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

Then don't quote the NIH.  

Lots of medical agencies take on official positions

ACOG has one here

Is there any agency that supports your position?

I think I will go with the preeminent agency full of 60,000 professionals on this issue

ACOG

I will quote from any and all authorities relevant to  the matter at hand. 

Giving credence to having a "position" while discounting data from those without is a logical fallacy.

Here is a great quote, and it is from the National Library of Medicine ( which is part of the National Institutes of Health (( as shown earlier ))). It refers exactly to the ACOG "position" upon which you have based your beliefs.

Also the American Journal of Public Health  ( "The American Journal of Public Health is a monthly peer-reviewed public health journal published by the American Public Health Association that covers health policy and public health. The journal was established in 1911 and its stated mission is "to advance public health research, policy, practice, and education.".) meets the "requirement of yet another fully respected medical agency . "APHA has more than 25,000 members worldwide. The association defines itself as an organization that: "champions the health of all people and all communities. We strengthen the public health profession. We speak out for public health issues and policies backed by science."  ( APHA .org ) Emphasis mine.

To wit:

Great.

The quote the NIH DIRECTLY 

I'LL WAIT 

It's not 1973.   Lol

Thus discussion does not revolve around the NIH only.

I have used over a dozen sources in my support. 

Also in a personal context, when my wife was pregnant, our OBGYN looked for and detected the heart at 6 weeks.

BTW  How about YOU find a dozen sources other than the ACOG to support your position.

I'll wait one day, and then consider you in forfeiture.

Originally you asked if I trusted the NIH.  I had to inform you they have no.position on this topic 

60,000 professionals 

I'm going with them

You have 22 hours to submit a dozen sources other than the ACOG to support your position.

You have one minute to submit a respected medical agency that agrees with you.  Lol

I have given you more than a dozen prior to your one minute deadline.

You have 19 hours  to submit a dozen sources other than the ACOG to support your position.

Name the medical organization that supports your position

You can't 

You lose 

Dismissed 

The Argument inAmerica at minimum as United States Constitutional Right, and the connection to female Pregnancy to Abortion as a so-called medical treatment. As a male it is a legal debate made between a woman, witnesses, and the local and federal government over immigration and not a argument of when does life start, or when medical treatment is said to begin, spite the use of human better human judgment and truth treatment of the very young child even begins medically before life starts in many cases.  Where there are legal grounds to describe a heartbeat connecting a very young child to living this is no legal reasons behind action taken describing the very young child as a citizen of America or any nation, yet. The doctor or medical institution has a legal obligation to file the proper litigation work, period. This simple but universal fact may contribute to the overall legal protection of a women and man as the creators of immigration by ensuring Female Specific amputation describes medical treatment. There is 100% no backing of any kind by the National Institute of Health to suggest that Pregnancy Abortion in legislation its proper legal term for treatment, educate takes an illegal side if notsimple poor judicial entrapment because of the possibility of a heartbeat. The United States Constitutional status of concern in all State of law and governing territories where legislation occurs remains untouched by facts. Intentionally? Is the question. The idea is just a money pit to national debt for state mandate by law to argue malpractice of law repeatedly throughout all civilcourts.

The supreme court’s recent decision to move abortion to lower courts is not valid as constitutional violations knowingly exist by the court but are not identified before a motion to dismiss prior Supreme court rulings are made. The child’s United States Constitutional right is not denied as it is held as tribunal between the mother and a limited few as she is the ambassador by law of nature to the child. The Executive officer of America holds no such powers of executive order to claim a child so young is a citizen it has precedent in law as a matter of emancipation.

To suggest a medical professional or institution suspendsmedical treatment or support medical treatment by term abortion is a violationof the patient privacy laws on state and federal levels. Sorry. There isnegligence in a proper translation of the judicial argument of abortion as itrelates to use in America. The cause of the issue is simple abortion was amedical procedure before the United States Constitution was written. So,the standard of bar guarding the legal rights of the people was much, muchlower as a practice.

We are not discussing abortion 

We can rephrase it as the key for political victory is the consitutional inappropriate use of perjury by self-incrimination created by illegal legislationof law which violates patient privacy laws if you like? Yes, however we are to be debating what is to be presented as a more perfect state of the union with American Constitutional right as female-specific amputation. A K A  Abortion, as a fact "it" abortion does not legally exist in the context of legilsaiton of law in America nor has it been legally appropriate for legislation of law politically since 1973, becoming even more questionable ethically in 2000 as it violates patient privacy laws as well.    

Using abortion in political ways to gain attention is a very risky and is illegal pratice. The violation of laws pertaining to patient medical privacy takes place for both men and women.

My "position" is that there is a heart at 6 weeks gestation.

This "position" is a scientific fact endorsed by numerous medical organizations.

A review of this thread will reveal them ( All references previously cited )

The National Institute of Health

The Lozier Institute

"Detection of Functional Changes of the Fetal Heart in the First Trimester of Gestation. " by Pinto de Avila MA, et al.

"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" 

"Embryonic heart activity: Appearance and development in early human pregnancy"

"Embryonic length, crown-rump length and fetal heart activity in early human pregnancy determination by transvaginal ultrasound."

Nishantivf "No heartbeat at 6 weeks is a sign of miscarriage"

Healthline

 American Public Health Association

The National Center for Biotechnology Information

PubMed

The National Library of Medicine

The Centers for Disease Control

The US Deportment of Health

The American Pregnancy Association

Medical News Today

The National Health Service of the United Kingdom

American Journal of Roentgenology

The Radiological Society of North America.

NONE of these agencies has taken a "position" of Pro or Con on abortion. They are UNBIASED  agents disseminating SCIENTIFIC DATA.

And your "position" is to follow a single source on a single issue where that source has been shown BIASED and POLITICAL over scientific.

BTW ...You now have 7 hours to produce a dozen  VALID and RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC and UNBIASED agencies other than ACOG that supports you view.

Now you are just lying.  You can not show one official position paper by any of those agencies on this issue

You have conceded

Then since you brought it up "show one official position paper by ACOG on this issue.

Also a "position paper" flies in the face of the scientific method.

You now have 6 hours to produce a dozen  VALID and RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC and UNBIASED agencies other than ACOG that supports you view.

I accept your concession 

In 6 hours I will accept not only your concession, but also an indictment of the current educational system from whence you come.

I have already accepted your concession 

You are dismissed 

You are wasting your time

You seem to accept a lot of ideas without substantiation. I have not only not conceded, I have already been shown correct.

What is dismissed here is your adherence to the scientific method. You have accepted a belief that you like, while ignoring scientific data. 

You have 5 hours  to produce a dozen  VALID and RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC and UNBIASED agencies other than ACOG that supports you view.

You'll get em next time 

I already "have them" this time.

Also ... since you brought it up "show one official position paper by ACOG on this issue."

You have 4.5  hours  to produce a dozen  VALID and RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC and UNBIASED agencies other than ACOG that supports you view. That is plenty of time to so do, iff  ( if and only if ) such exists.

OK we're done

We are not.

You have 4  hours  to produce a dozen  VALID and RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC and UNBIASED agencies other than ACOG that supports you view. That is plenty of time to so do, iff  ( if and only if ) such exists.

How about debating me on the issue at hand.....if you know what it is.

Buh bye

Running away is not an answer. You have 4 hours. Do your due diligence.

TIME IS UP

You have posted NO supporting documentation to support the ACOG

You had ample time

It could have been done easily

Except it does not exist

You are in default.

Now how about that debate?

I'm still waiting for you to post ANYTHING from the NIH.  You made all these claims about the NIH and did NOT POST ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM THE NIH

I asked long enough

You are dismissed