Repubtards: Government small enough to fit in your pants

[morethanpretty]

So infuriating, there are just not the right words to express how fucked up this is!

In Arizona, women are now legally pregnant two weeks before conception, according to a new law, the Orwellianly-named, “Women’s Health and Safety Act,” signed yesterday by Republican Governor Jan Brewer. The scientifically, medically, ethically, and intellectually dishonest legislation is designed to reduce the amount of time a woman is allowed to have a legal abortion, and is one of the most draconian bills to become law in America.

Link

I thought repubtards wanted government out of people's lives. Thats what they say. How is this not completely totally fucking with a person's life? Now they're telling doctors how to medically determine conception. This is why I hate them so so much. Just a bunch of hypocritical assholes who want to ruin the lives of women.

I want to kick them all in the cunt.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I've some small idea of what abortion will cost one emotionally -- even if you're just the other partner. And the condom broke. (Lube yourself before putting the condom on -- not only is it lots more fun but it prevents you overstretching it.)

Could have been a lot rougher than it was, though -- Mother Nature took a hand. We didn't have to do any deciding.

That kind of thing moves me to ask a rather cutting question, MTP: you're so exercised about all this -- just how many abortions have you had? If one or more, were they so very easy as you seem to expect?

I'm not registered Republican, but Libertarian, and I'm hardly describable as anti-abortion -- close control of when and how one breeds is desirable. I'm saying it's no easy thing, and not at all light.

You've taken as gospel a hitpiece, and the hitpiece mentality found in this cluster of articles may be shown in one of those linked in your linked article, which I quote:

While this borders on the unfathomable, let me at least try to explain. Tuesday the legislature passed three bills aimed at curbing abortion. (Ed. Note: In Arizona Tuesdays and Thursdays are devoted to laws depriving women of human rights; Monday and Friday are for anti-immigrant legislation, and Wednesday is reserved for resolutions demanding the President’s birth certificate.) One bill rolls the timeline defining late term abortions forward to 18 weeks and contains a clause that dates gestational age from “the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman.” This effectively moves the beginning of a pregnancy to two weeks prior to conception.

A ravening fury directed at all of Arizona other than the Grand Canyon, about. Apparently, for being Arizona. Mob psychology stuff. Your lot just keep proving Ann Coulter is right about you.

Not a hit piece -- from the Arizona Republic.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

...moves me to ask a rather cutting question, MTP: you're so exercised about all this -- just how many abortions have you had? If one or more, were they so very easy as you seem to expect?

Up until now I thought you were a harmless blowhard.

What you really are is a misogynistic bully.

Do us all a favor UG - post-abort yourself, would you, dear? You're such a deadly bore.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

this kind of thing moves me to ask a rather cutting question, MTP: you're so exercised about all this -- just how many abortions have you had? If one or more, were they so very easy as you seem to expect?

[/i]

this really gets my goat.

UG - how many sperms have you murdered by onanism? You disgusting slimeball. Potential humans, every one you spilled. You should have your nads twisted off.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

That kind of thing moves me to ask a rather cutting question, MTP: you're so exercised about all this -- just how many abortions have you had? If one or more, were they so very easy as you seem to expect?

You arrogant, misogynistic bastard.

Usually I find your approach amusing, quaint even at times, but this is just nasty. Setting aside, just for a moment the implications of what you say at a broad gender level, what if the answer was that she had had an abortion? How cruel and 'cutting' would that question be then?

You say you aren't a republican, fair enough. But you spout their line often enough to sit at the same table. You say you aren't anti-abortion, but you use the same rhetoric and employ the same basic assumption: women aren't to be trusted with this decision. A clear-headed man (such as yourself) is needed to step in and stop them making silly mistakes through their flippancy.

Yech. Sickening.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I've some small idea of what abortion will cost one emotionally -- even if you're just the other partner. And the condom broke. (Lube yourself before putting the condom on -- not only is it lots more fun but it prevents you overstretching it.)

Could have been a lot rougher than it was, though -- Mother Nature took a hand. We didn't have to do any deciding.

That kind of thing moves me to ask a rather cutting question, MTP: you're so exercised about all this -- just how many abortions have you had? If one or more, were they so very easy as you seem to expect?

I'm not registered Republican, but Libertarian, and I'm hardly describable as anti-abortion -- close control of when and how one breeds is desirable. I'm saying it's no easy thing, and not at all light.

You've taken as gospel a hitpiece, and the hitpiece mentality found in this cluster of articles may be shown in one of those linked in your linked article, which I quote:



A ravening fury directed at all of Arizona other than the Grand Canyon, about. Apparently, for being Arizona. Mob psychology stuff. Your lot just keep proving Ann Coulter is right about you.

Not a hit piece -- from the Arizona Republic.

What I like about UG is that he always lives down to my expectations. Whether I'm just doing a Cellar drive-by or have been hanging around for a while, UG's posts remain the one certain thing in an increasingly uncertain world. He's merely a two year old shouting obscenities to see if he can get a rise out of any adults in the vicinity. Sadly for UG, his diatribes are mostly wasted on passing gilla monsters and bored Cellar readers. For about a micro-second, I considered removing his words from my sig line in protest of the above quote, but that would be giving him more attention than he deserves. Besides, I do appreciate a touch of irony now and then. So here's to UG - STILL bitterly hostile to every worthwhile thought ever thought!

[xoxoxoBruce]

And a "libertarian" that doesn't understand why women are telling the government to mind their own fucking business.

[infinite monkey]

Jesus christ, ug. You've outdone yourself. I couldn't believe what I was reading. You and Man Coulter deserve each other.

[morethanpretty]

Never ever ever did I say that I thought abortion was an easy decision to make. Neither is having a kid. Its a woman's decision. The only person who should ever know should be her doctor and maybe a counselor (if she wants, it shouldn't be a requirement).
Each woman is different and each woman will have a different emotional experience. Even if I had been through it, I could not relate my experience to someone else's. That is why you and I cannot tell another woman what to do with her body.

[Clodfobble]

I would like to point out one thing: although the legislation is obviously aimed at a particular political goal, one that I disagree with...

Gestational age already was, and always has been, counted from the first day of ovulation. When the doctors say a full-term pregnancy is 40 weeks, they mean 40 weeks from the date of last ovulation. When you go in for your first appointment with your OB, you are a week late on your period, and they say you are "five weeks pregnant."

Like I said, I disagree with the larger intention of the law. I am pro-choice. But this clause is not horrifically dramatic or new, it is how doctors have always done it.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Gestational age already was, and always has been, counted from the first day of ovulation. When the doctors say a full-term pregnancy is 40 weeks, they mean 40 weeks from the date of last ovulation. When you go in for your first appointment with your OB, you are a week late on your period, and they say you are "five weeks pregnant."

Errrmmm ... can I check this?

Doesn't it go ... menstruation ... two weeks ... ovulation ... two weeks ... menstruation... etc ... ... right?

So if you're one week late on your period, you're three weeks past ovulation, not five.

Not that I would ever argue with a woman who is a week late on her period.

[Sundae]

Have to agree with Clod - that's how it's calculated here.

Even if you know that the only intercourse you had since your last period was on a specific date - because it was special and it was in your diary - when it gets to halfway through the next month and you still haven't bled... You go to the doctor and she starts counting from the date of your last period.

And you can only get a chemical termination (via Mifeprex) up to 11 weeks.
With confusion and self-denial and those extra two weeks added by the Doctor it's easy to slip into a more serious procedure.

[Clodfobble]

Gah! That would be some combination of school stress and the skull fracture talking. Everywhere I said "ovulation," I meant "menstruation."

God, I'm so tired. Maybe I'll head over to one of the nothingland threads and tell you guys about the royal butt-fucking-in-the-mouth the school district gave us this weekend...

[ZenGum]

Thanks.

Gestational age already was, and always has been, counted from the first day of menstruation. When the doctors say a full-term pregnancy is 40 weeks, they mean 40 weeks from the date of last menstruation. When you go in for your first appointment with your OB, you are a week late on your period, and they say you are "five weeks pregnant."

Okay, can I now check this.

Isn't that biologically impossible?

You cannot possibly be pregnant until the sperm and the egg have met and mingled. There is a strong case to be made that the zygote must also have implanted in the uterus.

That sperm isn't even meeting the egg until after ovulation. It just can't happen.

That a woman should be pregnant after menstruating but before ovulating is, ahem, inconceivable.

Right?

[Clodfobble]

Well, that's the thing. It's inconvenient to start the clock at fertilization, 2 weeks, because stuff has been happening before that. The egg was actually doing some pre-development as it got ready to be released (something like the "luteal phase," and others, I can't remember.) The uterine wall was thickening, and if it doesn't properly do so, yet a pregnancy still occurs, you have to be able to talk about the developmental stage that went awry and led to the predicament of "not enough uterine wall to properly nourish the developing placenta." The biological error was at negative 1 week?

The woman's body doesn't know if it will or will not get fertilized. It goes through the process every month on the assumption that it will. Necessary steps have to happen before fertilization, even if those steps are completely wasted most months. Is the woman "pregnant" before she's pregnant? Not by my definition, but you have to count those weeks as part of the larger process.