Total posts: 542
-->
@Vegasgiants
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.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You are wasting your time
I have already accepted your concession
You seem to accept a lot of ideas without substantiation. I have not only not conceded, I have already been shown correct.
You are dismissed
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.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
In 6 hours I will accept not only your concession, but also an indictment of the current educational system from whence you come.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You can not sYou can not show one official position paper by any of those agencies on this issue
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.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Name the medical organization that supports your position
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.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
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.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
You have 22 hours to submit a dozen sources other than the ACOG to support your position.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
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.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Then don't quote the NIH.
I will quote from any and all authorities relevant to the matter at hand.
Lots of medical agencies take on official positionsACOG has one here
Giving credence to having a "position" while discounting data from those without is a logical fallacy.
Is there any agency that supports your position?I think I will go with the preeminent agency full of 60,000 professionals on this issueACOG
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:
"The autonomy granted to physicians is based on the claim that their decisions are grounded in scientific principles. But a case study of the evolution of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ abortion policy ......shows that decisions were only secondarily determined by science. The principal determinant was the need to preserve physician autonomy over the organization and delivery of services.
As a result, the organization representing physicians who specialized in women’s reproductive health was marginal to the struggle for legalized abortion. But, the profession was central to decisions about whether physicians would perform abortions and how they would be done." from the American Journal of Public Health, November 2003.
N.B. The National Center for Biotechnology Information is part of the NLM which is part of the NIH and operates under the same removal policy.
Therefore the ACOG position, upon which forms your ONLY reference in support of your belief, is shown to be NOT primarily based on science, but rather on a cartel like protection of one's agency itself.
Also your position is more politically based than it is scientific.
Science supports my position.
I hope you have learned something.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Most of wars..... are committed by heterosexuals.
The US Army college at Westpoint does not list heterosexuality as a cause.
"What is the root causes of most wars?
For if we follow these calamitous events back to their root causes and preceding events, we often find a familiar list: bumbling leaders, ancient hatreds, intransigent ideologies, dire poverty, historic injustices, and a huge supply of weapons and impressionable young men. "Oct 14, 2022 https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-five-reasons-wars-happen/#:~:text=For%20if%20we%20follow%20these,weapons%20and%20impressionable%20young%20men.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
The NIH does not endorse that position
There are few if any "positions" that the NIH endorses. It is a scientific medical arm of the US government.
"NIH is the steward of medical and behavioral research for the Nation. Its mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability." https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/nih-almanac/about-nih#:~:text=NIH%20is%20the%20steward%20of,and%20reduce%20illness%20and%20disability.
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?...
What if there's no visible heartbeat? Often it can be a challenge to find a heartbeat by ultrasound before you've reached the seventh week of pregnancy. Also, it can be difficult to pinpoint the exact start of your pregnancy, so you might not actually be at the sixth week yet.Oct 27,2020 https://www.healthline.com/health/pregnancy/6-week-ultrasound#heartbeat-concerns
And there is more, but you are so entrenched in your belief that no true data will convince you otherwise.
On the positive side, you have been given the potential to learn a few things. Don't waste the opportunity.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Dude ACOG does not review papers there. It's not their job to ensure they are accurate
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
Again....the NIH did not do that study snd none of those authors work for the NIH
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. "
There is no medical agency on earth that agrees with you
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.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
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 )
And you are NOT quoting a NIH STUDY
"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).
Weare not talking about cardiac activities.....the word is heartbeat and there is no heart then
Again source after source disagrees with YOU.
And Abrams....oh GOD!
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
If there is do much evidence why can't you find a respected medical agency that agrees with you?
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.
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 ).)
ACOG does not have the authority to remove scientific studies. Are you kidding?
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?
Show me!!!!
( you have called the ACOG )"The most prestigious medical organization on this subject...."
and yet hierarchically it is the NIH that advises ACOG, not the other way around.
I ask that YOU, Vegasgiants, show a publication by ACOG that shows up in a National Institutes of Health database AND supports your position.
Vegasgiants has NOT
The weight of evidence is mine.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
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."
ACOG HAS NOT
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.
Vegasgiants has NOT
Would any medical agency establish a medical position based on a single study?
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.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
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.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
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?).
Created:
-->
@John_C_87
When life begins is not the legal issue at hand
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.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
@Vegasgiants
More unbiased words that don't originate from what essentially is the "Association of Doctors Who Profit from the Abortion industry" which you both cited.
"At the end of the 4th week of gestation, the heartbeats of the embryo begin.
The heart, whose development starts at the 3rd week of gestation, has rapid and irregular contractions capable of pumping the blood inside the vessels." (
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?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
@Vegasgiants
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.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
@Vegasgiants
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?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I am still awaiting a response from Vegasgiants before I proceed to answer both of you.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I would ask you the same question as I asked Vegasgiants......."do you accept the NIH as a credible source?"
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
She's right....it's not a heart beat. There is no heart then. [ at 6 weeks]
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.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
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/).
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Quote them in a lie
I have found that chauvinists often lack reading comprehension.
Sometimes you link them to a complete article to show their folly in context, and they misunderstand. They want a myopic and clear picture perfect jigsaw piece.
So here we go. We need to show 1) a quote, 2) by a democrat 3) on abortion 4) that is a lie.
" Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams ...." ( https://studentsforlife.org/2022/09/26/stacey-abrams-denies-science-of-fetal-heartbeat-planned-parenthood-follows-her-outlandish-conspiracy/ ....ergo Stacey Abrams is a democrat ( item 2 satisfied)
Abrams said "“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.” ( ibid)
ergo a quote by a democrat ( items 1 and 2 satisfied.)
The "heartbeat " comment was related to a concept fundamental to "abortion rights" ergo item 3 satisfied.
" an ultrasound can detect the beating of cardiac tissue around weeks five to six" https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/when-does-a-fetus-have-a-heartbeat
ergo item 4 satisfied.
We can now see a quote by a democrat about abortion that is a lie. QED.
Also 90% of voters consider the Dem stance on abortion to be too extreme, while only 60% view the republican stance as too extreme.
73 and 30
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
It contains quotes ....right?
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
If I have to do your work for you...https://studentsforlife.org/2022/09/26/stacey-abrams-denies-science-of-fetal-heartbeat-planned-parenthood-follows-her-outlandish-conspiracy/
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Good for you.
Same answer.
Read again.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Which democrat lied and what exactly was the lie?
Read the link which I had previously sent you.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I don't see the lie by democrats. Quote them
Dems say " Most Americans support abortion [however]
Polls show almost nine in 10 Americans oppose Biden and Pelosi’s extreme position of abortion on demand until birth." (
https://nypost.com/2022/06/26/the-democrats-lies-on-abortion-since-scotus-overruling-of-roe-v-wade/)"Abortion will be a vote-winner for Democrats [yet] If they are so opposed to the Supreme Court decision, why don’t Democrats simply pass a law to codify Roe v. Wade, since they control Washington?
Well, they tried it already with the Women’s Health Protection Act, and failed. The Senate voted 49-51 against the bill, which would have overridden state abortion laws, well short of the 60 votes needed" (ibid)
Well, they tried it already with the Women’s Health Protection Act, and failed. The Senate voted 49-51 against the bill, which would have overridden state abortion laws, well short of the 60 votes needed" (ibid)
"The truth is Democrats strayed too far from public opinion. Where once the phrase “safe, legal and rare” summed up a palatable position for Democrats, they allowed extremists to push it to abortion any time for any reason, including for sex selection and to get rid of Down syndrome babies, which is opposed by 70% of Americans, according to a Knights of Columbus survey last year." (ibid)
There is more, but you can look it up for yourself.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
The key to democrats winning in 2024 lies in hammering home what the gop did to abortion rights
Only if voters are so narrow minded that they vote on a single issue.
The economy, national defense, tax policy, crime , law enforcement, education, foreign policy, and immigration will also factor in.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Not relevantbto (sic) a woman's right to choose
However the woman is only one of many parties that need to weigh in.
Let's be clear. I do not support the notion that there should be NO abortions, nor do I support the notion that ALL abortions should be allowed.
It's a complicated matter. The "truth is out there " but America lacks the maturity to grasp it.
Created:
YES
As you have said
And the Democrats have uttered many many "lies in abortion".
So vote based on
As an example, "Although permissive abortion has been advocated on the grounds it will reduce the prevalence of child abuse and infanticide, there is no evidence to prove it has. There is a growing concern that it may have contributed to the problem. " ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/519627/).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Yes at some point the debt could be a problem. I don't think we are there yet
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that interest payments will total $663 billion in fiscal year 2023....(https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2023/05/what-is-the-national-debt-costing-us#:~:text=The%20Congressional%20Budget%20Office%20(CBO,trillion%20over%20the%20next%20decade.)
So there are 663,000,000,000 problems right now! Your thesis that the debt is not a problem is wrong by a factor of billions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I don't see the problem. Those programs do not exist without the debt
You are saying that various government programs are FUNDED by borrowing money. Thus there are two costs ( the cost for the program and the cost for the borrowed money). You don't see that as a problem?
Here is an equivalent case. A homeowner gets a bill from the electric utility. Instead of paying the bill with EARNED money, the homeowner borrows the money to pay the bill. Now next month there are two bills( the electric bill AND the loan bill ). It goes into and endless cycle and ends in bankruptcy.
Now do you see the problem?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vegasgiants
"The federal government currently spends more on net interest than it does on Social Security Disability Insurance, food and nutrition services, housing, or transportation. At the same time, the household share of net interest is larger than average annual household spending on gasoline, home furnishings, clothing, or personal care." (https://www.crfb.org/blogs/just-how-big-are-federal-interest-payments)
"The roughly $400 billion the federal government is projected to spend on net interest payments in FY 2022 is more than it is expected to spend on veterans' programs ($269 billion); food and nutrition services ($230 billion), including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; Social Security Disability Insurance ($142 billion); federal civilian and military retirement ($133 billion); transportation ($130 billion); elementary, secondary, and vocational education ($129 billion); housing ($78 billion); higher education ($69 billion); Supplemental Security Income ($61 billion); and science, space and technology ($37 billion)." ( Ibid)
So there you have it.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
If subjects are being "taught" but students aren't learning, then they are not being taught at all. See https://www.newsweek.com/when-we-fail-teach-our-kids-basics-about-civics-we-risk-losing-our-democracy-opinion-1748475 (note that this article seems to be biased, but of course you can recognize that ).
Created:
-->
@oromagi
- Fortunately, that's not true in American Public Schools. In US K-12 I learned:
- Equality
- Civil Rights
- Freedom of Speech and Expression
- Hard Work and Competition
- Democracy and the RIghts of Man
- Civic Engagement
- Personal Responsibility and Accountability
- Literature and Morality
- History and Respect for our Multi--cultural Inheritance
- Environmentalism and Respect for our Biological Inheritance
- Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving
- Collaboration and Teamwork
- Integrity and Ethical Behavior
- Health, Wellness, and Exercise
Perhaps these are things you learned, but based on current events perhaps you were the only one who was listening.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
While I agree that schools teach "rules", I disagree with the notion that they teach "knowledge"
They teach facts, and then ask them to be repeated back.
Teaching children to "do good things" is the responsibility of the family / extended family.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Don't confuse "fair play for transgenders" with the iron fist of the federal government. The current trend is to extend extraordinary powers to a small minority at the expense of the common man ( or common woman ). Just look about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The whole thing is contrived. The "plaintiff" cited in the case is a "straw man" It appears to be an attempted shake down case. See... https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/29/supreme-court-lgbtq-document-veracity-colorado.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I am seeking information about certain procedures regarding unwed mothers. You have contributed NO INFORMATION in regard to the issue at hand. Instead you have embarked on an attack on me for even asking the question. That makes you and anti-intellectual fascist with no redeeming qualities. I had hoped for a better level of discourse than you have provided. Please go away.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Stop it. Quit letting agenda proceed logic.
If someone loses a job, through not fault of their own, the safety net should kick in. (that is being used as an example and NOT a new topic for debate)
However an unwed mother generally is not faultless, and the guilty parties should be the first in line to pay.
In any event, this forum post was asking a question.
The question was not about who deserves assistance, but who pays.
Since you have NO INFO to contribute, kindly cease.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Here is what the ARTICLE YOU CITED said ..."The resolution claims Schiff misled the American public over the course of congressional investigations into the Trump campaign's potential ties to Russia, given that other probes have not found conclusive evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election." ( emphasis mine )
Also there is no such thing as "his truth".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Are you against government assistance for anyone, or just unwed mothers?You can always say someone other than me can help out, everyone who needs government assistence has parents, so maybe they should pay?
Hmmm. So many things that you heard that were not said.
Are you against government assistance for anyone, or just unwed mothers?
Where did you get that idea? I have said nothing into the universe of "being against government assistance for anyone". My question simply has to do with RESPONSIBILITY!
If there is an unwed mother then there is a biological father. He should pay. The government should be "last in line". There was a case recently where a man had seven children with 5 separate women, never married, and never paid support. I paid. You paid. Duh!
You can always say someone other than me can help out, everyone who needs government assistence has parents, so maybe they should pay?
You equate "government assistance" with "parental assistance". You need to rethink that one.
Why unwed mothers?
Because there is someone 100% responsible. He did the deed, he fills the need. Logic 101.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Speaking as a mostly carnivoristic omnivore.It's probably more ethical than the organized serial genocide of animals that our slaughterhouses regularly take part in.
The meat industry is not engaged in "genocide". If they were, we would have run out of meat years ago. They are at the very least a semi-sustainable business sector.
Genocide .."the deliberate killing of a large number of people [ or beings ] from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." [ Oxford ]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
who pays?We all do, because there's a child involved and the alternative is to take the child away which, cruelty aside, is far more expensive.
Why do "we all pay"? If there is a child, then there is a mother and a father. The father needs to pay. If not, there needs be legal remedies. "You do the deed, you fill the need"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ponikshiy
If you make your husband disappear it doesn't pay out? Do they need bodybalso?
Life insurance does not pay out for "disappearance". Also husbands are the presumed fathers , but we are talking about "unwed" mothers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Here is a cite from a work that places LBJ @ #10 overall, and @#6 among Dems.....United States Presidency Centre, UK Survey of US Presidents: Results: Total Scores and Overall Ranking Archived September 29, 2021, at the Wayback Machine.
quod erat demonstrandum
Created: