Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
But the birthrate is only ~4-5million
I guess that's what abstinence only education gets you, but still. That is high.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Naral and planned parenthood don't seem to have issue with the numbers I just don't know the CDC said states reported 37.8 mil during 1973 and 2006 but that some years states didn't report numbers at all
The important rate is not so much the number of abortions as the rates per woman and per live birth. If you have a lot of abortions per live birth, then you have a lot of unwanted pregnancies.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I guess that's what abstinence only education gets you, but still. That is high.
That's exactly what I was thinking. If you have 2 and a half million abortions on average each year, with only 4 million births, you are doing it wrong.
The global statistics, whose source I do not quite recall but I got the numbers in lecture recently so they are pretty accurate, is that ~30-35% of women will have an abortion. This number is the same in every country where they track it, including countries where abortion is illegal, where abortion and birth control are illegal, and where everything is 100% legal. It doesn't matter if you make abortion illegal or not. It doesn't matter what the state or personal religion of the women is. All that does is force women to have illegal abortions, which kills more of them. Additionally, globablly 55-60% of pregnancies come to term and 40-45% do not. Of the ones which do not, half are miscarriages and half are abortions, so globally (and this is also true for every country in which it is measured) around 20% of pregnancies are terminated via abortion. This number is a little bit lower in countries with better access to contraception (best is free, state-funded contraception) because there are fewer unwanted pregnancies, but even that doesn't change it substantially.
Durandal, of course I know that. That is OK because it is contraception. The problem is women who menstruate less than ever 3 months are at risk for endometrial cancer because their endometrium builds up a whole lot over those 3 months and isn't shed via menstruation. The contraception (I assume you are specifically referring to depo provera) contains progesterone, which inhibits endometrial buildup and prevents this.
The global statistics, whose source I do not quite recall but I got the numbers in lecture recently so they are pretty accurate, is that ~30-35% of women will have an abortion. This number is the same in every country where they track it, including countries where abortion is illegal, where abortion and birth control are illegal, and where everything is 100% legal. It doesn't matter if you make abortion illegal or not. It doesn't matter what the state or personal religion of the women is. All that does is force women to have illegal abortions, which kills more of them. Additionally, globablly 55-60% of pregnancies come to term and 40-45% do not. Of the ones which do not, half are miscarriages and half are abortions, so globally (and this is also true for every country in which it is measured) around 20% of pregnancies are terminated via abortion. This number is a little bit lower in countries with better access to contraception (best is free, state-funded contraception) because there are fewer unwanted pregnancies, but even that doesn't change it substantially.
Durandal, of course I know that. That is OK because it is contraception. The problem is women who menstruate less than ever 3 months are at risk for endometrial cancer because their endometrium builds up a whole lot over those 3 months and isn't shed via menstruation. The contraception (I assume you are specifically referring to depo provera) contains progesterone, which inhibits endometrial buildup and prevents this.
Are there studies for population groups with ready access to contraceptives vs population groups with restricted access to contraceptives?
Having abortion as a perfectly acceptable option is a no-brainer to me, but for a variety of reasons I would think that preventing unwanted pregnancies would be the best option.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
I'm interested to see (though I know it's either unlikely or impossible) to see the reasons behind various abortions (IE, poor planning, rape, incest and so on). Not that I'd do it to judge anyone, just kind of curious to see where the numbers lie.
Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following as their primary reasons for choosing an abortion:[40]
25.9% Want to postpone childbearing
21.3% Cannot afford a baby
14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
7.9% Want no (more) children
3.3% Risk to fetal health
2.8% Risk to maternal health
2.1% Other
According to a 1987 study that included specific data about late abortions (i.e. abortions “at 16 or more weeks' gestation”),[41] women reported that various reasons contributed to their having a late abortion:
71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other.
In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.[42]
A 2004 study by the Guttmacher Institute reported that women listed the following amongst their reasons for choosing to have an abortion: [43]
74% Having a baby would dramatically change my life
73% Can’t afford a baby now
48% Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems
38% Have completed my childbearing
32% Not ready for a(nother) child
25% Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant
22% Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child
14% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion
13% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus
12% Concerns about my health
6% Parents want me to have an abortion
1% Was a victim of rape
less than 0.5% Became pregnant as a result of incest
The global statistics, whose source I do not quite recall but I got the numbers in lecture recently so they are pretty accurate, is that ~30-35% of women will have an abortion. This number is the same in every country where they track it, including countries where abortion is illegal, where abortion and birth control are illegal, and where everything is 100% legal. It doesn't matter if you make abortion illegal or not. It doesn't matter what the state or personal religion of the women is. All that does is force women to have illegal abortions, which kills more of them. Additionally, globablly 55-60% of pregnancies come to term and 40-45% do not. Of the ones which do not, half are miscarriages and half are abortions, so globally (and this is also true for every country in which it is measured) around 20% of pregnancies are terminated via abortion. This number is a little bit lower in countries with better access to contraception (best is free, state-funded contraception) because there are fewer unwanted pregnancies, but even that doesn't change it substantially.
While I wouldn't be shocked if those statistics were close to accurate, it's very hard to track illegal abortion and it's very hard to get accurate statistics in every country where you might track such things. (I doubt, for example, that China provides accurate statistics on forced abortions.) I would also be very surprised if abortion rates were exactly the same in every country - in Russia, IIRC, abortion was much more common than in the US at least until recently because it was culturally accepted as a method of birth control in a way it isn't here.
Certainly it's a lot more common and many more women have had abortions than some would like to believe.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I love hyperbole too, but honestly, either the she is pregnant or not. No one is going to get prosecuted for murdering a child that hasn't been conceived yet.
Your naive optimism is genuinely adorable.
What you're missing here is that the "since her last period" is (as psyck0 already mentioned) the way doctors determine gestational age of a fetus. Doctors do not think a woman was actually pregnant from her last period onward. They are trying to judge how far along the pregnancy is, and so they count milestones/dates/development from a point that is easier to determine than "when did you conceive." It's certainly true that some women may know when they conceived, but, how do I put this, there are actually women who have sex more than once during their fertile interval.
The problem is that this MEDICAL definition is being ported to a LEGAL definition. When did a woman become pregnant? Why, right after her last period stopped. Says so right here in the law, so that's the definition we must use.
Now, it's certainly true that this law isn't going to be used to prosecute a woman who was NEVER pregnant, or for killing a woman who was NEVER pregnant. But let's say (as has happened in plenty of places) that a prosecutor wants to go after a slutty slut slut who just had a baby for using cocaine when she was pregnant. There's evidence that she used cocaine right after her period. Huzzah, legally she was pregnant then!
Your determined pessimism is not adorable, however. Nor is your condescension.
I didn't quote it, but that comment was in reply to the "it'll be a thought crime if she decides not to get pregnant" comment. Might the law be abused to strengthen the punishment for a crime that was committed? Possibly. Depends on how good the defense lawyer is. Will it be used to throw people in jail because "hurr durr I can make this law say something that logically makes no sense therefore you are guilty of a crime"? No.
Last I checked, cocaine use isn't legal. If they can prove she was using it, she was in trouble anyway. How much trouble very much depends on circumstances and is pointless to discuss as a hypothetical.
"I would like to listen to the 50 million-plus children that have been aborted and killed since Roe v. Wade,'' the senator (Smith) says."I would like to listen to what they think of this bill.''
First, I'm glad this country doesn't have any additional 50 million children, Mr. Smith.
Second, is this even true?
"Nancy Barto, a Republican senator representing the Phoenix, Arizona area says that fetuses are able to feel pain after the 20-week mark."
I'm sure any cellular organism with a neural network (or any type of neurological system) can feel "pain" but the pain is much different than cognitive pain. It's just an electrical response to stimulus.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
Hm. I still can't see a reason why anyone would campaign on these types of things or try to get them passed.
You clearly don't know Arizona politics.
It's heavily fueled by pro-life, anti-immigrant, educationally backward hard liners. It has a population that skews towards older demographics than the rest of the US, due to a large influx of retirees each year (something it shares with Florida), and they eat this kind of stuff up.
Just look up the demographic breakdown of Maricopa County (besides Phoenix) and see the type of bat-guano logo stuff their officials support/pass. And that's not even touching on Sheriff Joe and his gang.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
You don't see the sense in saying "lets tone down the hyperbole"? Or are we talking about my response to mythago?
I don't think we had any particular need "to be honest" regarding the nature of the bill. Lolfundies is variously mockery, an expression of the ultimate aim to which this bill is of service and an argument ad absurdum regarding the enforcement and stated justification behind the bill.
Disturbingly it can be all three at once given Poe's law and the general level of crazy.
But all of this is a way of saying - I do not believe that anyone was taking the hyperbole at face value and question the need to "be honest".
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
"I would like to listen to the 50 million-plus children that have been aborted and killed since Roe v. Wade,'' the senator (Smith) says."I would like to listen to what they think of this bill.''
First, I'm glad this country doesn't have any additional 50 million children, Mr. Smith.
Second, is this even true?
"Nancy Barto, a Republican senator representing the Phoenix, Arizona area says that fetuses are able to feel pain after the 20-week mark."
The 50 million number seems to be a well sourced and supported number by both sides of the issue. As well as the fact that this number would most likely be roughly the same plus some dead women were abortion illegal.
You don't see the sense in saying "lets tone down the hyperbole"? Or are we talking about my response to mythago?
I don't think we had any particular need "to be honest" regarding the nature of the bill. Lolfundies is variously mockery, an expression of the ultimate aim to which this bill is of service and an argument ad absurdum regarding the enforcement and stated justification behind the bill.
Disturbingly it can be all three at once given Poe's law and the general level of crazy.
But all of this is a way of saying - I do not believe that anyone was taking the hyperbole at face value and question the need to "be honest".
Ok, but I would point out that literally every thread on this forum could be a lolfundies thread if we decided to take it there. At some point it just ceases to be interesting, and does a disservice to actual discussion. I don't for a second think anyone was taking those comments seriously, but it can be distracting past a certain point. When it becomes so, I'm going to say something. "To be honest," was an attempt to steer the discussion back into serious territory.
That doesn't mean you need to listen to me. I'm not a mod, and I'm not the "proper discussion police". What constitutes an acceptable level of hyperbole in a thread is, like, my opinion man.
More or less you can't not be hyperbolic when someone goes "we should make sure we record every woman's period so we know she isn't lying to us about her yet conceived baby." There is nowhere to go but "whatthefuclolfundies." There is no reasonable thought behind this, or anything tangential to rational discourse. You can't have a discussion about this because there exists no one that thinks like this outside of conserveochristofascist dumbfucks, which are a rarity.
No one even wants to play devil's advocate, that's how fucked up it is.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
"Nancy Barto, a Republican senator representing the Phoenix, Arizona area says that fetuses are able to feel pain after the 20-week mark."
It's pretty likely to be true; fetuses develop sensory function and organs relatively quickly.
Cognition of what is happening, which is what I think is important, doesn't happen until well after the fully developed baby is born.
So what's more painful? Being aborted or being born to parents who don't want you, or wanted you but can't feed you? I'll take the abortion. I'll take two.
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.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
So what's more painful? Being aborted or being born to parents who don't want you, or wanted you but can't feed you? I'll take the abortion. I'll take two.
You may have mistaken what I was saying; I think that, although it is likely that fetus has some sense that we might call pain, I don't have a problem with it being aborted because it has no cognition of it's surroundings. It's, in essence, the equivalent of someone in a vegetative state.
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.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
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.
So what's more painful? Being aborted or being born to parents who don't want you, or wanted you but can't feed you? I'll take the abortion. I'll take two.
You may have mistaken what I was saying; I think that, although it is likely that fetus has some sense that we might call pain, I don't have a problem with it being aborted because it has no cognition of it's surroundings. It's, in essence, the equivalent of someone in a vegetative state.
Your determined pessimism is not adorable, however. Nor is your condescension.
I didn't quote it, but that comment was in reply to the "it'll be a thought crime if she decides not to get pregnant" comment. Might the law be abused to strengthen the punishment for a crime that was committed? Possibly. Depends on how good the defense lawyer is. Will it be used to throw people in jail because "hurr durr I can make this law say something that logically makes no sense therefore you are guilty of a crime"? No.
Last I checked, cocaine use isn't legal. If they can prove she was using it, she was in trouble anyway. How much trouble very much depends on circumstances and is pointless to discuss as a hypothetical.
"But lawyers would never think of THAT! A prosecutor would never use the law like THAT!" is, indeed, optimistic, and I genuinely think it's very sweet that you cannot imagine anyone so vicious or ideological that they would abuse a law in that fashion. 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.
Certainly the *purpose* of the bill is to push back the cut-off date for abortion. I would bet money that a side purpose of the bill is to make it easier to ban things like the Pill that anti-choicers think kill babies. And whether or not it's the *intent*, you are gravely mistaken if you think a prosecutor who would find that law useful would go "Nah, that's just silly."
Re the cocaine example: if the only evidence of actual drug use the DA has is that Mom admits she snorted cocaine the week after her period, but swears on a stack of Necronomicons that she never touched it again - well, hey, legally she was pregnant then, so let's slap on charges of child endangerment and abuse, maybe that'll get a few more years on the plea bargain.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
"But lawyers would never think of THAT! A prosecutor would never use the law like THAT!" is, indeed, optimistic, and I genuinely think it's very sweet that you cannot imagine anyone so vicious or ideological that they would abuse a law in that fashion.
I don't know what you are trying to do here, but stop it. I'm not a child. I'm neither adorable nor sweet. Maybe my avatar is confusing you? If so, I hate to break it to you, but I'm not actually a tiny owl.
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.
Certainly the *purpose* of the bill is to push back the cut-off date for abortion. I would bet money that a side purpose of the bill is to make it easier to ban things like the Pill that anti-choicers think kill babies. And whether or not it's the *intent*, you are gravely mistaken if you think a prosecutor who would find that law useful would go "Nah, that's just silly."
I wouldn't bet against you on this being groundwork for future legislation, but that isn't what my original post was about nor any of your replies.
Re the cocaine example: if the only evidence of actual drug use the DA has is that Mom admits she snorted cocaine the week after her period, but swears on a stack of Necronomicons that she never touched it again - well, hey, legally she was pregnant then, so let's slap on charges of child endangerment and abuse, maybe that'll get a few more years on the plea bargain.
I really really do not want to debate a hypothetical court case with you. Based on what you've listed there, I don't even know why the police would have wasted time bringing her in, let alone the prosecutor deciding "I think I have enough to get a conviction, let's do this shit." If we had an actual court case to go on, I would be much more inclined to comment, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for one.
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.
The global statistics, whose source I do not quite recall but I got the numbers in lecture recently so they are pretty accurate, is that ~30-35% of women will have an abortion. This number is the same in every country where they track it, including countries where abortion is illegal, where abortion and birth control are illegal, and where everything is 100% legal. It doesn't matter if you make abortion illegal or not. It doesn't matter what the state or personal religion of the women is. All that does is force women to have illegal abortions, which kills more of them. Additionally, globablly 55-60% of pregnancies come to term and 40-45% do not. Of the ones which do not, half are miscarriages and half are abortions, so globally (and this is also true for every country in which it is measured) around 20% of pregnancies are terminated via abortion. This number is a little bit lower in countries with better access to contraception (best is free, state-funded contraception) because there are fewer unwanted pregnancies, but even that doesn't change it substantially.
While I wouldn't be shocked if those statistics were close to accurate, it's very hard to track illegal abortion and it's very hard to get accurate statistics in every country where you might track such things. (I doubt, for example, that China provides accurate statistics on forced abortions.) I would also be very surprised if abortion rates were exactly the same in every country - in Russia, IIRC, abortion was much more common than in the US at least until recently because it was culturally accepted as a method of birth control in a way it isn't here.
Certainly it's a lot more common and many more women have had abortions than some would like to believe.
My knowledge may be out of date, but it's worth noting that in Russia, pretty much every form of contraceptive is pretty widely available, and has been for decades (before Russia was an independent state certainly). Nowadays, there are financial issues certainly, but Russia, like almost all of its neighbors, has universal healthcare, which do cover contraception (unless that's been changed, which I really doubt). It probably has as much to do with the social stigma (or lack of it) of abortion and the whole of planned parenthood (diverse services included), compared to the US.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
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.
Posts
I guess that's what abstinence only education gets you, but still. That is high.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
That's exactly what I was thinking. If you have 2 and a half million abortions on average each year, with only 4 million births, you are doing it wrong.
Durandal, of course I know that. That is OK because it is contraception. The problem is women who menstruate less than ever 3 months are at risk for endometrial cancer because their endometrium builds up a whole lot over those 3 months and isn't shed via menstruation. The contraception (I assume you are specifically referring to depo provera) contains progesterone, which inhibits endometrial buildup and prevents this.
Are there studies for population groups with ready access to contraceptives vs population groups with restricted access to contraceptives?
Having abortion as a perfectly acceptable option is a no-brainer to me, but for a variety of reasons I would think that preventing unwanted pregnancies would be the best option.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
While I wouldn't be shocked if those statistics were close to accurate, it's very hard to track illegal abortion and it's very hard to get accurate statistics in every country where you might track such things. (I doubt, for example, that China provides accurate statistics on forced abortions.) I would also be very surprised if abortion rates were exactly the same in every country - in Russia, IIRC, abortion was much more common than in the US at least until recently because it was culturally accepted as a method of birth control in a way it isn't here.
Certainly it's a lot more common and many more women have had abortions than some would like to believe.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
http://www.who.int/pmnch/topics/maternal/20101124_unsafe_abortion/en/
Your determined pessimism is not adorable, however. Nor is your condescension.
I didn't quote it, but that comment was in reply to the "it'll be a thought crime if she decides not to get pregnant" comment. Might the law be abused to strengthen the punishment for a crime that was committed? Possibly. Depends on how good the defense lawyer is. Will it be used to throw people in jail because "hurr durr I can make this law say something that logically makes no sense therefore you are guilty of a crime"? No.
Last I checked, cocaine use isn't legal. If they can prove she was using it, she was in trouble anyway. How much trouble very much depends on circumstances and is pointless to discuss as a hypothetical.
What is the tangential reason for changing this? Are we hoping to shift abortions to two week earlier cut offs or something?
Yes. That is the only reason to change this.
Well there's the problem. And that's why eventually all women will have to have fertility check ups, for the safety of the future of the human race.
Hm. I still can't see a reason why anyone would campaign on these types of things or try to get them passed.
First, I'm glad this country doesn't have any additional 50 million children, Mr. Smith.
Second, is this even true?
"Nancy Barto, a Republican senator representing the Phoenix, Arizona area says that fetuses are able to feel pain after the 20-week mark."
You clearly don't know Arizona politics.
It's heavily fueled by pro-life, anti-immigrant, educationally backward hard liners. It has a population that skews towards older demographics than the rest of the US, due to a large influx of retirees each year (something it shares with Florida), and they eat this kind of stuff up.
Just look up the demographic breakdown of Maricopa County (besides Phoenix) and see the type of bat-guano logo stuff their officials support/pass. And that's not even touching on Sheriff Joe and his gang.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Disturbingly it can be all three at once given Poe's law and the general level of crazy.
But all of this is a way of saying - I do not believe that anyone was taking the hyperbole at face value and question the need to "be honest".
The 50 million number seems to be a well sourced and supported number by both sides of the issue. As well as the fact that this number would most likely be roughly the same plus some dead women were abortion illegal.
Ok, but I would point out that literally every thread on this forum could be a lolfundies thread if we decided to take it there. At some point it just ceases to be interesting, and does a disservice to actual discussion. I don't for a second think anyone was taking those comments seriously, but it can be distracting past a certain point. When it becomes so, I'm going to say something. "To be honest," was an attempt to steer the discussion back into serious territory.
That doesn't mean you need to listen to me. I'm not a mod, and I'm not the "proper discussion police". What constitutes an acceptable level of hyperbole in a thread is, like, my opinion man.
No one even wants to play devil's advocate, that's how fucked up it is.
It's pretty likely to be true; fetuses develop sensory function and organs relatively quickly.
Cognition of what is happening, which is what I think is important, doesn't happen until well after the fully developed baby is born.
So what's more painful? Being aborted or being born to parents who don't want you, or wanted you but can't feed you? I'll take the abortion. I'll take two.
You may have mistaken what I was saying; I think that, although it is likely that fetus has some sense that we might call pain, I don't have a problem with it being aborted because it has no cognition of it's surroundings. It's, in essence, the equivalent of someone in a vegetative state.
Newborn Baby charged with the willful murder of its fetal twin.
Naw, I wasn't directing that at you, and I agree.
"But lawyers would never think of THAT! A prosecutor would never use the law like THAT!" is, indeed, optimistic, and I genuinely think it's very sweet that you cannot imagine anyone so vicious or ideological that they would abuse a law in that fashion. 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.
Certainly the *purpose* of the bill is to push back the cut-off date for abortion. I would bet money that a side purpose of the bill is to make it easier to ban things like the Pill that anti-choicers think kill babies. And whether or not it's the *intent*, you are gravely mistaken if you think a prosecutor who would find that law useful would go "Nah, that's just silly."
Re the cocaine example: if the only evidence of actual drug use the DA has is that Mom admits she snorted cocaine the week after her period, but swears on a stack of Necronomicons that she never touched it again - well, hey, legally she was pregnant then, so let's slap on charges of child endangerment and abuse, maybe that'll get a few more years on the plea bargain.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I don't know what you are trying to do here, but stop it. I'm not a child. I'm neither adorable nor sweet. Maybe my avatar is confusing you? If so, I hate to break it to you, but I'm not actually a tiny owl.
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 wouldn't bet against you on this being groundwork for future legislation, but that isn't what my original post was about nor any of your replies.
I really really do not want to debate a hypothetical court case with you. Based on what you've listed there, I don't even know why the police would have wasted time bringing her in, let alone the prosecutor deciding "I think I have enough to get a conviction, let's do this shit." If we had an actual court case to go on, I would be much more inclined to comment, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for one.
No jury in the world is going to convict a baby.
Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
My knowledge may be out of date, but it's worth noting that in Russia, pretty much every form of contraceptive is pretty widely available, and has been for decades (before Russia was an independent state certainly). Nowadays, there are financial issues certainly, but Russia, like almost all of its neighbors, has universal healthcare, which do cover contraception (unless that's been changed, which I really doubt). It probably has as much to do with the social stigma (or lack of it) of abortion and the whole of planned parenthood (diverse services included), compared to the US.
Was the baby wearing a hoodie?