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

WTF are "uterus privileges"?

How EXACTLY do YOU intend to DEPRIVE women of these imaginary "uterus privileges"?

 

We can talk about the "how" later, after we are able to come to a consensus that she shouldn't have them.

You want the "how would this actually be implemented", we can start a separate thread on that.

 

The how can be as important. If you are talking forced birth control chemicals such as an implant or IUD, that might be more acceptable to imposing a "depriv(ing) of uterus privileges", where as forced hysterotomy would not be.

 

NO, FIRST you should explain "uterus privileges"?


Who made up this thing you call "uterus privileges"? YOU????

Have you seen any indication that there is a "consensus" that women should have these MAKE BELIEVE privileges taken away ?

NO.






Will you ever explain "uterus privileges" ?

Why did you start this thread?

Why do you think all women should have their medical records open to the public?


Why TF does it matter to you what women do...how many abortions they have.....HOW does it affect you? You don't even know about them...


IF you had a point you could answer these questions.

You can't even answer the basic one : Who, what, where did this "uterus privileges" come from....???


So you have no argument, no point, nothing...

 

Uh, young people, people, have always wanted sex and they didn't need TV (there was sex before TV ) movies, ...and songs had sex in them.


Sex education does work, not for everyone but it does lower teen pregnancy.

 

There is no such thing as "uterus privileges"

 

you people are ridiculous

 

Just one.

 

So you have tacitly conceded that you CANNOT define these IMAGINARY "privileges" and that you have ZERO idea as to HOW to implement YOUR bizarre VIOLATION of women's RIGHTS either.

Sad!

You are also UNAWARE that there MUST be someone getting their rocks off in order to impregnate these women but you are strangely SILENT about DEMANDING that they have their "male orgasm privileges" taken away.

Do the terms MISOGYNY and HYPOCRISY ring any bells?

 

To be fair, the male is not the one making the abortion decision. To give credit where it is due, Kaz is not making a claim on abandonment of a born child, which is the only area that a male can affect. That is not to make abandonment of a child alright. Just noting that it is a separate topic altogether.

 

It is the MALE impregnating the women that CREATES the situation where an abortion happens.

To ONLY punish the women and NOT the men is MISOGYNY!

 

Yes, but presumably the male impregnating the female will not lead to an abortion. The male gets the benefit of the doubt, because we can't be sure an abortion will take place as a result of his actions.

Yes, if he is having input into the choice (like coercion, for example), then he is as responsible for the abortion as the woman. But under normal circumstances the father doesn't really get a direct input into the choice.

According to the "pro-choice" mentality, however, pretty much all unintended pregnancies will always lead to abortion. So if there was a country where everyone viewed abortion the same way most pro-choicers do, then maybe a man should get consequences for impregnating a female, when they don't plan on having a baby.
(Of course the man would probably just lie and claim the woman said she did want a baby, so every act of sex would require a contract to be signed in the presence of witnesses)

 

Since we have gone full on insane with the premise of this thread, why not just sterilize everyone until they agree to reproduce and are deemed responsible enough for a judge? Problem solved.

They are coming out with numerous reversible sterilization techniques for men so that way we can just apply it to 100% of the population.

As to just women being solely responsible; unless the man is willing to pay her for nine months, pay for the birth and any medical situations that arise, assume all legal responsibilities and reimburse the woman then the man involved has zero say.

 

Simply not true and you have nothing to back that up just like you STILL have nothing to backup your ridiculous "uterus privileges"






.

LOL, more bizarre science fiction...

 

Just tie their knees together.

 

Why?

 

What does that mean? People change. She may one day marry, settle down and decide to have a family.

 

It means nothing since there is no such thing as "uterus privileges"...

 

Society and the law have created other privileges before, and still do.

 

There is no such thing as "uterus privileges" ...not now, never has been....and, of course, you have NEVER proven there is...

 

Faulty logic. You are not punishing either of them for the pregnancy itself. Look at it this way. If the two built a house together and then the one set fire to it, do you punish the other for arson? After all they too created the house for the one to burn it. Or look at it this way. He can assault her to force the ZEF to miscarry. She had the sex with him in order to create the situation where he caused an effective abortion. Should she be punished too for that abortion?

Remember in an abortion situation, the man could just as easily want to have and raise the offspring. But he doesn't get that chance because she has the choice due to bodily autonomy. So why would you punish him when he wants to do right, or at least has the potential do to so, but she is the one making the decision?

 

False. The pro-choice mentality is that when an unintended pregnancy occurs, a woman has the choice of abortion or delivery, and if choosing delivery, has the choice of keeping or giving away for adoption. There is no movement for an unwanted pregnancy to always lead to abortion. If such was the case, then that is failing, because abortions are down since RvW was ruled upon.

 

Provide a parallel example to "uterus privileges"

 

Self-defense weapon privileges, drug privileges, privileges not to share certain types of personal information.

How about driving privileges?

 

Now show me what is the difference between a privilege and a right, especially within the context of one's own body.