Don't get pregnant in Georgia

[TimCallahan]

. . . (snip) . . . I mean the 24th trimester. Re-do your math. . . . (snip)

No, there are only three trimesters. That's why they call them trimesters. I think you need to re-do your math. Or, you can go here, or here and scroll down to the title "Progression." Or you could go here.

 

[AvalonXQ]

No, there are only three trimesters.

The intent of the "twenty-fourth trimester" comment is to take the pro-choice argument to the extreme conclusion that we should be allowed to kill five-year-olds.

 

[TimCallahan]

The intent of the "twenty-fourth trimester" comment is to take the pro-choice argument to the extreme conclusion that we should be allowed to kill five-year-olds.

Of course, nobody is making any such argument.

 

[theprestige]

Of course, nobody is making any such argument.

Well, I am. Which I kind of expected you to know, since you responded to it more than once.

Other people, meanwhile, are making equally arbitrary arguments in favor of this or that trimester.

And meanwhile meanwhile, Georgia turns out to be not a particularly bad place to have a pregnancy, nor to have an abortion. So what was the point of your OP, again?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I like how blatant the anti abortion crowd is getting about taking control of the language. Now they are using laws to define medical terms. Not new they did much the same thing with partial birth abortions which of course is not a valid term because such things are now legally not abortions.

Kind of confusing really.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I like how blatant the anti abortion crowd is getting about taking control of the language. Now they are using laws to define medical terms. Not new they did much the same thing with partial birth abortions which of course is not a valid term because such things are now legally not abortions.

Kind of confusing really.

It's deliberate. Sapir-Whorf as a method of exerting social influence and political control. It's crude but effective, and everybody in the political spectrum uses it. Hence "Patriot Act", "death panels", and to the point of this thread, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" themselves. If you control the vocabulary being used, you can steer the issue your way, sometimes without people even realizing it. How many people think in sound bites? Vote for the ones that sound best, without analyzing what the terms being used are actually describing? Who votes for "pink slime" or "elites" when they could vote for "lean processed beef" or "job creators"? Politics is spin, and the best spin is language.

 

[TimCallahan]

Well, I am. Which I kind of expected you to know, since you responded to it more than once.

Other people, meanwhile, are making equally arbitrary arguments in favor of this or that trimester.

And meanwhile meanwhile, Georgia turns out to be not a particularly bad place to have a pregnancy, nor to have an abortion. So what was the point of your OP, again?

Not true. Nobody is being arbitrary. Abortions are usually limited to the first trimester, well before the synapses of the brain cells are developed and connected. Late term abortions are not done in a cavalier manner, and no responsible party on the pro-abortion side is suggesting killing babies.

As to the hilited area: I've already admitted to D.R. that the thread title was too broad. However, the real point of the thread is this: The Georgia law requires a woman to carry a dead fetus to term, as long as doing so doesn't threaten her life. Here are my objections to this part of the law.

1) Since the fetus is already dead, there's really no point in objecting to an abortion.

2) While the law allows the woman to abort the dead fetus if carrying it threatens her life, the fetus is, after all, a corpse and could be a source of infection. This could happen rapidly. Thus, one day she could be in no danger only to find herself in acute danger the next day.

3) I would think that someone might have a bit of compassion on the woman who is forced to give birth after nine months of pregnancy to child who is already known to be dead.

ETA: Of course, with most of the names posted not being real names, it's impossible to tell the gender of the person posting. That said, however, I don't think we've heard from any women on this issue. I hope we do get some women giving their views on this thread. Their voices should surely count.

 

[leftysergeant]

I know, right? I think abortions should be allowed at least through the twenty-fourth trimester, regardless of "medical necessity".

That is not even clever enough to pass for a sick joke.

You arent taking the pro-choice logic to an exaggerated conclusion. The child is not the problem that abortion addresses. The problem is an unwanted pregnancy.

Trust me on this, there are not a lot of women getting recreational abortions. The only motivation I could see for such would be a really grotesque case of Munchausen's.

Since you seem to be a little detached from the way that normal women think, I shuld probably take the time out of my schedule right herre to explain to you that a normal woman will, over the course of more than four months, start to identify that visitor as a person, because she will, by that point, have committed to bearing the child, even if she could not possibly manage to provide any kind of a decent lot in life for a child. At the end of that nine months of medical problems and stress, she would then be faced with either raising a child in hell or giving the child up for adoption.

Neither is going to be easy.

I don't care to hear about the whiney couples who say "But we want that baby." There are a lot of babies out there who need to be adopted but, for some reason, seem kind of hard to place. (Like if they were not really healthy when they were born.) The Choose Life at Any Price crowd needs to clear out that backlog before they try to claim the moral highground.

You don't get to hang a "Womb to Let" sign in women's crotches just because you want perfect babies without having to go through the tortures of pregnancy yourself.

But, even if a woman decides to go through with it, stuff can happen. It may take time, sometimes, for a non-viable fetus to spontaneously abort. By that point, it becomes a hazard to the mother's life.

But a bunch of self-righteous jerks in Georgia seem to think that they have to make women wait until that is clearly going to happen just to make sure that woemn who could have carried it through to delivery don't abort just for ***** and giggles.

Sick.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Essentially, what I object to is the law's provision that a woman must carry a dead fetus to term, providing it doesn't endanger her life.

If that's what the law calls for, seems utterly stupid to me, and dangerous to the woman.

First of all, what's the point of forbidding an abortion if the fetus is already dead?

I don't see one.

Second, it seems to me, that there is a high potential for the dead fetus to go from not endangering the woman's life to endangering it. After all, this is a corpse we're talking about.

Indeed. One cannot give birth to a zombie.

Whoa, new t-shirt idea

Zombies are created, not born

Heh, I sorta like that.