Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Arizona] says, you're pregnant for up to two weeks before you're pregnant.

1246716

Posts

  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    VeritasVR wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Let's also not ignore fetuses that abort themselves too, where do they fit in to the GOP worldview where right to birth exists? I feel we should change this to right to birth instead of right to life, because, as someone mentioned earlier, they don't give two shits what happens to you after you've slid out of a vagina, hopefully head first.

    Newborn Baby charged with the willful murder of its fetal twin.

    No jury in the world is going to convict a baby.

    Yet...

    @Sticks

    Sorry, but that owl is just so adorable! I can watch its petgasm all day.

    <3

  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    I do what I can for the good of all mankind.

    It's a difficult cross to bear, but dammit it has to be done.

    owl-sig.jpg
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    VeritasVR wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Let's also not ignore fetuses that abort themselves too, where do they fit in to the GOP worldview where right to birth exists? I feel we should change this to right to birth instead of right to life, because, as someone mentioned earlier, they don't give two shits what happens to you after you've slid out of a vagina, hopefully head first.

    Newborn Baby charged with the willful murder of its fetal twin.

    No jury in the world is going to convict a baby.

    Was the baby wearing a hoodie?

    Listen - honest, hardworking americans need Stand Your Uterus laws to protect themselves.

    KalTorak on
  • LorekLorek Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    I'm not talking about thought-crime; I'm talking about using the definition of 'when did she become pregnant' for things like banning contraception and punishing pregnant women for supposedly endangering their babies. Arizona is enacting a legal definition of pregnancy. Legal definitions of things don't always map real-world, common definitions.

    So your position is what? That this will be used on any sort of scale to prosecute women for using contraception or endangering their unborn children? You think they have the resources to devote to something that trivial? They just let a half dozen people off for DUI arrests in my county because they were too backed up to get them handled in a timely fashion.

    The idea that a prosecutor is going to take the time to bring charges against someone for doing drugs "that one time" because she endangered the kid she hasn't even had yet is fucking stupid. If that were the case, why aren't we seeing an epidemic of these sorts of arrests now? The only thing this bill does (besides being illogical) is extend the period that a woman is considered pregnant by up to two weeks. Were the over-zealous prosecutors just biding their time till this window opened up before they began their spree of convictions? The only cases I've ever seen with regard to endangering an unborn child are with chronic drug abusers who almost certainly would be guilty of abusing said drugs after conception as well.

    I think the problem is less prosecutors going out and charging people with JUST this, but that its just a few more extraneous charges we may be able to throw at you when you get arrested for something real. A tactic prosecutors sometimes use is to charge you with everything under the sun they can get away with in order to pressure you to plea bargain. If they can get a few more years in jail for child endangerment or something, that just makes it all the more riskier for the accused to take it to trial.

    steam_sig.png
  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    Lorek wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    I'm not talking about thought-crime; I'm talking about using the definition of 'when did she become pregnant' for things like banning contraception and punishing pregnant women for supposedly endangering their babies. Arizona is enacting a legal definition of pregnancy. Legal definitions of things don't always map real-world, common definitions.

    So your position is what? That this will be used on any sort of scale to prosecute women for using contraception or endangering their unborn children? You think they have the resources to devote to something that trivial? They just let a half dozen people off for DUI arrests in my county because they were too backed up to get them handled in a timely fashion.

    The idea that a prosecutor is going to take the time to bring charges against someone for doing drugs "that one time" because she endangered the kid she hasn't even had yet is fucking stupid. If that were the case, why aren't we seeing an epidemic of these sorts of arrests now? The only thing this bill does (besides being illogical) is extend the period that a woman is considered pregnant by up to two weeks. Were the over-zealous prosecutors just biding their time till this window opened up before they began their spree of convictions? The only cases I've ever seen with regard to endangering an unborn child are with chronic drug abusers who almost certainly would be guilty of abusing said drugs after conception as well.

    I think the problem is less prosecutors going out and charging people with JUST this, but that its just a few more extraneous charges we may be able to throw at you when you get arrested for something real. A tactic prosecutors sometimes use is to charge you with everything under the sun they can get away with in order to pressure you to plea bargain. If they can get a few more years in jail for child endangerment or something, that just makes it all the more riskier for the accused to take it to trial.

    Which is plausible, definitely. I guess I don't see much of a reason to make a stink about it though because of a) how small the window is (which will directly correlate with the number of cases where such a charge is even feasible), and b) how many other charges they probably have at their disposal for this sort of tactic.

    I don't know the answer to this, but is it even illegal to "endanger" a child if you weren't aware you were pregnant? Obviously this would only apply in cases where the mother was the one being charged (as opposed to, say, someone who assaulted her), but it doesn't seem reasonable. It would be expecting any woman who has had sex but has yet to confirmed that she is NOT pregnant to be behaving as though she were with regard to the things she puts in her body and the risks she takes...

    owl-sig.jpg
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    Lorek wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    I'm not talking about thought-crime; I'm talking about using the definition of 'when did she become pregnant' for things like banning contraception and punishing pregnant women for supposedly endangering their babies. Arizona is enacting a legal definition of pregnancy. Legal definitions of things don't always map real-world, common definitions.

    So your position is what? That this will be used on any sort of scale to prosecute women for using contraception or endangering their unborn children? You think they have the resources to devote to something that trivial? They just let a half dozen people off for DUI arrests in my county because they were too backed up to get them handled in a timely fashion.

    The idea that a prosecutor is going to take the time to bring charges against someone for doing drugs "that one time" because she endangered the kid she hasn't even had yet is fucking stupid. If that were the case, why aren't we seeing an epidemic of these sorts of arrests now? The only thing this bill does (besides being illogical) is extend the period that a woman is considered pregnant by up to two weeks. Were the over-zealous prosecutors just biding their time till this window opened up before they began their spree of convictions? The only cases I've ever seen with regard to endangering an unborn child are with chronic drug abusers who almost certainly would be guilty of abusing said drugs after conception as well.

    I think the problem is less prosecutors going out and charging people with JUST this, but that its just a few more extraneous charges we may be able to throw at you when you get arrested for something real. A tactic prosecutors sometimes use is to charge you with everything under the sun they can get away with in order to pressure you to plea bargain. If they can get a few more years in jail for child endangerment or something, that just makes it all the more riskier for the accused to take it to trial.

    All this talk about drug use while pregnant resulting in prison time seemed wrong to me (in that the statements seemed factually incorrect, although thats not to say I think pregnant women should ignore the health of the thing growing inside of them) so I did a quick google and found this website which basically says the only state with statutory criminal charges for drug use during pregnancy is Texas and its for marijuana and its punishment is 2-20 years what the fuck, but some states take into consideration prenatal drug use when determining whether to remove the child/end parental custody, and this pdf which I didnt read all the way because its long and I dont totally care which says that 31 states have used child welfare laws to charge women for using drugs while pregnant but most of the cases plea out (and in 21 out of 22 states in which the convictions have been challenged the convictions have been reversed). Basically this is just another reason why you shouldnt do shit without a lawyer.

    camo_sig2.png
  • SticksSticks Registered User regular
    Good info, thanks.

    owl-sig.jpg
  • AurichAurich Registered User regular
    I put off clicking on this for awhile, and shame had something to do with it. But.. LOOK. OKAY? SRSLY.. We don't even like Phoenix. Eff those guys.

    Anyway, it was pretty obvious to me on first reading that it was a matter of applying a standard to something difficult to precisely measure. If anything, I would ridicule whichever pro-lifers might consider this a win for their camp.

  • thatassemblyguythatassemblyguy Registered User regular
    Ah, so for those of you hoping that the bill wouldn't pass. It was passed today 37-22. :(

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Of course the right would then say, in hyperbole, that we can extend abortions to humans that were born as they're not cognitive yet. As if that makes sense. Of course it's a ploy, even sarcastically agreeing with that would make you a monster. But it doesn't matter, they've got you.

    I have a pretty easy response to this.

    "I arbitrarily extend special privilege to an infant that has been fully carried to term, partly because of the extra impact the child has at that point on the mother & father, partly because I feel it is the right thing to do."

    Sometimes, laws have to make arbitrary exceptions & approximations in order to protect the vulnerable (laws against statutory rape / child predation are a good example: we set an arbitrary age of 18 for sexual consent in order to protect minors from paedophiles, even though we know the law isn't perfect, because it does it's job well enough). In the case of a pregnant mother, it seems most ethical to consider her to be the vulnerable entity; after the infant is born, it seems most ethical to consider it to be the vulnerable entity.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • thatassemblyguythatassemblyguy Registered User regular
    Also, funny side note that ran across the news ticker; some dude in the 'Zona is trying to pass an initiative to 'allow' Arizona voters veto power over the federal government.

    Awesome, that state is like Arkansas circa 1957.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Also, funny side note that ran across the news ticker; some dude in the 'Zona is trying to pass an initiative to 'allow' Arizona voters veto power over the federal government.

    Awesome, that state is like Arkansas circa 1957.

    BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Well, maybe---

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Good luck with that, you dehydrated morons.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • thatassemblyguythatassemblyguy Registered User regular
    Also, funny side note that ran across the news ticker; some dude in the 'Zona is trying to pass an initiative to 'allow' Arizona voters veto power over the federal government.

    Awesome, that state is like Arkansas circa 1957.

    BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Well, maybe---

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Good luck with that, you dehydrated morons.

    It's so silly. You know that the voters in Arizona will approve the ballot initiative, and it'll become state law, then the federal government will sue, and waste a ton of money on lawyering that didn't need to be done.

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    Sometimes as a Californian I feel bad about taking all that water from Arizona. Sometimes.

    Maybe we should let them have more? They seem to be operating in a dehydration induced delusional state.

    camo_sig2.png
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    They put all their drinking water in their lawns, as to have grass in the middle of a desert

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    Sometimes as a Californian I feel bad about taking all that water from Arizona. Sometimes.

    Maybe we should let them have more? They seem to be operating in a dehydration induced delusional state.

    Sometimes it's best to just let the evil millionaire's plan take its course.

    NoahCross.jpg

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    They put all their drinking water in their lawns, as to have grass in the middle of a desert

    That makes as much sense as anything else in this thread.

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    They put all their drinking water in their lawns, as to have grass in the middle of a desert

    As someone who lives in SoCal, all I can say is hey, hey, we have a god given right to green lawns even if we're in the middle of a fucking desert. But then again I guess we're taking most of it so we probably have water to spare (according to wikipedia, Arizona only gets 4% of the water from the Colorado river; suckers).

    camo_sig2.png
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    emp123 wrote: »
    As someone who lives in SoCal, all I can say is hey, hey, we have a god given right to green lawns even if we're in the middle of a fucking desert.

    Wait...

    Isn't the fact that you're in a desert mostly entirely indicative that you completely lack that God given right? That God was all "lawns? Fuck that noise. SAND!"

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    emp123 wrote: »
    As someone who lives in SoCal, all I can say is hey, hey, we have a god given right to green lawns even if we're in the middle of a fucking desert.

    Wait...

    Isn't the fact that you're in a desert mostly entirely indicative that you completely lack that God given right? That God was all "lawns? Fuck that noise. SAND!"

    Nah man, god gave us irrigation and sprinklers. If he didnt want us to grow lawns in the desert surely he could smite our grass.

    camo_sig2.png
  • nalemnalem Registered User regular
    So technically, this will mean I'm pregnant until I'm pregnant? What?

    heirbannerblank.png
    Lighter than Heir- Military, drama, flying girls. 3 days a week.
  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    nalem wrote: »
    So technically, this will mean I'm pregnant until I'm pregnant? What?

    Yup.

    By default, women are pregnant.

  • thatassemblyguythatassemblyguy Registered User regular
    nalem wrote: »
    So technically, this will mean I'm pregnant until I'm pregnant? What?

    When in Arizona, yes; otherwise, no.

    Essentially, you've identified the logical fallacy of the bill that was passed. However, the point is moot (though it shouldn't be); it's likely the Arizona governor will sign it into law. Hopefully the ACLU in AZ isn't stretched too thin to file lawsuit on this one.

  • SicariiSicarii The Roose is Loose Registered User regular
    Ah, so for those of you hoping that the bill wouldn't pass. It was passed today 37-22. :(

    There is really no Repub sponsored bill that wouldn't pass in Arizona.

    Death to all Gays? 37-22
    Forced Christian conversions for all heathens? 37-22
    Free handjobs for the .1% ? 37-22

    gotsig.jpg
  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    _J_ wrote: »
    nalem wrote: »
    So technically, this will mean I'm pregnant until I'm pregnant? What?

    Yup.

    By default, women are pregnant.

    Maybe this is just an acceptance of the uterine quantum waveform? Shrodiengers ovaries?

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • TheBigEasyTheBigEasy Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Kagera wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    nalem wrote: »
    So technically, this will mean I'm pregnant until I'm pregnant? What?

    Yup.

    By default, women are pregnant.

    Maybe this is just an acceptance of the uterine quantum waveform? Shrodiengers ovaries?

    You are late by about 4 pages - the Schrödinger joke has been made in post 10 I believe :).

    Btw, this is just a state law, right? Federal laws would need to be introduced in Congress or something?

    TheBigEasy on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    In a rare bit of good AZ news, Sheriff Joe's former pet DA has been disbarred:

    http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/2012/04/10/thomas-aubuchon-stripped-of-their-legal-licenses/

    (does a happy hedgie dance)

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • a5ehrena5ehren Registered User regular
    Also, funny side note that ran across the news ticker; some dude in the 'Zona is trying to pass an initiative to 'allow' Arizona voters veto power over the federal government.

    Awesome, that state is like Arkansas circa 1957.

    BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Well, maybe---

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Good luck with that, you dehydrated morons.

    It's so silly. You know that the voters in Arizona will approve the ballot initiative, and it'll become state law, then the federal government will sue, and waste a ton of money on lawyering that didn't need to be done.

    You'd think the feds would just spend 5 minutes to write a nice, simple, brief. I will write it for them, even:
    Dear Judge (Insert name here):

    Cooper v. Aaron

    Sincerely,
    Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    TheBigEasy wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    nalem wrote: »
    So technically, this will mean I'm pregnant until I'm pregnant? What?

    Yup.

    By default, women are pregnant.

    Maybe this is just an acceptance of the uterine quantum waveform? Shrodiengers ovaries?

    You are late by about 4 pages - the Schrödinger joke has been made in post 10 I believe :).

    Btw, this is just a state law, right? Federal laws would need to be introduced in Congress or something?

    Not to pick on you, TBE, but this question show a big problem that lets morons like the ones in Arizona get away with pretty much murder.

    To answer your question, yes, this would just be a law in Arizona. A federal law would have to pass Congress and be signed by the President.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • TheBigEasyTheBigEasy Registered User regular
    TheBigEasy wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    nalem wrote: »
    So technically, this will mean I'm pregnant until I'm pregnant? What?

    Yup.

    By default, women are pregnant.

    Maybe this is just an acceptance of the uterine quantum waveform? Shrodiengers ovaries?

    You are late by about 4 pages - the Schrödinger joke has been made in post 10 I believe :).

    Btw, this is just a state law, right? Federal laws would need to be introduced in Congress or something?

    Not to pick on you, TBE, but this question show a big problem that lets morons like the ones in Arizona get away with pretty much murder.

    To answer your question, yes, this would just be a law in Arizona. A federal law would have to pass Congress and be signed by the President.

    Well, in my defense, I am not even American - so you can dismiss this question as me not knowing enough about your legal system :).

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    TheBigEasy wrote: »
    TheBigEasy wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    nalem wrote: »
    So technically, this will mean I'm pregnant until I'm pregnant? What?

    Yup.

    By default, women are pregnant.

    Maybe this is just an acceptance of the uterine quantum waveform? Shrodiengers ovaries?

    You are late by about 4 pages - the Schrödinger joke has been made in post 10 I believe :).

    Btw, this is just a state law, right? Federal laws would need to be introduced in Congress or something?

    Not to pick on you, TBE, but this question show a big problem that lets morons like the ones in Arizona get away with pretty much murder.

    To answer your question, yes, this would just be a law in Arizona. A federal law would have to pass Congress and be signed by the President.

    Well, in my defense, I am not even American - so you can dismiss this question as me not knowing enough about your legal system :).

    Fair enough, wasn't hold anything against you anyway :^:

    Lh96QHG.png
  • SliderSlider Registered User regular
    Do we have federal abortion laws or are states given authority over abortion rights?

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Slider wrote: »
    Do we have federal abortion laws or are states given authority over abortion rights?

    Yes.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    SCOTUS takes an "I know it when I see it" view on abortion ever since Gonzales v Carhart.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Sticks wrote: »
    I don't know the answer to this, but is it even illegal to "endanger" a child if you weren't aware you were pregnant? Obviously this would only apply in cases where the mother was the one being charged (as opposed to, say, someone who assaulted her), but it doesn't seem reasonable. It would be expecting any woman who has had sex but has yet to confirmed that she is NOT pregnant to be behaving as though she were with regard to the things she puts in her body and the risks she takes...

    "Knew or should have known". Hey, lady, you had sex without a condom and you were feeling a little nauseous, right? So you were reckless in having that six-pack.

    emp123, that website doesn't quite say what you suggest. It is talking about states that have laws specifically saying "if you use this drug WHILE PREGNANT it is a crime". That is very different from states which have laws about child endangerment and child abuse. It's illegal to give drugs to a minor, right? WELL YOUR BABY IS A MINOR KTHX.

    This and this talk about use of these laws to punish pregnant women for attempting suicide, for using drugs at any time (under laws that are intended to prevent, say, bringing a child into a meth lab), or for murder because they used drugs during pregnancy even when the drug use had nothing to do with a miscarriage.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    That's fucking outrageous

    Why are Republicans even trying to pass personhood? It appears they don't need it! How the hell is that woman still in jail

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Ann Arbor, MichiganRegistered User regular
    That's fucking outrageous

    Why are Republicans even trying to pass personhood? It appears they don't need it! How the hell is that woman still in jail

    So they can ban birth control.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    I'd love for the Republicans to ban birth control

    Their party may be hard to kill, but banning birth control would stab it, poison it, burn it, cut off its head, and run it through a mulching machine

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • Mild ConfusionMild Confusion Smash All Things Registered User regular
    Maybe they will make condoms bad and try abstinence only education again. Then wonder in 5 years why unplanned pregnancies and STD's have gone up 500%

    Probably democrats and liberals fault.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Maybe they will make condoms bad and try abstinence only education again. Then wonder in 5 years why unplanned pregnancies and STD's have gone up 500%

    Probably democrats and liberals fault.

    Tangentially related, Tennessee says that hand holding is a gateway drug to sex. So...

    Lh96QHG.png
Sign In or Register to comment.