This thread is for the discussion of the three new bills that have been passed by the legislators in Arizona...

You can read about them: here and here.

I would love if the Governor shot this down... I would hate to see this go through... we'll know if a few days if it does.

I was just so... stunned.

The first is just stupidity on their part - or them thinking they're being 'clever' in pushing the date a woman can legally abort back by up to two weeks.

But what really gets me is that Doctors can, without fear of retribution WITHHOLD INFORMATION FROM THEIR PATIENTS.
I think that no matter the view of the Doctor - they should NEVER...NEVER be allowed to do this... It just... Its so wrong.

I also really enjoy:

The third bill requires that schools teach students that adoption and birth are the most acceptable outcomes for an unwanted pregnancy.

Thoughts people?


Spoons:
Does this bill go against the Hippocratic oath? [Wrongful Birth Wrongful Life]

Can the courts rightfully decide the date of conception when medicine cannot even do it?

Should the schools have the right to present bias for any 'solutions' to unwanted pregnancy? Or should they present them all equally without bias?

I'm against abortion but I also believe that no one has a right to tell a woman that she can not abort. It's her choice and you can not account for everything that life throws at someone so it shouldn't be the government's place to tell someone they have to give birth when it is not in the mother's best interest. I also agree that doctors should not with hold information from patients. Patients should have non-bias information presented to them so they can make the choice that is right for them/their unborn child. In the case with birth defects, yes a women should be told things that could effect their child for the rest of their life. it seems irresponsible otherwise. In a case where it could cost not only the unborn child their life but the mother her life it also seems irresponsible on the doctor's behalf.

I also think that is it NOT the school's place to say that giving birth or adoption is the "best" way to deal with unwanted pregnancies. The mother to be should be given all the facts and have a clear understanding what happens to her body and how the abortions are performed before getting an abortion. I think that with any medical procedure that the patient should know risks vs benefits and exactly how things are done before getting them done. I do not think that it's the school's place to try to sway people one way or another. It's more damaging to not have information available than to have young people trying to deal with unwanted pregnancies on their own. Ideally, I think that parents should talk to their kids about that kind of thing and the school really should butt out of it but parents don't seem to want to talk to their kids now a days.

As for the date of conception...that just sounds to me like they are trying to force women into a tight place where they can not get an abortion until they find out they're pregnant. That to me is wrong, even though I do not support abortion at all women should have the right to have the option as long as it's safe for the mother.

I think that powerful men are afraid of powerful women. If we aren't just baby making livestock then maybe they have to acknowledge that we have opinions, wants and needs too and not every woman wants to make tons of babies.

The sad thing is... the bill was proposed by a woman* ... >>;

* Still need clarification.

BUT I do know that there are a lot of woman in the legislation who supported it, and the female Governor has to pass it.
We shall know if she does in a few days. xOx

thats kind of shocking that a woman would think like that.

I believe that if schools teach anything like that, they should have to cover every option equally without bias.

I'm pro-choice, so no one has any right to tell me what I can and can't do with my body. If I don't want some parasite growing in me, I have the right to look after my own health and... dispose of it. The same being said, I think there should be a limit as to when you can abort. I usually stage it at, when it starts looking like a human.

Also I'm sorry, if I'm going to have a baby, I want to know every damn thing about my baby. For doctors to withold information, could lead to serious problems. Say the child is born with disabilities and the doctor doesn't tell the parents, but the parents didn't have enough time to save money in order to help the child. Whats going to happen to the kid?
URG! Thats just frustrating!

I agree.. I was so flabbergasted when I heard that!

The fact that this bill is helping doctors withhold information is just...wrong... And I would hope that those in the medical profession would stand by their oath and not withhold information... what the parent decides to do with the information is really none of their business!

[Also, just like to note - that a fetus, though it may fit the description of a parasite... it technically isn't because it is of the same species. >>;]

Originally Posted by Repo

[Also, just like to note - that a fetus, though it may fit the description of a parasite... it technically isn't because it is of the same species. >>;]

Not necessarily.

Parasitic twin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While some sources do define a "parasite" as being of a separate species from the host, others do not. The above is a case of the latter.

Well, there are different definitions yes - but I found it amusing how the link on the word 'parasite' lead to a source that described it as a different species. I personally use the biology definition, and not definitions based on chance mutations in nature. :]
Though... in the case of the twins... I would want that removed... I wonder what pro-lifers would say to that! x3

Also.. this kind of sums up why I don't think a fetus is a parasite... The only reason I think I care so much is if I were ever pregnant...I would be insulted if someone where to call my fetus a parasite. >3>

But - getting back on topic... weather it is parasitic or not... Do you think doctors should be able to withhold information without consequence...especially when the mother may be at risk?
[And, does anyone who bothers to read this actually know of the 'Wrongful birth, wrongful life' type lawsuits? They're actually quite interesting and raise a ton of ethical questions.]

So you link to an anti-choice site to prove they're not parasites? :/ And no offense, but it doesn't really matter what you do and don't want it called. A lot of people don't want them called "fetuses" either, doesn't make it not true. (Further, a wanted pregnancy would not be parasitic, but mutually beneficial.)

And absolutely not. It's sad when a pregnancy is aborted because of something about the fetus rather than the woman not wanting the pregnancy, but the solution is to make it easier to raise children with disabilities (or who are female, as this seems very close to the issue of sex-based abortions in India) and remove the stigma, not to punish women.

The points he makes are just stating that a fetus is not a parasite - if he wants to use those arguments to fight abortions, that is his choice... I am pro choice, and I don't consider a fetus to be a parasite - its not one of the arguments I use to defend my pro-choice stance because I disagree with it....

And yes - I acknowledged there were other definitions, but they are for more specific cases...they don't really apply to a fetus, and that is my point... A fetus is not a parasite.

But yeah - gender based abortions are horrible... But in the end, they are still an unwanted pregnancy...and it is ultimately the choice of the parent. Though - we should work to reduce the stigma regardless. I just can't bring myself to say that they should be stopped, because I base my pro-choice arguments on the woman's decision...

As for abortions based on disabilities... This is actually one of my fears - I could never ever raise a child with a disability, and I have to solute others who realize this about themselves too. It is a very hard decision...And I think abortion is a better option than adoption in this case. Sure - there are people out there who will take care of and love a child regardless of its physical and mental capabilities... But the financial and emotional strain is still there. Though, for those who do take on the challenge, I agree, their burden should be eased in anyway possible.

See I completely view a fetus as a parasite growing off the hosts health. *shrugs* but I just hate babys and such so thats just me being my form of a pro-choicer.

As Codette said, there's no real reason why a fetus could not be considered a parasite. It steals nutrition from the host, gives nothing back, and would die if removed from said host. It's the same species, sure, but why couldn't it be one of those "special cases"? In a wanted pregnancy, one could argue that what it gives back is emotional or social, but unwanted pregnancies don't even have that.

And I'm aware of his points. I'm questioning why you'd use the opinion of someone who does not believe women have a right to bodily autonomy (and since it's a libertaritroll, it's even worse) to back up your own opinion.

Originally Posted by Philomel

And no offense, but it doesn't really matter what you do and don't want it called.

Just using your own words here.
Just because you consider it a parasite doesn't make it so.
By definition it is not a parasite. If you consider it to be like a parasite that's fine - its your own personal opinion. But since this is an elevated discussion and debate thread, we should stick to what things actually are and mean. [Which is also kind of funny, because this is semi-off topic from what this thread is about.]

And his points are not opinions - they're based off of scientific definitions and facts. He uses these fact to assert that a fetus is not a parasite - which in turns helps argue against those that use "A fetus is a parasite therefore abortion is okay" logic.
I personally agree with him - in that that argument is invalid, because a fetus is not a parasite. I have other reasons which lead to my pro-choice stance.

Screw it, I'm out.

The definition of a parasite by a medical dictionary:

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

A mother(host) can survive without being pregnant but a fetus (parasite) can not survive outside of the mother (host) and is totally dependent on the mother (host). So technically defined by biology terms, yes, a fetus IS a parasite since it in no way benefits the mother or the "host" and it would die outside of the "host".

I wouldn't consider my fetus, if it was possible for me to even carry one, to be a "parasite" even though technically it is by definition.

As I stated before, I don't like the idea of abortion but that doesn't mean that women's right to choose should be taken away simply because I personally do not like it.

Originally Posted by Mystic

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

This is an incomplete definition. A parasite is another species from the host.
But, taking into consideration that there are alternate definitions I supposed I'll play along.

The bolded text is what I'm basing this off of.

From a biological standpoint - the fetus is providing a service to the host... That service? Passing on its genes and ensuring the survival of the species. As well - as most animals are biologically designed to want to have children [Oh glory be to hormones], the fetus is actually fulfilling a biological need that is engrained in our DNA.

Also...

Some studies suggest that pregnancy may be good for bone health overall. Some evidence suggests that the more times a woman has been pregnant (for at least 28 weeks), the greater her bone density and the lower her risk of fracture.

Link

Though the fetus does take nutrients from the mother, our bodies are designed to allow this - and fight any ill effects that may come from it.

....I guess I just have no desire to continue the gene pool then. Because I want nothing to do with fetus', births or babies. Mine or anyone elses.

I'm just going to halt this pointless, drawn out argument now. It has gotten way to off topic from the thread.
If you want to call a fetus a parasite - be my guest, but do it elsewhere.

Hey I gave you my view on your debate. I wasn't the one that continually pushed to be off topic. But whatever.

First, I am against making any laws in an archic government, which should be my footnote for posts just so I do not have to repeat all the time. LOL So, this should not have been done.

Second, abortion is totally wrong and, regardless of legality or not, should not be done. I know that pro-choicers will disagree, but it is scientifically defined as a living human being. I knew this before I was a theist and now after, having done a debate on this before. No matter the circumstances, it is never right to take a life unless in defense. To clarify as an example, I would not let go of someone, if we were hanging over a cliff, just to save myself, even if I knew the helicopter man hovering on the ladder could only save one and is aiming for the other individual.

Third, if we did not have that archic government, these doctors would get in trouble for withholding information and they rightfully should. Although, it should be noted, that the same can be same for anti-life doctors. (I just had to use that term, because each side like to define the other as anti-something and that's what the article did. Notice I still use "pro-choice" above, just to show the difference.) Women are not told everything by their abortion doctors, but I am not suggesting that there should be laws to force this. There is already research out there and the proof is in the pudding. More and more people will see the effects, and decisions will be made on their part on what to do or not do.

Fourth, as far as schools go, I do not think they should be forced to teach anything. It should be determined by the agreement between the school as a whole (teachers and/or owners/principals, whatever the situation is) and the parents. They should not be forced to teach abortion or teach against it, or teach evolution or teach against it.

Yes, it does go against the Hippocratic oath, but so does abortion.

Science has already decided when life begins. If the definition were concocted to exclude children in the womb at any state, it would exclude other living creatures. It actually defines it as when it becomes concepted, but, if from a spiritual perspective, a week after that the fertilized egg is incapable of splitting into twins, thus two souls. However, I take the stand of caution and would never abort or encourage it.

Should the schools have the right to present bias for any 'solutions' to unwanted pregnancy? Or should they present them all equally without bias?

LOL, I refer back to what I said about evolution vs. creation. Technically, nothing is explained without bias, because just the words used have an opinion behind them. Once again, I say this should be left to the parties involved, not an archic government.

Originally Posted by Repo

The sad thing is... the bill was proposed by a woman* ... >>;

* Still need clarification.

BUT I do know that there are a lot of woman in the legislation who supported it, and the female Governor has to pass it.
We shall know if she does in a few days. xOx

Exactly.

There are several of women also on this thread against abortion and there are many men who do not view people as baby-making machines. To be fair, it takes two to tango. There are men who believe that they are baby-making machines; does that mean that they do not have opintions, wants and needs? Of course not (and I am not assuming the poster of this believe that, but pointing out how that statement was wrong); I am not seeking to offend with any of that. There are those who think, including women, that life is incomplete without a family, but there are others, including men, who think that a family life is not for everyone. They just do not agree with murder, which is what they see this to be.

As far as rights go, again I am against laws from an archic government, but no one has the right to murder, even if it is a parasite. To be honest, such cases are rare and abortion has its own set of dangers, which occur more frequently. Also, it is a parasite, if we go according to the etymological and historical usage, before the term came to mean something else. And that is what a pro-innocent-lifer has to say to that. ;)

Also, there can be a benefit back for unwanted pregnancies. One cannot be so general or biased to not see that there are some women who might not only overcome a rape, but feel blessed that she got something precious from it... Not including the execution of her rapist, though that is also a rightful justice.

P.S. ...Libertaritroll?

Originally Posted by Repo

[Also, just like to note - that a fetus, though it may fit the description of a parasite... it technically isn't because it is of the same species. >>;]

species has nothing to do with the term parasite. Fetus fits under the defintion. It lives inside a organ and takes nutriment from the host.

par·a·site
   [par-uh-sahyt]
noun
1.
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2.
a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3.
(in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.
Parasite | Define Parasite at Dictionary.com

Originally Posted by Kriemedesan

Fourth, as far as schools go, I do not think they should be forced to teach anything. It should be determined by the agreement between the school as a whole (teachers and/or owners/principals, whatever the situation is) and the parents. They should not be forced to teach abortion or teach against it, or teach evolution or teach against it.

I find hearing from a pro-lifers side of view very interesting. And though you don't believe schools should be forced to teach anything - I think there are some things that just need to be taught.
My opinion used to be that if a parent didn't want their child learning something than the child shouldn't have to - but a story told by one of my teachers changed that for me entirely.

She used to work up North in a Native Reserve, and there was absolutely NO sex education taught there. People in that community actually believed you got pregnant by drinking water, and that sex had nothing to do with it. That just seems... wrong to me. I also feel like it helps contribute to the cycle that they seem to be stuck in - I feel as if contraceptives were available to them, they could better plan their families and perhaps put themselves in a better state financially/emotionally/etc... before gaining a dependent. It wouldn't fix everything of course, but a little less ignorance might improve their quality of life.