Nature and time doesn't factore into Arizona law

[Lorithad]

I remember hearing about this last week. At first I was like "wait, what the hell?"

But then, my thoughts went on to "she was pregnant before I slept with her! I'm not paying child support!"

[gcninja]

So wait, new plan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=932P5N1u4ew&t=0m3s
Tell me what you think

[RedNightmare]

I, for one, am deeply concerned about MEN'S health and safety. Anyone else? I mean, from what I've heard no one is passing medical laws on behalf of all the menfolk out there, and that doesn't seem fair. How can we, in good conscience, worry about the health and safety of half the population, while ignoring the health and safety of the other half?

I say we we find a way to recklessly endanger the lives of everyone who has a penis while taking away their voices in the matter, to be quite sure that we are looking after everyone equally.

Something like a state exam and if you don't ace it they chop of your... you know.

But what I really hate is that it doesn't stop abortion, it just closes that window for catching possible complications. They just shoot past a bad goal and hit a horrible one. (if I understand previous comments correctly)

[tamaness]

But what I really hate is that it doesn't stop abortion, it just closes that window for catching possible complications. They just shoot past a bad goal and hit a horrible one. (if I understand previous comments correctly)

That sounds like the great state of AARPizona.

[Smeghead]

So there is a bit more to this story that kind of give the law a bit more backing (doesn't make the over-all idea any less silly), as a person on another forum pointed out

This has always been the case, everywhere.

Look at this chart - note how it doesn't even list anything before the "two weeks" mark. That's how pregnancies are traditionally measured. It's pervasive enough that even when the exact date of conception is known, doctors slap on an extra two weeks on the official pregnancy count so it aligns with the numbers they know from their textbooks.

It's a consequence of people being retiscient to describe the exact circumstances of their, err, conception, and possibly not even knowing (if you have sex several days in a row, how do you know which you conceived from?). Timing by menstrual periods is easier.

[Dutch guy]

this does seem a little hard to enforce though. I mean, only the woman herself knows when the last day of her last menstrual cycle was. So she can, you know, LIE about it. All arizona women just suddenly had their menstrual cycle "jump" 2 weeks.

[leapy]

Wll it seems to be true: Religious fundamentalsim = stupidity.

Doesn't the US constitution have a clasue about seperation of church and state? Couldn't you argue that having an overtly Christian person in office is unconstitutational? Or better yet could we not ban this 2000 year old personality / acnestor worshiping cult?

New resolution, To shot "FUCK EM ALL" at the top of my lungs in a public place at least once a day.

[Master Gunner]

"Separation of Church and State" in the US refers to the First Amendment of their constitution, which prohibits the government passing legislation in favour of or prohibiting the exercise of religion (roughly), and also that no religious test is required for a position in public office. So legislation is not supposed to influence religion in the US, however there is nothing stopping it from happening the other way around, as religious belief is quite clearly influencing legislation in many areas.

[Lyinginbedmon]

The problem is that religious belief affects the mentality of the voters, who in turn support religious politicians and vote for laws in favour of their religious beliefs. So ultimately, if you have religion in your democratic nation, it will affect your legislature no matter how separate you keep church and state, and so eventually legislature will begin to affect your religion if you're not in the voting majority.

[Geoff_B]

But don't laws have a basis in religion anyway? Even don't murder and don't steal go right back to the beginning of the Old Testament. Otherwise, who decides whether or not it's right to murder, and what's to stop them changing their mind?

[Lyinginbedmon]

No, they predate it in fact. Even marriage as a legal institution is unrelated to religion, it's an issue of national census.

Consider for a moment: If everyone was legally allowed to go around murdering and stealing, how long would civilisation last? Murder is illegal because we all want to live (including the lawmakers), stealing is illegal because we all want stuff (including the lawmakers). In actuality, it's the reverse of what you claim, in that religion picks up on legal issues and tells its flock not to mess with them for the benefit of all involved.

[dackwards d]

The prohibition against killing is rooted in survival instinct, and rules against thievery are a logical progression of the concept of ownership. Though the specifics change, 'thou shalt not kill' predates a pair of tablets from the mountain top.

Oop, ninja'd by someone who words goodlier.

[Geoff_B]

You still haven't answered the question, who decided that murder and theft was wrong? I don't like the answer "national census". Last year the national census seemed to be that it was right to riot, loot and pillage in cities across the country.

[Lyinginbedmon]

No, it most certainly wasn't. If national consensus says to riot and loot, it's generally in the context of revolution.

Neither being an anthropologist or possessing absolute knowledge of human history, I obviously can't give you a name, place, or date, but it's clear that murdering our fellow man and stealing their things has been considered unwise since before we left Africa. It's a common thing amongst most group-based animals, don't piss off everyone else if you plan to stay around long.

It is not an understanding unique to our species and nor is it the trademarked product of religious thinking. And just because you don't like the answer does not magically make it not the answer.

[Geoff_B]

And yet isn't that essentially the basis of natural selection, the strong survive and the weak die? If you murder someone they were weak and deserved to die anyway while you as the stronger person survive. It's everywhere else in the animal kingdom so why is it different for us humans?

I'm not trying to be inflammatory and I certainly don't hold that belief, I'm just interested in what you have to say.

[Lyinginbedmon]

Yes, the strong survive and the weak die. If we work together, we have a better chance of survival. If someone damages our chances of survival, either by murdering others or stealing from them/us, we need to avoid that individual or otherwise eliminate them from competition. Those that co-operate are more useful to us, and we to them.

That's how our species, and most of our twig on the tree of life in fact, has survived. It's also not unique to our cluster of species, most fish travel in groups for safety and many other animals hunt in packs to take down larger prey.

Co-operation lets us survive, defeat, and adapt to greater challenges. It is from that evolved sense of co-operation that a great deal of our legal and moral basis springs.

[Tally]

I just want to quickly point out that just as a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist etc. holding public office will have religious beliefs that influence their ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, so too will an atheist or agnostic have beliefs (not religious ones, but still beliefs) that influence their ideas of right and wrong, good and bad.

I think it's less about not letting anyone religious make decisions, and more about not letting anyone insane make decisions. More seriously though, it seems more important to me that public officials put aside their personal feelings and beliefs to make decisions that are really and truly in the best interests of the most people. Easier said than done, obviously, and one person's idea of what is best for people does not necessarily match another person's idea of the same. Plus when militant religion (or non-religion) gets involved, critical, analytical thought is often the first thing to go out the window.

Still. I just wanted to point out that religious folks aren't the only ones who can have overly-strong opinions of their need to interfere in other people's business. It's more about someone's individual background, personality and level of sanity in my books. And their ability to LISTEN TO WHAT THE PUBLIC THAT ELECTED THEM ARE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR instead of doing some sort of "Daddy knows best, so just sit down and shut up" shit.

[Psyclone]

From the article Fayili linked:

Representatives of the Family Research Council, an anti-abortion organization, are not amused by the trend. "It sounds like they're mocking pro-life bills," said Jeanne Monahan, director of the council's Center for Human Dignity.

NO REALLY. Honestly, how these people actually graduated to become lawmakers is beyond me.

[tak197]

I just want to quickly point out that just as a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist etc. holding public office will have religious beliefs that influence their ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, so too will an atheist or agnostic have beliefs (not religious ones, but still beliefs) that influence their ideas of right and wrong, good and bad.

I think it's less about not letting anyone religious make decisions, and more about not letting anyone insane make decisions. More seriously though, it seems more important to me that public officials put aside their personal feelings and beliefs to make decisions that are really and truly in the best interests of the most people. Easier said than done, obviously, and one person's idea of what is best for people does not necessarily match another person's idea of the same. Plus when militant religion (or non-religion) gets involved, critical, analytical thought is often the first thing to go out the window.

Still. I just wanted to point out that religious folks aren't the only ones who can have overly-strong opinions of their need to interfere in other people's business. It's more about someone's individual background, personality and level of sanity in my books. And their ability to LISTEN TO WHAT THE PUBLIC THAT ELECTED THEM ARE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR instead of doing some sort of "Daddy knows best, so just sit down and shut up" shit.

Right now, I have to sit through all these primary election campaign ads for public office, and I have to say, what you just said is the angle that some are trying to take. It's kinda pathetic.

[2stepz]

So there is a bit more to this story that kind of give the law a bit more backing (doesn't make the over-all idea any less silly), as a person on another forum pointed out

This has always been the case, everywhere.

Look at this chart - note how it doesn't even list anything before the "two weeks" mark. That's how pregnancies are traditionally measured. It's pervasive enough that even when the exact date of conception is known, doctors slap on an extra two weeks on the official pregnancy count so it aligns with the numbers they know from their textbooks.

It's a consequence of people being retiscient to describe the exact circumstances of their, err, conception, and possibly not even knowing (if you have sex several days in a row, how do you know which you conceived from?). Timing by menstrual periods is easier.

That was going to be my point. That is the way the "weeks" of pregnancy has ALWAYS been calculated. This is NOTHING new.

Do I need to really point out how ridiculous it is that you're making a big deal about this? I'm getting really tired of these "Massive Scandals" you keep bringing up when you don't have ANY idea what you're talking about.

[Tally]

I just want to quickly point out that just as a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist etc. holding public office will have religious beliefs that influence their ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, so too will an atheist or agnostic have beliefs (not religious ones, but still beliefs) that influence their ideas of right and wrong, good and bad.

I think it's less about not letting anyone religious make decisions, and more about not letting anyone insane make decisions. More seriously though, it seems more important to me that public officials put aside their personal feelings and beliefs to make decisions that are really and truly in the best interests of the most people. Easier said than done, obviously, and one person's idea of what is best for people does not necessarily match another person's idea of the same. Plus when militant religion (or non-religion) gets involved, critical, analytical thought is often the first thing to go out the window.

Still. I just wanted to point out that religious folks aren't the only ones who can have overly-strong opinions of their need to interfere in other people's business. It's more about someone's individual background, personality and level of sanity in my books. And their ability to LISTEN TO WHAT THE PUBLIC THAT ELECTED THEM ARE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR instead of doing some sort of "Daddy knows best, so just sit down and shut up" shit.

Right now, I have to sit through all these primary election campaign ads for public office, and I have to say, what you just said is the angle that some are trying to take. It's kinda pathetic.

Sorry, I'm not following. They're saying "I'm religous but not crazy" or what? Or arguing that the non-religious candidates are crazy too? Either way, election ads are generally shitty and obnoxious.

I'm just trying to point out that "ban all the religious people from politics" is as bad an idea as "only put religious people in politics."

[Master Gunner]

Just a side note, here's a page from the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control that explains the difference between Gestational Age (which the Arizona bill defines) and Conceptual Age (which it does not appear to be defining).

So what appears to be happening in Arizona (as well as other states) is clarifying their late-abortion-bans (keeping in mind that only 1.5% of abortions occur after 20 weeks [Source]) refer to the gestational age of the fetus, instead of the conceptual age (which is used by the abortion laws of other states, such as South Carolina).

While this bill is unfortunate from a pro-choice point of view, from a legal perspective what it accomplishes is making the law even for everybody by setting a legal baseline that is free from ambiguity. One's opinions on the laws, bill, and issues at hand, this bill does appear to be setting just legal precedent (which is necessary), not medical or scientific precedent.

[Smeghead]

Do I need to really point out how ridiculous it is that you're making a big deal about this? I'm getting really tired of these "Massive Scandals" you keep bringing up when you don't have ANY idea what you're talking about.

No, a massive scandal would be something like the Iran-Contra deal, or members of congress taking bribes. I never claimed this to be a scandal, nor a big deal. Had I made a big deal out something I would have writen things in caps and not made jokes about it.

There is such a thing as taking news and making fun of it.
I mean how is this really any different then say the news in Feed Dump?
This week we had a story of a pilot that went into a steep dive to avoid an incomming plane that turned out to be the planet Venus. There was a resonable explination for it, but the whole story still sounds silly.

Yes, there is a "resonable" explination behind this story, but it still sounds silly.