Sunday 15 April 2012

A Stunning Achievement in Goalpost Shifting!

In arguing with conservatives, all of us sane people have encountered the 'moving the goalposts' schtick.

Elected misogynists in Arizona have achieved a magnificent feat in that department.

They've wrestled those goalposts into a Time Machine.

The new anti-abortion bill, dubbed the 'Life Begins at Menstruation Bill' and considered (so far) the most draconian in the land, has many dandy punishing, shaming, panty-sniffing elements, but this is breathtaking.
[The bill] sets the gestational age as beginning on the first day of a woman’s last period, rather than at fertilization. Which, in practice, means that a virgin can get pregnant and instead of barring abortions after 20 weeks as the law states, actually cuts the time to 18 weeks.

Who gives a shit what the facty-sciencey people have to say about gestational age?

Canadians may snicker at such shenanigans but looky here. On April 26th, we in Canada are going to be treated to a weighty debate on When the State Can Get Up Your Hoo-ha Life Begins.

Go to ARCC and take action.

Image source

Goal Dollies: As only one set is needed to move all your goal posts and by using dollies you can save thousands of pounds and at the same time do the job better.  The clever design allows goals to be moved sideways as well as backwards and forwards by a single person.


Niles said...

As usual, the geeeeeniuses in power aren't worrying their pretty little heads about the awesome variance of the human body.

Just some reasons why utero-humans aren't always sure about menstruation and pregnancy.

Cathie from Canada said...

Actually, when I was pregnant I was told that doctors use the last menstrual period as a way to "date" the length of a pregnancy. When I told my doctor I thought I was "12 weeks" along, he thought maybe I was having twins because my uterus was too large for the usual "12-week" fetus. But then he told me that they date a pregnancy from the last menstrual period, which meant by that reckoning I was actually "15 weeks" at that point.
Bizarre, I thought, but that's the way they did it 30 years ago...

Niles said...

Cathie, I think the point here is that a 'rule of thumb' used by the medical establishment to help gauge an unconfirmable startpoint (unless daily testing is employed), is now being egregiously and willfully malappropriated as iron-clad law by reactionary forced-birthers as yet another 'Scientific' excuse to chop back legal procedure timelines further, heedless of actual circumstance.

It's gleefully scope-creeping into "all utero-humans are pregnant at all times" territory.

JeninCanada said...

Same. Unless you know the date yourself, any dating of your pregnancy is just a best guess. I'm sure I'm further along than 22 weeks, but that's what the chart says thanks to my cycle.

RossK said...

I agree with Niles.


Niles said...

Niles is probably 'splainin' rain to thunderclouds. Sometimes my rambling is just my attempt to scrape wtf coherency together after picking my jaw up off the floor...again.

It's a human instinct, trying to make patterns of the inexplicable, rather like squinting at RepubliCon Rorschach inkblots.

Post a Comment