It’s in more than one state which has a Republican majority (no conspiracy thinking here) but Arizona (rhymes with “looney”) has passed the law declaring that life begins officially after the menses that predates the conception. So we’re all conceivably two-weeks older than we thought, at least in Arizona. Does this mean that women are officially considered pregnant for at least 28 days? I see a new Guiness record: a woman in Arizona was pregnant 12 times in just one year … in fact, there are two million women now trying to get their name in the Guiness Book of World Records for the very same feat.
And think of all the unwed mothers roaming around Arizona (and especially congregating at ASU). When should they register at Planned Parenthood for pre-natal care? Or did Arizona already throw Planned Parenthood out of the state? I expect the demands in the emergency rooms are going to be horrendous: what if every woman in the state rushes in for pre-natal care after each and every period she has? I suppose all the girls at ASU are going to call their mothers and cry big tears every month and then followup with a ‘never-mind’ a couple of weeks later (they do that now? But not all of them, right?).
But I was wondering why Arizona is only considering the almost-maybe-could be quickening of life as it pertains to the female? Oklahoma had that bill that would have made it illegal to deposit sperm in anything other than the Rick Santorum Approved Vessel, but that might have been a ruse to expose the male dominated legislation to ridicule via quid pro quo. In Arizona if conception is defined as existing at the point it becomes possible for a woman to conceive, doesn’t that suggest that any form of masturbation or mis-placed deposit on the part of the male might be considered withholding life … maybe even murder? If I remember correctly, only god should be doing that.
My brain hurts. Good thing I’m old.
9 thoughts on “Life Begins When?”
First, we are talking about the good ole USA laws here and the global definitions of birth do not concern me. Even bringing something like that up is nothing more than an attempt to muddy the issue.
As far as the whole religious argument you made, you ending was nonsensical. According to what you say, good Christians are not to be involved in public policy making because God will judge. That is prima facie idiotic.
God will judge in the end. We, however, are not talking about moral judgement, are we?
If we are talking about legal issues, I again point to arbitrariness and ask how any law can be applied judiciously when the points of the law itself are based on the shifting sands of conveniently changing definitions?
If we ARE talking morality and religion, then I would instruct you that GOD instituted human government as a reflection of His justice and the responsibility of that government was to uphold HIS law, one of which required the death of anyone who caused the death of an unborn child.
Lastly, regarding your accusation that I am inserting arbitrariness, I said, “If you see a woman abusing an infant in a store…”…you said, “…who decides that a parent is mistreating a child.” Are you advocating that a woman “abusing” a child in a store is a matter of interpretation? I would imagine so..sometimes it is abuse..sometimes not…sometimes premature unnatural termination of a pregnancy is ok (after all, it IS the woman’s body and, well, if she doesn’t want to stretch it our of shape….) and sometimes the premature unnatural termination of a pregnancy is murder.
Isn’t moral relativism wonderful?
Abortion is a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor. All other arguments, especially those arising from the perpetuation of primitive myths, have no relevance.
I agree. It should be based on science, not arbitrary points like 2 weeks before conception. Equally, quickening and viability are arbitray, and the end of the first trimester is arbitrary as well, since there is no scientific benchmark at 12 weeks.
There should be no arbitrariness like “feelings” wherein because a woman loves the result of her conception, it is a “baby”. If she doesn’t love it, it is a “fetus.” That in itself wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t that the arbitrariness of the decision has impact on other people. If something happens to a woman that causes her to lose her unborn “baby”, the person causing the injury accidentally can go to jail. People kill “fetuses” on purpose every day.
Anything not arising from science should be discounted.
Those states requiring women seeking abortions to watch ultrasounds of their “fetuses”…that is based on science. What do you think about that?
An abortion is a medical procedure between a woman and her doctor. If the doctor feels an ultrasound is needed, the woman can consider the procedure. If the doctor insists, the woman can find another doctor.
Neither I nor the government has any business telling a woman how to run her life or what to do with her body. I don’t discount anything outside science: a woman can sleep under a pyramid and draw pentangles on her swelling belly for all I care: it’s not my business.
That might be okay if it were just her body we are talking about. The only two non-arbitrary point are conception and birth. Any argument that supports abortion but does not allow for it up until the moment of birth is not philosophically or ethically consistent and is merely an attempt to continue with sexually irresponsible behavior in most cases while still acknowledging that society considers late term unacceptble. People who support abortion have no reasoning in science, and those who say it is merely a woman’s issue are abbrogating their responsibility. If you see a woman abusing an infant in a store, does society have a responsibility to intervene? Some people see the difference in personhood and value between an unborn baby and a newborn baby as nothing more than a matter of timing.
Last response, for now. First, as attested to by all these new laws, the legal definition of conception is arbitrary and if you review global customs and not just christian customs, you might find that the definition of birth is a bit more complex and therefore might be considered as arbitrary as conception.
Whenever you turn to an argument that relies on human opinion (who decides that a parent is mistreating a child) you are bringing arbitrariness into the forefront of the argument.
I believe it is the christian god that made it clear: “We are not to make up our own rules and commandments. We are not to make up our own definition of doing God’s will.” If a woman having an abortion is a concern, aren’t christians taught to leave judgment to god?
Of course, if there is no god, then the point is moot.
It is interesting that you are commenting on the apparently contortionist extent to which some people will go to prevent abortion. It is reminiscent of tortuous stretches the liberals made in the early 60’s to link the pro-abortion movement with Civil Rights by telling people if they did not support abortion, they were “forcing” women into “back alley” abortions. It was commonly known that the overwhelming majority of abortion were performed by family physicians in sterile conditions. It was BS to serve a political point. Read Celeste Condit Railsback and learn your history.
What’s the matter? Doesn’t taste so good when on the other end of the spoon?
If you believe that conception occurs two weeks before coitus, then who am I to argue.
I am not saying I agree with that. I am saying that making extreme unsubstantiated assumptions happen on both sides. I think it especially fuuny that it is happening now to stop an act, just as it was employed decades ago to start it.