Should a woman who has repeated abortions have her uterus privileges taken away?

Like I told you before, I'm not going to continue to go off-topic in this thread.

We can leave my claim unsubstantiated in this thread then, if it's too difficult for you to go reading through another thread that I have provided the link to.

If you want, I can give you the very short gist of it. These states have all passed nearly identical laws that say that a non-doctor can perform the late-term abortion and the doctor's opinion is not needed. That by itself pretty much opens up the door to on-demand late-term abortion. The way the law is worded is far from explicit, but would make it extremely difficult to prosecute, either the abortion worker or the woman, with a section of this law even saying the woman has a right to abortion, even though the law is seemingly specifically only concerning late-term abortion.

That's all you're going to get here. I will not reply to anything else about that topic in this thread. Post in one of the other threads if you want more discussion about that.

I should have just told you before there were shocking things the public did not know about but that I would not tell you what they were in this thread because I did not want this thread discussion to go off-topic. I tried to select one of them that would be less controversial, so this would not happen, but obviously as you can see now that did not end up working.

It was never my intent to prove any of those specific shocking things, in this thread, but simply to tell that they did exist, and assume most of you would not be too skeptical about the fact that there were shocking things.

 

I was noting that the comment in question seemed to be more part of a subthread that wasn't directly to the main thread started by the OP, and thus wasn't meant to be taking in the context of the OP itself.

 

You edited my post, conviently leaving off that I didn't note that you provided a source to your assertion, although a link would have been better than just a thread title. Otherwise the post was noting that it's your responsibiity, not mine to provide the support for your assertion, unless your assertion is something doesn't exist. In that case it is either your responsibility to show a mutual exclusive condition or, barring that existing, the responsibility of the person asserting such doesn't exist to provide proof.

Probably shouldn't have brought it up then. That's said, the issue seems to move into appeal to authority, so I am happy to let it go from there. I'll probably look them up later, after work

 

One reason I dislike SJWs is that they impose Totalitarian Control on people. They have power to impose Draconian Sanctions for slightest microinsubordination to their demands.

It's unfortunate that some Conservatives would also be willing to impose their ethical standards on others.

Adultery is unethical, yet it is not illegal anywhere in USA. Many Jews avoid violating Sabbath, yet there is no such law in Israel. Many ethical issues can not be made into laws.

 

Nevertheless, no law can pass against the will of a 65% or greater Majority. No lawmaker would vote for an unpopular law.

The Will of Supermajority is the Law.

 

Neither Conservatives nor SJWs should be able to limit anyone's Freedom.

Liberty and Equality!

 

Are you ever going to comment on the topic, you know , the MYTHICAL "uterus privileges" ...

 

You do realize he's been advocating the pro choice position, yes?

 

Not completely.

I believe abortion is unethical like adultery. I oppose Laws which regulate Ethics.

 

Pro choice is the position that the person legally should be able to make the decision if they have an abortion or not, regardless of their person opinion of abortion. That is your position, based upon your writings. You are personally against abortion, but due to your position against laws that regulate ethics, you thus advocate the individual making their own choice.

IOW, believing that a person gets to make their own choice does not mean you think all their options are ethical.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Are you ever going to comment on the topic, you know , the MYTHICAL "uterus privileges" ...

What, in the post of mine you quoted, indicated I thought otherwise?

 

Should a woman be able to choose abortion?
Should a married man/woman who has a consenting partner outside marriage be able to commit adultery?
Should a religious Jewish person be able to eat non-kosher food?

Legally -- yes, yes, yes.

Ethically -- no, no, no.

 

That would be a pro choice position.

 

It had the feel and implication that you thought he supported the OP's position.

 

That was a stretch on your part...

 

Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes I don't think you realize how your posts come across.

 

Sometimes I think he knows exactly how his post comes across, but simply wants to maintain deniability should anyone respond to him on his comments.

It's a way to express a message, but then shoot down someone else's attack against your message by trying to get them to shut it down.

I think the proper way for us to respond to that should be to quote him, and then say "Well, if you feel this way about this, then...".
That way it won't actually affirm what he said, and if he disagrees that's what his meaning was, he'll be forced to clearly say that.

I mean he won't just be able to say "I didn't say that", like he usually does, as long as we don't actually claim he said that.

 

Uh, since when am I the topic? When you got desperate for answers to those inconvenient questions ???



When I say ," I didn't say that" ALL YOU would have to do is show where I did say it...but you NEVER do , you NEVER show proof...EVER....



Just like you NEVER supported your own OP by showing what "uterus privileges" are or where they came from or even is they're real.....you couldn't prove a thing ….so now have to complain about a poster's posting style ….sheer desperation...

 

If you have questions about what I post ..ASK.....then you won' be confused and assume things that weren't there.


As fascinating as I am and as befuddling as I appear to be to you and Mr. Uterus Privilege I am not the topic...

 

@kazenatsu still waiting on the response to this. For @FoxHastings sake this at least stays on topic.

 

Yes, but in some ways, that makes the situation of killing in a pregnancy even worse than killing in the conjoined twin scenario.
You see, in the conjoined twin scenario, they two will be stuck together for life. In the case of a pregnancy, the woman only has to put up with it for another 9 months and then her duty will be over, she only needs to suffer for a limited finite period of time for another life to be saved.

I have frequently heard the argument from many pro-choicers here that claims that the fetus is a part of the woman's body.
(Which by extension would imply that the two are as one)

Now, I'm not exactly disagreeing with you on this point, but it just seems extremely unfair and inconsistent.
If some pro-choicers are claiming something, even if I don't agree with it, then I should be permitted to be able to use that in one of my arguments against them (or at least the pro-choicers who make that claim in their arguments).

 

I understand what you are saying here, but that could turn into an argument about whether a child does not have rights to object to something, in a case where adults do have a right to object to that thing, even in the case where the parents agree with the child.

 

This is where the bodily autonomy argument comes in once again (which as far as I'm concerned is the only consistently valid argument). If you were to wake up and find me connected to you and using your body to sustain me, are you within your right to have me disconnected from you? Even if I am only going to be connected to you for 9 months? Or are you required to have to deal with the situation for the time period because otherwise it ends in a given period and it would kill me to have me removed before the period is up?

An argument I find false. It's in her body, true, but it really isn't part of her body. Hence why the bodily autonomy argument is paramount.

It's not all that inconsistent, at least anymore so than pro-lifers who have different arguments as to why abortion should not be allowed. You simply have to take each person with their particular arguments. Now personally, I do not think that the woman has the right to terminate the child per se. Mind you that the current medical technology and knowledge renders that a moot point because the bodily autonomy principle still overrides other rights. However, if there came a point where the removal procedure for both termination and transfer were the same save whether termination occurred or not, then the woman loses sole decision on whether or not to terminate the ZEF. Her only actual right is to have the pregnancy ended. Again, I am going to point out that such right means that, under current medical conditions, the ZEF would be terminated. I do not hold that this will remain the same in the future.

 

The parent or guardian already have the right to make many choices for the child, whether they agree with the child or not. But we do have to recognize that children can and will be abused and/or neglected. Thus we as a society extend protections to them that in turn do not violate others' rights. Once the child is born, bodily autonomy of the parent is not an issue. It would be the difference between giving am infant a vaccine and injecting the mother with one while carrying the ZEF. The later is a violation of the woman's bodily autonomy if she doesn't consent, but it is not a violation of her rights (even as the parent those rights are limited) in the former situation.

But as noted before, there are indeed other laws that violate bodily autonomy. The balance is whether the law protects others from your actions or not. We could (and there are several) other threads on this principle as it applies to Covid and mask wearing. Don't start down that road please. I only note it as a comparable situation to such things as mandatory vaccines and such.

 

Ignore. Posted in error