A Woman's Right to her Body

[LetThereBe]

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.

If you have a million dollars and I have a hundred dollars, you are free to choose how you spend that million dollars and I am free to choose how I spend my 100 dollars. You have more money, so you have more resources to choose how you spend it.
We still each only get how to spend our own money. That is why it is equal.
The woman has the bigger responsibility, and she decides how that responsibility is handled. The man has the lesser responsibility, and he decides how that lesser responsibility is handled. This is equitable.

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?

If you are exclusively talking about the conscious part of the mind, "the conscious part of the mind" is pretty clear. I don't think this is useful, however, because excluding the subconscious is a completely unrealistic view of decision making.

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

It was something I had said numerous times before your comment, and I honestly don't know what "the question" is that you refer to. This would be far easier if you would just point out where supposedly I made all these caveats.
Since I honestly don't know what you are talking about, it really isn't easy for me to point out where I "didn't make the caveats".

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.

That isn't what I asked. That isn't an example where the same entity is deprived rights based on a legal definition in one instance, and deprived those rights in another.

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.

I don't demand you use a different interpretation. I only demand you actually clarify what you mean.

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.

I have acknowledged the difference in strengths of influences all along, and I have said from the beginning that this is part of what the process of making a choice is.
Since it is part of the normal process of choosing, it is silly to say that it has some special bearing in this circumstance.

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

It is a conscious choice, just influenced by sub-conscious factors. That is how all choices work.

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

You didn't explain anything... you just denied, despite all human experience pointing to the contrary.

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.

Every case is influenced by unconscious processes. Every choice is ultimately decided by unconscious processes. Choosing not to act is still a choice.

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

...but it isn't. That doesn't make sense. The ability itself isn't "a choice".

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."

Yes, there are varying degrees. Varying degrees does not show that someone is every "incapable" or "can't".

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.

...how on Earth do you take that interpretation from the definition that was supplied?
In either case, by this definition we "can't" make any true decisions... so it has no weight.

There is always room for interpretation as you showed.

No. No there isn't.
If things do not have shared meanings it is impossible to communicate.
For example, in the above sentence it should be obvious what I mean by "impossible". There isn't room to interpret me meaning "red" or "Martin Luther King" or "astro-physics". It just wouldn't make sense. There is a clear, common sense meaning.

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.

Sure, but that is only death. Death isn't the greatest possible countering influence. I bet enough physical torture would change anyone's tune.

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.

Yes it does. If we go extreme enough, we can make them choose the other option. We can overcome that emotional / moral influence by going to these absurd lengths. This proves that it is POSSIBLE for them to choose the option. It proves that it CAN be done. It proves that they are CAPABLE.
So really it is just a "big" influence, fundamentally no different than any other.

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.

Yes, I am saying those are the two alternatives. Either you are capable of making a choice, or you lack the mental competency to make a choice. Those are really the only options.
You are the one that compares a woman's emotions to an irrational, debilitating phobia. I am just taking your own sexist argument to its natural conclusion.

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

I am only suggesting that they "can" choose any option. It just takes varying degrees of influence.

Not necessarily. I chose to try them again.

...how does this show there wasn't an influence greater than your distaste? If anything this would agree with my statement.

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

This is as true for emotions and morals then as it is for anything else. You consciously consider that you think it is wrong or evil when making the choice. Perhaps you will suppress that belief.
So what? It is irrelevant. This is how all decisions work.

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.

I asked how do we KNOW that there was no choice? With strong enough counter factors she would have chosen the alternative.
She had the choice, she just didn't choose what was to her advantage.

Because as humans we experience it.

How do you know this? Have you ever faced a choice you couldn't make? Did you resist years of physical torture and were STILL unable to make this choice?
If not, you cannot know.
Also, I see you again ignore how this should have legal repercussions.

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.

If all choice is an illusion then we shouldn't make the male pay any more than this is justification for banning abortions.
If we do have a choice then it doesn't matter that there are big influences. That is part of what making a choice means. "Recognizing" that influences exist doesn't change anything.

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.

Haha... nope, I'm not thinking binary. I don't see two options: just one.
You have the choice. Influences are just part of what having a choice means.

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

Sure it does. It literally makes no sense at all that we would say "a woman cannot take an option, therefore we make a man pay gobs of cash". That is a hilarious non sequitur.

We were talking about my option.

I was talking about my use of the word. By my definition, your "can't" is essentially the same as the dictionary definition I provided of "willing".

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

"Your argument is completely discounting the important subconscious component of decision making. Pretty please don't use an intentionally misrepresentation of the human decision making process in your argument."
There, I asked. Better?

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.

How can we know it happens in ANY case? How does "recognizing" that influences happen (which is the same as every decision) change anything?

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

How can you decide what influences you?

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.

No, that was me making fun of your silly statement. You said it lasts a lifetime. I was sarcastically implying that they shouldn't spend a lifetime up on stage.

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

Skeptical that it is every really the case... I think if we pushed extremes again they would be capable of functioning.
In either case, you are comparing a debilitating mental illness with a woman's emotions. That is extremely sexist. If the woman is so mentally incompetent she needs to have someone else make the legal decision for her.

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

Haha... no other "normal" influence. Nice caveat.
What is a "normal" influence? Clearly they can be over come by an "abnormal" influence, so clearly it is possible that they make the decision.

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.)

She can choose it every bit as much as anyone can choose anything. Like I said, I don't want to get into a debate about free will, and I certainly don't want to make our laws dependent on whether or not free will truly exists or not.
The man has the power to choose to walk away just as much as the woman has the power to choose abortion. This is equitable.

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

Maybe, but for one she was barred, and two it would have been more painful (and would have caused more physical fear) and three it still wouldn't be as reliable as a gun.

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

No, it is just that my desire for pizza was pretty weak. It was two weak influences battling, and the laziness won. There was no other influence involved, so it was "impossible" for me to choose the other option.

We do indeed.

Then will you PLEASE give an example!

Except we can't see that practical thing.

No, so we look for factors that help us judge that likelihood, which may include emotions and morals. The emotions and morals are not the justification, however. No matter the emotions and morals if the person said "I am going to commit this crime again as soon as I get out" we won't grant parole. Obviously parole isn't about the emotions and morals. It is about repeat offense.

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?

...what? It isn't? Those were completely unrelated statements.

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

I am claiming it is irrelevant. I am claiming that whether or not free will truly exists has no bearing on our legal policy. The illusion of free will is enough.

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.

So your whole "stage fright" comparison wasn't meant to be an analogy? What the hell was it supposed to be then? More unrelated drivel?

Then they are as I defined unconscious.

That's fine. It doesn't change the fact that all of these decisions are fundamentally the same.

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.

Like I said, I'm not interested in a discussion on free will. We don't have control over our influences, but those influences are part of who we are. I can't control my dislike of onions, but my dislike of onions is part of what it means to be me. That factor (which is beyond my control) is part of what it means for me to choose... just as a woman's emotions and morals that lead her to a certain decision are part of her being and part of what it means for her to choose.
That is why choice still matters. It is part of what defines us as individuals.

As for responsibility to the child, if that was the only factor then we would outlaw abortion and adoption.

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

Not at all. It is just how choices work. The underlying mechanics of what a choice is doesn't make the point "moot". Having the power of choice is still important and a crucial aspect of individual liberty.
Choice is as important to my position, as sexism and inequality is to yours.

[Apeman81]

minorwork;870895] 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.

AH! Killing the life you create by engaging in the act known to create life is a birthright? Well now, that just explains everything, doesn't it. And just who established this birthright?

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.

A "born" child remains dependent for its continue existence. Killing the life you helped create is not a mater of wise choices. It is a matter of taking a human life by choice and not need. What makes the "gestational vessel" singularly imbued with the power to take human life in this manner?

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.

Ah! Her decision. Decision to do what? Kill the life she helped create because she doesn't feel like bearing her responsibility as a fertile woman engaging in vaginal sex. Just how is she endowed with the ability to decide which child dies and which lives?

"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

Nice try, but your quote fails. You see, the victim of abortion is not the woman having the abortion, but the child killed in the abortion.

Denying someone the right to selectively kill is not a tyranny.

[minorwork]

AH! Killing the life you create by engaging in the act known to create life is a birthright? Well now, that just explains everything, doesn't it. And just who established this birthright?

Nature. Biology. Evolution.

A "born" child remains dependent for its continue existence. Killing the life you helped create is not a mater of wise choices. It is a matter of taking a human life by choice and not need. What makes the "gestational vessel" singularly imbued with the power to take human life in this manner?

Nature. Biology. Evolution. When breathing for itself, any can care for the birthed child. Before? Nature has 'wisely' prescribed the role to the female.

Ah! Her decision. Decision to do what? Kill the life she helped create because she doesn't feel like bearing her responsibility as a fertile woman engaging in vaginal sex. Just how is she endowed with the ability to decide which child dies and which lives?

I'd look to nature, biology, and evolution that has shaped each of us.

Nice try, but your quote fails. You see, the victim of abortion is not the woman having the abortion, but the child killed in the abortion.

YOUR child?

Denying someone the right to selectively kill is not a tyranny.

OK. What do you call forcing your will on another you don't know from a distance? A blessing?

[Apeman81]

Nature. Biology. Evolution. When breathing for itself, any can care for the birthed child. Before? Nature has 'wisely' prescribed the role to the female.

Nature? Interesting. And just what does nature point out concerning abortion? In which species is it that the female chooses to abort theri young?

I know that there has been research demonstrating that male horse have attacked unprotected females to cause them to lose their foals from other stallions in order to inseminate them with their seed. but i don't think you refer to that.

OK. What do you call forcing your will on another you don't know from a distance?

My will? Oh I see. You mean the will of the civil society of which we are a part. The society setting acceptable standards of behavior? That's called law making.

[BlackSheep]

If you have a million dollars and I have a hundred dollars, you are free to choose how you spend that million dollars and I am free to choose how I spend my 100 dollars. You have more money, so you have more resources to choose how you spend it.
We still each only get how to spend our own money. That is why it is equal.
The woman has the bigger responsibility, and she decides how that responsibility is handled. The man has the lesser responsibility, and he decides how that lesser responsibility is handled. This is equitable.

It is not more choice, it is just choice, but your analogy ignores the child. It also ignores that no matter what her choice is she has much more responsibility. She can not just ignore it like that man without consequences.

If you are exclusively talking about the conscious part of the mind, "the conscious part of the mind" is pretty clear. I don't think this is useful, however, because excluding the subconscious is a completely unrealistic view of decision making.

How is it unrealistic?

It was something I had said numerous times before your comment, and I honestly don't know what "the question" is that you refer to. This would be far easier if you would just point out where supposedly I made all these caveats.
Since I honestly don't know what you are talking about, it really isn't easy for me to point out where I "didn't make the caveats".

You don't know what question it is because you evaded it so long you forgot.

That isn't what I asked. That isn't an example where the same entity is deprived rights based on a legal definition in one instance, and deprived those rights in another.

I don't it is what you asked.

I don't demand you use a different interpretation. I only demand you actually clarify what you mean.

You made a claim I didn;t know what the word meant. I posted the dictionary definition in full. I later explained what I meant in different words, because you had produced your interpretation of that word and it seemed pointless to argue.

I have acknowledged the difference in strengths of influences all along, and I have said from the beginning that this is part of what the process of making a choice is.
Since it is part of the normal process of choosing, it is silly to say that it has some special bearing in this circumstance.

I never said you denied the strengths and weaknesses. I said you denied how significant they are.

It is a conscious choice, just influenced by sub-conscious factors. That is how all choices work.

It was not. She never changed her conscious choice.

You didn't explain anything... you just denied, despite all human experience pointing to the contrary.

How is "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." A simple denial? And how did you become the arbitrator of all human experience?

Every case is influenced by unconscious processes. Every choice is ultimately decided by unconscious processes. Choosing not to act is still a choice.

You just said "It is a conscious choice, just influenced by sub-conscious factors." Maybe you can define what 'conscious choice' means as it seems your two claims are at odds.

...but it isn't. That doesn't make sense. The ability itself isn't "a choice".

What word did you want me to define?

Yes, there are varying degrees. Varying degrees does not show that someone is every "incapable" or "can't".

It does if as I explained the degree is overwhelming.

...how on Earth do you take that interpretation from the definition that was supplied?
In either case, by this definition we "can't" make any true decisions... so it has no weight.

I am explaining what I mean. I am unsure how it relates to a definition is significant if you are striving to understand.

No. No there isn't.
If things do not have shared meanings it is impossible to communicate.
For example, in the above sentence it should be obvious what I mean by "impossible". There isn't room to interpret me meaning "red" or "Martin Luther King" or "astro-physics". It just wouldn't make sense. There is a clear, common sense meaning.

So you are claiming every word has a single clear meaning?

Sure, but that is only death. Death isn't the greatest possible countering influence. I bet enough physical torture would change anyone's tune.

And?

Yes it does. If we go extreme enough, we can make them choose the other option. We can overcome that emotional / moral influence by going to these absurd lengths. This proves that it is POSSIBLE for them to choose the option. It proves that it CAN be done. It proves that they are CAPABLE.
So really it is just a "big" influence, fundamentally no different than any other.

It proves it is possible under those circumstances. It certainly does not mean they can just do it by force of will, which you as much have denied exists anyway.

Yes, I am saying those are the two alternatives. Either you are capable of making a choice, or you lack the mental competency to make a choice. Those are really the only options.
You are the one that compares a woman's emotions to an irrational, debilitating phobia. I am just taking your own sexist argument to its natural conclusion.

So which is it? This is your claim not mine. I have made t clear that this applies to all humans, not one gender, but you continue to try to put your words in my mouth.

I am only suggesting that they "can" choose any option. It just takes varying degrees of influence.

Explain what you mean by choice. It seems that you are saying that they can not change their choice unless an influence s changed.

...how does this show there wasn't an influence greater than your distaste? If anything this would agree with my statement.

What was this new influence?

This is as true for emotions and morals then as it is for anything else. You consciously consider that you think it is wrong or evil when making the choice. Perhaps you will suppress that belief.
So what? It is irrelevant. This is how all decisions work.

But you claimed it must be an influence. What influence would make me suppress it?

I asked how do we KNOW that there was no choice? With strong enough counter factors she would have chosen the alternative.
She had the choice, she just didn't choose what was to her advantage.

I know what you asked. Obviously there were not strong enough counter factors. There seems to be no choice involved as you explain it. How can she choose what is too her advantage if the influences dictate otherwise?

How do you know this? Have you ever faced a choice you couldn't make? Did you resist years of physical torture and were STILL unable to make this choice?
If not, you cannot know.
Also, I see you again ignore how this should have legal repercussions.

I know based on my experience as a human and in to talking to other humans that there are times we can not choose certain options. The fact I could be tortured into something is not relevant, unless you are suggesting we use torture.

If all choice is an illusion then we shouldn't make the male pay any more than this is justification for banning abortions.
If we do have a choice then it doesn't matter that there are big influences. That is part of what making a choice means. "Recognizing" that influences exist doesn't change anything.

The male and the female had sex. If it results in a child that comes to term they should support it. If there is no choice then there is no choice.

Haha... nope, I'm not thinking binary. I don't see two options: just one.
You have the choice. Influences are just part of what having a choice means.

Following your logic it seems to say that a calculator has as much choice as a human. It all depends on influences. If I type in 1+1= (Influences) the calculator will choose to display 2.

Sure it does. It literally makes no sense at all that we would say "a woman cannot take an option, therefore we make a man pay gobs of cash". That is a hilarious non sequitur.

So you are saying the current system assume that a woman can always choose an abortion regardless of emotions / morals?

I was talking about my use of the word. By my definition, your "can't" is essentially the same as the dictionary definition I provided of "willing".

Were we not on my point?

"Your argument is completely discounting the important subconscious component of decision making. Pretty please don't use an intentionally misrepresentation of the human decision making process in your argument."
There, I asked. Better?

Better yes, but I was making a specific point, not discussing everyhting.

How can we know it happens in ANY case? How does "recognizing" that influences happen (which is the same as every decision) change anything?

Well if we are going you your idea of choice which is not choice then it doesn't matter.

How can you decide what influences you?

I didn't mean I could decide what influences me. I can make the decision consciously if the influences are not over whelming.

No, that was me making fun of your silly statement. You said it lasts a lifetime. I was sarcastically implying that they shouldn't spend a lifetime up on stage.

How is that making fun of anything?

Skeptical that it is every really the case... I think if we pushed extremes again they would be capable of functioning.
In either case, you are comparing a debilitating mental illness with a woman's emotions. That is extremely sexist. If the woman is so mentally incompetent she needs to have someone else make the legal decision for her.

Then support your claim.

Haha... no other "normal" influence. Nice caveat.
What is a "normal" influence? Clearly they can be over come by an "abnormal" influence, so clearly it is possible that they make the decision.

I mean other than things like your torture. Things that occur in this standard choose situation.

She can choose it every bit as much as anyone can choose anything. Like I said, I don't want to get into a debate about free will, and I certainly don't want to make our laws dependent on whether or not free will truly exists or not.
The man has the power to choose to walk away just as much as the woman has the power to choose abortion. This is equitable.

Except by your claim we have no free will or choose.

Maybe, but for one she was barred, and two it would have been more painful (and would have caused more physical fear) and three it still wouldn't be as reliable as a gun.

No she was not barred. I have told you over and over this was not the case and yet you continue to misrepresent.

No, it is just that my desire for pizza was pretty weak. It was two weak influences battling, and the laziness won. There was no other influence involved, so it was "impossible" for me to choose the other option.

I understand you feel we have no free will.

[BlackSheep]

Then will you PLEASE give an example!

I gave a few.

No, so we look for factors that help us judge that likelihood, which may include emotions and morals. The emotions and morals are not the justification, however. No matter the emotions and morals if the person said "I am going to commit this crime again as soon as I get out" we won't grant parole. Obviously parole isn't about the emotions and morals. It is about repeat offense.

As you described it we have no choice and so they are the factors that are important.

...what? It isn't? Those were completely unrelated statements.

Then what did you reply to it that way?

I am claiming it is irrelevant. I am claiming that whether or not free will truly exists has no bearing on our legal policy. The illusion of free will is enough.

Well I disagree and i need to understand your claim so I can counter it

So your whole "stage fright" comparison wasn't meant to be an analogy? What the hell was it supposed to be then? More unrelated drivel?

You are trying to evade my comments. YOU didn't claim they were an analogy. You equated them.

That's fine. It doesn't change the fact that all of these decisions are fundamentally the same.

As you describe them, they are not choices.

Like I said, I'm not interested in a discussion on free will. We don't have control over our influences, but those influences are part of who we are. I can't control my dislike of onions, but my dislike of onions is part of what it means to be me. That factor (which is beyond my control) is part of what it means for me to choose... just as a woman's emotions and morals that lead her to a certain decision are part of her being and part of what it means for her to choose.
That is why choice still matters. It is part of what defines us as individuals.

Without free will your argument falls apart. Without freewill there is no choice.

As for responsibility to the child, if that was the only factor then we would outlaw abortion and adoption.

Not at all. One is not dealing with a child and the other is fulfilling the responsibility.

Not at all. It is just how choices work. The underlying mechanics of what a choice is doesn't make the point "moot". Having the power of choice is still important and a crucial aspect of individual liberty.
Choice is as important to my position, as sexism and inequality is to yours.

Without choice you have no argument. Sexism and equality are not part of mine.

[LetThereBe]

It is not more choice, it is just choice, but your analogy ignores the child.

It is a just regarding the greater responsibility. You have the bigger responsibility, you have control and choice over that bigger thing.
Our very laws "ignore the child". Otherwise adoption and abortion wouldn't be options, as they abandon responsibility to the child.

It also ignores that no matter what her choice is she has much more responsibility.

No it doesn't. She has more responsibility, she has control over that bigger responsibility.
You have a million dollars, you have control over that million dollars. The man with 100 dollars doesn't have any control over your million.

She can not just ignore it like that man without consequences.

In my system neither can the man. The man must choose to opt out. By default he will be liable for child support.

How is it unrealistic?

Because none of our choices take place without a subconscious component.

You don't know what question it is because you evaded it so long you forgot.

No, because every time I answered what I THOUGHT you were talking about you said it wasn't what you meant, and every time I asked for clarification you intentionally ignored me.
This is an exceptionally cowardly tactic. Say what you mean or drop it.

I don't it is what you asked.

Your sentence once again makes no English sense. If you mean to say that is what I asked, then you are mistaken. I am talking about a case where the same entity has a right in one context, but is denied that very right in another. Give me one such example if it exists.

You made a claim I didn;t know what the word meant. I posted the dictionary definition in full. I later explained what I meant in different words, because you had produced your interpretation of that word and it seemed pointless to argue.

Normally when you post a dictionary definition you choose one that matches what you mean. Your "different words" had the same problem.
It is funny that you consider it pointless to clarify your position, but not pointless to make endless excuses and evasions.

I never said you denied the strengths and weaknesses. I said you denied how significant they are.

Significant in what regard? Legally significant? Not at all. Significant in how "big" we perceive a decision to be? Absolutely.

It was not. She never changed her conscious choice.

Then she was either very unintelligent, or had never meant her "choice" to begin with.

How is "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." A simple denial? And how did you become the arbitrator of all human experience?

It is a denial that there can be competing influences. It is a denial of the complexity of human decision making.
I am not the "arbiter of human experience", just capable of simple observation. All decisions are a result of various influences.

You just said "It is a conscious choice, just influenced by sub-conscious factors." Maybe you can define what 'conscious choice' means as it seems your two claims are at odds.

You consciously choose to buy a cheeseburger because you are hungry. The choice was a result of subconscious factors (perhaps hunger, perhaps underlying preference of meat, perhaps a commercial you saw earlier in the day, perhaps the smell of a co-worker's food in the microwave).

What word did you want me to define?

It seems there are many that do not make sense in context of your statement. With this latest, it is your use of "ability" that confuses me.

It does if as I explained the degree is overwhelming.

...and as I explained, they just haven't encountered a strong enough countering factor. They would prove plenty "capable" when presented with physical torture.

I am explaining what I mean. I am unsure how it relates to a definition is significant if you are striving to understand.

...and if you are consistent with your explanation, then we "can't" make any choices. I understand what you are saying, and am further taking it to the logical conclusion. If we sometimes "can't" make choices because they are decided by internal factors then we NEVER make choices that are decided by internal factors... which is directly or indirectly all of our choices.

So you are claiming every word has a single clear meaning?

No, I'm claiming that most words have an obvious meaning in context... and where there is no obvious meaning it is useful to present the definition of what you mean.

And?

Therefore they are capable.

It proves it is possible under those circumstances.

If there are any circumstances under which it is possible, then it is possible. You can't claim someone is "incapable" when with a different set of possibly achieved circumstances they can do it.

It certainly does not mean they can just do it by force of will, which you as much have denied exists anyway.

By "force of will"?
It is just another factor... another influence. No, they might not want it enough to do it without some additional motivation. That again is part of normal decision making.

So which is it? This is your claim not mine. I have made t clear that this applies to all humans, not one gender, but you continue to try to put your words in my mouth.

It is either. It will vary by person to person. There are legitimately some people that cannot make a choice... people in a coma for example. There are cases of extreme physical and mental illness that prevent the making of choices.
You are the one claiming that a woman's emotions and morals are one such instance of a debilitating handicap... yet you do not grant the man the same ability to say he is "unable" to pay child support for moral/emotional reasons.
Your position is laughably sexist.

Explain what you mean by choice. It seems that you are saying that they can not change their choice unless an influence s changed.

That is exactly what I'm saying. Given the exact same starting conditions, the exact same internal and external factors, you will always make the same choice.

What was this new influence?

How should I know? I'm not inside your head.
Perhaps curiosity? Perhaps sadism? Perhaps forgetfulness?

But you claimed it must be an influence. What influence would make me suppress it?

It can be anything. Perhaps it is your desire to continue with your career. Perhaps it is your desire to only reproduce with men with more desirable genes. Perhaps you were just in a bad mood because your sports team lost.
It can be anything.

I know what you asked. Obviously there were not strong enough counter factors. There seems to be no choice involved as you explain it. How can she choose what is too her advantage if the influences dictate otherwise?

What she considers to her advantage is of course itself an influence. It just may or may not be the most powerful one.

I know based on my experience as a human and in to talking to other humans that there are times we can not choose certain options. The fact I could be tortured into something is not relevant, unless you are suggesting we use torture.

Your experience does not include physical torture, and I doubt the humans you talked to experienced physical torture. You have not experienced the greatest possible motivation, so you do not know if you could or could not choose those options.
Torture is relevant because it is an extremely powerful motivator. If an extreme motivator can make you choose the alternative, then clearly you CAN choose it.

The male and the female had sex. If it results in a child that comes to term they should support it. If there is no choice then there is no choice.

Why give the woman the "choice" though for whether or not it results in a child? You take away the man's "choice" of support but still grant the woman "choice" for abortion.
You also still grant the choice of adoption, so even if it does result in a child you are inconsistent and sexist.

Following your logic it seems to say that a calculator has as much choice as a human. It all depends on influences. If I type in 1+1= (Influences) the calculator will choose to display 2.

Yep, pretty much. The difference is that humans are just far more complex, and every human has different influences (individuality).
We still act in a deterministic universe.
This is all tangential anyway. I really don't see why you insist on making this an argument on free will.

So you are saying the current system assume that a woman can always choose an abortion regardless of emotions / morals?

Yep.

Were we not on my point?

If by "your point" you mean I was offering an alternative to a point of yours I contested.

Better yes, but I was making a specific point, not discussing everyhting.

The "point" is irrelevant if it completely ignores how human decision making actually works.

Well if we are going you your idea of choice which is not choice then it doesn't matter.

It does still matter. Even if we don't have free will (which you needlessly drive this debate towards) our "choices" still are part of our individuality. We may lack ultimate control, but it is still part of who we are.

I didn't mean I could decide what influences me. I can make the decision consciously if the influences are not over whelming.

...but what are you basing that decision on? Is your conscious decision based on things that are ultimately part of your control? No matter what your "conscious" is being overwhelmed... just by larger or smaller influences.

How is that making fun of anything?

...because the idea of someone with stage-fright literally spending their entire life up on a stage paralyzed is comical.

Then support your claim.

Support in what way? Do you deny that torture would change people's minds? Do you deny that you are comparing paralyzing stage fright with a woman's emotions and morals? Do you deny that when someone is mentally incompetent we have someone else make legal decisions for them?

I mean other than things like your torture. Things that occur in this standard choose situation.

There is no "standard choose" situation. Every situation is different and the set of influences will always be different. Whether the influences are "normal" (if such a thing existed) or "extreme" is irrelevant. We still have shown that people CAN make these choices.

Except by your claim we have no free will or choose.

...which is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if we do or do not have ultimate control. We have the appearance of control. We have our individuality. This is all that is needed.
As I said, we don't make our laws based on philosophical bickering over free will. The situation is equitable and you are completely evading my post, as usual.

No she was not barred. I have told you over and over this was not the case and yet you continue to misrepresent.

You said something about the door being locked. In that case she was barred.

No, it is just that my desire for pizza was pretty weak. It was two weak influences battling, and the laziness won. There was no other influence involved, so it was "impossible" for me to choose the other option.

I understand you feel we have no free will.

Irrelevant. You are dodging the issue. My point is consistent whether or not we have ultimate control over our fate.

I gave a few.

I've never seen one. The one you "gave" you later admitted was wrong when I asked for a source.

As you described it we have no choice and so they are the factors that are important.

Every factor and influence that goes into our decision making is important. So what?

Then what did you reply to it that way?

In what way? I was replying to what YOU said. I wasn't replying to myself.

Well I disagree and i need to understand your claim so I can counter it

Give me an example where whether or not we have free will should impact the law. Tell me how a law should be in the case where we do have free will, and how that law should be different where we don't.

You are trying to evade my comments. YOU didn't claim they were an analogy. You equated them.

The fact that is a debilitating handicap is what makes it relevant: it is what makes it so a person "can't" talk on stage.
Either the woman's emotions are a debilitating handicap that "stop" her from doing something, or they aren't.
Tell me why your analogy matters at all if you meant it any other way.

As you describe them, they are not choices.

Who cares? They are still fundamentally the same and should be treated the same before the law. Anything else is inequitable, and in your case, blatantly sexist.

Without free will your argument falls apart. Without freewill there is no choice.

Not at all. I don't have to have true control over my fate in order to have individuality. Disliking onions is part of who I am... just because that decides some of my choices doesn't mean it is any less "me". Just because I don't control my dislike of onions means it wasn't "my" choice. It just means that at the most basic level I didn't CONTROL that choice.
Free will is irrelevant to whether or not choice is important.

Not at all. One is not dealing with a child and the other is fulfilling the responsibility.

Haha... yes, abortion is "dealing with" it alright. Killing is "dealing with" I suppose. Adoption is getting rid of it, so I guess you could call that "dealing with" it as well. If you consider killing or disposing fulfilling your "responsibility" then I say ignoring count as well.

Without choice you have no argument. Sexism and equality are not part of mine.

I have choice. Just I may not have ultimate control over my choice. Free will is irrelevant, you really have no reason to bring it up other than gross evasion.
Your argument is sexist because it treats the man and the woman differently as far as allowing them out of their responsibilities.

[minorwork]

Nature? Interesting. And just what does nature point out concerning abortion? In which species is it that the female chooses to abort their young?

This a trick question? Humans.

Does eating the fertilized eggs count? Why Parents Eat Their Young, Especially the Big Ones | LiveScience

Eating the newborn? Norway rats.

The Bruce Effect. Bruce effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Monkey self induced abortions. Pregnant Monkeys Miscarry to Avoid Infanticide | Gelada Monkeys & Baby Wild Animals | Monkey Miscarriage & Evolution | LiveScience

My will? Oh I see. You mean the will of the civil society of which we are a part. The society setting acceptable standards of behavior? That's called law making.

The Salem, Massachusetts community of 1692-1693. Civil society? 200 accused of witchcraft, 20 killed. Yep. Might makes right in a civil society. Then there is the idea that civil society doesn't exist but as acts of self-responsible individuals. Individuals. Would you unleash the tyranny of the majority?

[gharik]

The Salem, Massachusetts community of 1692-1693. Civil society? 200 accused of witchcraft, 20 killed. Yep. Might makes right in a civil society. Then there is the idea that civil society doesn't exist but as acts of self-responsible individuals. Individuals. Would you unleash the tyranny of the majority?

It's funny that you should bring up the tyranny of the majority in the case of abortion, since the aborted fetuses form a rather unprotected, powerless minority, wouldn't you say? Doesn't the David vs. Goliath narrative point more toward a pro-life position than a pro-choice?

[Apeman81]

This a trick question? Humans.

Does eating the fertilized eggs count? Why Parents Eat Their Young, Especially the Big Ones | LiveScience

Eating the newborn? Norway rats.

The Bruce Effect. Bruce effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Monkey self induced abortions. Pregnant Monkeys Miscarry to Avoid Infanticide | Gelada Monkeys & Baby Wild Animals | Monkey Miscarriage & Evolution | LiveScience

The Salem, Massachusetts community of 1692-1693. Civil society? 200 accused of witchcraft, 20 killed. Yep. Might makes right in a civil society. Then there is the idea that civil society doesn't exist but as acts of self-responsible individuals. Individuals. Would you unleash the tyranny of the majority?

Well, you got me!

If animals kill their young to avoid infanticide because the new "stallion", "Rat Bastard", or "Monkey King" will reject them or kill their young if they don't, then by golly people should too.

Say! Should the legality of abortion depend upon the threat to the woman or the child imposed by the dominant male?

Absurd reasoning leads to absurd results.

[minorwork]

It's funny that you should bring up the tyranny of the majority in the case of abortion, since the aborted fetuses form a rather unprotected, powerless minority, wouldn't you say? Doesn't the David vs. Goliath narrative point more toward a pro-life position than a pro-choice?

I'm eager to hear fetuses' opinions. As they are not able to answer queries on the subject, like Karen Quinlan, the discussion takes place with the person keeping either alive. You are correct that powerless defines the fetus until it is breathing on its own as a living, breathing soul, when the opportunity for the new life's feeding and care is available for any that chooses to do so. If none will do so then the child, and such as Quinlan, dies.

Unprotected? From your or society's purposes I see no legitimate claim as protector that would supersede the mother's natural sovereign decision to take on that role or discard it before the child breathes independently.

[Apeman81]

the mother's natural sovereign decision to ...

Ingest whatever she wants? Nope, we don't recognized this sovereignty. There are a number of prohibit substances that are prohibited.

Say what ever she wants? Nope, that's limited.

Walk around town nude? No, no sovereignty over that.

Touch whoever she wants? No, that decision is not sovereign.

Kill a stranger? No.

Kill her mate? No.

Kill her self? No, there are laws concerning that. (Naturally, they are only important if failure ensues)

Kill the life she created? Sure! Now that's sovereign. Divine right, that is.