Law WI Supreme Court strikes down abortion ban

[LangfordBarrow]

Any woman who doesn't want a baby shouldn't let a man put a dick in her. Why is it that you all coddle women? I'm fine with no reproductive 'rights' for either men or women, or 'rights' for them both, but the status quo now is just letting women do whatever they want with no accountability while having men be accountable for their actions. It's nonsense.

Miss me with the Christian stuff. I couldn't care less about that, you're directing it towards the wrong guy.

It's because babies gestate inside of women so you don’t have the same rights. You are well aware of the consequences when you want to get laid and have the option of having safer sex and picking a partner on birth control. If you're in a committed relationship you should have some input but at the end of the day it's the woman's decision.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

It works both ways, though. I'm perfectly happy to agree that women shouldn't be allowed to kill their children, and men should be mandated to support the kid once it's born. It's when you want only one or the other that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

What's the argument that would entitle men not to support their children?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

It has nothing to do with women having more rights than me and everything to do with women having more rights than the human child they're killing. The notion that you can murder someone because they're smaller than you, or less developed than you, or more dependent than you, or will someday be a financial burden to you, or even just because "they can't feel it" is abhorrently immoral.



Again, I'm willing to accept both sides, that abortion should be illegal AND that more support should be given to struggling families. The reason banning abortion is more pressing is because murder is a greater moral issue than welfare. They're not equal.

A zygote isn't a human being. An embryo isn't a human being. A late term abortion, which are rare anyway, should require some type of medical concern but it's a joke to restrict something like the morning after pill.

 

[Crazy Source]

Because its inside their womb. Its not that complicated.

Where's that same energy when it comes to the epidemic of dead beat dads?

And where is the energy when a certain political party passes legislation that cuts healthcare and food assistance to these kids that have been born?

 

[Ruke Doufus]

No, it doesn't miss you. That's who you stand shoulder-to-shoulder with because of your misguided sense of what you think being a man is and who it allies you with on the issue. You have a problem with the idea that the person in the relationship who MUST biologically have a symbiotic relationship with a fetus having more legal say, and your argument for it sucks because it's entirely feelings based.

Women dont owe sad men any dominion over their bodies. Dont want an abortion? Dont knock up a girl who doesnt want to bear your kid. Plain and simple.

Oh the sweet, sweet irony. You truly are the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Gamer2k4]

What's the argument that would entitle men not to support their children?

The argument would be that if the mother isn't mandated to support her child before it's born, the father shouldn't be mandated to support the child after it's born. I don't think it's a particularly strong argument, because you have to first believe abortion is acceptable, but that's how you would be consistent.

A zygote isn't a human being. An embryo isn't a human being. A late term abortion, which are rare anyway, should require some type of medical concern but it's a joke to restrict something like the morning after pill.

Why isn't a zygote or an embryo a human being? It's a living organism with its own unique human DNA. I'll make the concession that true individual personhood can't be considered to have been established until after two weeks, which is when an embryo can no longer divide into identical twins. But beyond that, a human is a human, regardless of function or viability. Every single one of us will die if our basic needs aren't met, and we're no less human for it. Yet because an unborn baby will die faster, that makes them less human?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

The argument would be that if the mother isn't mandated to support her child before it's born, the father shouldn't be mandated to support the child after it's born. I don't think it's a particularly strong argument, because you have to first believe abortion is acceptable, but that's how you would be consistent.



Why isn't a zygote or an embryo a human being? It's a living organism with its own unique human DNA. I'll make the concession that true individual personhood can't be considered to have been established until after two weeks, which is when an embryo can no longer divide into identical twins. But beyond that, a human is a human, regardless of function or viability. Every single one of us will die if our basic needs aren't met, and we're no less human for it. Yet because an unborn baby will die faster, that makes them less human?

The father not having to support a child the mother didn't support before it was born is being consistent. You want to talk about men having to support their child but how many don't? Many just disappear and the woman has no recourse. At the end of the day the woman is the one that's going to be responsible so she gets to decide.

That identical twin comment has no basis in science. It seems more like a religiously based belief. Even at 6 weeks or so when you can usually detect a heartbeat, it has no chance to survive separated from it's host, and morphologically speaking it looks more like a lizard than a human being.

 

[Gamer2k4]

That identical twin comment has no basis in science. It seems more like a religiously based belief.

Look up gastrulation. It's a scientific concept.

Even at 6 weeks or so when you can usually detect a heartbeat, it has no chance to survive separated from it's host, and morphologically speaking it looks more like a lizard than a human being.

This is a baby at 6 weeks. If you think that looks like a lizard, I don't know what to tell you.

(Not to mention "it doesn't look human" is a pretty heartless argument regardless; do you think the same about victims of acid attacks or people with deformities?)

As far as "no chance to survive separated from its host" goes, we all die if our basic needs aren't met. If I tossed you naked into the Arctic Ocean, you'd die pretty quickly too. It seems cruel and arbitrary to hold an unborn child's mortality against it just because it isn't as resilient as an adult is.

What the argument boils down to is "If you take away the things something needs to survive, it dies." And an unborn child certainly isn't unique in that regard.

 

[HereticBD]

What the argument boils down to is "If you take away the things something needs to survive, it dies." And an unborn child certainly isn't unique in that regard.

The "viability/dependency" of a person is such a disgusting pro-abortion argument, and it's weird how they don't even see why.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Look up gastrulation. It's a scientific concept.



This is a baby at 6 weeks. If you think that looks like a lizard, I don't know what to tell you.

(Not to mention "it doesn't look human" is a pretty heartless argument regardless; do you think the same about victims of acid attacks or people with deformities?)

As far as "no chance to survive separated from its host" goes, we all die if our basic needs aren't met. If I tossed you naked into the Arctic Ocean, you'd die pretty quickly too. It seems cruel and arbitrary to hold an unborn child's mortality against it just because it isn't as resilient as an adult is.

What the argument boils down to is "If you take away the things something needs to survive, it dies." And an unborn child certainly isn't unique in that regard.

It's called a grastula and it's such an early stage of development that it's unreasonable to claim that's the point it's a person so abortions should be restricted.

Can you link where you got that picture from? Here's a link showing weekly development and that photo appears to be about week 9. Even though at that point it has the basic body shape it's nowhere near being devolped enough to survive on it's own. And we'd all die without sustenance but that doesn't mean we're obligated to keep braindead people on life support.

9 Weeks Pregnant - Week-by-week guide

9 weeks pregnant? Find out all you need to know, see how your baby is developing and how your body is changing through our week-by-week guide.

www.nhs.uk

 

[LangfordBarrow]

The "viability/dependency" of a person is such a disgusting pro-abortion argument, and it's weird how they don't even see why.

Toughen up buttercup. It's a cruel world out there. Especially if you're a single mother.

I had someone terminate a pregnancy without my knowledge so I know exactly why you would say that, but calling a clump of cells a baby would be asinine, and usually based on morals not on any scientific principle.

 

[Sinister]

Look up gastrulation. It's a scientific concept.



This is a baby at 6 weeks. If you think that looks like a lizard, I don't know what to tell you.

(Not to mention "it doesn't look human" is a pretty heartless argument regardless; do you think the same about victims of acid attacks or people with deformities?)

As far as "no chance to survive separated from its host" goes, we all die if our basic needs aren't met. If I tossed you naked into the Arctic Ocean, you'd die pretty quickly too. It seems cruel and arbitrary to hold an unborn child's mortality against it just because it isn't as resilient as an adult is.

What the argument boils down to is "If you take away the things something needs to survive, it dies." And an unborn child certainly isn't unique in that regard.

If this photo is supposed to stoke some deep sense of humanity in me that would trigger my manly instincts to move mountains on its behalf, its failing. You know what would stoke that feeling? A photo of my wife. You know what else did? My kids once they were viable and I understood that.

This feelings argument that you believe is supported by "science" in a loose ideological sense is little more than trying to convince people that this is an actual viable human being, to trigger an emotional reaction, which is then used as justification to politically subjugate the humans who must gestate it. And it relies on an emotional reaction to the idea of a potential human life. And even still, if I had to choose between my wife and this, her safety and security as a woman with rights over her own body, I'm choosing her. Personally I feel any man who chooses this likely primarily views their wife as a vehicle for his own progeny, and a human being deserving of rights purely in that context.

 

[nostradumbass]

Nah conservatives just stand outside women's clinics calling em sluts, sinners, and whores. All the malice in the abortion argument is pointed at the women getting them, never about the dudes who ran off. Then got folks up in here crying "what about men??"

But what should I expect out of a political ideology that takes most its talking points from a religion where women are the cause of worldly sin, and should always be subservient to men?

Edit
Also I think you should find a better analogy. No one is holding rallies for deadbeat dads because they aren't losing their body autonomy or rights. Women are.

Do find it enjoyable setting up straw men to throw haymakers at?

First of all, most of the ire from pro life people is directed at the people performing the executions and it's not even close, and it's majority women who are doing the protesting. Their signs are almost entirely focused on the baby, and right around 100% support crisis pregnancy centers, yet somehow you've spun that into some twisted fantasy where it's just a bunch of guys out screaming "whores" and "this is maga country" and supporting deadbeat dads, because you need that fantasy to pretend you're somehow the good guy for supporting executing babies.

Nobody stands outside abortion mills protesting dudes who ran off because there are no dudes who ran off at abortion mills, because they fucking ran off, and all 50 states already have laws that allow criminal prosecution of men for failure to pay child support, and can garnish their wages as well. The marches supporting deadbeat dads are called BLM riots.

 

[Hog-train]

Why isn't a zygote or an embryo a human being? It's a living organism with its own unique human DNA. I'll make the concession that true individual personhood can't be considered to have been established until after two weeks, which is when an embryo can no longer divide into identical twins. But beyond that, a human is a human, regardless of function or viability. Every single one of us will die if our basic needs aren't met, and we're no less human for it. Yet because an unborn baby will die faster, that makes them less human?

A human being has consciousness. A zygote merely has the potential to become a person, this potential alone doesn't grant it personhood rights.