Pregnancy begins two weeks before conception - Page 3

Ryanderman · 04-12-2012, 08:08 AM

The funny (not so funny) thing is, it's actually the other way around. Only when the start of the LMP is not known does a doctor set day 0 by looking at the development of the baby. They will then estimate when conception occurred, and set day 0 two weeks before that. But if the date of the start of the LMP is known, they use that by default.

I get that setting the start of the LMP as day 0 by law instead of just as a guide is a bad thing. Those arguments make sense. But I'm arguing that it's nothing new. It's how abortion laws that reference specific weeks of pregnancy do it in the US. If that's not the case, or if I'm wrong and no other state references specific weeks of gestation as a cutoff for abortions, then I have no argument and you're right. But my understanding is that is the case.

shiney · 04-12-2012, 08:34 AM

Just for reference Ryan, Arizona has a ban on all abortions after week twenty. The reason for passage of tihs law was to set the clock back by two weeks and ban even more abortions by redefining when the pregnancy actually began. This has absolutely nothing to do with standard medical definition and everything to do with again intimidating and criminalizing women who dare to take control of their own bodies.

Ryanderman · 04-12-2012, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiney

Just for reference Ryan, Arizona has a ban on all abortions after week twenty. The reason for passage of tihs law was to set the clock back by two weeks and ban even more abortions by redefining when the pregnancy actually began. This has absolutely nothing to do with standard medical definition and everything to do with again intimidating and criminalizing women who dare to take control of their own bodies.

Except, it's not redefining anything. The ban after week twenty has always taken the two weeks before conception into account. That's how the gestational period has always been defined. Even if it wasn't specifically stated in the law, the standard, universal medical practice in the US is to set day 0 at the start of the LMP, which is usually two weeks before conception.

I think I finally get what pocheros and Nikose are saying, in that by setting the start of the LMP as day 0 by law it leaves no room for taking into account variations between women, but it is not redefining the start of the gestational period. That's how the start of the gestational period has always been defined. It is, at worst, forcing the standard definition to be applied in cases where it shouldn't be. I'll concede that.

It is not "redefining when the pregnancy actually began." According to this bill, pregnancy still begins at conception. But the calculated gestational period beings at the start of the LMP, as is standard. The start of the calculated gestational period is not when pregnancy begins, and no one is saying that except those that misunderstand this bill.

According to every medical source I've ever seen, conception generally occurs in week 3. http://www.webmd.com/baby/guide/your...week-weeks-1-4

I get that it can vary, and that is where the problem with the law appears. Not in any imagined additional two weeks.

Sithdarth · 04-12-2012, 09:28 AM

Actually to be honest legally defining the gestational age is about the least offensive of the three antiabortion bills given in that article. Its much worse that all civil recourse has been taken away from parents if their doctors decide not to tell them about birth defects that might lead to an abortion. Something which I believe is actually malpractice, especially if it is potentially harmful to the mother. Coming in at or a close second, or maybe even a tie, is mandating that kids be taught that its much better to give birth and either live with an unwanted child or give it up for adoption. Which is basically as close as you can get to the state mandating that kids be taught that abortion is murder and a sin.

The whole conception thing is kind of a wash in that as Ryanderman is saying states already have laws on the books that say you can't have an abortion after such and such gestational age. When going in for an abortion a doctor already has to determine gestational age and said doctor would obviously determine gestational age in the exact same manner that any doctor would determine gestational age. That is to say abortion doctors have probably always used the LMP to determine if an abortion is legal, at least as one of many criteria, since the laws were first enacted because that is how doctors have always determined gestational age.

The only thing the Arizona law changes is that it spelled it out explicitly which could potentially be a bad precedent but isn't nearly has horrible as protecting doctors from malpractice lawsuits related to withholding information from their patients and mandating that kids be taught indirectly that abortion is bad.

04-12-2012, 08:08 AM	#21
Ryanderman Beard of Leadership Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 827	The funny (not so funny) thing is, it's actually the other way around. Only when the start of the LMP is not known does a doctor set day 0 by looking at the development of the baby. They will then estimate when conception occurred, and set day 0 two weeks before that. But if the date of the start of the LMP is known, they use that by default. I get that setting the start of the LMP as day 0 by law instead of just as a guide is a bad thing. Those arguments make sense. But I'm arguing that it's nothing new. It's how abortion laws that reference specific weeks of pregnancy do it in the US. If that's not the case, or if I'm wrong and no other state references specific weeks of gestation as a cutoff for abortions, then I have no argument and you're right. But my understanding is that is the case. __________________ ~Your robot reminds me of you. You tell it to stop, it turns. You tell it to turn, it stops. You tell it to take out the trash, it watches reruns of Firefly.~ Last edited by Ryanderman; 04-12-2012 at 08:27 AM.

04-12-2012, 08:34 AM	#22
shiney Derrrrrrrrrrrrrp. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The land of fartz and buttz Posts: 8,266	Just for reference Ryan, Arizona has a ban on all abortions after week twenty. The reason for passage of tihs law was to set the clock back by two weeks and ban even more abortions by redefining when the pregnancy actually began. This has absolutely nothing to do with standard medical definition and everything to do with again intimidating and criminalizing women who dare to take control of their own bodies. __________________ boop

04-12-2012, 09:28 AM	#24
Sithdarth Friendly Neighborhood Quantum Hobo Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Outside the M-brane look'n in Posts: 5,403	Actually to be honest legally defining the gestational age is about the least offensive of the three antiabortion bills given in that article. Its much worse that all civil recourse has been taken away from parents if their doctors decide not to tell them about birth defects that might lead to an abortion. Something which I believe is actually malpractice, especially if it is potentially harmful to the mother. Coming in at or a close second, or maybe even a tie, is mandating that kids be taught that its much better to give birth and either live with an unwanted child or give it up for adoption. Which is basically as close as you can get to the state mandating that kids be taught that abortion is murder and a sin. The whole conception thing is kind of a wash in that as Ryanderman is saying states already have laws on the books that say you can't have an abortion after such and such gestational age. When going in for an abortion a doctor already has to determine gestational age and said doctor would obviously determine gestational age in the exact same manner that any doctor would determine gestational age. That is to say abortion doctors have probably always used the LMP to determine if an abortion is legal, at least as one of many criteria, since the laws were first enacted because that is how doctors have always determined gestational age. The only thing the Arizona law changes is that it spelled it out explicitly which could potentially be a bad precedent but isn't nearly has horrible as protecting doctors from malpractice lawsuits related to withholding information from their patients and mandating that kids be taught indirectly that abortion is bad.