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

You and I both have a right to our own bodies and have the right to make dumb choices about our bodies. The government doesn't have a constitutional right to remove women's uteruses or tell them not to use them.

 

You can be if she has the kids and can't afford to raise them, you will be paying for the birth and 18 yrs of food, clothing, and shelter if she receives gov't funds.

 

And you proved me right with your very first response.

 

They can make it conditional on the woman not recieving punishment for aborting her last fetus.

They do this all the time; "Do this and fulfill this condition and we'll give you much less punishment for that law you broke"

In a strict meaning, she wouldn't be "forced", she'd just be "coerced".

 

'uterus privileges!' This has to be the single most arrogant condescending post I have ever read from a pro lifer. Govt does not grant us 'privileges' over our own body parts and organs, so govt cannot take those privileges away , as though we are naughty disobedient children unless we are convicted of a crime. Its preposterous.

 

The moral and philosophical consistency of the thing needs to be sorted out long before any solutions are attempted. We first have to know there is internal consistency to our arguments, before we start making women and/or unborn children pay.

The (massive) flaw in the argument for unconditional abortion is that it's a devastating "cure" - when prevention is clean, simple, and morally sound. To support that requires a very corrupt moral and philosophical compass. You need to have reached that dark place wherein the immediate comfort of the most privileged humans the world has ever known, is your moral guide.

 

If she can't afford kids, why is she making them?

 

Except when it comes to mandatory vaccinations, right?

The "pro-choice" position is inconsistent, at best, when it comes to other issues besides abortion.
(blatant hypocrisy and double standards from most of those in this group)

Heck, I read that in California (one of the most pro-abortion states in the country), they can revoke drivers licenses to those who refuse to submit to an immediate blood test if police demand one. Even though there may be no other solid evidence the driver was under the influence. "My body", huh?

 

As it should be. I expect adults to carry their own weight and be self sufficient. I expect children to be supported, including by me.

 

Huh? That makes no sense. 1. A vaccination is does not take your right arm privileges away from you 2. Under what circumstances are you as an adult tied down, and physically forced to get a vaccination?

 

Its wrong to force and coerce a woman to do anything with her bodily organs. You wouldn't want the government punishing you for what you do with your kidneys, then don't have the government punish women for what happens in their uterus.

 

Sticking a needle into you does not violate bodily rights?

Children are not allowed to attend school unless they have been vaccinated in that state, and if the children do not attend school, the parents can be jailed or lose custody of their children.

Presumably then the child would then be held down and forced to be injected if they had been taken from their parent's custody.

 

You used the phrase 'losing her uterus privileges' which suggests something a little broader and all encompassing than a two second shot in the arm, more like having the right to do what you want with that arm constrained for years but the big lesson here is that there is no real mandate once you put an 'if' in front of it. No one is required to attend a school unless the parent does the requiring.
Parents have been teaching their own kids for thousands of years. Ever hear of home schooling? All fifty states have heard of it. Matter of fact its how kids are being taught during this pandemic.

 

This is an important question to ask, but it is not a justification to illegalise it.

People should always act in rational self-interest and sleeping around aimlessly when one does not want children is very irrational and does not serve one's interest. Contemporary culture is very over-sexualised and does no longer really value romance and sex.

However, I am pretty radical in my defence of abortion and think it should always be legal due to the consistent and well-integrated philosophical premises I hold. Abortion is Pro Life.

I do, however, think Western culture really needs to revaluate its philosophy because it is very clearly very degenerated and dangerous, especially in its view of sex.

 

Some women in the USA believe it does serve their interests, and that an abortion every now and then is "just the price you pay" for a vivacious sex life.


In fact, if we are honest, that's probably the worldview that is most driving the pro-choice movement.

 

Only if white....

 

You're arguing that doing this to a woman is wrong because she wants to have a baby.

Even though the whole argument behind why she got an abortion is she didn't want a baby.

 

Well, then they need to check their premises, values and virtues. They probably have a lot of things to correct.

However, if one does not want children and is pregnant, abortion is both the right and the moral thing to do. It should always be allowed no matter the reason.

Might be true. I am for abortion, but I do not identify with the label "Pro Choicer" at all and think they usually suck at making coherent arguments for their cause.

 

WHAT funding to abortion?


WHO TF is this "we" YOU think rules the world ??

Are you actually proposing FORCED sterilization?


Why don't you ever answer any questions? No argument??

 

NO, they don't.

IF people are "upfront and honest" THEY WOULD ANSWER QUESTIONS...

DUH, it is.

...back to your standby , science fiction ...

 

LOL....some posters fell for the "Uterus Privilege " as actually existing !!!! What?


The OP has NOT shown there is any such thing a "uterus privilege"""

C'mon, folks....it's a joke....

 

Gee, why don't YOU be relevant and show where you found all those women having lots of abortions???

Show your proof...

Show where the law about "uterus privilege"" came from ...LOL....

 

What?
You have claimed to be an elderly lady in these forums.

You don't know how pregnancies happen? You think every pregnancy in the world is planned?

And abortion is a way to over come the accidental pregnancy if one can't afford children.

 

As it should be and as it happens to be are the same.

There will be plenty of children born into poverty, you say you expect them to be supported, including by you. Indicating you are all for gov't programs to help children have shelter, food and clothes. That is good on you.

 

Why do you think age and gender should dictate one's values and virtues? We are all, primarily, individuals who make our own abstractions and judgements.

I, personally, find it hard to understand how people with such collectivist premises can support abortion because the only justification for abortion is a reference to individual rights which implies one has to believe in the individual.

That is not what the post you have quoted implies. It implies that pregnancy is the cause of another action and that the one who wishes to not be pregnant should not engage in that action.

It is a completely reasonable question to ask. Despite being for abortion, I actually agree with it to 100%.

Yes. Or if one does not want children. A fully reasonable solution to take. However, that does not mean one should encourage sloppiness and irresponsibility.