Nope
A bunch of cells that pulse, which have not yet formed into a fetal heart. They make no "sound".
France becomes first country to explicitly enshrine abortion rights in constitution
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
A bunch of cells that pulse, which have not yet formed into a fetal heart. They make no "sound".
Does the mom’s heart pump the fetal blood supply like you said? Or is it something else? Like the fetal heart perhaps?
Just want to get you on record with your prior false statements.
Yes. It does
Because there is no functional "fetal heart" until around 20+ weeks.
S-A node creates "signals" that entire time, which don't pump anything.
No; it's not the 'perception of movement'; it is pressure waves caused by the disturbance of air.
The S-A node in a fetus creates no audible sound, Cletus.
This has been linked for you multiple times now: the US machines artificially generate that "sound" for you. Based on visual information.
Joe doesn’t seem to have the capacity for this level of scientific understanding. For some of the nature of our physical world and how it manifests as certain things in our central nervous system escapes him.
Pressure waves caused by movement,.. Without movement of some kind there is no sound. Movement is the origin,.. In your scenario wtf do you think disturbs the air?...
No it doesn’t. You are flat out wrong Joe. And people need to see it as that.
I’ll refer you to this article since you seem to need help.
Note the following
“The initiation of the first heart beat via the primitive heart tube begins at gestational day 22, followed by active fetal blood circulation by the end of week 4“
The Transitional Heart: From Early Embryonic and Fetal Development to Neonatal Life
Abstract. Formation of the human heart involves complex biological signals, interactions, specification of myocardial progenitor cells, and heart tube looping. To facilitate survival in the hypoxemic intrauterine environment, the fetus possesses structural, physiological, and functional...
karger.com
What I cannot believe is that a couple of the Drs on here are so deeply political that they cannot call out your BS. People like @Urohawk and @JWolf74 specifically. Maddening because there is a right and wrong here and how you fall down politically on this issue is your thing but the science is not. Joe you appear to be molding the science to your beliefs instead of forming your beliefs on the science and other factors. Which we are all entitled to. Like I have said, be pro choice. Fine. I disagree but if you have your reasons you feel this way make that case. But to throw out this ‘not a heartbeat’ crap because ‘there is no sound’ is a disservice to your cause because it makes you sound unbelievable.
And what disturbs the eardrum to transmit that sound to the auditory cortex? God he just can’t grasp this at all. Physiology 101.
I hate to say this, because I (usually) like both of you guys as posters, but I'm beginning to think you are both chatbots. Why? Simply because real human beings would have gotten tired of this unproductive back and forth a long time ago.
The "movement" that you refer to creates no "sound".
No matter how many times you want to claim it does.
The doctors you just tagged aren't going to support your position here, Keebler.
There are no "pressure waves" created by the S-A node you are referring to.
The movement is captured by and imaging technology; not an "audio speaker".
No it doesn’t. You are flat out wrong Joe. And people need to see it as that.
I’ll refer you to this article since you seem to need help.
Note the following
“The initiation of the first heart beat via the primitive heart tube begins at gestational day 22, followed by active fetal blood circulation by the end of week 4“
The Transitional Heart: From Early Embryonic and Fetal Development to Neonatal Life
Abstract. Formation of the human heart involves complex biological signals, interactions, specification of myocardial progenitor cells, and heart tube looping. To facilitate survival in the hypoxemic intrauterine environment, the fetus possesses structural, physiological, and functional...
What I cannot believe is that a couple of the Drs on here are so deeply political that they cannot call out your BS. People like @Urohawk and @JWolf74 specifically. Maddening because there is a right and wrong here and how you fall down politically on this issue is your thing but the science is not. Joe you appear to be molding the science to your beliefs instead of forming your beliefs on the science and other factors. Which we are all entitled to. Like I have said, be pro choice. Fine. I disagree but if you have your reasons you feel this way make that case. But to throw out this ‘not a heartbeat’ crap because ‘there is no sound’ is a disservice to your cause because it makes you sound unbelievable.
"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."
This is what I have already told you.
Not 6 weeks
Not 10 weeks
Not 15 weeks.
Late 2nd trimester.
Yeah. I hear ya. I'm done with him. He can't be reasoned with.
I'm done bro. You and I will never agree on anything. You are 'entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts'.
Oh and the ACOG is group of liberal docs with one interest only imo.
I'm out. And youre officially on ignore now.
You won't read basic physiology, spud.
There's no audible "heartbeat" until 20+ weeks.
Hey idiot. We have a labor shortage that is destroying the economy. Agree or not, it is an issues. Also our tax policies on families are way highers than decades. Don't know what the answer is but our cylindrical population by age graphic is in the end what is destroying it.
"No one wants to talk about the impact of abortion on our economy."
Taxes and labor shortages due to abortion. How in the fcvk do you close the circle to make that argument farmboy? I can't wait for this one.
Edit: Hold on. Are you as a MAGA agreeing with the anti-abortion argument b/c we need more bodies?
Last edited:
In a free labor market there are only ‘shortages’ where employers won’t pay the requisite wage to entice labor from some other project that is in higher demand.
To the extent that's true (is it?), it's temporary. AI and robots will fill the void.
When that happens, what will people do to earn?
Not everybody can support themselves being a social media influencer.
Not kidding on either point. Social media influencer is a real arena of employment today. It didn't exist a generation ago. We may see the rise of other novel forms of work, but how many will actually make products or raise food?
Meanwhile, I saw a news piece the other day talking about how, in many agricultural areas these days, conditions are too hot in the middle of the day for humans to tend crops and do other outdoor work. So even when the crops or livestock will still grow (another looming problem), bringing them to harvest or slaughter may falter. Which is where machines come in. But how do the displaced workers earn a living when machines have to do those jobs? Don't say "they'll make or repair the machines" because much of that will be automated, too.
A region of the country has insufficient numbers of workers located within the region.
No, that's not a labor shortage. Want an example. Wait a year or so and see what produce is going to cost.
100 years ago about 1/3rd of the country was making our food instead of about 3%.
That freed up labor to make computers, and software and reality TV and a bunch of other things nobody would have thought of 100 years ago.
Let’s Hope Machines Take Our Jobs: We Want Wealth, Not Jobs
The job-threatening rise of the machines is an economically illiterate meme that refuses to die. We’re actually probably in the early stages of it, a bull-market in neo-luddism, if you will. Bastiat’s “Candlemakers Petititon” answered this one long ago, but today I’ll run a little thought experiment that owes it all to good old Bastiat.Let’s say Weird Al Yankovic invents a machine capable of making everything with a single push of a button. The first thing he does is print up a bunch of machines and sell them for a ton. Weird Al is now a billionaire, and there are thousands of make-everything machines.
This diffusion of Weird Al’s new technology replicates the market process, where new tech spreads in proportion to its usefulness. If you doubt this, because of patents, for example, check out Brazil’s experience with AIDS drugs, where they tore up the patents on humanitarian grounds.
Weird Al’s machines will, at a minimum, be mass produced in Brazil. Or China. Or Mozambique.
So, one way or another, we get a bunch of make-everything machines.
What happens to the jobs? We’re getting everything for near-free now. So all the production jobs disappear. There are still lots of jobs, of course — child-care, gardeners, musicians. But all the production jobs have vanished — something like 20 percent of jobs, maybe up to 50 percent when you include knock-on replacement of people by capital (truck drivers, robot bartenders). Heck, let’s go crazy and say 90 percent of the jobs vanished. Nobody’s got a job outside of preschool or performing on a stage. It’s the end of the world, right?
Well, the key here is that, now that everything is made with the push of a button, everything’s extremely cheap. For example, a sixteen-bedroom house or a Lamborghini costs almost nothing. Let’s say they now cost ten cents.
The main expense in such a world is probably surface space. To park all those dime-a-dozen cars. It’d take a while to “run out” of space, though — divide the world by the people and you get about twenty acres (eight hectares) for a family of four — about 100 large surburban yards. Add in the oceans — floating islands cost nothing, remember — and triple that. We end up with about 300 homes-worth of space per family.
What about those unemployed people? Well, when a house or a year’s food costs a dime, they’ll be willing to work really cheap. We’ll work for a penny a day. After all, that’s a new house or a years’ food every two weeks.
Who would hire these workers for a penny? Plenty of people. Heck, if workers cost a penny a day I’d hire several for each of my children. Just to keep the kids from getting bored. I’d hire another to cook, one to clean, one to run errands. One to keep track of my mail. One to check Facebook for me. At a penny a day I’d personally hire 100 people, easy. You would too — a buck a day’s nothing.
So the remaining 10 percent of workers who didn’t lose their jobs — babysitters, baristas, musicians — would want 100 workers each. Even at a penny, they’d take them all, and they’d be paying an outrageous rate — a tenth-house per day! That’s a daily rate of $15,000 in today’s terms.
Now, those who kept their jobs would, of course, see dropping wages. A barista who made $12 an hour in the old days would have to compete with the hordes of unemployed workers. Maybe her wage would drop to a penny, too. But, remember, a penny now buys $15,000 worth of stuff.
When the smoke clears, most people would make some extremely low wages — a penny a day. And that extremely low wage would be worth an awful lot — $15,000 a day. Implying an annual income north of several million dollars in today’s values. Some lucky few would make a dollar a day — probably the people who are good at things machines cannot do: entertainment, child-care, being a good listener, strumming the guitar at the old-folks’ home, and laughing at jokes. At a dollar a day, this super-rich elite that excels at human skills — such as making us laugh — would be billionaires in today’s values.
Either way, there would be nothing we think of even remotely as “poverty.” Sure, there’ll be inequality, but it’ll be of the sort “Sarah’s got 200 Lamborghinis and I’ve only got 40.”
The upshot is that wages plunge, but production costs plunge even more. Of course, this is based on the ridiculous Weird Al machine. Why do this? To illustrate the absolute worst-case scenario, when machines make everything for near-nothing.
What about going one step further, that the machine destroys all jobs in the whole world — it makes every single thing for us free, and it even keeps the folks entertained and the warm fuzzies flowing at the old folks’ home.
Well, we’ve already got a case study there — the sun. It gives us warmth and mangos for free. And how do we respond? We sit around and lazily enjoy it. So a machine that truly replaced all jobs would simply mean nobody works anymore — life’s somewhere between a non-stop party and a non-stop pleasant walk in the woods followed by a nice bonfire with friends and chardonnay.
We should all be so lucky that the machines do actually take every last job there is.
Extrapolate and carry this out and there will be no need for human labor. Apply AI algorithms and our problems, including economics will be solved. An atom on a speck of dirt on the tip of a spear of the possibilities has yet to be realized.
Robots will build the robots.
Last edited:
Right now I’m suffering a labor shortage of maids, butlers, chauffeurs, chefs, and personal musicians. Because they won’t accept the wage I’m presently offering. Quick! Flood the country with people until they’re desperate enough to accept the wages I’m offering.
If everyone comes here and people still won’t accept the wages I’m offering, is the problem actually lack of people?
You just don’t understand how this stuff works, so all you’re left with is insults.
Shortages and surpluses are consequent to mis-pricing the demand curve, and can happen at any supply level (if the price is wrong)
A shortage exists if the quantity of a good or service demanded exceeds the quantity supplied at the current price; it causes upward pressure on price.
My sick dick comment was inappropriate for this thread but appropriate for much of your bullshit, including your affection for Putin's action in Ukraine.You just don’t understand how this stuff works, so all you’re left with is insults.
Shortages and surpluses are consequent to mis-pricing the demand curve, and can happen at any supply level (if the price is wrong)
A shortage exists if the quantity of a good or service demanded exceeds the quantity supplied at the current price; it causes upward pressure on price.
.
+
You do realize which race gets more abortions don't you? Factor in by per capita it's overwhelming. Nothing was racist. You changed the quote to that. There is a strong element in our nation that wants abortion to keep non white populations from gaining. In case you don't know, 4 of 10 babies aborted are black. About 3 in 10 are white and 2 in ten Hispanic. So in reality the unborn baby carnage is an assault on minority populations.
By population 1.2 of 10 abortions should be black babies
2 in 10 abortions should be Hispanic babies
6 in 10 should be white.
Who is racist? You Margaret Sanger much? You admire Mengele?
