Arizona bill declares women pregnant two weeks before conception

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
This is nothing but trying to take us back to the dark ages by having the state dictate to women what they'll do with their own bodies.

These psychos can try to regulate my body all they want, but if I don't want to have a kid, then by God I'm not going to have one. And if I don't want a parasite in my body, then I will get it out, no matter how much these control freaks want to scream about me being a baby murderer.

forced birth
forced prayer in school
outlaw contraception
outlaw gay anything
outlaw welfare
outlaw social security
outlaw medicare
outlaw food stamps
outlaw food and water regs.
outlaw nuclear regs
outlaw workplace regs
outlaw enviornmental regs
outlaw minumum wage
VOTE REPUBLICAN FOR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY!!!

Originally posted by ideasarebulletproof
endthelie.com...

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.” More at EndtheLie.com - EndtheLie.com...

wow. im pro-life, but this is one flippn' stretch that even I would not support

and how would a woman prove that and what about woman who have NO menstrual cycles, like athletes or those on BC that are not 100% affective?

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
That being said, I'm guessing the law attemtps at defining a time frame of gestation based on what is known-the woman's last period, rather than an unkown, the exact time of conception.

Actually, an ultrasound in the first few months will pretty definitively show what the exact age of the fetus is, within a few days, so if they're going to force women to undergo ultrasounds first anyways, it will be pretty hard to reconcile a LMP-conception age as 20 weeks when the ultrasound shows it to be 17weeks, 16, even just a few days old if the woman has irregular periods. Very few women have the standard 28-day cycle; that makes it even more of an "unknown" without an ultrasound.

Where are the folks who were running their yaps in the authoritarian environmentalism thread about this?

Just what the world needs, more people.

Anyone see Idiocracy? It is prophetic and exactly the way we're becoming.

Derek

I've never really understood this whole anti-abortion government push. It's a myth that if made illegal, abortions would not happen, they certainly did happen before Roe V Wade. Except instead of being in a doctor's office, abortions were done in the back of a dirty building that doubled as a tattoo parlor, presumably using unsafe or dirty tools. Where there's a will, there's a way.

So why not have abortions be federally regulated (allowed), so they can be done in a safe environment?

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by ideasarebulletproof
endthelie.com...

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.” More at EndtheLie.com - EndtheLie.com...

wow. im pro-life, but this is one flippn' stretch that even I would not support

and how would a woman prove that

and what about woman who have NO menstrual cycles, like athletes or those on BC that are not 100% affective?

Yea, I'm pro-choice, and I respect other peoples opinions on the matter and think discussing it rationally and civilly is a good thing.

But this? This far beyond the pale for any logical discussion.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by The Old American

 

Do you honestly feel it is sanity declaring a woman pregnant two weeks before conception?

Of course not. It's just stupid. But while hatred is stupid, stupid is not hatred. And I was answering to the stupid assumption that the right hates women.

/TOA

reply to post by The Old American


The right hate women, gays and minorities. That is a fact.

The right always have access to BS polls that show how minorities are the big bad boogeymen. The right are always the first to disagree with women rights..the right are always the first to agree against gay rights.

This is no lie and is well documented all over the net.

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
reply to post by The Old American

 

The right hate women, gays and minorities. That is a fact.

The right always have access to BS polls that show how minorities are the big bad boogeymen. The right are always the first to disagree with women rights..the right are always the first to agree against gay rights.

This is no lie and is well documented all over the net.

You have a different definition of "fact" than humans do. Facts are something that can be proven with data and evidence. Not conjecture and emotion.

But I'll certainly receive any data and evidence that you have from "all over the net" that people that consider themselves on the right are "always the first to disagree with women rights...are always the first agree against gay rights".

As to your first lie, that the right is "always the first to disagree with women's rights", Woodrow Wilson the Progressive Democrat president was famously against the right of women to vote. Alice Paul, the lead agitator in the American suffrage movement was thrown in jail for daring to protest his stance against suffrage. He only bowed to the pressure of 20 million possible voters in 1918, showing that it was politics, and not morality, that changed his mind and allowed the passage of the 19th Amendment.

Actually, I'm more to the right of the political spectrum than left, therefore I could be said to be on the right. I authored a pretty popular thread that supports gay marriage.

So your statement that the right "are always" the first to agree against gay rights, is a lie. Wow, you're 0-2. Not a great average there, pal.

/TOA

reply to post by MessOnTheFED!



This is pretty much right.. The eggs as they are called are suspended in replication from birth.. Until puberty when the eggs one by one (usually) will enter and be able to be fertilized..

Insanity.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck

 

Some people are just not cut out for parenting, especially someone who views an unborn child as a parasite. You make a great fit with Prez O who said teens should not be punished with babies. I'm thinking it's the other way around, babies should not be punished with uncaring parents.

Then you should support abortion 100%. Not only does it stop unfit parents but stops babies from growing up with parents who don't care about them. It is a win-win situation.