Emily Martin

Emily Martin might have found this article interesting, I hope you do.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04/18/arizona-didnt-redefine-pregnancy-but-six-other-states-did/

 

In an effort to show the differences better marked and unmarked Martin explored the nature of the language used to describe health systems within them and the implications inherent in any negative or disruptively descriptive language.

 

“It’s indicative of the dangerous, anti-abortion extremist mindset: Reiterating the terms “fertilization” and “postfertilization” and “probable fertilization age” emphasize the fetus while further removing the woman from the law. Acknowledging gestational age, two weeks prior to fertilization, would mean acknowledging that there is someone else involved in an abortion—the woman, whose body has been existing, functioning and preparing for gestation even before the fetus was conceived.” (Lauren Barbato, Ms Magazine)

 

Are we talking about the fetus and the male creative act here in these laws while ignoring and subverting the woman’s role in this act.  Who do the writers of these laws expect to track the cycles of these baby making devises anyway?  I will use my little Amelia as an example.  It is no uncommon for a nursing mother to not have a cycle, for extended periods of time, often until the baby is weaned or at least eating the bulk of it nutrition from other sources.  Amelia as my longest term pregnancy was estimated at 38 weeks.  The estimation comes in as under these laws her fertilization  age would have to have been counted at 96 weeks.  Why instead of moving forward in science and social growth are the leaders of our society attempting to subvert half the population in a war of words and definitions.

 

Would this be the case if men could have abortions? I do not mean inflict an abortion on a woman’s body but legally severe their ties as a progenitor.

Advertisements