(no subject)

[apocalypsos]

Scientists say everyone can read minds -- Okay, that is so freaking cool.

And okay, this has been bugging me, so somebody help me out here. You know how everybody is up in arms because of that abortion bill that defines a woman in the paperwork as a female who can bear children? Okay, out of context, I'm offended by it, too. But, in context, from a legal standpoint, don't they have to define that kind of stuff in legal texts? And considering it's a bill about unborn children, don't they kind of have to define women within the context of the law as females who can have kids? I mean, you don't really make a pregnancy law about women who CAN'T have kids. Rather defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

It's just ... you know, I get the whole thing somebody pointed out that they could base other laws off the definition, but as offended as I am by that definition out of context, in context it just seems to me like something that's being blown way out of proportion. Then again, I'll the first to admit that I don't know what the hell's required in a legal document, so far be it from me to wonder about something like that.

Comments

[cmpriest.livejournal.com]

What bothers me about it is the way this administration has a tendency to contort existing laws to suit its own purposes. [:: glances at the leftovers of the Schiavo case ::] Remember what they were wiilling to do to in order to preserve one person's dubious claim to sentient life? They twisted every law on the books and made up a few more to go with it ...

But I'm sure for an issue like nationwide abortion, they'd be more reasonable. Right?

[sivib.livejournal.com]

I'd need to read the text, but why define a woman anyway? By that defintion, for the first thirty four years of my life I wasn't a woman, because I couldn't have children. I was medically infertile. Which begs the question, what the hell was I?

Do you have the text, by any chance?

[foenix.livejournal.com]

Heh. From the scientific studies I've know the results of for years department... ;)

J

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

Well, like I said, it's not like I know about legal stuff. But I could swear that they have to define every little term in something so as to avoid confusion. And it's not like they're defining women for everything and changing all the dictionaries and stuff, it's just for one law about unborn children, in which women would have to be defined as "females who can bear children."

Here's a link to an article about it. I don't know. It just seems off to me to go ballistic over the definition of "woman" as "female who can bear children" in the context of a law about unborn children, in which "woman" can really ONLY be defined as "female who can bear children."

[anne-jumps.livejournal.com]

Yes, they do have to define the term for the context. But I don't see why they couldn't just say "pregnant woman" instead of giving "woman" a scary new definition.

[anne-jumps.livejournal.com]

Well, it's creepy. I also can't see men ever being redefined as "men who can impregnate women."

[etoilepb.livejournal.com]

And that there is part of the problem.

I completely understand having to specify thoroughly for a law -- a law which in and of itself, I'm guessing, is going to be Teh Suck? -- but even if they wanted to includegirls under 18, there are many just-as-thorough and less frighteningly offensive ways to phrase it, I think.

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

Maybe for space issues? I mean, if they define women in the context of an unborn child law as someone who can bear a child, they don't have to keep typing "pregnant woman" over and over again. (I swear to God I'm not being bitchy or anything, even though I can't think of a better way to phrase that that doesn't come off to me as a little snarky.)

But they're only doing it in this one law about pregnant women. I mean, in a law about pregnant women, it saves space, money, time, and energy to just say in the beginning, "When we say 'women' in this law, we only mean women who can get pregnant." You know, like if they were writing an affirmative action law and put in there, "We define 'men and women' in the context of this law as 'people of color in the minority such as African-Americans, Asians, Hispanics, etc."

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

They might be, if it was part of what the prospective bill might entail. I mean, if it was a law for deadbeat dads or something.

[anne-jumps.livejournal.com]

I understand the concept. I just don't want this definition catching on. I'm sure you can understand a tendency towards jumpiness on the parts of those worried about matters relating to laws about women.

[sivib.livejournal.com]

You make logical sense. At first blush, it would be easy to go off the deep end about being defined in such a way, but it is just in the context of this bill. OTOH, if it is used here, might it not be used elsewhere? Throwing about legal definitions in Bills and suchlike can lead to serious consequences. I think people are more objecting to the slippery-slopedness of the concept, judging by some of the comments on the site to which you refer.

That, and people just like to go ballistic over things regarding gender. I think we're hardwired that way.

[dadevilishsaint.livejournal.com]

hm...

A female that can bear children...

What about a woman who can bear children but with serious birth defects? How does this bill help those females? hm...

[thebratqueen.livejournal.com]

Everything has to be defined. Here's a link to the definitions used in the act. Basically they have to say "for the purpose of this document, when we say X we mean blah, blah, and blah".

For example they define "abortion" as "The term `abortion' means the intentional use or prescription of any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or device to terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead fetus." The medical definition of abortion does not agree with this (as it refers to other things as well) but for the purpose of the bill that's what the bill means when it uses the term "abortion".


So yeah, I'm with you. I think people are overreacting to one part of the bill which was taken out of context. Which is a shame considering there's plenty in the bill as a whole to complain about. If anything, the definition of woman within it is a distraction.

[etoilepb.livejournal.com]

So yeah, I'm with you. I think people are overreacting to one part of the bill which was taken out of context. Which is a shame considering there's plenty in the bill as a whole to complain about. If anything, the definition of woman within it is a distraction.

I'm glad you linked the whole thing, because holy crap, is there ever a lot to complain about in there! Yikes! That whole thing needs to go.

Am so tired of this sort of legislation. Grr. Want Congress's filthy paws off my rights.

[frogmajick.livejournal.com]

Cool! Cooler yet, The walking dead are in Malaysia.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/cowgrrlgoddess/47936.html

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

There's a few problems with that definition.

The normal thing to do, in such a law, would be to define "pregnant woman" something like this:

"a female human being, having reached the age of majority under state and federal law, and currently pregnant with an embryo not older than XYZ weeks or with a fetus ranging in age from ABC weeks to DEF weeks, up to but not including, save in emergency situations in which the life of the pregnant woman and/or the fetus is at risk, fetuses in the the third trimester."

And then there would be a separate definition for a pregnant girl, which would be pretty much the same, except that it would be specified that you could be pregnant and not legally be of age. The emphasis in the definitions would be on the pregnancy, its stages and its medical aspects--and "woman" without the adjective "pregnant" preceding it would not be defined, as women who are not pregnant should not be affected by this bill.

Actually, definitions in bills and laws tend to be specific to the bill or law. If you're talking about a law that would affect a certain sub-class (in this case, pregnant women), you define the sub-class--not the entire class itself (which would be "women"). That's standard operating procedure.

Here's the definition in this bill, as written:

(6) WOMAN - The term `woman' means a female human being who is capable of becoming pregnant, whether or not she has reached the age of majority.

Please notice--if you're a female human being who's capable of becoming pregnant, then you're a woman. It doesn't matter if you're eleven years old and just had your first period. You're female, and menstruation means that your body can conceive children, so you're a woman. Of course, the unwritten corollary would seem to say that if you're a female human being who's incapable of becoming pregnant--whether due to age, genetics, hysterectomy or tied tubes--you're not a woman.

What was it that Margaret Atwood called the infertile women in The Handmaid's Tale? Ah, yes. The "unwomen."

The definition is loaded with loaded with loopholes. And there are a thousand ways it could be legally exploited, almost all of them to the detriment of all American women.

I really don't like the idea of female gender being determined by fertility--even if it's only in one very badly written bill. It reflects an attitude toward women becoming not only acceptable in the minds of males, but also growing more acceptable in the eyes of the law.

[tv-elf.livejournal.com]

Or a woman who can get pregnant, but shouldn't due to it likely killing mother and child?

[spaceoperadiva.livejournal.com]

I'm glad I'm not the only person whose mind went directly to Handmaid's Tale.

[foresthouse.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I was actually planning to post about that after finals, when I had more time to read it.

I glanced at the actual statute, and as a law student it didn't offend me nearly as much as out of context - b/c when they define things in bills, they are basically saying "for the purposes of this act" - so like, this bill applies to "women," who are here defined as...

But I still think they should have done a better job of it.

[foresthouse.livejournal.com]

P.S. This doesn't mean I agree with either the bill or the definition - I haven't really looked at it yet.

But legally, they do have to define it somehow.

[apocalypsos.livejournal.com]

Exactly. It's not worded very well, but I don't think it's as horrifying as everybody else is making it out to be.

[dadevilishsaint.livejournal.com]

See the amount of situations that could come up??
Exactly !!