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.
Donnicton
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
http://rt.com/usa/news/arizona-bill-conception-abortion-387/
This is so mind-bogglingly stupid that I think I gave myself Cancer just trying to figure it out.
This is so mind-bogglingly stupid that I think I gave myself Cancer just trying to figure it out.
A new bill up for vote in the state of Arizona would ban abortions for some expectant mothers, but that’s only the start of what lawmakers have in store. If the legislation passes, the state will consider a child to exist even before conception.
Under Arizona’s H.B. 2036, the state would recognize the start of the unborn child’s life to be the first day of its mother’s last menstrual period. The legislation is being proposed so that lawmakers can outlaw abortions on fetuses past the age of 20-weeks, but the verbiage its authors use to construct a time cycle for the baby would mean that the start of the child's life could very well occur up to two weeks before the mother and father even ponder procreating.
On page eight of the proposed amendment to H.B. 2036, lawmakers lay out the “gestational age” of the child to be “calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman,” and from there, outlaws abortion “if the probable gestational age of [the] unborn child has been determined to be at least twenty weeks.”
The architects of the amendment say that prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks — except in cases of medical emergency — is necessary for the safety of both mother and child. By designating a life to begin weeks before even possible, however, some critics are condemning Arizona lawmakers for looking for a way to involve itself in abortion matters before it can even become an issue.
“Certainly, they are trying move the gestational cutoff from what had been over the last two years a 20-week gestational cutoff to an 18-week gestational cutoff,” Guttmacher Institute’s State Issues Manager Elizabeth Nash tells Raw Story. “At the same time, they are trying to say, ‘Oh, this is a 20-week abortion ban.’ And they get away with that with the definition of gestational age that’s in the bill.”
“Considering that it’s anti-choice nuts we’re talking about, it’s safe to assume that they’d simply prefer a situation where all women of reproductive age are considered to be pregnant, on the grounds that they could be two weeks from now,” RH Reality Check’s Amanda Marcotte adds in a recently-penned editorial. “Better safe than sorry, especially if that mentality means you get to exert maximum control over the bodies of women of reproductive age.”
In extending her support for the legislation, however, sponsor Nancy Barto, a Republican senator representing the Phoenix, Arizona area says that fetuses are able to feel pain after the 20-week mark. Also favoring the proposal, Senator Steve Smith (R-Maricopa) adds that lawmakers also need to consider “the 50 million-plus children who have been killed” since the US Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v Wade.
"I would like to listen to the 50 million-plus children that have been aborted and killed since Roe v. Wade,'' the senator says."I would like to listen to what they think of this bill.''
Mother Jones adds in their own reporting, however, that while the law could be explained as an effort to deter complications that come from late-term abortions, opening up the window for the gestational age to begin before conception can hurt the parents in the long run. Essentially the act would outlaw abortion after 18 weeks, not 20 as the legislation claims, which could keep some concerned parents from making a decision about pregnancy before some medical procedures that gauge the health of the child are able to be determined. While some tests can be conducted soon after conception to catch potential life-threatening conditions and other impairments, outlawing abortions after the eighteenth week could keep parents from opting for abortion after other tests can be carried out (before the 20-week mark).
H.B. 2036 passed in the Arizona Senator by 20-to-10 and will soon go before the state’s House. To Raw Story, Elizabeth Nash says she believes the bill has a “very good chances of passage.”
Posts
That fact about stages of testing makes me sad. These people aren't worried about quality of life for these children. Terrible.
Pokemon Black 2: 0519-5108-3139
I don't agree with them
but yeah, they'll take lower quality of life over death. that shouldn't surprise you.
Like, I get that if you want to create some stupid new restriction based on number of weeks pregnant, you need to set a date to start from. The policy is dumb, but I get the idea. But...man, talk to a biology teacher. But probably not one from Arizona. Get one from out of state.
So, Arizona has solved the problem of how to attach predicates to nothing: Ignorance.
But that way they don't get to shame you by asking about your period.
So, wait, on the first day after one's menstral peroid ends, a life begins?
Or, once an egg is fertilized, its life had begun prior to its being fertilized?
...what?
PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
Also on PSN: twobadcats
They probably spend all of their time and money trying to improve the first 5 miles that don't exist.
Oh my god yes. :^:
PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
When a woman's period starts, the life of her child begins...if the egg to be released after menstruation becomes a zygote. So, if there is a zygote, it existed...prior to being a zygote? How...what...how....
If an egg never becomes a zygote, then it never was a zygote.
If an egg becomes a zygote, then it already was a zygote when your last period started.
You're thinking too hard.
You left out "babyoven".
Cause for these people, women are just babyovens.
Think of it this way: only a crazy woman should be allowed to get an abortion
However, the fact that they're asking for an abortion rather than giving birth in Arizona proves they're not crazy
Therefore no woman in Arizona should be allowed to have an abortion
It's a Catch twenty-zygotes!
Fucking republicans...
Wait.
Wait.
"If an egg becomes a zygote, then it already was a zygote when your last period started." was already something medical doctors thought?
That was already an idea maintained by persons in the medical profession prior to this bill?!
But it is possible to know the last time she fucked.
Edit: Or, the first time she fucked after her period.
MDs are not idiots. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make them dumb.
Gestational age is useful, gives a predictable length of pregnancy (40 weeks, give or take a bit) and MOST IMPORTANTLY is something we can actually reliably determine so that everyone is using the same standard.
But it's metaphysically problematic to claim that something started gestating before it existed.
Edit: Which is what most people seem to take issue with in this legislation: Women are legally pregnant before they're pregnant.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Yeah...
It's just odd that when persons read this, the first thought was that this bill is discussing Schrodinger's fetus. And then he came in and said that all doctors talk in terms of Schrodinger's fetus.
That's a very odd thing for doctors to do.
I guess I forgot there are some crazy damn females in politics. This just blew my mind.
My Backloggery
It's not odd, it's just convention. It only becomes crazy-pants when you try to use it to define when life begins. It's like having a temperature scale that extends to below zero. That's perfectly fine until some dumbshit decides it's immoral to have negative heat based on his complete butchering of physical law and labels Antarctica some sort of thermodynamic Gomorrah.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
It's really weird isn't it? I guess it's the same as a latino person voting Republican. The party has an extremely clear anti-women anti-latino agenda and yet still hasn't lost total support from either demographic
I just sort of open my mouth and stuff comes out in some beautiful vomitus of metaphor.
Oh, and currently I just downed an especially large White Russian, so there's that.
(The White Russian was a drink, not a large albino from Moscow.)
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
And by "a place like this" I mean the antarctic circle, and by "what's comin to her" I mean hypothermia.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
I suppose in the GOP's defense, they are trying to eliminate this problem.
I figured it would be Soddom instead, because Antartica spends all it's time on the wrong of the centre-line.
Also cause there's penguins involved.
It's basically like the southern strategy. Exploit one aspect of ideology that people feel strongly about and you can get support from them for legislation that has a real negative impact against them.
With the southern strategy the GOP exploited racism, with Latinos they basically exploit religious conviction.