Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

eighty2angelfan t1_j6y9ad7 wrote

Anti abortion propaganda. This is a step towards legally identifying a fetus as a person and charging mothers and clinics with first degree murder. Slippery slope.

45

Effective-Elevator83 t1_j70citx wrote

> Women would have to confirm their pregnancy with a > health care professional who would then inform the > Arizona Department of Transportation.

Register your pregnancy with your state government? What could possibly go wrong?

6

PossibleReach4926 t1_j739f86 wrote

Ideally, it shouldn't matter if the fetus is identified as a person or not. I consider it a person, however undeveloped, but that is irrelevant to why abortions should be legal. It's unfortunate that law requires linguistic gymnastics to function.

Further, I think there is a way to argue for a new/separate definition of person. A corporation is a person, a government is a person. There are many definitions of person in the Oxford English Dictionary, which is only one source. A linguist would know that definition is experiential and subjective to an individual or collective, at least in English; therefore, there is endless room for even more "official" definitions of the word.

Basically, this is the general line of argument that may avoid prescribing fetuses as the same definition of "person" as an already born individual. One would need to articulate exactly what the difference is just like one articulates the difference between a corporation being a "person" and a human being a "person."

With that difference in mind, one cannot call the end of a corporation, however it may occur, 1st degree murder.

Hope this gives people some hope that things can turn out differently if we use the right methods.

1

t4ct1c4l_j0k3r t1_j74qfhh wrote

I wonder what will happen with miscarriages or even still births. Are those going to be considered murder soon as well? Very slippery slope indeed.

1

Purplekeyboard t1_j707qyj wrote

Don't most pregnant women see their unborn baby as a person?

−2

NerdyToc t1_j72xbry wrote

As a person? No.

As a baby? Debatable.

The real issue here is that if a pregnancy is unwanted, this law will be another step towards preventing females from having bodily autonomy.

It's the females body, it's the females choice. Until forced birthers start lobying for adequate care for children (living wages, free Healthcare, real consequences for rape) they don't get a opinion in whether or not a clump of cells should be carried to term.

2

AdvancedHat7630 t1_j6xzuoc wrote

Because the fetus would otherwise be driving a second car?

14

Mysterious_Tax_5613 t1_j6y15iy wrote

Well,isn't that nice of them?/s

They are truly concerned about the mother, aren't they? Anything to save the baby and after their born well, fuck em. It's all about saving the baby who cares if the mothers life is in jeopardy?

4

[deleted] t1_j6y3n1b wrote

[deleted]

4

lowsparkedheels t1_j6y6xdb wrote

Exactly. In the early stages of pregnancy a blood draw is accurate, where piss tests fail. If a 'pregnant' mom refuses to give a blood and/or urine sample, does she lose her license?

Do we really want to put people driving during rush hour in potential danger so that police can make more stops for HOV lane abuse?

Don't AZ lawmakers have more important things to do than creating a problem with more potential problems added on, when there isn't a problem in the first place? 🤯

6

mmrrbbee t1_j6y51q4 wrote

It’s Phoenix PD, they have a history, they’ll just pull you aside and assault you and you then you could be pregnant.

5

Mouthtuom t1_j6z70yc wrote

Unless they’re trans and pregnant.

4

desertrock62 t1_j6z3dka wrote

“So how far along are you, ma’am?”

“Twenty minutes, officer.”

“You’re free to go.”

3

Kalurael t1_j72bk8n wrote

wait til it is complicated by a miscarriage mid journey

1

defaultusername-17 t1_j7jx97z wrote

see that gals! no bodily autonomy... but we get to use the HOV lane!~

1