What is mother-baby law

>>17235383
>women
>smart

Is this bait?

>>17235394
I don't understand your question

>>17235383
>What is mother-baby law
I haven't been able to find a clear definition of the term at all. I've found the term on Google, mostly from people claiming they will be interested in seeing its effects of C-section rates, but no one who is willing to say what it is. For that reason, I can't even be sure that this even refers to the thing you're talking about.

>and is it legal to take someone's intelligence away via electroshock under any type of law under the basis of being too smart.
No. That one, I'm pretty darn sure of.

>s it legal to take someone's intelligence away via electroshock under any type of law under the basis of being too smart.

No cuz its not possible

>Mother-baby law

Sounds like a case for charlie kelly

>>17236919
>No cuz its not possible
Technically you could, by causing brain damage. But that's one hell of a blunt instrument, with no possibility of "just dialing it back a bit": either you get nothing or you get full-on lobotomized.