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

"Hopefully" the US is being ethical right now...

Your argument here doesn't really inherently tell us whether the same thing that happened between 1791-1861 is going on right now.

You say the country was being "unethical". Well, according to who? What argument do you have?
Is it because it's "obvious" that was bad, but not so "obvious" this is?

 

https://accesscontinuingeducation.com/ace8000-11/c9/index.htm

 

For most of Human History, infanticide was considered an acceptable form of birth control.

Modern Society would not ban abortion in any foreseeable future.

 

By that time, Slavery was long gone in most Europe. Most societies throughout history were not slave societies.

 

You might want to reexamine your history. Just about all major Empires in Biblical times had slaves. Many of the Greek states, the Roman Empire, the Babylonian Empire, the Persian Empire, etc. Nearly all of the Islamic Empires.

 

So......that makes it a GOOD thing?

 

Huh? What are you talking about. You're obviously not keeping up with the conversation.

 

Are you saying that something that used to be common and acceptable was later seen by nearly everyone as evil?

 

In most Societies, slaves made up under 5% of population.

Modern prisoners are in reality Slaves of the State. They have as little freedom as slaves.

Enslavement of Black people just for being Black was a great evil. Holocaust was The Great Evil.

But sadly all Nations have temporal and lifetime prisoners.

 

How does this relate to Abortion again?

 

Given Economic Reality of pre-Industrial World, infanticide was common and popularly acceptable. Three millennia ago only Judaism forbade infanticide.

 

Maybe in a century, most babies would be grown artificially. Then pro-life position would not inconvenience anyone.

 

Wow, what a coincidence! God's moral law turned out to be right, and everyone else was wrong at the time.

I'm sure infanticide seemed like a good idea to everyone at the time though, seemed to be reasonable and make perfect sense.

Thank goodness "Will of the Majority" is so dependable and can be relied on to tell us what the right thing to do is.

 

I guess so.

But keeping all children alive given economic possibilities of that time or even 1000 Common Era was extremely difficult.

 

We still hear the same argument today, used in favor of abortion.

 

Abortion is not the same as infanticide.

A big majority of people oppose any restrictions on abortion.

Possibly in a century, most babies would be grown artificially. Then pro-life position will not inconvenience anyone.

 

As a Jew I believe that someday, all suffering and death will be non-existent. But that era can not be brought artificially before its time.

 

In other words, you don't believe the world is ready for an end to abortion yet.

 

Do a majority of people oppose restrictions on late-term abortion? Or is that something most people haven't really given much thought to.

 

Not yet. Not until there is enormous technological progress which would enable any baby to be carried to the term outside their mother.

 

So this is really about you believing the mother should have no obligations, not that you believe society is unable to handle these children, like you just previously suggested.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be all over the place and constantly changing your argument.

 

I do not know. Only The Will of The Majority determines most laws under Democracy.

 

This is the Will of the Majority.

A Post-Scarcity Society will provide well-being to everyone. But it may take 70 years for Post-Scarcity Economy to appear.

 

Even that is not necessarily true. Probably the vast majority of the public doesn't totally know exactly what is allowed when it comes to abortion. A big section of the public would be shocked if they knew.

 

Generally, it is impossible to pass a law against the will of over 65% of people. Perhaps a law can pass against 55% disapproval.