Law WI Supreme Court strikes down abortion ban

[The XL]

That's a bit more Government in my bedroom than I'd like, but it's at least a more rounded perspective. However, again historically speaking men HAVE had the right to opt-out. They would just leave and women had no legal recourse.

And I disagree that men should have the right to leave if they've given their word. It's really simple, if the man says he doesn't want the kid, he's off the hook, if he says he wants it and reneges later, he's legally responsible. It would be very easy to enforce.

I don't see how the current status quo of forcing men to pay no matter what is any less government than this scenario. Government wouldn't even need to get involved unless someone violated the terms of the contract.

 

[Sinister]

Appeal to emotion? It's an appeal to equality. Why is it that women can opt out of a pregnancy and its consequences but not men? On what moral and/or logical basis?

The appeal to emotion is your suggestion that this is an argument of female supremacy or some dumb sh*t. That was your entire framing. You've since backed off of that a bit now that we're actually hashing out the minutia.

Believe it or not I faced this issue when I was in HS. I had a girlfriend who straight up told me "if you get me pregnant I'm aborting it." She was just horrified at the idea, and yet was very sexual. I also wonder if it was because I was the only minority she had ever been with and her Family were weird towards me, but we had a pregnancy scare and she held her position. This made me sad. I felt like I had no say. I felt disempowered. Even told her myself and my Family would raise the kid if she just didnt want to be a Mother (dumb considering my Family knew nothing). She wasnt pregnant.

From there I just got really really careful who I went barebacking with. Who I got into long term relationships with. Hell Plannet Parenthood and their free birth control helped assure I didnt have a baby with another poor decision later. But now that I'm married and a Father of 3, and saw what my wife went through with 3 pregnancies and how her body is still effected every day, I'm under no illusion that 1) a fetus should require her legal sacrifice of her own life or health, nah f*ck that, I'll choose her over being a single Dad of 4, and 2) she owes me any ultimate say over what happens to her body.

 

[Satur9]

Apparently its not easy for you to understand it's not a "baby" until it's born.

Cool. I will take it. So long as I know it is a human you are killing, even if it is not technically a "baby". They are yours, not mine.

 

[The XL]

The appeal to emotion is your suggestion that this is an argument of female supremacy or some dumb sh*t. That was your entire framing. You've since backed off of that a bit now that we're actually hashing out the minutia.

Believe it or not I faced this issue when I was in HS. I had a girlfriend who straight up told me "if you get me pregnant I'm aborting it." She was just horrified at the idea, and yet was very sexual. I also wonder if it was because I was the only minority she had ever been with and her Family were weird towards me, but we had a pregnancy scare and she held her position. This made me sad. I felt like I had no say. I felt disempowered. Even told her myself and my Family would raise the kid if she just didnt want to be a Mother (dumb considering my Family knew nothing). She wasnt pregnant.

From there I just got really really careful who I went barebacking with. Who I got into long term relationships with. Hell Plannet Parenthood and their free birth control helped assure I didnt have a baby with another poor decision later. But now that I'm married and a Father of 3, and saw what my wife went through with 3 pregnancies and how her body is still effected every day, I'm under no illusion that 1) a fetus should require her legal sacrifice of her own life or health, nah f*ck that, I'll choose her over being a single Dad of 4, and 2) she owes me any ultimate say over what happens to her body.

I mean, it is female supremacy though. There is no attempt to create an equivalency for men, despite there being plenty of options for it. There will be no push for protecting men, ever, and if there was, women would fight hard against it, as would many men. They want access to a man's resources in those situations.

If a bill was introduced mandating women to alert all partners of pregnancy and allowing men to opt out before the kid was born, most women would lose their shit. If a bill was introduced criminalizing paternity fraud, most women would fight against it. It is a push for supremacy.

 

[Sinister]

And I disagree that men should have the right to leave if they've given their word. It's really simple, if the man says he doesn't want the kid, he's off the hook, if he says he wants it and reneges later, he's legally responsible. It would be very easy to enforce.

I don't see how the current status quo of forcing men to pay no matter what is any less government than this scenario. Government wouldn't even need to get involved unless someone violated the terms of the contract.

Okay so let's make an distinction here that is very important so people understand you politically, and can find your position compelling:

- you dont have a specific problem with reproductive rights for women, such as legality of abortion

- you DO have an issue with a neglected aspect of reproductive rights of men, which is that men should ALSO not be forced to raise babies they don't want.

That's not unfair, just nuanced and not always easy to articulate. And I dont disagree. How to hash it out legally can be a bit messy, but it's not something I'd be against.

 

[Sinister]

I mean, it is female supremacy though. There is no attempt to create an equivalency for men, despite there being plenty of options for it. There will be no push for protecting men, ever, and if there was, women would fight hard against it, as would many men. They want access to a man's resources in those situations.

I dont think it's that. This is where I think you make your argument sound bitter and jaded, which makes it unappealing.

 

[The XL]

I dont think it's that. This is where I think you make your argument sound bitter and jaded, which makes it unappealing.

I'm not trying to make it sound like anything. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Women have leverage now and are trying to make the law work for their interests. It's just the truth. Men did it back in the day, and women are doing it now.

 

[Fury]

If liberals keep sacrificing their children they won't have anyone to carry on their lineage of Moloch worship.

I’ve known Moloch for fifteen years. Terrific guy.

He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Moloch enjoys his social life.

 

[Sinister]

I'm not trying to make it sound like anything. I'm just calling a spade a spade. Women have leverage now and are trying to make the law work for their interests. It's just the truth. Men did it back in the day, and women are doing it now.

No, you're making it sound like there NEEDS to be a legal heirarchy and that they are seeking to be above men in that heirarchy, specifically. Either that or you dont understand what "supremacy" means.

 

[The XL]

Okay so let's make an distinction here that is very important so people understand you politically, and can find your position compelling:

- you dont have a specific problem with reproductive rights for women, such as legality of abortion

- you DO have an issue with a neglected aspect of reproductive rights of men, which is that men should ALSO not be forced to raise babies they don't want.

That's not unfair, just nuanced and not always easy to articulate. And I dont disagree. How to hash it out legally can be a bit messy, but it's not something I'd be against.

Believe it or not, I'm a very fair person. I do not believe in discrimination of law in any regard. I think discrimination should be illegal, straight up, when it comes to everything. Whatever government decides to do should be applied equally. If they decide abortion is illegal, then the man and woman need to be held responsible. If abortion is legal, then men need to be able to have an opt-out as well. This is not currently the case.

 

[The XL]

No, you're making it sound like there NEEDS to be a legal heirarchy and that they are seeking to be above men in that heirarchy, specifically. Either that or you dont understand what "supremacy" means.

I don't think there should be a legal hierarchy. It just so happens that whoever has leverage tends to use it, and that's the way it's always been unfortunately. The law has consistently failed in that regard.

 

[Sinister]

I don't think there should be a legal hierarchy. It just so happens that whoever has leverage tends to use it, and that's the way it's always been unfortunately. The law has consistently failed in that regard.

I doubt think that true Bro. Child support laws exist BECAUSE men have Historically abandoned their families. As I indicated earlier, before that women had no legal recourse. I can agree those laws are often messy, but why they exist isn't the favorability of women. Hell it wasnt until the 1970's women BEGAN being able to be able to purchase homes, get credit cards/bank accounts, and get loans without male co-signers, and these things didnt alleviate immediately, it was over time. Hence, due to those legal limitations men's resources were a necessity.

When my Grandmother was a young woman landlords could refuse to rent to single women. My Mom raised me alone in the 80's and that sh*t was rough for her. With no social support and not much familial support, 2 jobs, barely able to afford daycare, housing, and food (she had cars but they were sh*tboxes). But she also had limited access to financial resources. As she got older and that changed, she moved up an entire economic class essentially in her own, and her next husband also did because of her. He was in the Military but he was low ranked, no car, and his credit sucked, her was very good.

This is a complicated issue but I can agree the premise of equal legal protection should be the endgame.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

turns out elections for supreme court are a good idea. maybe slightly better than allowing an illiterate rapist to give lifetime appointments to morons who would be unemployable as actual attorneys

what is a woman?

 

[IDGETKTFO]

what is a woman?

A sandwich maker?

 

[oldshadow]

This response is just more demonstration of how women are almost invariably painted in a negative light. Here you have a bunch of criticisms of your imaginary scenarios of what women are doing, downplaying of the fact that r@pe and incest pregnancies almost ALWAYS entail women being the victims, and you want a legal framework to favor that perspective. That's the problem that needs to be contended with BEFORE hashing out the legality of abortion. Because all I keep seeing are feelings arguments of sad men, nothing more.

Didn't read very well because no where did I say abortion only in case of rape. However abortion because of rape is a tiny portion of abortions. There are other reasons and just choose to. However thete should be restrictions mostly term limits.

The rest you didn't respond to.

 

[Sinister]

Didn't read very well because no where did I say abortion only in case of rape. However abortion because of rape is a tiny portion of abortions. There are other reasons and just choose to. However thete should be restrictions mostly term limits.

The rest you didn't respond to.

Didnt read very well because nowhere did I say that's what you said. I said you downplayed r@pe pregnancies, which you did. And the rest is just your typical criticisms of women. That's why I didn't respond to them. It's all feelings arguments. XL and I had a productive dialogue because he backed off that sh*t and made a coherent point.

 

[oldshadow]

Didnt read very well because nowhere did I say that's what you said. I said you downplayed r@pe pregnancies, which you did. And the rest is just your typical criticisms of women. That's why I didn't respond to them. It's all feelings arguments. XL and I had a productive dialogue because he backed off that sh*t and made a coherent point.

I stated fact that rape abortions numbers are very small.

"Based on available information, a relatively small percentage of abortions are sought for reasons of rape.

• According to a study from the Guttmacher Institute, approximately 1% of abortions are sought for reasons of rape.
• Less than 0.5% of abortions are sought for reasons of incest."

 

[Gamer2k4]

Women should 100% have more rights than fetuses. And suggesting they shouldnt is more of what people think is cleverly-coded mysoginistic language. Hence the misguided moral frosting you're attempting to put on that argument. It's just a convenient mechanism to corral women politically again, by arguing on the behalf of "human children" who have no real voice and didnt ask for your political zealotry.

Should a mother be able to kill a newborn, then? You can put "human children" in quotes as though it's false, but all the arguments used to justify abortion could also be used to defend infanticide.

If an unborn child isn't a human, what species is it?

You made up a scenario in your head whereby women MUST submit some control of their autonomy to the wishes of men, because they have wombs. Plain and simple. You think you inherently deserve some say over that. If you did it would be because the women subject to you personally would decide so. But that's not good enough, so people who think like you had to create a legal framework that requires it.

This is the first time I'm hearing that a moral opposition to murder is exclusive to men. What about pro-life women? Why are you bringing gender into this ("submitting control of their autonomy to the wishes of men") when the argument of whether or not an unborn child is a human life worth protecting transcends gender?

Abortion isn't murder. So I'm not even entertaining the rest of that nonsense.

Because dehumanizing a baby is the only way you can justify it. I know. Yet there are still people who will call it "women's health care" and in the same breath claim it's traumatic for the woman having the abortion. Why? If it's a clump of cells, you shouldn't feel any worse about it than getting a tumor removed. And if there's more to it than that, then it's worth having an honest discussion about the morality and legality of it.

 

[Darkballs]

I figured I'd get these sorts of answers from weirdo, effeminate liberals. If a woman can just murder their child under the guise of 'personal rights,' then why can't a guy walk away from a kid he didn't want to have?

Because then the taxpayer would be stuck with the bill. So pull up those bootstraps and stop asking for handouts for the time you nailed a swamp donkey.

 

[Sinister]

I stated fact that rape abortions numbers are very small.

"Based on available information, a relatively small percentage of abortions are sought for reasons of rape.

• According to a study from the Guttmacher Institute, approximately 1% of abortions are sought for reasons of rape.
• Less than 0.5% of abortions are sought for reasons of incest."

I'm gonna wager you didnt look much deeper than that and used this to perpetuate the trope that women simply use abortion as birth control. This data is from surveys based on self-reporting. Do you know what one of the top reasons given for seeking abortions is on surveys or medical applications? "None" Given how much r@pe and incest goes unreported, that should clue you in that it might be larger than that. However, even if we entertain that what you're saying is true, it doesnt make the argument less valid because that's just addressing one aspect. Abortions should be legal to a certain time-frame because a zygote is not a viable human being. Roe should have remained intact, and what we have now is worse. A lot worse.