You don’t need to be a lawyer to know that if you lie or intentionally mislead under oath, even to congress, it’s perjury.
You also don’t need to be a lawyer to know that 99.9% of undeniably proven perjury isn’t prosecuted.
I’m not a lawyer, but I grew up surrounded by lawyers and judges in the immediate family. Grandfather, uncle, and 3 cousins were lawyers, 2 of them judges….all Republicans btw. I’m no stranger to the law, thanks.
Trump lied on every question he answered under oath and nothing….but justices are SUPPOSED to be above reproach, no longer true.


(Edit; it bears noting, the petitioners claimed “ The legislature (not scientists or doctors) then found that at five or six weeks’ gestational age an unborn human beings heart begins beating“. But reality and science say “ the heart has four clearly defined chambers in the eighth week of pregnancy, but does not have fully organized muscle tissue until the 20th week” meaning it’s not a heart until 20 weeks in, so can’t possibly be a heart beating 14 weeks before there’s a heart…it’s a muscle cluster pulse, not a heartbeat anymore than a spark plug test firing is a running car.)

Did every justice in that 1954 Supreme Court say in their confirmation hearings under oath that Plessy was settled, reaffirmed precedent they respected? Was Plessy repeatedly challenged and upheld by multiple supreme courts? If not, I call red herring.

Your intentional pedantry is tiresome and uninteresting. Enjoy your beliefs. Bye Felicia.

@noseeem

Yep I'm shitty with grammar and spelling But I can fix anything and hold my own in front any Dr. or C suite within my field of expertise.

Personal experience? BSEET Penn State.
33 years as a medical Field service Engineer.


28 years working for Global conglomerates and 5 years in house at UNC Chapel hill NC.
I’ve been with Siemens Medical and General Electric most of my career.
I’ve serviced/ install Cathlabs, Vascular labs, Rad/ RF rooms and Mammo rooms. Plus others.


Last 20 years installing / servicing Medical Ultrasound.
This includes Cardiac, Radiology ultrasound and Woman’s health, OBGYN
I’ve seen more ultrasounds hearts and heartbeats than you can imagine..
Being Hippa compliant, I look at images for quality and for servicing.

All the Techs I talk to say the same . Heartbeat starts about the 6 to 10 week of pregnancy
And yes there are images that capture this along with all the other images and measurements. Doppler is used for this.

Per quick Google search
When does the heartbeat show on ultrasound?
A fetal heartbeat may first be detected by a vaginal ultrasound as early as 5 1/2 to 6 weeks after gestation. That's when a fetal pole, the first visible sign of a developing embryo, can sometimes be seen. But between 6 1/2 to 7 weeks after gestation, a heartbeat can be better assessed.

Your fucking up the wrong tree today. Go back to being the big guy at you high school.

You can even do this at home

Uter- is a combining form used like a prefix representing the word uterus, also known as the womb, where offspring are conceived and gestate in mammals. It is often used in medical terms, especially in anatomy. Uter- comes from the Latin uterus, meaning “womb” and “matrix.” Matrix?

Personally, I am Pro Choice for women to make their own decision on the gestation of biological cells growing in their own bodies up to a certain age of the fetus.

What I don't understand is, are you calling this man pathetic because he "gave two arguments FOR pro choice"? - based on principals laid out by Lincoln in his example?
Or because
Pro Choice doesn't align with your beliefs?

Sorry, you wrap your words up in several ways but you don't come out and say what side you're arguing for so I can't tell the tone or nature of your comments.

I personally don't feel the entity, the biological growth of cells is a person just because it has a heart beat. Does it have consciousness? Is it a thinking being with self awareness? Because I don't remember anything from when I was a fetus. In fact, I don't think the brain is developed at all ...

"not until the end of week 5 and into week 6 (usually around forty to forty-three days) does the first electrical brain activity begin to occur." ~'The Ethical Brain' - The New York Times.

And even then, it's still in development and not a an organ that can contain consciousness.

My biggest complaints about Covenant:

1. David killed ALL the engineers? How? Why would that be the only city on that planet? Makes no sense though I guess it can be implied that all life was *eventually* killed by the black spores.

2. The chestbuster morphing into a mini-xenomorph so quickly was retarded and looked so out of place. Also the gestation period was ridiculously fast.

3. No hazard/bio-suits when landing on an unknown planet with almost your entire bridge/command crew? Come on...

4. The stupid back/throat-bursters. I almost laughed when the first back-burster was revealed. Why even introduce them at all? More time could have been spent with David getting someone impregnated by a facehugger.

5. The whole premise of Alien is that no one really knows what the hell it is or where it came from. That mystery and uncertainty lends more weight to the terror of the xenomorph. Why do movies always have to try and explain every detail - leaving it up to the viewer's imagination can be so much more effective (e.g. see explanation of "The Force"...f.u. George Lucas lol...)

6. David creating the xenomorphs just doesn't make sense either. Why would he create something that requires a host when there is no life remaining on the planet and he couldn't have known that a ship would arrive carrying people to impregnate?

7. Having the xenos walk around in bright lighting doesn't make them appear very menacing. Alien and Aliens were all about claustrophobic environments, dim lighting, and surprise attacks.

8. Yes, let's do exactly what the clearly scheming android told us to do and walk right up to that slimy egg that just opened. You would think that these people should be smart, right? They are the custodians of over 1000 colonists, starship pilots, and scientists and clearly hold high ranking positions yet frequently make some of the WORST choices possible. Ripley might have just been a lieutenant of a simple cargo hauler but the idiots of the Covenant make her look like a genius.

That same study reveals home birth death rate is 450% higher than hospital.

That is the study you want to use to defend home birth?

According to the CDC, the neonatal death rate for low risk white women* at term is 0.38/1000.

According to the Mana Study:
The overall death rate from labor through six weeks was 2.06 per 1000 when higher risk women (i.e., those with breech babies or twins, those attempting VBAC, or those with preeclampsia or gestational diabetes) are included in the sample, and 1.61 per 1000 when only low risk women are included.

I actually got that from "Citizens for Midwifery"

Their own figures show the death rate to be 4 times higher, even for low risk.

It's really quite simple as far as I'm concerned. After everything is else is said and done, you have a better chance of a healthy baby and mother in a hospital. Babies that could be saved at a hospital die because they are at home. Until you can argue the reverse, I'm still in the hospital camp.



* the majority of the participants in the Mana study where low risk wealthy white women, so it's a fair comparison.

Sorry baby, angles mean a lot and that face looks a lot like your 30 year-old auntie addicted to pork! We are all cute at some point in our gestation, live it up now!! (Bet she's fun at parties!)

Might be worth pointing out that of those 784,000 abortions in 2009, 91% were at or before 13 weeks gestation. 64% were at or before 8 weeks, you know, when its about the size of your thumbnail. MURDER! There were 12 (legal) abortion related deaths in 2008. Not bad considering the WHO reckons that 68,000 women die a year around the world due to unsafe abortions.

Even if we accept the premise that all abortions should be counted as deaths then they still had to estimate a pretty large number of unreported/unsafe abortions to arrive at that 39%. I couldn't find an estimate for illegal abortions and I'm not sure it matters. If there really are another 750,000ish abortions going unreported, probably illegally and probably not safe then it seems to only emphasise the need for woman to have better access to safe, legal abortions.

And yes, avoid the philosophy because we can/have debated that until we are/were blue. The easy argument is that making abortion illegal has no impact on the number of abortions, it simply results in the suffering of women. The people who seem to have a problem with this are grey impaired and honestly are far too entrenched in their little world of absolutes to waste breath on.

When he says they have a right to a mother and a father what he really means is that they MUST have a mother and father. To have a right to something is to be able to claim something. A newborn child does not have the capacity to claim anything. At best Romney's argument supports having only the mother listed. However, advances in reproductive technology allow for an egg to be fertilised by non-sperm cells meaning that a child can legitimately have two mothers in every sense of the word. In fact, a woman can technically fertilise her own egg. Furthermore, it is technically possible for a man to do the same but with a donated egg. With this egg the DNA can be extracted and replaced meaning that the child, if born through a surrogate, can have two fathers and no DNA related mother. Further furthermore, it is theoritically possible for a man to be able to carry a child to term though it would require drastic intervention. The future debates in experimental reproductive ethics is whether humans can be born to surrogate non-humans such as pigs thereby eliminating the risks and potential burdens of gestation for the mother (or father-mother).

Romney, the times they are a changing.

>> ^Sagemind:

What does the bill actually say?
The bill bans the abortion of a fetus that is at or over 20 weeks of gestation, except in cases of medical emergency. It also states that gestational age should be defined as "the age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman."
That starts the fetal clock an average of two weeks before the fetus actually exists. The purpose of a menstrual period is to get rid of an unfertilised egg, plus all the tissue that has built up in the womb to support it. A new egg typically reaches the uterus two weeks later. In practice, the law therefore bans abortions as early as 18 weeks into the fetus's development.
Does that definition of gestational age make any sense?
More than you might think. Most doctors count how many weeks a pregnancy has progressed starting from the woman's last period.
"It's been the convention for generations to measure the length of pregnancy from the first day of the last period," says medical ethicist Farr Curlin of the University of Chicago, Illinois. He says it is hard for women to pin down what day fertilisation may have occurred, but can easily remember the first day of their last period.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21721
-arizona-decrees-pregnancy-starts-before-conception.html


I can pinpoint about when a woman got pregnant. The gestation period for a fetus is 10 months (I know pretty crazy huh...but it is). So 10 months ago from the point at which they gave birth and the fetus becomes a Human Being, that is when they have gotten pregnant.

It's interesting to me all this talk about weeks and months when "God" gives us a nice perfect line in which to judge these things. Birth. When you are born is when you cease to be a part of your mother and have to crawl out of the womb ready to join the workforce. So lets stop arguing about viability of the fetus...if Conservatives cared about what doctors had to say they would've paid attention in school. Life begins at Birth, fuck off.

What does the bill actually say?

"The bill bans the abortion of a fetus that is at or over 20 weeks of gestation, except in cases of medical emergency. It also states that gestational age should be defined as "the age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman."

That starts the fetal clock an average of two weeks before the fetus actually exists. The purpose of a menstrual period is to get rid of an unfertilised egg, plus all the tissue that has built up in the womb to support it. A new egg typically reaches the uterus two weeks later. In practice, the law therefore bans abortions as early as 18 weeks into the fetus's development."

Does that definition of gestational age make any sense?

"More than you might think. Most doctors count how many weeks a pregnancy has progressed starting from the woman's last period.

"It's been the convention for generations to measure the length of pregnancy from the first day of the last period," says medical ethicist Farr Curlin of the University of Chicago, Illinois. He says it is hard for women to pin down what day fertilisation may have occurred, but can easily remember the first day of their last period."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21721-arizona-decrees-pregnancy-starts-before-conception.html

>> ^xxovercastxx:
The question is answered, it's just not what you want to hear. You are insisting that he explain how the universe sprang forth from a state that he never asserts as having existed.

It would be like me saying I originated from a fertilized egg and summarizing the human gestation process and then you saying, "Eggs have shells and yolks and come out of chickens! Where did the chicken come from and why don't we ever see eggshells during birth?

Also, a creator is not compatible with your definition of nothing, either. If absolute, immaterial, spaceless, timeless nothingness was the precursor, then there would be no God to create a universe.


Directing you to a general reply to this, here:

http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-and-Lawrence-Krauss-Something-from-Nothing?loadcomm=1#comment-1443305

I agree that if absolute nothingness was the precursor, there would be no God to create the Universe. That is why I am saying that God is eternal, and has always been around to create the Universe.

>> ^shinyblurry:

So, again, the question is not answered. In his book, some chapters of his book are: "Nothing is something" and "Nothing is unstable". He has redefined nothing as empty space or a quantum vaccum, and when pressed, he offers up a multiverse, but fails to explain where to multiverse came from. Nothing is not something, it is not unstable, it is not empty space, it is not a quantum vacuum, and it is not a multiverse. Nothing is nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. It has no states, no properties, no existence.

The question is answered, it's just not what you want to hear. You are insisting that he explain how the universe sprang forth from a state that he never asserts as having existed.

It would be like me saying I originated from a fertilized egg and summarizing the human gestation process and then you saying, "Eggs have shells and yolks and come out of chickens! Where did the chicken come from and why don't we ever see eggshells during birth?"

Also, a creator is not compatible with your definition of nothing, either. If absolute, immaterial, spaceless, timeless nothingness was the precursor, then there would be no God to create a universe.

>> ^lsue:

It's a little more complicated then this - rules and access vary provincially. In Alberta, for example, good luck finding a clinic which will preform an abortion past 20 weeks.
"Who Performs Late Term Abortions:
Hospitals and some clinics in Canada perform abortions on request up to about 20 weeks, and a
few centres do abortions up to 22 or 23 weeks. However, most of the very small number of
abortions performed over 20 weeks gestation in Canada are done to protect the woman’s physical
health, or because of serious fetal abnormalities. Such problems cannot be discovered until an
amniocentesis test is done on the fetus later in pregnancy. Rare abortions after 22 or 23 weeks
gestation are also done in Canada for some cases of lethal fetal abnormalities, where the fetus
cannot survive after birth.
Since abortion services after 20 weeks are not always readily accessible in all parts of Canada,
women are sometimes referred to clinics in the United States (Kansas, Washington State, and
Colorado). Such procedures and associated expenses may be funded in full or part by some
provincial governments."
http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/22-Late-term-Abortions.PDF
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^EMPIRE:
he mentions a woman possibly coming into the ER 7 months pregnant after having been raped. Is it even possible, legally, to get an abortion at such a late stage? At 7 months, that is pretty much a formed baby. I mean... there have been cases of premature babies with a lot less than 7 months of development.

In Canada it's legal right up until the very last second before birth. And heaven forbid anyone in our country discuss that might be too far, you'll be branded some woman hating neo-con trying to remove the rights of everyone who isn't a white male.




Criminal laws on/against abortion are a federal matter though. And Canada has for some time now very clearly established that there is NO LAW against abortions. Current Canadian federal law in ALL provinces and territories makes all abortion, even up to 9 months, perfectly and completely legal.

It's a little more complicated then this - rules and access vary provincially. In Alberta, for example, good luck finding a clinic which will preform an abortion past 20 weeks.

"Who Performs Late Term Abortions:

Hospitals and some clinics in Canada perform abortions on request up to about 20 weeks, and a
few centres do abortions up to 22 or 23 weeks. However, most of the very small number of
abortions performed over 20 weeks gestation in Canada are done to protect the woman’s physical
health, or because of serious fetal abnormalities. Such problems cannot be discovered until an
amniocentesis test is done on the fetus later in pregnancy. Rare abortions after 22 or 23 weeks
gestation are also done in Canada for some cases of lethal fetal abnormalities, where the fetus
cannot survive after birth.

Since abortion services after 20 weeks are not always readily accessible in all parts of Canada,
women are sometimes referred to clinics in the United States (Kansas, Washington State, and
Colorado). Such procedures and associated expenses may be funded in full or part by some
provincial governments."

http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/22-Late-term-Abortions.PDF

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^EMPIRE:
he mentions a woman possibly coming into the ER 7 months pregnant after having been raped. Is it even possible, legally, to get an abortion at such a late stage? At 7 months, that is pretty much a formed baby. I mean... there have been cases of premature babies with a lot less than 7 months of development.

In Canada it's legal right up until the very last second before birth. And heaven forbid anyone in our country discuss that might be too far, you'll be branded some woman hating neo-con trying to remove the rights of everyone who isn't a white male.