Talk about big, intrusive government entering into the private lives of citizens ...

From the party that supposedly supports small government. Though I prefer not to use the term big or small government as this implies other things than whether a law is intrusive or not and can confuse an issue. I tend to think of it as either a smart or dumb government. This would be an example of dumb government at work.

My opinion? As pro-choice within reason, i won't get into the whole should we (and by we, i mean the world, not America) have abortion debate - but i believe life does begin before the baby is born.

Yes I agree life does begin before birth. We should not confuse the coming into existence of a lifeform with the coming into existence of that lifeforms consciousness and personhood.

Though this law jumps the gun on all of it.

it's only the state of arizona, and stuff like this only happens when people with hard-lined stances take power.

Both negative and positive laws being passed in one place can impact laws elsewhere. I can influence the decision making of other states.
Let's say this gets through. Someone with a similar agenda to those who wanted this through will see what they could get away with and try something similar, where they might not otherwise if it was shot down.

@partydevil- America is filled with a lot of people who share views just as asinine, but so does the rest of the world. it is one thing to insult the view, but it is completely different to stereotype people just because they live in an area that has expressed this view, even when their views might be the exact opposite of the stereotypical opinion.

do you deny that every month atleast 1 (sometimes even 3) stupid bill(s) or something alike comes from the usa government?
about a week ago we also had 1. i skipped on that 1 because another will follow. and tbh. i didn't really went into this 1 either. it's just to stupid. i only made 2 short posts.

as for stereotyping. yep, i did that here. (stereotypes are funny, i bet you all have been using them)
anyway i know that there are rational people in the usa.
but a big amount also isn't. it's all just a big mess down there.

as for stereotyping. yep, i did that here.

i checked. and i didn't in this topic. xD
this should be in that other topic where i did. haha

As entertaining as the We hate America/ America is amazing argument is, make a new thread about it.

Yes I agree life does begin before birth. We should not confuse the coming into existence of a lifeform with the coming into existence of that lifeforms consciousness and personhood.

^ This.

Have they gave like specific reasoning for this bill: Have they addressed the whole virgin argument, ha?

its not an argument IF life begins at conception, IT DOES.

its not an argument IF life begins at conception, IT DOES.

Do you care to expand? I mean i agree, but i can see why others argue it begins later.

its not an argument IF life begins at conception, IT DOES.

There's an important difference between varying stages. Up to a point, a "baby" is just a parasitic mass of cells, non-thinking and unable to survive outside of the mother's body. Yes, it likely would eventually grow, but until that point it's a part of the mother's body.

Anyways yes, this attempted law is ridiculous. Hopefully it will be shot down in a fiery mess and the people trying to push it through won't get re-elected.

There's an important difference between varying stages. Up to a point, a "baby" is just a parasitic mass of cells, non-thinking and unable to survive outside of the mother's body. Yes, it likely would eventually grow, but until that point it's a part of the mother's body.

Does this mean you dismiss life in other things?

Since the exact date of conception cannot be known in most cases, there are two different terminologies: x weeks p.m. (post menstruationem) and x weeks p.c. (post conceptionem). Both qualify the length of a pregnancy; birth occurs 38 weeks p.c. or 40 weeks p.m.. They take into account the roughly two weeks between the last menstruation and conception.

However this is only terminology, and one can be converted into the other without problem. My guess is that they used this terminology to adapt the laws the way that suits them best, even though I'm sure they lack any sound reason for why they'd do that.

its not an argument IF life begins at conception, IT DOES.

I disagree. I don't see what characteristic of the zygote makes it a living being compared to the gametes. I don't think life 'starts' at any time, I just think the individual comes into existence at a certain point, and that point is not conception. More likely the point where the nervous system and thus the consciousness is built.

Does this mean you dismiss life in other things?

No, but I see it as a valid reason to allow a mother to choose if an abortion is the best option for her and not stonewall all her options and force her to carry the baby to term no matter what.

This doesn't mean I advocate going around killing every non-sentient/growing organism you can find, or having an abortion just to have an abortion.