for those of you who don't know, the state of arizona has been voting on something that I find not only quite foolish, but also quite oppressive to women. you've heard of the notion "life begins at conception", but meet its retarded cousin "life begins 2 weeks before conception." I don't know about you, but this clearly infringes upon womens rights (especially with this little quote "if the woman isn't muenstrating, then she is considered pregnant".
now for my questions to you, do you think this state bill is justified? what is your belief as to when life begins?
I myself believe that the first brainwave is when something is considered alive.
I'm not an idiot. I know that America is not particularly liked outside our borders. However, in any thread that has a single thing to do about America, partydevil shows up with comments like "how much more stupid can america get," or, "what do you expect from the stupidest country on earth?" It's rude, uncalled for by the OP, and if he continues on this track I will continue to respond in turn.
Hey, if you don't like him doing it there's plenty of us here that hate the US equally, so we can exchange if you want us to do so.
So, what they're basically telling us is that they think even virgins are pregnant?
First of all, i hope you can all imagine the shock i got when i logged into AG today for a wee bit of gaming and forum creeping only to learn that i am in fact pregnant. I swear, AG should come with a warning label. Pregnant. I'm going to have a tough time explaining this one.
Do i think the bill is stupid? Of course i do. If a woman is pregnant before conception, this technically means virgins can be pregnant? Now this just doesn't make sense.
Do i think it will pass? No. Because it's scientifically incorrect.
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.
I chose this one because I am sick of people deciding they can enforce their political and religious views on others. I hate those who don't take into consideration the opinions of everyone. I know that this bill is terribly offensive, and controversial, but this is what happens when you elect an official who takes his beliefs fundamentally. this is a major problem when separation of church and state is only interpreted loosely.
@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.
Talk about big, intrusive government entering into the private lives of citizens ...
it's only the state of arizona, and stuff like this only happens when people with hard-lined stances take power.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
