A Woman's Right to her Body

[LetThereBe]

Right so based on that they need to find parents who are willing to take the child. I guess I was thinking of adoption agencies. So if you are providing the child with new parents then that is a way to provide for it.

You don't need to do that though. The agency can handle that for you. You don't have to do much of anything.

She is willing, but her emotions / morals prevent her from taking that option.

You mean there are some factors that make her like the decision, but emotional and moral factors that make her unwilling.

She wished to and was willing to abort as it seems most logical, but her emotions/morals prevented her from doing so. She simply could not. Like a man with stage fright.

Stage fright isn't caused by emotions / morals. It is a temporary physical lapse, perhaps due to some irrational phobia.
Refusing to get an abortion for emotional / moral reasons is both a conscious decision, and an option with a long window of opportunity.

[BlackSheep]

I let them make choices based on whatever they want. That is what freedom of choice means.
I don't ignore that the woman's burden is larger. Her choice is larger, and she is able to opt out of that larger burden. Any "effort" that it absolutely requires is shared by the man, as he must pay at least half of the cheapest option.
She is able to choose abortion, she is just unwilling.

What do you mean by her choice is larger?
And she may very well be willing, just prevented by her emotions / morals.

This is nonsense challenge. Absolutely any of my posts. This is like someone asking to prove that bigfoot doesn't exist by pointing out a forest without a bigfoot.
If you say I am being evasive then the burden of proof is on YOU. You find a post where I was being evasive.

I have show you examples over and over the claim is you were always evasive / or had caveats. That can't be proven, but can be easily dis proven. It is much more like you saying big foot exists you just need to show me one.

Not anyone can. Just anyone with children (there are some restrictions if both parents don't agree, some of it varies by state).
But yes, you do not have to have a "good reason" for it, like I posted in the other thread.

But they do need someone who would accept the child and I don't assume they would just dump it on someone incapable, but there is no enforcement there.

The law cannot recognize your rights in one context and then deny them in another when it is convenient. Currently the law is inconsistent. Either you are a person with the right to life or you are not.

Law is like that. Your rights are basically defined by each law.

You have chosen other words that are equally ambiguous. You are expending ten times the effort in being evasive than it would take to just post your definition.

But me arguing the definition won't get us anywhere because you have demonstrated you will not accept what I mean and will bend it another way.

I claim that no woman's emotions / morals prevent the conscious self from taking the option of abortion any more than my dislike of onions prevents my conscious self from taking the option of onion rings.
I claim that a woman's choice not to get abortion is fundamentally no different than anyone's decisions regarding anything.
Partly because of this, I claim that it has absolutely no bearing on our legal system.

Comparing to your aversion to onion rings is is simply a distraction. It minimizes it and it is meaningless.
It could be that a persons emotions / morals cold prevent other choices as well, but that really is also meaningless.

You haven't made it clear. I have no idea how many times she tried that same building... you haven't spoken on the subject at all.

Why is the number of times pertinent? I clearly stated she had no physical impediment. You were suggesting she never got to the roof which is contrairy to my claims other than in one case. She was very consciously willing to jump, but she was stopped by something unconscious.

You said "Yes, but as stated it is on a wholly different scale than what I am speaking of."
You are just arguing that it is a different scale, even if it is fundamentally the same thing.
If you feel it is fundamentally different, how is it fundamentally different?

Yes and that is the key. Somethings influence and something prevent. That is the fundamental difference.

She has free will as much as anyone has free will for any choice. We are all products of our environment and our biology, which we have no control over, so whether there truly is free will is debatable. That debate is irrelevant to the subject.

Not if you claim they can all choose that option.

No, it is just trying to understand your position... which you desperately want to avoid, as your position is untenable.
If you don't have something to hide, just post the definition. You are wasting far more time being evasive than it would take to just post what you mean.

If you are trying to understand then ask about what I mean and don;t continue to claim they words don't mean what I am saying. There is obviously a barrier I am trying to overcome. It will not be over come by us debating what a word means. It will be over come by me trying to explain what I mean and you trying to understand, but I am not convinced that is your goal.

Substituting one ambiguous word for another is not "explaining" anything.

I have never simply substituted a word. I have explained it in many ways. I understand you may have difficulty in understanding what I mean and that words may mean different things in the context used but your constant rephrasing of my claims to change their meaning is simply argumentative. If you try to counter my arguments without understanding them you will never understand them.

Every one of those words is no better, and your position is no clearer by substituting another word that doesn't make sense in your context.

Because we have different definitions. I am more than happy to define what I mean if you accept how I define it rather than arguing the word does not mean what I say. I am also more than happy if you wish to suggest a different word, but that is not the same as rephrasing it as part of an argument.

I am giving you every opportunity to clarify and explain how I am apparently misrepresenting you. All you do is evade and use the same words over and over that I ask you to clarify.

I will say something like 'her emotions/ morals preventing her from taking that option' and you say ' she makes a different choice based on her emotions / morals' Beyond asking me to define specific words which when I do you argue that is not what they mean, you have not asked for any specificclarity that I recall.

Then there is no such thing as a choice, because every decision is influenced by emotions and morals.

Influence does not preclude a choice. It would only preclude it if the influence was over whelming. Lets say I am hungry, but the only food is my son's favorite snack. I could eat it, but my emotions / morals, influence me to not. Now if I was completely morally incapable of eating my son''s snack then it wold preclude a choice.

I've done this over and over. What do you mean a woman "can't" do something when she clearly "can" by definition of the word "can"?

It seems we went through this in the other thread. What I mean by can't in this case is she can not do it even if consciously willing because her emotions / morals prevent it.

It isn't a question of how strong it is. Strong or weak, every decision you make is influenced by emotions and morals. Your decision will ultimately be because of those subconscious factors. If a woman "can't" choose an abortion, then no one can choose anything.

Again influence does not preclude choice. It has an effect on it. Bu the degree of influence can vary a lot. In some cases it is insignificant and others it is overpowering.

Deciding to order mushrooms for someone else is a completely separate decision than deciding to order them for yourself. Your emotions and morals and other internal processes come into play differently for these two decisions. One you "can" do and the other you "can't".

You didn't claim anything about ordering them for yourself and neither did I. I can order them for myself as I said i the right circumstances. I was clear about that.

It is always a balance of factors for everyone. There is no way to tell how much weight one factor has. There is no way to get into someone's head to see how much influence an emotion or a moral principal or a personal preference will come into a choice.
We can't know these things, and thus it is entirely impractical to legislate on such things.

I never said there was anyway to get into someones head. I am simply saying is not as simply as saying a woman can always choose it, because in some cases that selection is precluded by her emotions / morals.

Give one source. I will bet it was really just self-defense.

You are correct, but it was not self defense in the sense that she was under a direct threat at that point and i guess that is what I was thinking.

So? That is an internal process as much as any other, and ultimately controls the decisions you make. You "can" order a food you don't like as much as you "can" get an abortion even if it is against your emotions.

Influence not control unless it is very powerful.

You say some internal processes can stop you from making a decision, but some other internal processes that influence you against a decision "can't" stop you from making a decision.

Correct, because of the strength of that influence. People in some cases will resort to cannibalism for example if they are hungry enough. Generally this does not occur the moment they get hungry it takes a lot of influence and in some cases it is not enough to overcome the taboo.

How is any of this relevant? The emotions still control your decisions, whether or not you physically lose all conscious control.

No they generally on influence them. Only in extreme cases do they control our actions as I just demonstrated.

All of our emotions influence our decisions. You can't tell whether it is "strong enough" that you "can't" make a decision.

I never said you could tell if it is strong enough.

Not necessarily. It can also me disposed to a certain action, as in the definition I provided. In this sense, this is what you mean when you say a woman "can't" get an abortion.

Please don't tell me what I mean. If you are trying to understand me that is counterproductive. I mean the conscious mind when I refer to willing.

That is because it is unconscious. By definition you generally aren't aware of your subconscious. You aren't aware of how it controls your decision.

I am pretty sure I am general aware. It influences me all the time and you seem to have a reluctance differentiating between influence and control.

Internal processes are all we have in making decisions. Whether or not something is even conscious or not is debatable. Most people are conscious of their emotional state or morality if they think about it, so these aren't even really subconscious factors you are debating.

I said unconscious processes not internal ones and when I talk about emotions not being conscious I mean we are not in conscious control of them. Being aware of them is normal and I am not talking about that.

It demonstrates that it is beyond your control, just as a woman's emotions and morals are beyond her control.

How does me wishing to like mushrooms have anything to do with that?

Stage fright is a momentary lapse. She had as many opportunities as she wanted to kill herself. Women have months to get an abortion.

For many stage fright is not momentary, it often lasts a whole life. And as for her unconscious stopping her from acting on her will or morals from stopping someone from selecting an abortion nowhere has it been shown these things are momentary.

The degree of influence is impossible to measure, so is not useful for legal consideration. Even so, why do you even consider emotions and morals subconscious? Most people would consider these conscious factors (I think abortion is morally wrong, therefore I will not get one).

Of course it is useful in this debate as it shows it is possible for women to be prevented from selecting an abortion due to emotions / morals meaning it is not that they can always choose it.

Then I say it is intentionally leaving out an important part of the picture. The subconscious is incredibly important in decision making.

Not at all. I admit other parts are important (I am the one who brought them up) they are just not the choosing agency.

I have been in a similar situation. It wasn't that the choice wasn't made, but rather a physical failing in following through. Overdosing just isn't a reliable method.

Calling it a physical failing is clouding the issue. What stopped her was her subconscious.

It is not so much that you "cannot act how you wish", but just the counter acting factors aren't strong enough. Even a weak factor can mean you "cannot act how you wish" if the counteracting factors are themselves weak.

Please explain how you feel a weak factor can mean you "cannot act how you wish" when dealing with weak counter factors.

It is not emotion, it is intent. It doesn't matter that you were angry, it matters that you didn't plan it.

Planning it is not intent. Intent can be short or long term.

At best it would be a lesser charge if it wasn't actually ruled self-defense. Please provide one such legal example otherwise.

I already said you were right.

Nope, and they can't very well read emotions either. All they can do is their best to judge.
If you say you are going to commit the crime again they won't give you parole, no matter your emotional state. It is chance of recurrence that they base their judgement on... even if they can't be incredibly accurate.

You didn't clearly state they stated they were planning on committing again, that would be a very unlikely case. Normally they don't have it so easy and they base it on remorse and other such indicators.

[BlackSheep]

You don't need to do that though. The agency can handle that for you. You don't have to do much of anything.

The source you located didn't talk about agencies.

You mean there are some factors that make her like the decision, but emotional and moral factors that make her unwilling.

No I don't mean that. You claim to wish to understand and yet you continue to rephrase it back to the same thing. She consciously makes one choice and then emotions / morals prevent her from doing that.

Stage fright isn't caused by emotions / morals. It is a temporary physical lapse, perhaps due to some irrational phobia.
Refusing to get an abortion for emotional / moral reasons is both a conscious decision, and an option with a long window of opportunity.

It is not caused by morals, but it is caused by emotions and it not a temporary i many cases. It is never physical other than the brain not instructing to do what the conscious mind wants it to, but it is an irrational phobia which is emotion.

If your emotions / morals stop you from acting as your conscious mind wants you to, how is that a conscious decision?

[LetThereBe]

What do you mean by her choice is larger?
And she may very well be willing, just prevented by her emotions / morals.

She gets to choose whether it lives or dies. She gets the choice of whether the pregnancy is carried to term or not. His choice is only regarding the money for child support.
If her emotions and morals "prevent her", then they made her unwilling.

I have show you examples over and over the claim is you were always evasive / or had caveats. That can't be proven, but can be easily dis proven. It is much more like you saying big foot exists you just need to show me one.

I am saying there are no caveats. I am saying that bigfoot (caveats) does not exist. You are saying bigfoot (caveats) do exist. To prove bigfoot exists, find me a bigfoot.
I'm beginning to think you don't know what a caveat is.

But they do need someone who would accept the child and I don't assume they would just dump it on someone incapable, but there is no enforcement there.

That can be handled by the agency. This is not a responsibility of theirs.

Law is like that. Your rights are basically defined by each law.

No, the law is not like that. The law doesn't say "you are a person" for the sake of this speeding ticket, but you are "not a person" for the sake this arson charge. You are either a legal person or you are not a legal person. Anything else is legally inconsistent.

But me arguing the definition won't get us anywhere because you have demonstrated you will not accept what I mean and will bend it another way.

I will point out if your definition is inconsistent with your position. I would recommend not choosing definitions that are inconsistent.

Comparing to your aversion to onion rings is is simply a distraction. It minimizes it and it is meaningless.
It could be that a persons emotions / morals cold prevent other choices as well, but that really is also meaningless.

It isn't meaningless... it is showing your silly and trivial (and sexist) your complaint of women being "prevented" by their emotions really is.

Why is the number of times pertinent? I clearly stated she had no physical impediment. You were suggesting she never got to the roof which is contrairy to my claims other than in one case. She was very consciously willing to jump, but she was stopped by something unconscious.

Perhaps she was stopped by fear. Whatever it was, it influenced her decision and she chose against it.

Yes and that is the key. Somethings influence and something prevent. That is the fundamental difference.

How is this different? An influence either leads you to a decision or leads away. Those that "prevent" are just a subset. It is still an internal process that is ultimately responsible for your decision.

Not if you claim they can all choose that option.

I can and do... because it is true by definition of the word.

If you are trying to understand then ask about what I mean and don;t continue to claim they words don't mean what I am saying. There is obviously a barrier I am trying to overcome. It will not be over come by us debating what a word means. It will be over come by me trying to explain what I mean and you trying to understand, but I am not convinced that is your goal.

You "trying to explain what you mean" has just been you repeating the same thing with a different word that is similarly inconsistent. That is why I ask for definitions. They are more direct.

I have never simply substituted a word. I have explained it in many ways. I understand you may have difficulty in understanding what I mean and that words may mean different things in the context used but your constant rephrasing of my claims to change their meaning is simply argumentative. If you try to counter my arguments without understanding them you will never understand them.

All you do is swap out the words "able" and "capable" and "can" and "possible". Other than that you are repeating the exact same thing. That isn't explaining.

Because we have different definitions. I am more than happy to define what I mean if you accept how I define it rather than arguing the word does not mean what I say. I am also more than happy if you wish to suggest a different word, but that is not the same as rephrasing it as part of an argument.

If your own definition disagrees with you, then yes, I am going to point out how it doesn't work for your argument.

I will say something like 'her emotions/ morals preventing her from taking that option' and you say ' she makes a different choice based on her emotions / morals' Beyond asking me to define specific words which when I do you argue that is not what they mean, you have not asked for any specificclarity that I recall.

You have only provided definitions twice, and the first time it blatantly disagreed with your own position. The second time it left ALL decisions to fall under the same umbrella of "can't". In either case, your argument falls apart.
It is not my fault your position is so tenuous.

Influence does not preclude a choice. It would only preclude it if the influence was over whelming. Lets say I am hungry, but the only food is my son's favorite snack. I could eat it, but my emotions / morals, influence me to not. Now if I was completely morally incapable of eating my son''s snack then it wold preclude a choice.

It is fundamentally the same thing. A minor influence requires a lesser countering factor. A major influence requires a more major countering factor. I bet these women that "can't" get an abortion would choose differently with a major enough countering factor.
Stick a gun to their heads and tell them they must or they will die. Suddenly that "can't" will probably change.

It seems we went through this in the other thread. What I mean by can't in this case is she can not do it even if consciously willing because her emotions / morals prevent it.

You are defining "can't" by saying "can not". That is not useful. She "can" do it, she just won't because her emotions and morals influence her choice.

Again influence does not preclude choice. It has an effect on it. Bu the degree of influence can vary a lot. In some cases it is insignificant and others it is overpowering.

Some influences are bigger than others. So what? This again is just part of what making a choice means.

You didn't claim anything about ordering them for yourself and neither did I. I can order them for myself as I said i the right circumstances. I was clear about that.

Have you ever ordered them for yourself? How do you know you can?

I never said there was anyway to get into someones head. I am simply saying is not as simply as saying a woman can always choose it, because in some cases that selection is precluded by her emotions / morals.

It is exactly that simple. If she has the ability and has the option, then she can. Having the choice means that her emotions and morals can influence that choice. That doesn't make it less of a choice.

Influence not control unless it is very powerful.

So how "powerful" must an influence be so that it matters for your argument?
Yours is a pointless slippery slope argument, that cannot be measured or used for any practical purpose. There is no decision that is a "true choice" by this absurd concept of yours.

Correct, because of the strength of that influence. People in some cases will resort to cannibalism for example if they are hungry enough. Generally this does not occur the moment they get hungry it takes a lot of influence and in some cases it is not enough to overcome the taboo.

So how do we know when an internal process arbitrarily qualifies for your "this one counts" criteria and another does not?

No they generally on influence them. Only in extreme cases do they control our actions as I just demonstrated.

You didn't demonstrate anything. You provide a couple unrealistic, binary examples. Influences are never "trivial" vs "complete". It is a full spectrum that cannot be known or measured, and is not even consistent within an individual over time.

I never said you could tell if it is strong enough.

Then how can we possibly expect to use this for law or legal policy regarding parental rights and abortion?

Please don't tell me what I mean. If you are trying to understand me that is counterproductive. I mean the conscious mind when I refer to willing.

I already defined willing, so don't tell me I am using the word wrong.

I am pretty sure I am general aware. It influences me all the time and you seem to have a reluctance differentiating between influence and control.

If you were aware of it then it wouldn't really be subconscious. Everything you do is a result of processes within your mind. Your actions are the result of a sum of the various influences. Rarely does one influence control a person's behavior... it is the result of dozens or hundreds of factors.

I said unconscious processes not internal ones and when I talk about emotions not being conscious I mean we are not in conscious control of them. Being aware of them is normal and I am not talking about that.

Then I am not in conscious control of my personal preferences, or really anything else that can factor into my decisions. Your "argument" is still fundamentally the same as me not choosing onion rings.

How does me wishing to like mushrooms have anything to do with that?

It shows that you do not have conscious control over it, just like a woman does not have conscious control over her emotions or moral system.

For many stage fright is not momentary, it often lasts a whole life.

Then they should probably get off that stage. Spending your whole life paralyzed on a stage is no way to live.

And as for her unconscious stopping her from acting on her will or morals from stopping someone from selecting an abortion nowhere has it been shown these things are momentary.

...exactly. They aren't momentary. She has months to act on them... to evaluate and decide. She has a large window of opportunity to overcome her irrational phobia, if you hold to that being the issue.

Of course it is useful in this debate as it shows it is possible for women to be prevented from selecting an abortion due to emotions / morals meaning it is not that they can always choose it.

What does it matter if they "can't" choose it when this is true for every other type of decision we make?
How does this impact how we should govern policy or make laws? We don't take this into account for any other laws involving these kind of decisions.

Your position is horrifically inconsistent and sexist.

Not at all. I admit other parts are important (I am the one who brought them up) they are just not the choosing agency.

They always factor into choice.

Calling it a physical failing is clouding the issue. What stopped her was her subconscious.

Her subconscious should have tried a more reliable method if that is what she wanted.

Please explain how you feel a weak factor can mean you "cannot act how you wish" when dealing with weak counter factors.

I feel like pizza tonight, but meh, the phone is way over there.
My desire for pizza isn't that great, and my laziness is a strong enough counter factor to prevent me from ordering it.
In this battle of two weak factors, the laziness makes it so "I cannot act how I wish" and get that pizza.

Planning it is not intent. Intent can be short or long term.

...okay? How does this change the truth of my statement?

You didn't clearly state they stated they were planning on committing again, that would be a very unlikely case. Normally they don't have it so easy and they base it on remorse and other such indicators.

Remorse are indicators of whether or not they will be likely to be a repeat offender. We don't release them because of an emotion, we release them because the emotion is a sign of how they will act.

[LetThereBe]

The source you located didn't talk about agencies.

It was mentioned and why does this detail even matter? Is this something you contest?
Adoption in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No I don't mean that. You claim to wish to understand and yet you continue to rephrase it back to the same thing. She consciously makes one choice and then emotions / morals prevent her from doing that.

The problem is with the word "prevent". They "prevent" her no more than any other internal factor "prevents" any other choice that we make. If it is the exact same as all other choices, then obviously this has absolutely no weight as an argument.

It is not caused by morals, but it is caused by emotions and it not a temporary i many cases. It is never physical other than the brain not instructing to do what the conscious mind wants it to, but it is an irrational phobia which is emotion.

So you are saying that women cannot get abortions due to an irrational phobia, and that is what emotions are: an irrational phobia.
Wow.

If your emotions / morals stop you from acting as your conscious mind wants you to, how is that a conscious decision?

Because my emotions/morals are part of my conscious mind. I may want to kill my parents to get an inheritance, but my emotions/morals weigh in on the decision process. It would be wrong to kill my parents, so that factors into my decision. My emotions also factor in due to some fondness for them, and due to fear of getting caught. As such I take all of this into consideration, and I DECIDE that it is not worth it just for the inheritance.
My conscious mind sure wants that inheritance, but I still choose to act otherwise. My darned emotions and morals just "prevented" me from making that choice.

The same is true of ordering onion rings. I may see a great price on onion rings and I may be hungry, but my darned dislike of onions "prevents" me from making that choice.

[BlackSheep]

She gets to choose whether it lives or dies. She gets the choice of whether the pregnancy is carried to term or not. His choice is only regarding the money for child support.

That 'larger' choice does not give her anymore benefit. His choice eliminates his responsibilities and hers eliminates hers so I fail to see any balance here.

If her emotions and morals "prevent her", then they made her unwilling.

No unwilling has to do with choice, which is of the conscious mind. The barriers are created by the unconscious mind.

I am saying there are no caveats. I am saying that bigfoot (caveats) does not exist. You are saying bigfoot (caveats) do exist. To prove bigfoot exists, find me a bigfoot.

You brought up Bigfoot not I. I never said anything about Caveats with Bigfoot. The analogy of Bigfoot has to do with proof. You claim that before I made my request you answered the question without Caveat or evasion. SO then simple. You find one single response before that point that does not have either of those and you have proven it. I could supply ten and it would not prove you didn't. So prove it if you wish.

I'm beginning to think you don't know what a caveat is.

Not a single thing I said had anything to do with my understanding of a caveat, so I have no idea what your thinking s based on.

That can be handled by the agency. This is not a responsibility of theirs.

The source gave no information on agencies.

No, the law is not like that. The law doesn't say "you are a person" for the sake of this speeding ticket, but you are "not a person" for the sake this arson charge. You are either a legal person or you are not a legal person. Anything else is legally inconsistent.

You would be surprised. Often laws or sections of laws have their own definitions of terms.

I will point out if your definition is inconsistent with your position. I would recommend not choosing definitions that are inconsistent.

That was not 'my' definition. It was the dictionary definition and you simply interpreted it your way rather than trying to understand my point.

It isn't meaningless... it is showing your silly and trivial (and sexist) your complaint of women being "prevented" by their emotions really is.

Your example was silly and trivial not mine. I have also used examples where it would apply to me so it is not sexist. I use the term women in this because that this the group we are talking about but the same thing happens to men as well.

Perhaps she was stopped by fear. Whatever it was, it influenced her decision and she chose against it.

It may have been fear, but I think it was more akin to survival instinct, but it did not change her decision it simply blocked her conscious self from acting on it.

How is this different? An influence either leads you to a decision or leads away. Those that "prevent" are just a subset. It is still an internal process that is ultimately responsible for your decision.

I have explained this a number of times and you understood what I said based on what you just said. If it prevents, no matter I choose I can not act on it as it is prevented. If is simply an influence then it may very well be one of many factors I take into consideration when I choose. It does not dictate my choice.

I can and do... because it is true by definition of the word.

The dictionary definition of the word is not the point. You claimed you are trying to understand an yet you do not. You interpret words in ways to help you rather than seeking to understand. Choose is on the conscious mind and if the unconscious mind won't allow it, then it is not a choice.

You "trying to explain what you mean" has just been you repeating the same thing with a different word that is similarly inconsistent. That is why I ask for definitions. They are more direct.

Definitions are open to interpretation. It is very common in philosophy or science to create new terms or re-purpose old terms because there is no word for exactly what is trying to be conveyed. I would not say this is the case here, but you do simply interpret the word one way rather than to try and understand as you claim.

All you do is swap out the words "able" and "capable" and "can" and "possible". Other than that you are repeating the exact same thing. That isn't explaining.

I do far more than that. Not only that you have shown you understand what I mean and yet when it suits you claim to not.

If your own definition disagrees with you, then yes, I am going to point out how it doesn't work for your argument.

If my definition or your interpretation of the dictionary definition disagrees with me?

You have only provided definitions twice, and the first time it blatantly disagreed with your own position. The second time it left ALL decisions to fall under the same umbrella of "can't". In either case, your argument falls apart.
It is not my fault your position is so tenuous.

No the first time it was claimed I didn't know what the word meant and that was when I provided the dictionary definition and then you inserted your own interpretation. You made the definition a barrier rather than seeking to understand what I was trying to say.

The second one is purely just a difference of interpretation where you picked the one that suited you and claimed it the only one.

It is fundamentally the same thing. A minor influence requires a lesser countering factor. A major influence requires a more major countering factor. I bet these women that "can't" get an abortion would choose differently with a major enough countering factor.
Stick a gun to their heads and tell them they must or they will die. Suddenly that "can't" will probably change.

Again you go to ludicrous extremes. In terms of an abortion we do not hold a gun to peoples head, but she must balance it with the ramifications on the rest of her life. Even still if you held a gun to their heads they would not all do it. Hold a gun to my head and I ill not kill my son or daughter.

You are defining "can't" by saying "can not". That is not useful. She "can" do it, she just won't because her emotions and morals influence her choice.

I am defining can in terms of having the skills, willingness, with no barrier to the action. An unconscious barrier is still a barrier. A man with severe acrophobia can't jump from a plane even if there is no physical barrier. You you thrown him, be he can not do it.

Some influences are bigger than others. So what? This again is just part of what making a choice means.

Not if the influence in insurmountable.

Have you ever ordered them for yourself? How do you know you can?

I have eaten them which seems to be what you mean when you say order them.

It is exactly that simple. If she has the ability and has the option, then she can. Having the choice means that her emotions and morals can influence that choice. That doesn't make it less of a choice.

If ones emotions / morals preclude one option then it is not a choice.

So how "powerful" must an influence be so that it matters for your argument?
Yours is a pointless slippery slope argument, that cannot be measured or used for any practical purpose. There is no decision that is a "true choice" by this absurd concept of yours.

It must preclude you from that selection.
It doesn't need to be measured. We just have to recognize that it happens.
And of course their are choices, it just means the influence is one powerful enough to preclude the action.

So how do we know when an internal process arbitrarily qualifies for your "this one counts" criteria and another does not?

Give me an example so that I can respond.

You didn't demonstrate anything. You provide a couple unrealistic, binary examples. Influences are never "trivial" vs "complete". It is a full spectrum that cannot be known or measured, and is not even consistent within an individual over time.

Stage fright is a unrealistic binary example? Many if not most people have stage fright. In most cases it simply influences choices. Lots of people push themselves beyond this fear to act be on stage. In some cases it is powerful enough to preclude action. How is this binary?

Then how can we possibly expect to use this for law or legal policy regarding parental rights and abortion?

We recognize that it is not always a choice a woman can take (to have an abortion) and we don't treat it as such.

I already defined willing, so don't tell me I am using the word wrong.

I am explaining what I mean. When I am doing that it is I who set what the words mean.

If you were aware of it then it wouldn't really be subconscious. Everything you do is a result of processes within your mind. Your actions are the result of a sum of the various influences. Rarely does one influence control a person's behavior... it is the result of dozens or hundreds of factors.

I defined what I meant. "I said unconscious processes not internal ones and when I talk about emotions not being conscious I mean we are not in conscious control of them. Being aware of them is normal and I am not talking about that."

Then I am not in conscious control of my personal preferences, or really anything else that can factor into my decisions. Your "argument" is still fundamentally the same as me not choosing onion rings.

In general you are not, but you are in control of the overall choice, unless one of those influences is overwhelming.

It shows that you do not have conscious control over it, just like a woman does not have conscious control over her emotions or moral system.

I never suggested I had conscious control over my dislike of mushrooms. I stated I could eat them if necessary.

Then they should probably get off that stage. Spending your whole life paralyzed on a stage is no way to live.

You claimed it was momentary. I am glad you realize it is not.

...exactly. They aren't momentary. She has months to act on them... to evaluate and decide. She has a large window of opportunity to overcome her irrational phobia, if you hold to that being the issue.

Above you just admitted they can be long term, possibly a whole life and now you are back to them being short term. Many people have these things their whole lives or at least for many years.

What does it matter if they "can't" choose it when this is true for every other type of decision we make?
How does this impact how we should govern policy or make laws? We don't take this into account for any other laws involving these kind of decisions.

I have demonstrated they are not. There is a marked difference between the ability to choose depending on the power of the influence.

Your position is horrifically inconsistent and sexist.

My position has been very consistent. You just interpret words in different ways to make it seem otherwise.
I am not the one who toggles between the woman should have an abortion and is weak if she can't make that choice to abortions should be made illegal.

They always factor into choice.

I brought that up as well.

Her subconscious should have tried a more reliable method if that is what she wanted.

I don't know what you mean by that or how is responds to my point.

I feel like pizza tonight, but meh, the phone is way over there.
My desire for pizza isn't that great, and my laziness is a strong enough counter factor to prevent me from ordering it.
In this battle of two weak factors, the laziness makes it so "I cannot act how I wish" and get that pizza.

You could do it. We can succumb to weak factors and we can push past them, but overwhelming ones are well overwhelming.

...okay? How does this change the truth of my statement?

You said "It matters that you did not plan it." Intent can be there is you did not plan it ahead of time.

Remorse are indicators of whether or not they will be likely to be a repeat offender. We don't release them because of an emotion, we release them because the emotion is a sign of how they will act.

Yes we did. Invisible things emotions and moral are what will make them likely to repeat or not and so we look for indicators of those emotions / morals.

[BlackSheep]

It was mentioned and why does this detail even matter? Is this something you contest?
Adoption in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks. You made a claim and I wanted to see if it was unsupported.

The problem is with the word "prevent". They "prevent" her no more than any other internal factor "prevents" any other choice that we make. If it is the exact same as all other choices, then obviously this has absolutely no weight as an argument.

Then say that to begin with rather than simply changing my words to something I didn't say.

Some motivations are so strong that they can not be over come. We can not by force of will do some actions because of them where others we can and some case it is trivial to overcome emotions etc.

So you are saying that women cannot get abortions due to an irrational phobia, and that is what emotions are: an irrational phobia.
Wow.

You seem to be desperate for arguments. Obviously I was talking about stage fright.

Because my emotions/morals are part of my conscious mind.

SO you can control your emotions and morals just like your thoughts?

I may want to kill my parents to get an inheritance, but my emotions/morals weigh in on the decision process. It would be wrong to kill my parents, so that factors into my decision. My emotions also factor in due to some fondness for them, and due to fear of getting caught. As such I take all of this into consideration, and I DECIDE that it is not worth it just for the inheritance.
My conscious mind sure wants that inheritance, but I still choose to act otherwise. My darned emotions and morals just "prevented" me from making that choice.

I agree those factor in, but they are not conscious as I defined it. They are not under your control. You can perceive them and their influence,but not control them.

The same is true of ordering onion rings. I may see a great price on onion rings and I may be hungry, but my darned dislike of onions "prevents" me from making that choice.

As you have describes it that is not prevents. It is influenced.

[Apeman81]

minorwork;870366][INDENT=2] You can say so. Slave breeders share your interest in the value of a created human life beyond the convenience of the one who creates it.

Slave breeders? Introducing hyperbolic allusions does nothing to support and argument.

What imperative is it that in order to to ensure a child's delivery, its value claimed by other than the mother, the opinions of the pregnant woman are to be discarded as irrelevant? Do you see slavery as our lot? There is no hope beyond the lot of a slave to be had in this world and THAT makes every potential life precious and more valuable to the slaves owners than any mother can imagine?

So "mother's" are solely imbued with the power to decide the value of their offspring? Must be hard to bear that god-like burden

The remainder of your post is based upon the life of the mother enjoying a superiority to the life she created. The women is a "body" over which she has total control, and the other is an extension of that body for which no protections are offered, unless the mother wants to keep that part of her body, in which case the killing of that part of her body (oddly not requiring any physical harm to her body that remains), is a crime.

It also grants only one of the participants of the creation of the human life any control over that human life prior to birth.

You reject the separate nature of the life created. You deny it the title of offspring, child, and indeed deny its right to life.

To be killed at the whim of one's "owner"?

And you have the audacity to allude that my side of the argument resembles slavery!

[LetThereBe]

That 'larger' choice does not give her anymore benefit. His choice eliminates his responsibilities and hers eliminates hers so I fail to see any balance here.

See the section with emphasis. That is perfect balance. Each with control over their own responsibilities.

No unwilling has to do with choice, which is of the conscious mind. The barriers are created by the unconscious mind.

By the definition I provided "disposition" is part of the definition of willing. That is subconscious.

You brought up Bigfoot not I. I never said anything about Caveats with Bigfoot. The analogy of Bigfoot has to do with proof. You claim that before I made my request you answered the question without Caveat or evasion. SO then simple. You find one single response before that point that does not have either of those and you have proven it. I could supply ten and it would not prove you didn't. So prove it if you wish.

I already did, and you said it wasn't what you are looking for. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, which is why I question if you know what a caveat is. If you say that I have made a post with caveats it should be extremely easy to locate one.
You are making a groundless attack, and then refusing to provide evidence for it.

You would be surprised. Often laws or sections of laws have their own definitions of terms.

Name one instance aside from abortion where someone is defined differently for the purpose of their rights.

That was not 'my' definition. It was the dictionary definition and you simply interpreted it your way rather than trying to understand my point.

It was the dictionary definition you gave. If you provided the definition you should choose one that supports your argument.

Your example was silly and trivial not mine. I have also used examples where it would apply to me so it is not sexist. I use the term women in this because that this the group we are talking about but the same thing happens to men as well.

My example is silly and trivial to show that your whole argument is silly and trivial, because it is fundamentally the same thing. Saying a woman "can't" choose an abortion for essentially the same reasons we "can't" choose anything we decide against is laughable.

It may have been fear, but I think it was more akin to survival instinct, but it did not change her decision it simply blocked her conscious self from acting on it.

Like I said, she ended up choosing not to act on her decision. She had a change of heart at the last moment.

I have explained this a number of times and you understood what I said based on what you just said. If it prevents, no matter I choose I can not act on it as it is prevented. If is simply an influence then it may very well be one of many factors I take into consideration when I choose. It does not dictate my choice.

It is only "prevented" because the countering factors are not strong enough. This is true for weak or strong influences.

The dictionary definition of the word is not the point. You claimed you are trying to understand an yet you do not. You interpret words in ways to help you rather than seeking to understand. Choose is on the conscious mind and if the unconscious mind won't allow it, then it is not a choice.

It is a choice if you have the option. Inaction is itself a choice.
I am trying to understand, but am just unable to understand due to your intentional ambiguity and/or lack of mastery of English.

Definitions are open to interpretation. It is very common in philosophy or science to create new terms or re-purpose old terms because there is no word for exactly what is trying to be conveyed. I would not say this is the case here, but you do simply interpret the word one way rather than to try and understand as you claim.

Then please explain your interpretation in such a way that it works with your argument.

I do far more than that. Not only that you have shown you understand what I mean and yet when it suits you claim to not.

Give me an example of one post where you have.

If my definition or your interpretation of the dictionary definition disagrees with me?

Your definition. Since you have supplied no other interpretation, I am forced to use the obvious, common understandings of the words. If you mean something else, please explain it.

No the first time it was claimed I didn't know what the word meant and that was when I provided the dictionary definition and then you inserted your own interpretation. You made the definition a barrier rather than seeking to understand what I was trying to say.

I used the common sense, commonly understood interpretation of the words in the definition. If you mean something aside from the English definition of words when you use these English words, please provide what it means from your made-up language (but make sure to give the translation in English, please).

The second one is purely just a difference of interpretation where you picked the one that suited you and claimed it the only one.

There really was little room for interpretation. The only alternative definition was a synonym for "willing", which you insist you do not mean.

Again you go to ludicrous extremes. In terms of an abortion we do not hold a gun to peoples head, but she must balance it with the ramifications on the rest of her life. Even still if you held a gun to their heads they would not all do it.

I go to ludicrous extremes to prove a point. You say they "cannot". I say they both can and will if they have an extreme enough motivation. If you make the countering influence great enough (like death) then the option that was "overpowering" can suddenly be overcome.

Hold a gun to my head and I ill not kill my son or daughter.

It just isn't an extreme enough influence then. What if both of your children were being slowly tortured to death, and the only way to save one would be to give the other a quick, painless death?
You may find yourself "capable" of things you thought "impossible" if placed in an extreme enough situation. The choice is there.

I am defining can in terms of having the skills, willingness, with no barrier to the action. An unconscious barrier is still a barrier. A man with severe acrophobia can't jump from a plane even if there is no physical barrier. You you thrown him, be he can not do it.

At best your argument boils down to these women having essentially what is a mental disease. If this is the case, they should be ruled mentally incapable of making the choice for themselves, and someone (the father? parents? someone with power of attorney?) should have authority to make the choice for them instead.

Not if the influence in insurmountable.

The influence is not insurmountable. It just hasn't encountered a strong enough countering influence.

I have eaten them which seems to be what you mean when you say order them.

Then there was another influence stronger than your personal distaste.

If ones emotions / morals preclude one option then it is not a choice.

The option is not precluded, just the least favorable given the influencing factors. Again, this is how all decisions work.

It must preclude you from that selection.

...and how can you possibly know if this is happening, instead of there just not being strong enough countering influences?
Maybe we should hold that gun to her head just to make sure she is really serious about it?

It doesn't need to be measured. We just have to recognize that it happens.

If we can never measure it or prove that NO influence would be strong enough to counter it, how can we even know it happens?
Even if we do know that it happens, what difference does it make that we "recognize it"? This still doesn't mean there are legal repercussions.

Give me an example so that I can respond.

How do we know you and mushrooms is a real choice, and Jenny not getting her abortion isn't a real choice. You admit this is something we can't know or measure. We can't even prove it ever happens.

Stage fright is a unrealistic binary example? Many if not most people have stage fright. In most cases it simply influences choices. Lots of people push themselves beyond this fear to act be on stage. In some cases it is powerful enough to preclude action. How is this binary?

Your whole "argument" is binary. You think an action is either "precluded" or you have freedom of choice. You think these are the two significant states.
I say this is silly. Most of the time you are "precluded" you would actually be able to choose otherwise if the motivation was extreme enough... say through threat of death or physical torture.
It isn't "influences that preclude and influences that don't preclude". It is big influences, small influences, and everywhere in between.

We recognize that it is not always a choice a woman can take (to have an abortion) and we don't treat it as such.

You can never prove whether a choice has been "precluded" by your silly definition, and even if we could... how does this make how we treat it any different?
You say we "treat it as such". What do you mean by this?

I am explaining what I mean. When I am doing that it is I who set what the words mean.

...and when I use the word "willing" and explain what I mean, you likewise cannot contest my usage.

I defined what I meant. "I said unconscious processes not internal ones and when I talk about emotions not being conscious I mean we are not in conscious control of them. Being aware of them is normal and I am not talking about that."

The part that you are "not talking about" needs to be talked about and included though. You are leaving out an essential component of decision making, so your argument does not hold water when you use this intentionally incomplete definition.

In general you are not, but you are in control of the overall choice, unless one of those influences is overwhelming.

How do we ever know whether an influence is truly overwhelming?

I never suggested I had conscious control over my dislike of mushrooms. I stated I could eat them if necessary.

You still can't control what influences you. If it is "necessary" that just means some other choice overwhelmed your dislike... so you still weren't "freely choosing". Every choice is one or more influences overwhelming the opposing influence(s).

You claimed it was momentary. I am glad you realize it is not.

Stage fright is a momentary physical response to a short-term situation. Being "unable" to choose an abortion is not.

Above you just admitted they can be long term, possibly a whole life and now you are back to them being short term. Many people have these things their whole lives or at least for many years.

The situation is long term, which is why the example of stage fright is not a comparable example. The woman has a long window to come to her decision... she isn't just temporarily incapacitated like occurs with stage fright.

I have demonstrated they are not. There is a marked difference between the ability to choose depending on the power of the influence.

No there isn't. They are fundamentally the same thing... just one is "bigger". Please explain how this is fundamentally different.
I see you still dodge how being "unable" should shape our laws.

I am not the one who toggles between the woman should have an abortion and is weak if she can't make that choice to abortions should be made illegal.

I simply believe our laws should be fair and consistent, instead of sexist.
There are multiple ways we could do that. Outlawing abortion is one way (and not my preference). Another way is to make child support optional.
Either one would make things equitable.

I don't know what you mean by that or how is responds to my point.

If she really wanted to die, she should have chosen a more reliable method. She really didn't try very hard.

You could do it. We can succumb to weak factors and we can push past them, but overwhelming ones are well overwhelming.

No I "can't". There is no force strong enough to overcome my laziness.
It would take the introduction of some far stronger influence (like a gun to my head). Then I could order that pizza. Right now I am "incapable" due to the lack of countering influence.

You said "It matters that you did not plan it." Intent can be there is you did not plan it ahead of time.

Premeditation and intent are different things, and both are factored into our laws. Neither of these things are emotions, which we DON'T factor into our laws.

Yes we did. Invisible things emotions and moral are what will make them likely to repeat or not and so we look for indicators of those emotions / morals.

We look for indicators that mean they are likely to repeat or not, including emotions and morals. We do not give parole because of emotions or morals, we give parole because of the actual practical thing they can indicate.
We do not factor emotions and morals themselves into our laws.

Then say that to begin with rather than simply changing my words to something I didn't say.

I have been saying this to begin with.

Some motivations are so strong that they can not be over come. We can not by force of will do some actions because of them where others we can and some case it is trivial to overcome emotions etc.

Sometimes the influences are big, and sometimes small. I have never denied this.
It doesn't mean we "can't" or that we "don't have the choice".
It just means that emotions and morals are the biggest factors to you, and you don't have any factors that are strong enough to counter.

You seem to be desperate for arguments. Obviously I was talking about stage fright.

You are comparing a woman's inability to choose with a person's inability to speak due to a phobia. If they are not analogous then why bring them up? If they are, you are essentially saying a woman's emotions are a mental illness.
It is pretty hard to get more sexist than that.

SO you can control your emotions and morals just like your thoughts?

I am aware of them, and I am aware of how they factor into my decisions. I do not "control" them anymore than I control any of the internal influences that are part of my identity.

I agree those factor in, but they are not conscious as I defined it. They are not under your control. You can perceive them and their influence,but not control them.

...and I can't control any of the factors that come into play in my decision making. I don't control my wants. I don't control my preferences. It is all beyond my control for every decision.

As you have describes it that is not prevents. It is influenced.

Because that is all there is.

[Apeman81]

From what point of view is it right to declare, at any point during its existence, the human life created by the human sperm and the human egg is not human?

We are discussing the taking of human life

Which point of view offers the most protection against taking human life for the sake of convenience?

Please explain how any point in time during the existence of the life created by human intercourse other than conception offers more protection against the taking of human life.

[minorwork]

Slave breeders? Introducing hyperbolic allusions does nothing to support and argument.

The slave breeders make your argument, not mine.

So "mother's" are solely imbued with the power to decide the value of their offspring? Must be hard to bear that god-like burden.

The woman's birthright is hard. As the gestation vessel of future generations, there are responsibilities to choose the time and place adjusting as circumstances change. Is she to eschew asking for information to aid in her decisions? Not at all. That, too, is her birthright. Unfortunately, she must fight interference from such as a state, which, using overwhelming force, intrudes and gives no consideration for the choice of the pregnant mother to birth, or abort.

The remainder of your post is based upon the life of the mother enjoying a superiority to the life she created. The women is a "body" over which she has total control, and the other is an extension of that body for which no protections are offered, unless the mother wants to keep that part of her body, in which case the killing of that part of her body (oddly not requiring any physical harm to her body that remains), is a crime.

Enjoying the responsibility of being pregnant?

Can you cite the law making legal abortions a crime?

Certainly the unborn is dependent for its continued existence on the mother. Don't think a woman is smart enough to have that responsibility? Do you claim the hubris necessary to claim the superior abilities to decide while being independent of the responsibility that she would have of your decisions for her? Must be rewarding to enjoy that god-like burden for the stupid woman, uh, the unborn.

It also grants only one of the participants of the creation of the human life any control over that human life prior to birth.

Not my doing that has the woman in the catbird seat. If it's your doing then by all means use that as a justification for beating her, doggone it, persuading her that she still loves you and wants to spend the rest of her life with you telling her how to act and raise YOUR child.

You reject the separate nature of the life created. You deny it the title of offspring, child, and indeed deny its right to life.

But I don't. I do deny your entitlement to a pregnant woman's child, and indeed deny your being the giver of its life which sure does deny you ownership of the unborn.

To be killed at the whim of one's "owner"?

What does a whim look like to you such that it gives you the right to make another's reproductive decisions?

And you have the audacity to allude that my side of the argument resembles slavery!

Your arguments to supplant a pregnant woman's decisions for your own are not based on your sense of ownership of the unborn? Call it something else, then. But when your arguments and the slave breeders are the same, might be time to rethink or at least introduce a new term or two that would NOT be defended by the slave breeders.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." ~ C.S. Lewis

[BlackSheep]

See the section with emphasis. That is perfect balance. Each with control over their own responsibilities.

Previously you stated that she had the bigger choice to balance the bigger responsibility but effectively her choice has the same results so it is not bigger and she still has the larger responsibility. They do not balance.

By the definition I provided "disposition" is part of the definition of willing. That is subconscious.

Again we are back to interpretation of the meaning of words rather than the debate. I am talking about the conscious part of the mind and it's choice. What word would you like me to use?

I already did, and you said it wasn't what you are looking for. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about, which is why I question if you know what a caveat is. If you say that I have made a post with caveats it should be extremely easy to locate one.
You are making a groundless attack, and then refusing to provide evidence for it.

It was not a response to the question and it was not said before my comment so obviously it has no bearing on this.

Name one instance aside from abortion where someone is defined differently for the purpose of their rights.

Many laws use terms like young person and in the law what they mean by that. Laws also often define words to mean something other than the standard meaning.

It was the dictionary definition you gave. If you provided the definition you should choose one that supports your argument.

You are talking about interpretations. For example day. Day can mean a 24 hour period. It can mean a specific 24 hours from midnight to midnight. It can mean the period of rotation of a planet. It can mean the part of the 24 hour period (or other rotation) when the sun is visible in the sky. It can mean the part of the 24 hour period (or other rotation) in which someone is awake or working. Now if I use day to mean one thing and you refuse to accept it as such and demand I use a different interpretation of it and continue for words I use in its stead we are going to have problems communicating. You show no desire to understand and every desire to confound my ability to clarify while demanding i do.

My example is silly and trivial to show that your whole argument is silly and trivial, because it is fundamentally the same thing. Saying a woman "can't" choose an abortion for essentially the same reasons we "can't" choose anything we decide against is laughable.

My argument is neither silly or trivial. You just refuse to accept that the differences in strengths of influences are very significant in the process of making a choice. We can choose if the influence is not overwhelming.

Like I said, she ended up choosing not to act on her decision. She had a change of heart at the last moment.

That is not a choice. It does not involve the conscious self.

It is only "prevented" because the countering factors are not strong enough. This is true for weak or strong influences.

I just explained how that is not true. You ignored my comments.

It is a choice if you have the option. Inaction is itself a choice.
I am trying to understand, but am just unable to understand due to your intentional ambiguity and/or lack of mastery of English.

In action can be a choice but it is not inherently a choice. Not if it is imposed by unconscious processes.
There is no intentional ambiguity nor significant lack of English skills to have that effect.

Then please explain your interpretation in such a way that it works with your argument.

The ability to act or select an action as a choice of the conscious mind.

Give me an example of one post where you have.

Post 202.
"We all have emotions and I am sure the vast majority have been angry to many degrees. From mildly annoyed which has little influence on our behavior through anger than has made us say thing we wish we had not. The control our conscious mind very much is affected by the strength of these emotions. There are many degrees in between as well where I realize I am just barely in control and need to remove myself from a situation. I have never become seriously violent from anger, but I can very much understand how someone can get to the point where they loose control."

Your definition. Since you have supplied no other interpretation, I am forced to use the obvious, common understandings of the words. If you mean something else, please explain it.

I have. Can involves not being stopped from doing something including unconscious things like emotions / morals. Note by unconscious I mean thing swe do not have conscious control over.

I used the common sense, commonly understood interpretation of the words in the definition. If you mean something aside from the English definition of words when you use these English words, please provide what it means from your made-up language (but make sure to give the translation in English, please).

I disagree you used common sense in the context of the debate. I have always used English words and not used a made up language at any point.

There really was little room for interpretation. The only alternative definition was a synonym for "willing", which you insist you do not mean.

There is always room for interpretation as you showed.

I go to ludicrous extremes to prove a point. You say they "cannot". I say they both can and will if they have an extreme enough motivation. If you make the countering influence great enough (like death) then the option that was "overpowering" can suddenly be overcome.

You have gone to ludicrous extremes and yet not proven it. I have already stated that people have accepted death over other influences even when they consciously seem willing to do it.

It just isn't an extreme enough influence then. What if both of your children were being slowly tortured to death, and the only way to save one would be to give the other a quick, painless death?
You may find yourself "capable" of things you thought "impossible" if placed in an extreme enough situation. The choice is there.

Again you use extreme situations. These are not present. I agree that one can contrive a situation to force most people to do anything, but that does not prove that lessor influences stop the conscious self from choosing.

At best your argument boils down to these women having essentially what is a mental disease. If this is the case, they should be ruled mentally incapable of making the choice for themselves, and someone (the father? parents? someone with power of attorney?) should have authority to make the choice for them instead.

They have a mental disease only if you consider being human a mental disease. You jump from one extreme to the other. On one hand you say they have no choice and then you say if they can't make a choice they must be incompetent.

The influence is not insurmountable. It just hasn't encountered a strong enough countering influence.

If you are suggesting we torture them until they choose what you wish the to I think it is a bad idea.

Then there was another influence stronger than your personal distaste.

Not necessarily. I chose to try them again.

The option is not precluded, just the least favorable given the influencing factors. Again, this is how all decisions work.

But the process of contrasting and comparing is conscious and is a choice. Often we will suppress some to come to a choice.

...and how can you possibly know if this is happening, instead of there just not being strong enough countering influences?
Maybe we should hold that gun to her head just to make sure she is really serious about it?

Well if it is a matter of there being no choice then the woman has no choice and then the man should simply support the child.

If we can never measure it or prove that NO influence would be strong enough to counter it, how can we even know it happens?
Even if we do know that it happens, what difference does it make that we "recognize it"? This still doesn't mean there are legal repercussions.

Because as humans we experience it.

How do we know you and mushrooms is a real choice, and Jenny not getting her abortion isn't a real choice. You admit this is something we can't know or measure. We can't even prove it ever happens.

Well it is a choice or it is not. If all choice is an illusion then the male should just pay as no one has choice. If we do have choice then we still need to recognize that emotions / morals can cripple that process.

Your whole "argument" is binary. You think an action is either "precluded" or you have freedom of choice. You think these are the two significant states.
I say this is silly. Most of the time you are "precluded" you would actually be able to choose otherwise if the motivation was extreme enough... say through threat of death or physical torture.
It isn't "influences that preclude and influences that don't preclude". It is big influences, small influences, and everywhere in between.

It strikes me you are thinking far more binary as you thin we either have no choice or we have full choice. My option varies.

You can never prove whether a choice has been "precluded" by your silly definition, and even if we could... how does this make how we treat it any different?
You say we "treat it as such". What do you mean by this?

The current system does not assume a woman can always take this option.

...and when I use the word "willing" and explain what I mean, you likewise cannot contest my usage.

We were talking about my option.

The part that you are "not talking about" needs to be talked about and included though. You are leaving out an essential component of decision making, so your argument does not hold water when you use this intentionally incomplete definition.

Then ask, don't just change terms to confuse the situation.

How do we ever know whether an influence is truly overwhelming?

In a particular case? You don't. You just realize it occurs and the system need to recognize that the option is not one everyoe can take due to emotional / moral reasons.

You still can't control what influences you. If it is "necessary" that just means some other choice overwhelmed your dislike... so you still weren't "freely choosing". Every choice is one or more influences overwhelming the opposing influence(s).

I never said I could control what influences me, but I can decide.

Stage fright is a momentary physical response to a short-term situation. Being "unable" to choose an abortion is not.

We already did this earlier. You said "Then they should probably get off that stage. Spending your whole life paralyzed on a stage is no way to live." which seems to show you recognized it is not inherently just momentary.

The situation is long term, which is why the example of stage fright is not a comparable example. The woman has a long window to come to her decision... she isn't just temporarily incapacitated like occurs with stage fright.

Stage fight in some cases cause a momentary incapacity, but many people are incapable of ever functioning on a stage.

No there isn't. They are fundamentally the same thing... just one is "bigger". Please explain how this is fundamentally different.
I see you still dodge how being "unable" should shape our laws.

Because at a certain point no other normal influence including our rational mind can over come it.

I simply believe our laws should be fair and consistent, instead of sexist.
There are multiple ways we could do that. Outlawing abortion is one way (and not my preference). Another way is to make child support optional.
Either one would make things equitable.

I believe our laws should be as fair as possible and the does not give the man the power to simply walk away if a woman can't choose an abortion. (And based on what you seem to think she can never choose it.)

If she really wanted to die, she should have chosen a more reliable method. She really didn't try very hard.

Jumping off the building would have been reliable and she did really want to.

No I "can't". There is no force strong enough to overcome my laziness.
It would take the introduction of some far stronger influence (like a gun to my head). Then I could order that pizza. Right now I am "incapable" due to the lack of countering influence.

They you have an inordinately powerful laziness which is not demonstrated in your posting.

Premeditation and intent are different things, and both are factored into our laws. Neither of these things are emotions, which we DON'T factor into our laws.

We do indeed.

We look for indicators that mean they are likely to repeat or not, including emotions and morals. We do not give parole because of emotions or morals, we give parole because of the actual practical thing they can indicate.
We do not factor emotions and morals themselves into our laws.

Except we can't see that practical thing.

I have been saying this to begin with.

How is "You mean there are some factors that make her like the decision, but emotional and moral factors that make her unwilling." asking anything about prevent?

Sometimes the influences are big, and sometimes small. I have never denied this.
It doesn't mean we "can't" or that we "don't have the choice".
It just means that emotions and morals are the biggest factors to you, and you don't have any factors that are strong enough to counter.

Either I have a choice or I am controlled by those factors and I do not. Which are you claiming?

You are comparing a woman's inability to choose with a person's inability to speak due to a phobia. If they are not analogous then why bring them up? If they are, you are essentially saying a woman's emotions are a mental illness.
It is pretty hard to get more sexist than that.

Saying "So you are saying that women cannot get abortions due to an irrational phobia, and that is what emotions are: an irrational phobia." is not claiming they are an analogy. You are claiming they are the same.

I am aware of them, and I am aware of how they factor into my decisions. I do not "control" them anymore than I control any of the internal influences that are part of my identity.

Then they are as I defined unconscious.

...and I can't control any of the factors that come into play in my decision making. I don't control my wants. I don't control my preferences. It is all beyond my control for every decision.

So if that case then why is your overall argument about choice. None of us have it. The the only overriding factor is responsibility to support the child.

Because that is all there is.

Then your argument of the man's lack of choice s moot.