I NOTICE YOU COMPLETELY IGNORED THE QUESTION OF HOW YOU GOT IT ALL SO BACKWARDS.

ANOTHER TOTALLY FAILURE BOB. RED HERRINGS AREN'T ANSWERS.

What? That's insanity. Are you saying the baby is fully formed at the instant of conception!? The train is fully formed before it rounds the bend, the pre-baby isn't. If you remove the visual obstruction the train is complete and functions fine, but not the "baby".

If I use your non logic, if I invest in a stock, I'm instantly a millionaire because that stock might make me one in the future. How about a loan...I'm going to be good for it!

The train doesn't exist before it's built. The baby doesn't exist until it's born. If you hear a clank on the tracks, it doesn't mean the train is built.

Anyone saying there's a heart at 6 weeks is a liar. As you said, no heartbeat without a heart, so anyone claiming there's a heartbeat at 6 weeks is a liar. Obstetricians and gynecologists and their national organizations agree, no matter what your friends the ultrasound technicians think.

When they write they observed a heartbeat at 6 weeks (can't be heard until 12-22 weeks when chambers and valves are formed) , absolutely they are liars. I'll gladly tell any you wish, there's no heart, there's barely a tube. It's not a functional heart until it pumps, which it never does at 6 weeks, or even 10.

Drs who hear it on the Doppler are listening at >12 weeks along, so they're stretching the truth, but not totally lying. By then, most heart structures exist, but aren't ready to pump yet.

Like I said, you got it backwards, you see the twitch in a "tube" at +-6 weeks, you HEAR it after 12-22 weeks on Doppler. You should know that if you really had the experience you claim....but you don't, so.....

Want to try again, this time address the question, if you are so experienced, why don't you know you SEE a twitch 6-18 weeks before you HEAR a PULSE? Why do you think you HEAR it first?

I'm going to expect another day or two of silence, followed by claims you answered this already, followed by another non sequitur argument ignoring the question of WHY ARE YOU SO WRONG!?

Really...You saw a HEART beating at 6 weeks. You're a liar....not a new revelation btw. You've been a proud liar for years.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has said in a statement, “What is interpreted as a heartbeat in these bills is actually electrically-induced flickering of a portion of the fetal tissue that will become the heart as the embryo develops. Thus, ACOG does not use the term ‘heartbeat’ to describe these legislative bans on abortion because it is misleading language, out of step with the anatomical and clinical realities of that stage of pregnancy.”

I do not believe you work in as a medical device service tech (which wouldn't include ANY medical training, now would it) but can't spell or read above a third grade level. It's just not believable....not that it would indicate any medical knowledge if true.

Again, seeing a PULSE is not seeing a heartbeat. If they say they saw a heart at 6 weeks, report them, they're delusional. What they call it has nothing to do with reality....many nurses are anti vaxers Q followers, being in the medical field doesn't make one reasonable, logical, or right. Techs aren't doctors....and doctors fudge the truth to avoid conflict. Press them, they'll admit there's no heart, unless like you they prefer a comfortable lie to the hard truth, and believe it's better to tell a lie than a truth that might hurt your position. Probably shouldn't have admitted you think that.

Here's a citation for you to dismiss as fake news....https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/when-are-heartbeats-audible-during-pregnancy/

Btw, I stand corrected, except for changes in the muscle tissue, the basic heart is apparently formed by week 13, not 20. The muscle tissue matures around week 20. I'm always willing to admit when I'm wrong, unlike some.

I know. Anyone can see that creature needed Vagisil.

I'm not a gynecologist but, I'll have a look.

Damnit newt, I'm a body snatcher, not a performance artist!

Reminds me of a t-shirt I saw once.

"I'm not a gynecologist but, I'll have look."

Steve Harvey can't say "gynecologist"? He's got such a puerile prudishness it's disgusting.

^Agreed. My original title was Nobel Laureate economist debates gynecologist on economics.

There is another view, including outside views, referenced from the article @eric3579 links to. This one was posted by Pavel Belyaev, with description googletranslated as follows:

--
To avoid any rumors or speculation on the fact of the events which occurred in our showroom April 7, 2012, we decided to provide full information about the incident, the chronology of events and make videos taken by surveillance cameras inside the cabin, and on the street.

The application and the timing of events http://www.pelican.ru/uploads/smi/smi2.pdf
--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq-Tqf_UnFo

The pdf describes the driver as a regular customer, Kustov Michael A., born in 1971, an obstetrician-gynecologist. It also says that before the incident he had been kept waiting for his car, but not excessively. If you don't read Russian, put the URL of the pdf into google translate and it will convert it.
>> ^harpom:

source please.

1. "Abortion pills" have been around since the 70's. Medically induced abortions are more common for first and second trimester abortions than surgical abortion in many places outside the U.S. Sometimes after a failed medical abortion though, surgical abortion must be carried out to finish the job. Medical abortion is still cheaper, easier and even more effective in many cases.

2. Ultrasound imaging in general is very safe and there are no major hazards involved in transvaginal ultrasound either. It's not really much different than a normal gynecologic examination, which is probably done before an abortion anyway. The only danger is that a patient might be afraid of the dildo-looking ultrasound probe.

3. The reason they want to require a transvaginal ultrasound examination is clearly to discourage abortion. I don't know the specifics of the bill, but presumably it would raise the bar for women to get an abortion because of this possibly scary examination being coupled with it. Or maybe seeing the fetus on the ultrasound screen is supposed to awaken the maternal instincts or something. It also would mandate the gynecologists office to have an expensive ultrasound machine available for every patient requiring an abortion, raising the cost of operating.

I disagree. He's discussing what HE SEES as a way around a system that outlaws abortion period. A system that he is on record, in favor of, btw.

In the cases of "honest rape" he is not opposed to emergency contraception. The phrase "honest rape" is anti-woman, victim blamey, proto-fascist rhetoric. I have 0 problem with his stance on emergency contraception. I also have no problem with a system that disallows late term abortion, except in cases when the mothers life is in danger. Late term abortion is ghastly. I'm against it. But "late term abortion" is also another pro-life rhetorical device. To make the entire arena of reproductive choice emotionally repulsive. The instances of late term abortions are extremely rare, but there's tons of hype about it out of the mouths of pro-lifers.

So, his rhetoric is abhorrent. Add this to his revisionist speeches in front of confederate flags, insanely rascist newsletters with his name on it, and I find it hard to believe that it's all an accident. I'm no longer buying that he's just a doting, old, confused by stander instead of a misogynistic, racist old dinosaur from the 1950's.

Oh, and as an OB/GYN, he should be WELL aware of the various psychological and emotional states of victims of sexual assaults. He should be well aware that we all don't just immediately rush over to the emergency room screaming "rape". And that just because we didn't do that, it doesn't mean we weren't "honestly" violated.
>> ^aurens:

To be frank, I think you (and others) are missing the point.
Ron Paul, as I see it, is addressing an obvious problem with a system that would allow medical treatment (early-stage abortion, or the prevention of pregnancy) only for rape victims, namely that you'd have to have a way of turning away (EDIT: and identifying) women who sought abortions for reasons other than rape. He's not suggesting a rubric for doing so (I don't think the interview format would have allowed him to), nor is he making any assumptions about the nature of rape victims or rapists. (Remember: he's a trained obstetrician-gynecologist. I'd bet he knows more about sexual assault than most of us do.) The phrase "honest rape" (yes, a terribly chosen phrase) is part of an attempt to address the problem described above, one which he didn't adequately explain.>> ^peggedbea:
it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

To be frank, I think you (and others) are missing the point.

Ron Paul, as I see it, is addressing an obvious problem with a system that would allow medical treatment (early-stage abortion, or the prevention of pregnancy) only for rape victims, namely that you'd have to have a way of turning away (EDIT: and identifying) women who sought abortions for reasons other than rape. He's not suggesting a rubric for doing so (I don't think the interview format would have allowed him to), nor is he making any assumptions about the nature of rape victims or rapists. (Remember: he's a trained obstetrician-gynecologist. I'd bet he knows more about sexual assault than most of us do.) The phrase "honest rape" (yes, a terribly chosen phrase) is part of an attempt to address the problem described above, one which he didn't adequately explain.>> ^peggedbea:

it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

For better or worse, finally a republican candidate who wants to challenge the status quo.

It's amazing he's even allowed to be nominated.

Let me get this straight, Dr. Paul.

You want to close all the military bases, end the wars, hobble the defense contractors, slash the budget to nothing, fire all the federal employees nation wide, then hold to a sort of good neighbor policy in terms of pollution and regulatory abuse in the Laissez faire right wing utopia you unleash on the world for four or more years.

A crack-pot Texas gynecologist who isn't Ivy League, and doesn't carry a Skull and Bones card in his wallet.

I was thinking that said something positive about America until I remember the last Republican vice presidential nomination.

Anyone who is a member the Republican party for any semblance of ideals and philosophy will vote for Ron Paul. The rest of them just like country music, kevin costner movies, flashy advertisements and anything else that doesn't require their concentration for more than five minutes.

@kronosposeidon. I balk at your comparison that the theory of relativity is to a physicist what virology is to a obstetrician/gynecologist. That aside, your example above was pinpointing the Swine Flu "epidemic", and we know now that hasn't been a real threat at all. In fact, it has proved, so far, no more dangerous than the flu.

I understand you're a union man who hates concepts of free enterprise, and that's cool, but I don't think your arguments have any real merit. I mean, you're sexy as shit, but if you remove your sexiness then you're left with a union man with a protectionist agenda. Wiener rubs!

Noted gynecologist Snatchy McPusspuss says global climate change is refuted by vaginal warts. -climatescienctistsarewrong.com

>> ^peggedbea:
yes, really.
in high school i interned with a herpetologist in the biology department of a university. so people would find freakish amphibians or reptiles around town and bring them to us. i would have to study them, catalog them and report them. i thought this was incredibly adorable when the 6 legged little nuclear freak show toads would do this. the little kid in my head decided it must be a gift!! and i would grow up to the worlds most amazing herpetologist and live my life on perpetual field expeditions!!..... until the professor came in, saw me petting a toad affectionately and cooing at it, and informed me that i was in fact scaring the shit out of him and he was trying to poison me.
my childlike dreams, CRUSHED!!!
>> ^Matthu:
>> ^robbersdog49:
The toad's main defense is the poison in it's skin on it's back and the top of it's head. It's trying to defend itself by keeping the poisoned areas where the attention is. It's terrified and is acting defensively.

Really?


...isn't a herpetologist what you would call your gynecologist?

I earn my living pushing my fingers through hundreds of tight, unwilling flaps every day. Sometimes women are pleased when my fingers work their magic, and other times they are not. And no, I'm not a gynecologist, I'm a lowly postal worker.