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

When a Post-Scarcity Society comes into being, will women be required to gestate a pregnancy then ?

 

Unless most of the public does not know about it or understand the implications of the laws.

High court rulings can also overturn the will of the majority.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Why are you so hateful towards single mothers (I think I know but thought I'd ask)

I didn't make an accusation, I asked a question.


But thanks for making a strong case not to force women to have kids they don't want

 

LOL!!! So why haven't you had RvW overturned ????

 

There is such a thing as adoption, you know...


That's why I think your argument there is mostly a non-sequitur.

 

Besides that, I hardly see how allowing one form of abuse is that much better than allowing it later on...

Oh yeah, and if the woman's tubes are tied, the chain of abuse stops.

(Another way in which your argument is pretty much totally irrelevant here?)

 

Child abuse is a separate issue -- not related to abortion. I believe all perpetrators should be

1) held legally accountable
2) lose custody

 

By that time, it should be possible to grow babies outside the womb.

Definitely, restricting abortion will be impossible due to Public Opinion.

I dislike SJWs who force their values on everyone. Conservatives should not try to force their values on others.

 

You mean things like the fetal organ harvesting?

 

I mean things like four states recently changing their laws so women can get abortion on demand at any stage in their pregnancy.

Something that really should have been news, but most Americans are oblivious about it.

I couldn't even begin to touch on all the things that would be shocking to most of the public, in this thread.

 

Are you advocating for a Handmaidian's Tale situation?

 

I agree that the abuse angle is not a valid line to follow when it comes to the abortion issue. Although I would think red herring would be closer.

 

Do you think it would be a Handmaiden's Tale world if women weren't allowed to get abortions over and over and over again, and were only permitted to have 2 abortions?

And then after the third one they couldn't get pregnant again?

I did chuckle to myself at your comment though. If that was an attempt at humor, it worked.

 

NOn-biased links to such, please

 

I won't give you links. I am willing to cite the laws to you and give you an explanation of what they do, however.
But not in this thread.

We do of course have several past threads on this topic.

 

I was looking at that in the context of the post scarcity situation mentioned. But in the current enviroment the only difference would be the forcing to remain pregnant as opposed to the forcing to get pregnant in the book

 

You don't want to support the assertion that you made?

If you are going to cite the laws, then you at the least need a bill number or a legal reference (section 4 paragraph a, or whatever). Quoting the specific passage would be really helpful. I'm not sure I know enough legalesse to sort through the whole bill. I might not be able to find the part that says what you say it does. Yours is the positive assertion, so the burden of proof is on you. I can't prove that the passage saying what you claim is not there.

 

I don't know if this makes you feel any better, but my proposal in this thread does not really have anything to do with forcing a woman to remain pregnant, or forcing her to get pregnant.

 

I don't want to make this thread go off-topic. Which is why I was reluctant to even name the exact things that the public would find shocking to you.

You obviously do seem to find that shocking since you do not seem to believe it.

 

Are you asserting this for the US or for a general democracy? Remember that the US is a representative republic that runs on rule of law, not majority rules.

 

The comment I asked the question of did seem to be apart from your OP, and contexed to the comment it replied to.

 

I am willing to continue this side discussion in one of these past threads here (there are also several others, but it's obvious you didn't bother to search for them).

Late-term abortion made LEGAL in NYS
New York legalizes really late term Abortion and celebrates like it's the Super Bowl

In the second thread, on page 2, post #42, I quoted sections of the law.

 

I know it would not be the first time that an anti-abortion individual misrepresented something, intentionally or not. You might believe that the law says what you claim, but that doesn't mean it does.

 

Your assertion, your responsibility to provide the support. I should not have to go looking for the support. This post now does at least provide a direction.

 

You realize that a part and apart have two completely opposite meanings in this context.
Besides that, I'm completely confused by your comment you just made. You'll have to explain it.