Life begins two weeks before conception - Reps.

silentbee said:
Um. I was confused by this when my wife was pregnant. The due dates -- from the gynae, phone apps, etc -- are worked out as nine months from when she last menstruated, which is two weeks before she ovulated and therefore at least two weeks before she could ever have been pregnant. There seems to be no way of knowing precisely when the fertilisation took place, so they do this instead. It's weird, but I think it's fairly standard practice. At least in my experience... *shrug*
Click to expand...

Seems like standard practice, see post#15.
 
Pregnant before you're pregnant O.O

inception.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sounds like these morons have pretty much completely destroyed their own platform.
I'm no fan of Obama, but with notjobs like these around, he looks like a freaking genius.
 
This would mean that every woman on her period is guilty of abortion? :D
 
silentbee said:
Um. I was confused by this when my wife was pregnant. The due dates -- from the gynae, phone apps, etc -- are worked out as nine months from when she last menstruated, which is two weeks before she ovulated and therefore at least two weeks before she could ever have been pregnant. There seems to be no way of knowing precisely when the fertilisation took place, so they do this instead. It's weird, but I think it's fairly standard practice. At least in my experience... *shrug*
Click to expand...

Exactly right, but I think they need to split the difference here between being pregnant and the medical start date that is used, once it is confirmed that you are pregnant. Republicans make me laugh.
 
The real joke is on the knee-jerkers ranting on about stoopid Ripubleakins. They're obviously quite unaware of standard medical prac in determining gestational period and forecast due date. Delicious.
 
This bit to me is the most shocking of all, "prohibits lawsuits against doctors who do not provide information about a fetus' health if that information could lead to an abortion." So if you happen to get a pro-Life doctor who notices that the child is badly deformed or is a danger to the mothers health etc and presumes that you would want an abortion he can withhold that information from you and then is protected!!!

Who are these nutjobs!?!?!?
 
SoulTax said:
Exactly right, but I think they need to split the difference here between being pregnant and the medical start date that is used, once it is confirmed that you are pregnant. Republicans make me laugh.
Click to expand...

that'd add a third date to the mix, when they're trying to standardise on one date rather than two. they're just bringing legislation in line with accepted medical practice. I don't see what the fuss is...
 
ScottulusMaximus said:
This bit to me is the most shocking of all, "prohibits lawsuits against doctors who do not provide information about a fetus' health if that information could lead to an abortion." So if you happen to get a pro-Life doctor who notices that the child is badly deformed or is a danger to the mothers health etc and presumes that you would want an abortion he can withhold that information from you and then is protected!!!

Who are these nutjobs!?!?!?
Click to expand...

...THAT is worrying!!
 
The issue is that they are effectively cutting 2 weeks off the legal limit for abortions. Women can legally abort up to 20 weeks, but in Arizona this is now essentially 18 weeks. If a scan at 20 weeks detects serious abnormalities, which might normally have a woman consider terminating, it is considered too late in Arizona.

The second bit, about protecting doctors who don't disclose certain information, is also very troubling in the US context where too many health "professionals" use religion to deny treatment to some people (usually birth control presciptions not filled by pharmacists, but there was a case recently of a doctor refusing to treat someone who had AIDS related complications).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X