I am not kidding.  As I stated "If  "Fetal cardiac function during the first trimester of pregnancy" which has been published literature for over a decade, is inaccurate, then "Perhaps the ACOG should have it removed, if they have valid scientific data to do so."

""The NIH peer review process forms the cornerstone of the NIH extramural research mission and seeks to ensure that applications submitted to the NIH are evaluated by scientific experts in a manner free from inappropriate influences." (NIH) ( emphasis mine)

N.B. "evaluated by scientific experts in a manner free from inappropriate influences." Has ACOG submitted contrary evidence to the NIH?

and yet hierarchically it is the NIH that advises ACOG, not the other way around.

ACOG can not remove it.   Please tell me you are kidding

My god this is basic stuff

And you are NOT quoting a NIH STUDY 

Just admit that

Weare not talking about cardiac activities.....the word is heartbeat and there is no heart then

Abrams was right 

Apparently you do not know how scientific papers work. "Articles may be retracted when their findings are no longer considered trustworthy due to scientific misconduct or error, they plagiarize previously published work, or they are found to violate ethical guidelines. " ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3187237/#:~:text=Articles%20may%20be%20retracted%20when,found%20to%20violate%20ethical%) 

Thus stating that there is a heart  if in fact there is no heart would be a "scientific error" and the paper would be "retracted" It has not been retracted even after a dozen years ;ergo no error. ACOG could easily communicate their findings of error to the NIH, but you have offered no such information.

Apparently you are hung up on convictions that do not allow correction ( see chauvinism ) 

"The National Library of Medicine (NLM) is a leader in research in biomedical informatics and data science and the world’s largest biomedical library. NLM conducts and supports research in methods for recording, storing, retrieving, preserving, and communicating health information. It is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). "  https://www.usa.gov/agencies/national-library-of-medicine#:~:text=NLM%20conducts%20and%20supports%20research,Institutes%20of%20Health%20(NIH).

Again source after source disagrees with YOU.

And Abrams....oh GOD!

Dude ACOG does not review papers there.  It's not their job to ensure they are accurate

Again....the NIH did not do that study snd none of those authors work for the NIH

There is no medical agency on earth that agrees with you

NO. It is the job of the NIH to ensure the accuracy of the data they catalogue.  Why don't you communicate to the ACOG the errors found and ask them to forward the fact that the paper is wrong. (NB as stated "Thus stating that there is a heart  if in fact there is no heart would be a "scientific error" and the paper would be "retracted" It has not been retracted even after a dozen years ;ergo no error. ACOG could easily communicate their findings of error to the NIH, but you have offered no such information." ) QED

Correct ( except for your spelling ). The NIH ( per the NLM ) has a vested interest in neither the paper nor the authors. The NIH ( through the NLM ) catalogues the information unless it is shown to be in error, which it is not.  Per the NIH ( as the umbrella agency for the NLM )..."Articles may be retracted when their findings are no longer considered trustworthy due to scientific misconduct or error, they plagiarize previously published work, or they are found to violate ethical guidelines. "

SEE COMMENTS ABOVE citing no less than 13 agencies.

Your side has cited less than 3.

i must admit though that your level of veracity is on par with Stacey Abrams. 

As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more about our disclaimer.

Inclusion doesn't imply endorsement of.   The NIH does not endorse that position

Abrams was right

There are few if any "positions" that the NIH endorses. It is a scientific medical arm of the US government. 

Maybe stating something again may demonstrate the folly of your position.

"Articles may be retracted when their findings are no longer considered trustworthy due to scientific misconduct or error, they plagiarize previously published work, or they are found to violate ethical guidelines. " ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3187237/#:~:text=Articles%20may%20be%20retracted%20when,found%20to%20violate%20ethical%) 

And yet, the NIH has NO PAPERS stating that there is NO HEART at 6 weeks.

Check it out for yourself.

"In 15–20% cases out of 100 pregnancies, the fetal heartbeat is not detected within 6 weeks of internal sonography. " and " But if no heartbeat is seen, couples should wait for one week for the heartbeat to appear. This happens in 10-15% of cases. But if after one week also no heartbeat is visible, then there are no chances of fetal heartbeat and it can be a pregnancy loss."  https://www.nishantivfcare.com/is-no-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-of-pregnancy-a-sign-of-miscarriage/#:~:text=The%20couple%20should%20not%20worry,in%20case%20of%20delayed%20conception.

And

"Is it normal not to see a heartbeat at 6 weeks pregnant?...