Stacey Abrams: "6 week heartbeats are manufactured sounds by the patriarchy!"

Mr. Friscus

Diamond Member
Dec 28, 2020
4,485
4,710
1,938
Listen to how radical and logically incoherent she is:

“There is no such thing as a heartbeat at six weeks,” Abrams said while serving on a panel. “It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that men have the right to take control of a woman’s body in place of her.”

Yes, that sound that you hear with the right instruments? It doesn't exist! It's fake! LMAO.

Also, just a reminder, Abrams still refuses to conceded that she lost the 2018 Georgia election. Such things are extremist and against Democracy.. so we're told LOL.
 
There is no heart to beat a 6 weeks. The rhythmic fluttering of the nerves that become the pacemaker of the heart is not a heart beating, or a heart pumping blood. It does not make a sound. It is a good sign for the normal development of a fetus. So of course she is correct.
 
There is no heart to beat a 6 weeks. The rhythmic fluttering of the nerves that become the pacemaker of the heart is not a heart beating, or a heart pumping blood. It does not make a sound. It is a good sign for the normal development of a fetus. So of course she is correct.
LMAO!

So the heart beating isn't a heart beating, got it.

And, if it doesn't make a sound, how come medical instruments can hear it? Are you saying they are merely playing Mp3 sound effects?
 
She is a moron. And a damn liar.
This is akin to "pro-lifers" saying shit like a rape pregnancy is an opportunity.

And DAMN NEAR governor of Georgia.
She's getting another shot at it.

GEORGIA....going BLUE !!!! fuuuuuuuuk

They have a plan. Florida is next.
It may be a slow process.....but they really are winning in the long run. Just a matter of time now.
 
If you get pregnant your going to have a baby 8 out of 10 times unless you decide to eliminate the baby. She claims unless there is a heartbeat it's not alive but if you don't terminate and let it keep growing literally you give birth and life to someone so it's more than heartbeats bitch.

The double standards are right there to witness. They can terminate life but condemn anyone who is not vaccinated. Save lives or don't save lives whose body is it in either scenario and whose choice?

In the vaccine claim, they state it is putting others at risk (even though others can choose to protect themselves by choosing to get vaccinated that should solve it unless the vaccine doesn't actually work) now on the termination claim, it is literally choosing not to let another being grow and live. It is a choice in both situations.


So should people be allowed to choose what to do with their bodies?
 
LMAO!

So the heart beating isn't a heart beating, got it.

And, if it doesn't make a sound, how come medical instruments can hear it? Are you saying they are merely playing Mp3 sound effects?
Pandora on a bluetooth speaker
 
There is no heart to beat a 6 weeks. The rhythmic fluttering of the nerves that become the pacemaker of the heart is not a heart beating, or a heart pumping blood. It does not make a sound. It is a good sign for the normal development of a fetus. So of course she is correct.

Experts agree that a heartbeat develops between 5 to 7 weeks.

:popcorn:
 
There is no heart to beat a 6 weeks. The rhythmic fluttering of the nerves that become the pacemaker of the heart is not a heart beating, or a heart pumping blood. It does not make a sound. It is a good sign for the normal development of a fetus.
so it is the "fluttering of nerves" and not a heart beat that is proof of life then? It's just a technical [as well as semantical I suppose] form of proof of life in that case.
So of course she is correct.
Technically! of course she would be completely wrong if she made the same claim seven weeks earlier as there would be no proof of life [fluttering nerves or otherwise] for her to make her case upon.
 
Last edited:
LMAO!

So the heart beating isn't a heart beating, got it.

And, if it doesn't make a sound, how come medical instruments can hear it? Are you saying they are merely playing Mp3 sound effects?
To be fair, the unborn baby does not make a sound either

Its the age old question, does a tree really make a sound in the forest if Stacey Abrams is not there to hear it?
 
To be fair, the unborn baby does not make a sound either

Its the age old question, does a tree really make a sound in the forest if Stacey Abrams is not there to hear it?
Did you just slip up there and used the word "hear" when you meant to say "eat"?

I do love those Buddhist koans, though. My very favorite is the one most applicable to the internet -- "what is the sound of one hand fapping".
 
She is a moron. And a damn liar.
This is akin to "pro-lifers" saying shit like a rape pregnancy is an opportunity.
Be careful. Hershel Walker is still on a ticket. Have a good look at him, and see what you think.
 
There is no heart to beat a 6 weeks. The rhythmic fluttering of the nerves that become the pacemaker of the heart is not a heart beating, or a heart pumping blood. It does not make a sound. It is a good sign for the normal development of a fetus. So of course she is correct.

I did my best to find the least partisan site I could find.

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.

When Can You Hear Baby’s Heartbeat?
 
There is no heart to beat a 6 weeks. The rhythmic fluttering of the nerves that become the pacemaker of the heart is not a heart beating, or a heart pumping blood. It does not make a sound. It is a good sign for the normal development of a fetus. So of course she is correct.
Keep on trying to bring them some semblance of sanity. It's heard, appreciated, and it reminds the crazies that there's still a real world out there.
 
so it is the "fluttering of nerves" and not a heart beat that is proof of life then? It's just a technical [as well as semantical I suppose] form of proof of life in that case.

Technically! of course she would be completely wrong if she made the same claim seven weeks earlier as there would be no proof of life [fluttering nerves or otherwise] for her to make her case upon.
A fertilized egg is unique, alive and has the will to survive by nature. Development of the embryo internal organs doesn't give the states the right to tell a women she must to carry the 6 week old embryo to term, imo.

Calling it a heartbeat is deliberately misleading.
 
There is no heart to beat in a six weeks old embryo. The detectable cardiac activity is not a heart beating.
Cardiac -- "of, or relating to the heart"

Why is it that you uneducated Marxist fundamentalists think that replacing a word with something that references that word actually changes the nature of what is being referenced?
 

Forum List

Back
Top