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Supreme Court’s liberal majority struck down the state’s 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by a newer state law that criminalizes abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb.
Abortion legal until viability should be the standard everywhere. That being said, the line is still a little blurry, as your local resources may be able to manage an earlier term pregnancy than one in another area.
Curious how the wording defines that date.
I disagree with you, but only because in republican states this would mean abortion is legal until adulthood, considering their stance on Medicaid and Medicare and food stamps and early childhood education.
Doctors and their patients should make the decision. No one else should have a say.
“Viability” can even be quite fuzzy, because it all depends on the capabilities of medical science, and even then there’s a gray area. And who gets to decide whether a fetus that tests for a given birth defect is “viable”? Does “viable” mean that the fetus can be forced to have a heartbeat outside of the womb, even if they have to be cared for in a vegetative state forever?
Determined solely by the patient’s delivering physician at time of procedure. Full stop.
The law should not practice medicine.
You’re not wrong, but if the law says “legal until viable”, then that physician’s decision must be reviewable in court. Which means that no physician is going to sign off on “not viable” and put themselves at legal risk.
This is why the law should just say “legal”, full stop. (e: I just realized that you also used the phrase “full stop.” I promise I was not trying to be snarky, it just came out.)
There’s also an argument that it doesn’t matter. An unborn child is 100% feeding off of the parent carrying them. Nobody has the right to force that choice on anyone.
Oof … I’m very much for women making the final decision, yet the idea of no cutoff date (assuming a perfectly healthy mother and fetus) makes me uncomfortable. I’m imagining someone just changing their mind at 30 weeks. But of course that’s a highly unlikely scenario. More likely is a relationship ending and the mother realizing she won’t have the support she had anticipated. Or an abusive partner prevented her from getting the abortion sooner. I suppose there could also be financial reasons they couldn’t do it sooner.
Ya, it just makes me uncomfortable after the point of viability, but it’s not my life or my child or my choice, so I don’t disagree with you.
deleted by creator
Definitely - there are lots of reasons why abortion needs to be legal; I was only running down one avenue.
If you’re going to say anything other than unconditionally legal, you need some really clear legal definitions on something, but you certainly can. Like you could define viability as if you delivered it on the spot, you’d have a fully-formed baby with lungs that are ready to breathe, and otherwise unlikely to need life support. You could define the first 6 months of pregnancy as inviable.
You could define the burden of proof in a way that protects doctors, maybe someone trying to already wrongdoing needs to prove that no reasonable physician would agree with their judgement. You could even limit who has standing to take legal action, because some random person on the street isn’t party to it at all.
I’m not saying that “if the doctor and pregnant person agree, it’s legal” is bad, but there are certainly other reasonable options, that I think would play out similarly in practice. Like I’m assuming a doctor about to deliver a baby wouldn’t likely entertain a request for an abortion instead, nor would they likely get one.
So women lose their bodily autonomy as soon as their fetus becomes viable? How’s that work?
Even roe v wade had this as a max,
You might have this as a real belief, but if you are arguing viable fetuses should be allowed to be aborted, you’re not going to do well for your cause and you probably need to find a compromise that can literally rally supermajorities of republicans and democrats onto your side of the issue
Why the fuck would I care about Roe v Wade? Am I supposed to base my idealogy on supreme court decisions and nothing else? Who fucking cares what Roe v. Wade said?
I guess you are opposed to discussion as well, you do you
I didn’t realize we were having a discussion about Supreme Court cases.
See, I don’t base my ideology on what Samuel Alito and his ilk say. That’s not how I decide what is moral or ethical.
At a certain point you’re responsible for a person, and not hosting a mass of cells. If the fetus is viable, then abortion is essentially the same as delivery, and you’re looking at adoption instead of abortion.
I’m sure there’s edge cases that I’m not thinking of, and I’m perfectly willing to admit I’m wrong, but it seems to me that if the fetus is viable, then there’s not much difference between a human that’s inside the body or outside.
Abortion should be legal unless the fetus can be safely detached from the mother with zero risk and put in a artificial womb. (which we don’t have the technology yet)
As long as they are inside the mother, the mother takes priority, the fetus is a potential person, not a fully developed person.
Until the fetus can survive on its own it is a parasite.
Wait… no I’m pretty sure that might still be the case when they graduate college and can’t get a job as well.
But what about BoTh SiDeS?
Gerrymandering reform redistricting next! We need those extra seats!
I think they already unanimously shot down the redistricting reform :<
Give me weed or give me death.
Progress!
Now do Indiana!
Not as long as you keep electing Republicans into majority. Wisconsin just flipped Democratic after Musk poured millions into trying to seat a Republican.
https://ballotpedia.org/Party_control_of_Indiana_state_government
