UNLIMITED Arizona Hilarity thread

[Doktor Howl]

Is this good news, or is Sherrif Joe just gonna go rogue and start wasting immagrants?

Somewhat good news.

It means his machine is no longer untouchable.

[Juana]

Ok, seriously. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOUR STATE, DOK?

From here[/

Medically speaking, pregnancy starts when a fertilized egg implants in the uterine lining. Anti-choicers have attempted to shift the goalposts of pregnancy with their failed attempts to pass "personhood" laws conferring the full rights of a living, breathing person on a fertilized egg.

Arizona and other states with 20-week bans are trying to argue that you're pregnant a couple of weeks before you even had the sex that resulted in your pregnancy.

Think about the implications down the road. If a woman is "pregnant" two weeks before she becomes pregnant, than any fertile woman---including those currently menstruating!---should really be considered pregnant. After all, we don't know the future. We don't know that any non-pregnant woman couldn't be pregnant two weeks from now, making her retroactively pregnant now. Considering that it's anti-choice nuts we're talking about, it's safe to assume that they'd simply prefer a situation where all women of reproductive age are considered to be pregnant, on the grounds that they could be two weeks from now. Better safe than sorry, especially if that mentality means you get to exert maximum control over the bodies of women of reproductive age.

Between personhood bills and the assault on access to contraception, it's becoming increasingly clear that anti-choicers aren't satisfied with simply trying to control the already-pregnant. Finding ways to define the not-pregnant as pregnant is a means of laying the groundwork for exerting this control. Imagine if Roe is overturned and states go into a true frenzy of stripping every imaginable right away from pregnant women. It wouldn't be limited to stripping the right to abortion, but also to any kind of behavior deemed "abortive," including holding certain kinds of jobs, eating certain foods, or taking certain medications. With this bill, then, you could not only restrict the rights of those who are actually pregnant, but extend the restrictions to all women of reproductive age on the grounds that they "could be pregnant in two weeks, i.e. in perpetuity" and would therefore be considered the same thing as being pregnant.

Already in some states, they're looking for ways to prosecute women who have stillbirths if they did something the prosecutor believes may have had an impact on the pregnancy, such as drug use. With the hoped-for overturn of Roe, we can expect these efforts to intensify, with prosecutions of miscarriages. Now with this Arizona bill, if a woman is deemed pregnant two weeks before she actually is, prosecutors could even have a chance to look at your choices when you weren't even pregnant---before you even had the sex that made you pregnant---and blame those choices for bad outcomes. They're creating, brick by brick, the legal basis on which to prosecute a woman who drinks some alcohol, becomes pregnant two weeks later, and miscarries, even though she didn't drink while pregnant. And you best believe that when feminists protest this, they'll just paint it as if we're more interested in protecting drunken sluts than "babies."

If you can [legally] be "pregnant" without being pregnant, that also creates legal complications around simple menstruation. After all, menstruation is usually seen as the opposite of being pregnant; women use menstruation to mark that they aren't pregnant. But under this bill, you could both be menstruating and "pregnant" by law. Should Roe be overturned and the state start looking to prosecute women for miscarriages they deem inappropriately prevented, what about women who are just getting their period? They're "pregnant" under the pregnant-prior-to-conception framework, aren't they? Are they miscarrying in the eyes of the law or are they just continuing their theoretical pregnancy? These kinds of ambiguities are exactly the sort of thing zealous misogynist law enforcement will be looking to exploit.

WTFIDE

GUESS WHAT YOUR DESERT QUEEN SIGNED, GUISE!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ok, seriously. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOUR STATE, DOK?

From here[/

Medically speaking, pregnancy starts when a fertilized egg implants in the uterine lining. Anti-choicers have attempted to shift the goalposts of pregnancy with their failed attempts to pass "personhood" laws conferring the full rights of a living, breathing person on a fertilized egg.

Arizona and other states with 20-week bans are trying to argue that you're pregnant a couple of weeks before you even had the sex that resulted in your pregnancy.

Think about the implications down the road. If a woman is "pregnant" two weeks before she becomes pregnant, than any fertile woman---including those currently menstruating!---should really be considered pregnant. After all, we don't know the future. We don't know that any non-pregnant woman couldn't be pregnant two weeks from now, making her retroactively pregnant now. Considering that it's anti-choice nuts we're talking about, it's safe to assume that they'd simply prefer a situation where all women of reproductive age are considered to be pregnant, on the grounds that they could be two weeks from now. Better safe than sorry, especially if that mentality means you get to exert maximum control over the bodies of women of reproductive age.

Between personhood bills and the assault on access to contraception, it's becoming increasingly clear that anti-choicers aren't satisfied with simply trying to control the already-pregnant. Finding ways to define the not-pregnant as pregnant is a means of laying the groundwork for exerting this control. Imagine if Roe is overturned and states go into a true frenzy of stripping every imaginable right away from pregnant women. It wouldn't be limited to stripping the right to abortion, but also to any kind of behavior deemed "abortive," including holding certain kinds of jobs, eating certain foods, or taking certain medications. With this bill, then, you could not only restrict the rights of those who are actually pregnant, but extend the restrictions to all women of reproductive age on the grounds that they "could be pregnant in two weeks, i.e. in perpetuity" and would therefore be considered the same thing as being pregnant.

Already in some states, they're looking for ways to prosecute women who have stillbirths if they did something the prosecutor believes may have had an impact on the pregnancy, such as drug use. With the hoped-for overturn of Roe, we can expect these efforts to intensify, with prosecutions of miscarriages. Now with this Arizona bill, if a woman is deemed pregnant two weeks before she actually is, prosecutors could even have a chance to look at your choices when you weren't even pregnant---before you even had the sex that made you pregnant---and blame those choices for bad outcomes. They're creating, brick by brick, the legal basis on which to prosecute a woman who drinks some alcohol, becomes pregnant two weeks later, and miscarries, even though she didn't drink while pregnant. And you best believe that when feminists protest this, they'll just paint it as if we're more interested in protecting drunken sluts than "babies."

If you can [legally] be "pregnant" without being pregnant, that also creates legal complications around simple menstruation. After all, menstruation is usually seen as the opposite of being pregnant; women use menstruation to mark that they aren't pregnant. But under this bill, you could both be menstruating and "pregnant" by law. Should Roe be overturned and the state start looking to prosecute women for miscarriages they deem inappropriately prevented, what about women who are just getting their period? They're "pregnant" under the pregnant-prior-to-conception framework, aren't they? Are they miscarrying in the eyes of the law or are they just continuing their theoretical pregnancy? These kinds of ambiguities are exactly the sort of thing zealous misogynist law enforcement will be looking to exploit.

WTFIDE

GUESS WHAT YOUR DESERT QUEEN SIGNED, GUISE!

WHAT THE FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I was just running over here from facebook to lik that.

Every female in AZ from about 11 to 50 or so is now "legally pregnant". 

I don't think I've seen anything this retarded in my life. Ever.

[Golden Applesauce]

Isn't "# of weeks pregnant" traditionally counted from the last period, since the date of that is known - as opposed to the sex & implantation, which could have occurred anywhere over a couple of weeks time span?

Having something be illegal after 20 +/- 2 weeks seems even more insane, because then wouldn't the only way to know if your abortion came before or after the time limit would be to do an autopsy after the abortion had already happened?  So abortions would be legal in the first 18 weeks, but anyone getting an abortion over the next two weeks could be charged with a crime anyway if the DA thought that the embryo/fetus/whatever looked a little too developed?  Sounds a little "this act may or may not be illegal.  Do it first and we'll let you know." to me.

[Doktor Howl]

I tell people about this, and they don't believe me.  Even here, in the heart of the madness.

[Cain]

Not having sex is now the moral equivalent to abortion, I hope you realise.

[Doktor Howl]

Not having sex is now the moral equivalent to abortion, I hope you realise.

Good thing they're redefining "rape", right?  Now it's "medical evangelism". 

[Cain]

It's about high time American realised the role of 51% of the population is to churn out as many babies as possible.  How can you possibly compete with China/make God happy/have endless foreign wars without a rapidly increasing population base?  It's practically selfish, refusing to reproduce constantly.  And not the good kind of selfish, like banks and businessmen and Ayn Rand encourage.  No, this is the bad kind of selfishness, because Feminazis and atheists and Sandra Fluke.

[Doktor Howl]

Email to Jan Brewer:

Dear Governor Brewer,

Congratulations on passing that pregnancy bill, but there's still much to be done.  When are you going to sign legislation requiring that you filthy whores dress decently (ankle skirts at the LEAST)?  Let's get that done, and then get your ass out of that office and back in the kitchen where you belong.

Sincerely,
Michael Hicks
Chairman,
Tuscon Unified School District

[Cain]

I see Jan Brewer has only had three children so far in her life.  She's obviously not trying hard enough.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I tell people about this, and they don't believe me.  Even here, in the heart of the madness.

When I took my dog out last night. I saw the people down the street were outside and I was thinking momentarily about going over there and telling them, until I realized that "All the women in Arizona are legally pregnant now" sounds like something a psychotic street person would go around saying.

Hey, if a woman in Arizona is legally pregnant and she visits another state where she is no longer considered pregnant and then comes home SHE TERMINATED A PREGNANCY!!!1! OH FUCKING NOES! CALL TEH LAW!!!11!!

[Doktor Howl]

Also, rape victims are now "rape accusers".  Other crime victims are still victims.

[Freeky]

Why am I not more eager to leave here?  I should be fleeing.  FLEEING!

[Doktor Howl]

Why am I not more eager to leave here?  I should be fleeing.  FLEEING!

To where?  Even Canada's gone retarded.