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Supreme Court’s liberal majority struck down the state’s 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by a newer state law that criminalizes abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb.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 Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the US Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it.

  • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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”

    • parody@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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.

      • BassTurd@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        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.

        • parody@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          37 minutes ago

          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!!

          • BassTurd@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            25 minutes ago

            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.

      • alsimoneau@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

        • parody@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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)

    • DancingBear@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      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.

  • cybervseas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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.

  • Elbow@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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.

    • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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.