Arizona and abortion : life doesn't start when you thought it did

[wushuangpu]

That is crazy

 

[The Halk]

Why do you have a weird referral shopping link there?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Pardon?

 

[The Halk]

I opened the broken image in a new tab and ended up at a popular internet retailer, having followed someone's referral link.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Not sure what you mean, do I need to edit something? Are you talking about the Huffington Post site or ..?

 

[Tummy]

Not sure what you mean, do I need to edit something? Are you talking about the Huffington Post site or ..?

No, fool.

Look, I'll remove part of the code.

[quote="wushuangpu, post: 21673570"]That is crazy[IMG]http://www.froco.info/g.gif[IMG][/QUOTE]

 

[The Halk]

I'm not meaning you, wushuangpu had a weird thing at the end of his post. It's gone now.

 

[Tummy]

I'm not meaning you, wushuangpu had a weird thing at the end of his post. It's gone now.

It's not 'gone' it just isn't appearing properly?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Ah ok. So, anyway : Arizona

 

[The Halk]

No, the broken image pic had stopped appearing in Chrome, however it's still in the post.

 

[Destination]

" pregnancies in the state begin two weeks before conception."

You're the boss, Arizona.

Actually in the uk, when working out due dates the folks use last day of previous menstural period as well.
We've used that method of dating things for a very very longtime.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Actually in the uk, when working out due dates the folks use last day of previous menstural period as well.
We've used that method of dating things for a very very longtime.

This is mentioned in the OP. This is not a medical call, more a judiciary call and how best placed are they to make that call?

 

[elmarko]

That its stupid.

For once I'm in total agreement with you.

On a side note,

"How-come when it's a human it's an abortion but when it's a chicken it's an omelet" - George Carlin.

 

[PapaLazaru]

" pregnancies in the state begin two weeks before conception."

You're the boss, Arizona.

This counts in this country as well, as pregnancy is classed as beginning since the time the female last menstruated.

 

[elmarko]

Oh, I get it, because they are republicans their beliefs don't count... of course.

This country FULLY supports religion as does america, I think religion is a complete joke, but many if not all religious groups consider abortion completely immoral. How can you complain about people having the choice to campaign for whatever they want..... AND the right for other people to campaign against it.

You are utterly wrong for one pretty key reason.

Republican are FREE TO NOT GET AN ABORTION - NOBODY IS FORCING THEM.

They are trying to FORCE none religious people to follow there belief system (that every ejaculation deserves a name).

If you can't see the difference between the two you are an idiot.

Easily. The religious right campaign for control of other people's lives and choices and freedoms.

This isn't an argument where one side says "You must abort" and the other says "You must not abort". This is an argument where one side says "I want to tell you what you can do with your own body" while the other says "You have no right to tell someone what they can do with their own body."

This pretty much.

 

[scrlk]

Oh, I get it, because they are republicans their beliefs don't count... of course.

This country FULLY supports religion as does america, I think religion is a complete joke, but many if not all religious groups consider abortion completely immoral. How can you complain about people having the choice to campaign for whatever they want..... AND the right for other people to campaign against it.

That is life, I love how certain people want freedom of speech, and the freedom to make change and campaign for whatever you want.... just as long as you agree with it.

The vast majority of republicans who campaign for this do so because, they believe a child is alive from conception and believe abortion is murder. If that is their belief I full support their right to stand up against abortion.

I'm completely opposed to their stance on abortion, I'm even more opposed to people suggesting they shouldn't be able to believe as they do, shouldn't be able to campaign, or that a state where a majority of people agree shouldn't be allowed to change such laws.

My views on abortion is pretty much that for as many people who should have abortions, there are as many others that abuse the right to have them. Have unprotected sex frequently and have multiple abortions because its easier, or those who find out they are having a girl and want a boy , etc, etc. But removing the right for others is just as bad. There won't be a good system till people take on some personal responsibilty, and likely till religion goes away.

Some parts of religion (Islam for example) allow abortion under certain circumstances.

 

[Castiel]

It think that as this thread seems to leading to the conclusion that it the fault of religion (when it is actually the flawed opinion of Arizona Lawmakers) it should be pointed out that there are many pro-life supporters that are not religious and that there are many 'choice' supporters that are.......

Sometimes it is simply the opinions of people and not some form of evil subversive indoctrination of religion that is manifested thus.

 

[semi-pro waster]

This counts in this country as well, as pregnancy is classed as beginning since the time the female last menstruated.

True enough but as it does also point out in the article if doctors can only give you a date within 10-14 days then why should the courts attempt to fix this more precisely?

The second bill seems even more dubious - I'd hope that all doctors would disclose information relating to issues that would affect the potential health of the child or the mother but to state that they're not responsible if they don't seems somewhat odd. That just seems to either give free reign to allowing their personal convictions regarding anti-abortionism to overrule their duty to their patients or alternatively be tantamount to encouraging medical negligence. Whichever way you splice it I don't think it adds anything particularly useful and in fact should be viewed as a retrograde step.

I can't say I'm totally keen on the third bill either based on the outline although perhaps that depends more on how it is handled.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

It think that as this thread seems to leading to the conclusion that it the fault of religion

Nope, going to have to stop you there. Not the intention and not the end destination aim.

(when it is actually the flawed opinion of Arizona Lawmakers) it should be pointed out that there are many pro-life supporters that are not religious and that there are many 'choice' supporters that are.......

Sometimes it is simply the opinions of people and not some form of evil subversive indoctrination of religion that is manifested thus.

Fair comment and will be addressed as soon as I've eaten

 

[elmarko]

It think that as this thread seems to leading to the conclusion that it the fault of religion (when it is actually the flawed opinion of Arizona Lawmakers) it should be pointed out that there are many pro-life supporters that are not religious and that there are many 'choice' supporters that are.......

Sometimes it is simply the opinions of people and not some form of evil subversive indoctrination of religion that is manifested thus.

True & while it's a good point - we just can't ignore the influence religion has on these issues (just because we have people from both camps who are irreligious).

But I do agree, people holding that belief is fine & that alone isn't the cause of the problem - the law should never bend to the will of any individual group which wishes to push it's subjective viewpoints onto others.

Christians are free to believe that fertilised eggs are people as much as they like - but my problem with them begins when they start trying to force none-believers to follow whatever delusion they choose to accept.