The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority struck down the state’s 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by a newer state law that criminalizes abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb.
State lawmakers adopted the ban in 1849, making it a felony when anyone other than the mother “intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child.”
It was in effect until 1973, when the US Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the US Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it.
Nice. I’ll take any good news I can get for peoples’ freedoms. IIRC this was a relatively recent Supreme Court election in WI. Every vote (still) matters.
I voted in that election because I wanted her to do what she did here
Thank you for your service. No sarcasm.
If only everyone took civic duty seriously
Please continue voting! You are the hero we need right now!
Yes, but also the election a few years ago. The 2023 election is when we flipped the supreme court. It was flipped on the same issues they ran on again this year. It’s good to see action on the abortion issue, but the even bigger issue is the gerrymandering. They still have work to do.
people need to stop trying to debate with these chuclefucks
it needs to be:
maga - “you’re murdering babies!!!”
normal people - “shut the fuck up”
You’re murdering women
that would be debating these “chuclefucks”
The sane people:
Any help here-
I’ve never thought of a great argument to use against those who super seriously ACTUALLY believe zygotes are totally entirely humans
If you say a zygote has a soul how do I argue for women’s rights etc.
There isn’t an argument needed. A zygote or embryo or whatever isn’t a living human. If someone says that these parasites have a soul, tell them souls aren’t real and ghosts don’t exist. Their religious beliefs have no place in science and policy. Or say that someone you interacted with is part of a religion that thinks that souls are made when a baby is born and takes it’s first breaths. It has the same merit as their argument.
Needed if we care about autonomy of adults though eh? Needed in the halls of congress…
Yes, “I must respect the opinions of those who have the heartfelt belief life begins at first breath after birth”—I like that!!
It’s not needed if their argument is based in religion. I would also say, if this person believes that an unborn child is alive and that abortion is bad, then I would suggest this person doesn’t get an abortion. Also, someone else’s medical situation is none of their business.
I personally believe that entertaining someone else’s view on this topic that thinks it should be illegal, is a problem. It’s akin to giving flat earthers a platform to spew their shit. I’m all in on aggressively shaming people for their back ass views, and if they don’t like that, they can fuck off.
I know that’s an emotional response that doesn’t work in places like Congress, but fuck these people. The people writing laws against abortion don’t care what the people have to say. There are very few politicians that actually listen to and represent their constituents. It’s wasted effort to try and have a civilized debate on a topic like abortion with them, because they have already decided what they’re going to do, and nothing any of us says will change it. If I can shame someone enough that they at least shut the fuck up, then that’s at least something, because nobody that’s entrenched in their abortion views are likely to change from one person’s opinion. It’s like Nazis prior to Trump. Clearly, they were always here, hiding in the woodwork waiting for their opening, and trump normalized it.
While I agree with you, force doesn’t work in arguments, it only makes them plant their feet even harder.
The classic one is “can you hook up someone to be the dialysis machine of someone else against their will”? Even if foetus are people, they shouldn’t have more rights than other people.
But since cruelty is the point (punishment for having sex) there’s no actual reasoning with them.
I like it, thanks!
cruelty is the point
Politically this is very obvious.
If we teleport to the deep south into a Bible church with our 1984 thought scanner, what percentage of parishioners would be revealed to “pro-“”life””” vs. “fuck yeah, cruelty!”
It’s non-zero, the “but jebus said!!!” crowd? (Course maybe the preacher and dozens of others are totally “hahahaha FUCK women”, just not gonna claim it’s all rational[ly evil] people b/c you’ll have grannies who probably tear up at thought of kiLliNg bAbiEs)
Sob stories. Seriously, they eat that shit up. Even if it’s fake, but sounds plausible. If you make it personal to you, especially if it involves a white person getting “accidentally” fucked over by bad policy. I’ve had pretty good luck getting softer responses from Rs by making up personal stories that they connect with. Even if you only get them to question one policy, you put a crack in their foundational beliefs. I avoided this for a long time for ethical reasons, but we’re past that now. I’m not above being deceitful anymore to get a point across. Most of them aren’t necessarily evil, they’re just convinced of evil policy by evil people. If I got my right wing mother to admit that Israel is committing genocide, there is hope.
The biggest thing here, is they think they can separate themselves from consequences of their choices. If they know someone they like that felt those consequences, instead of a nameless, faceless stranger, it makes it harder. Put your name and face out there as being effected by it, and the Rs in your circle will start to question their policy.
That’s worked for me on my mother and a few older Rs at work. Sure, maybe I’m being manipulative, but honestly, I don’t fucking care anymore.
My support for abortion is grounded in my belief that zygotes don’t have souls. I don’t know if I would support abortion in general without believing this. Here are some things you can try, assuming that you’re talking with a rational person:
- Zygotes don’t have a nervous system, the house of the soul, at all; so they can’t have a soul. Even longer until they have brain activity.
- Even their brain activity and complexity is nothing compared to that of, say, a chicken. So if you’re fine with eating chicken, you should be fine with abortions.
- If you were in a burning building, and only had time to save one, which would you save? (a) a crying 5-year old, or (b) a thousand fertilized embryos on a tray.
Great comment
Bullet point three OMG, anybody posed that on religious forums yet (surely similar but I like that specific thought experiment)
As a Satanist they will never stop me from actively participating in my Sacrament unto Him, which includes lots of unprotected sex and a pizza shop in Baltimore.
May the glory of aborted fetii beseech him! All hail Satan glory to Beezlebub.
There is a good chance it would have gone the other way if Musk had been successful in buying the seat that was recently up for election.
My brain auto completed that as being up for auction.
criminalizes abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb
Out of curiosity, when is this? Like 7 months? I’d say this is pretty decent, hardly anyone gets an abortion past 7 months anyway.
… other than the mother? Seems like that old law might have a loophole.
It kind of sounds like it might have been written to protect a mother wanting to have a child and then got misapplied.
Trump will threaten to withhold federal funding. Something must be done about him.
In an unrelated anecdote, I need to at some point redo the plumbing in my new old house, and now I’m thinking about an Italian plumber in green overalls.
