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

Irrelevant to that which precedes it. You still need to show why they would not have the right to do both.

 

That's obvious, but it is a related but separate argument. More appropriate to discuss in another thread.

(Obviously if the fetus is not a human being, person, or whatever you want to call it, then the entire pro-life argument falls apart, so it is really a separate argument on its own)

 

Been waiting on that one a while. I have yet to see any other example of a supposed privilege of one's own body as opposed to a right. Somehow I doubt we'll ever see that.

 

How is it not? It is the premise of your entire thread.

 

Then why did you bring up the killing aspect?

 

When a thread gets this long, it starts becoming difficult to follow the context of a dialogue between two people, doesn't it?

That's why I try so hard to remain on-topic. Too many people discussing too many different things, and you can't really carry out a productive conversation.


Basically, almost all pro-life arguments are predicated on the killing aspect. That doesn't mean you have to argue over the killing aspect every single time any of the other pro-life arguments come up.
Don't you agree?

We should focus on one argument at a time.

 

Uh, this IS the ABORTION Forum so ya, mostly discussions are about forcing women to gestate or not.


And look at the OP again...is it not about taking away the mythical "uterus privileges" ???

 

If you bring up the aspect in support of the argument you make then expect people to make counter arguments against that aspect.

So is the killing aspect then now off the table for this thread?

 

The arguments being given are not about preventing abortion in and of itself, but of a presumed limit of privilege to do so. Whereas, indeed most arguments would be about making the woman carry to term from there on out, this is a different twist, wherein the woman does not become pregnant again. Now I am not saying that I agree with the premise itself, but it is a different premise from what Kaz usually provides.

 

I wonder how they would react if this were to actually happen - ooops! It HAS



Do you condone this?

 

True but still not an acceptable premise

 

I'm putting $10 down on her saying not only no, but hell no. It would be consistent with her stance of the woman's choice

 

Not claiming it is so, but you argue against the premise given not the one you'd rather argue against. So if the premise is about removing the possibility of getting pregnant, you don't argue about forced gestation.

 

Fine, YOU pick nits about a fantasy "uterus privileges".....but it doesn't make you look any better than kas…

Really, there is no such thing...neither you nor the OP has shown any proof there is....it's the fantasy of misogynists...

 

Why would I ?

 

Sorry you will have to explain THAT one again

 

I thought I was quoting Katz, sorry

 

so you're arguing that women should not have control over their bodies but that such control should be subject to the approval of gocernment.

How "conservative" of you. Enjoy your mask.

 

Most of those women already had multiple children.

 

And there you go again. Posting as if I am making arguments that say "uterus privileges" exist. This is why you are seen as a knee jerk reactionist. You are not addressing what is actually said, but want you want us to be saying so you can vilify us.

 

Kaz brought up the topic of forced sterilization on women who have too many abortions (and yes I noticed that there was no mention as to what that limit might be). The topic does not cover making abortion illegal and thus forcing a woman to bring a ZEF to term. Therefore any arguments about bringing a ZEF to term are strawman fallacies. As are any arguments about abortion not allowed, because that was not part of the premise either.

 

That actually does make more sense. I was wondering why you were asking that of her.

 

And? Most of them had husbands as well.

 

The topic does not cover husbands. Therefore any arguments about husbands are strawman fallacies. As are any arguments about abortion not allowed, because that was not part of the premise either.


LOL....as long as 'we" are "allowing" and "not allowing"... I "not allow" you to bring up husbands... who have NOTHING to do with abortion or anything else..

 

There ya go with another knee jerk reaction rather than slowly READ the post....

You are so concerned about what I post then why not pay attention.

YOU are concerned about all the "Rools" of this thread (and making up your own) but just can't see the POINT that there can be no argument or POINT about something that only exists in the mind of those who obviously have a problem with women..


I have NOT seen you say "uterus privilege" doesn't exist....did I miss that??