A Woman's Right to her Body

[LetThereBe]

It makes the process inherently much more demanding on the woman. It makes the process far less equitable for the woman.

Legally it would be equitable. Biologically there is nothing we can do.

But none of us have full control over our finances in our system.

No, but that doesn't make it okay to cede control of our property to some third party just because the government takes some portion in taxes.

It was a clear answer to your question "Name one that can't be avoided via an abortion."

It is a silly answer and a WRONG answer. You are really grasping at straws.
If I ask you to name one thing that can't be avoided by doing X, it is stupid to answer "X", as that is implied in the question.
Still, if you want to get extremely technical you also remove the responsibility of getting an abortion by getting an abortion. You don't need two abortions... getting one fulfills the needs of that responsibility.

You minimize all the steps up to the point of the abortion and the abortion itself. All of that is an obligation and for many a heavy burden.

It is hard to minimize what is already so small. You actually listed "find out you are pregnant" as one of the "obligations". Are you surprised that it is hard for me to take you seriously after that?

Simply because you disagree with my assessment does not mean it is alien to my post. That aside you simply restated your position rather than responding to what I said. Hence my question "How does this relate to what I said at all?"

You said it was the "most equitable way". So I responded by posting a more equitable way: one where the woman doesn't get to control the man's finances and the man doesn't get to control the woman's body.

I am listing all the parts of her responsibility. You belittling each step does not counter it.

Why do I need to "counter" it? These "obligations" are laughably niitpicky (or not obligations at all). I said I'd include half the cost of the pregnancy test and half the cost of the stamp. Hell, I'll even throw in two dollars to pay her twenty dollars an hour for the six minutes it takes her to scratch out a letter and drop it in the mail box.
I'll even include the cost of an ounce of water and half a calorie that it took her to lick that stamp!
For an extra ten bucks your "obligations" can be made equitable again.

It is another responsibility that she has that the man does not.

She needs to choose whether or not she wants to get an abortion, the man needs to choose whether or not to opt out of child support. They both have a choice to make, so this "responsibility" is perfectly equitable.

First is is not always a 'choice' it is often mandated by her emotions and/or morals.
Second we are comparing both sides. It is a burden the man does not need to deal with.

It is only a "burden" the man doesn't deal with because you refuse to give the man any choices. In our system we give the man choices so he has that equal "burden".
Of course calling the freedom of choice a "burden" is laughable.
If you like we could ban abortion and remove this "burden" of choice from the woman's shoulders.

You need to be clear what you mean. Our is a pronoun that is unclear. It is not my system and I am demonstrating the far heavier burden the current system places on the woman, let alone your proposed changes.

It is the system that is favored by most of those that have entered the debate on this forum. That is the "our" I am referring to.

We already covered that side of the equation. As I have said over and over and many women will share it is not a choice their morals or emotions will allow.

It is still a choice they have. That is all that matters when it comes to being equitable before the law.

And yet you always say the man must pay, but you ignore that when the woman has the child the burden on him is far smaller than her.

...unless she chooses to abort it, when she has no burden.

I did not expect you to take the points seriously. I am debating, not trolling. In a debate you present points and defend them. I am. You laugh at the burden the woman has and lament for the far smaller burden the man has in each eventuality. Belittling the points does not counter them.

Sorry, I consider 18 years of child support payments a bigger burden then "finding out you are pregnant" or "contact the father".
In either case, what I lament is the fact that the woman has CHOICES regarding her burdens. The man is given no choice. If you give the man the choice as well for his burdens then everything is equitable and fair.

A physical demand of your being is not really comparable to taxation which occurs all the time. Taxation removes your money.

Yes, they are "different". Yes one is more common. It doesn't make one "worse" than the other.

No with trying to save the suicidal person you are dealing with their body. With the fetus you are dealing with another person's body.

What difference does this make? You are still refusing them the freedom of their body and taking away their right to bodily autonomy.
Your irrelevant difference aside, this is still a counterexample to your belief that the government can't make laws controlling your body.

Then you should learn to ask.

Will you pretty please explain the purpose of this irrelevant analogy?

Again you avoid the point.

If only you were making a point for me to avoid. The real point is that the fetus is a person or it is not a person. If it can be murdered, then it is a person.

Please show me where they are inconsistent rather than simply making broad claims with no support.

See every one of my replies to you. For starters: the inconsistency that you seem to think the government can't put legal restrictions on our body, yet clearly can and does (suicide, the draft, etc)

And no as I have demonstrated and you spent many words belittling it would not be more equitable unless you only care for the men's side.

I care for both. I give both full power of choice over their responsibilities. That is being equitable.
You give the woman full say over her obligation as well as the man's obligation. That is not being equitable.

You call it 'bullshit' because you can not counter this argument and it invalidates your argument.

Even if it were true it wouldn't matter. I call it "bullshit" because it is meaningless semantic redundancy.

If you wish to makes claims about my definition at least provide it otherwise you are making unsupported claims. I am not afraid of posting the definition you are speaking of.

ca·pa·ble (kp-bl)
adj.
1. Having capacity or ability; efficient and able: a capable administrator.
2. Having the ability required for a specific task or accomplishment; qualified: capable of winning.
3. Having the inclination or disposition: capable of violence.
4. Permitting an action to be performed: an error capable of remedy; a camera capable of being used underwater.
capable - definition of capable by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

I underlined the portion for you. All women are capable, some are not willing. The only portion of the definition by which you can argue that all women are not capable is definition three, which IS A SYNONYM FOR WILLING.
That is why this is redundant bullshit.

Now of course all words have many meanings and I have been very clear to explain what I mean, so making an accusation that capable and willing are synonyms strikes me as you "intentionally being misleading through semantic" games. It has been very clear from my explanations I do not mean willing. If you wish to suggest another word to better match my explanations, I am more than happy to entertain it, but I think that is not your goal here.

Then please explain "very clearly" by what part of that definition a woman is "not capable" of choosing an abortion. Please note that definition three is a synonym of willing.

[BlackSheep]

I defined the terms present in your definition of "capable", which only supports capacity in the case of habitual moods. Is keeping or aborting a child a habitual mood? No.

Dumping a bunch of definitions without even referring to what you are claiming I said is pointless. It has no bearing on anything. You are not even responding to the post where I presented the definition. It was not my definition, but the dictionaries and beyond that I have clearly explained what I meant. If you wish to counter an argument, do so when it is presented or at least link to and certainly be clear in what you are doing.

What we actually have is you trying to defend weakly-constructed arguments enabling women to ensnare men with semantics of the work "capable".

I don't know who you mean by we. I am talking about you. Regardless of what you claim you are doing, your assessment of my arguments or your derogatory comments about women you are still constantly twisting my words, referring to arguments made well in the past in vague ways and generally debating in a intellectually dishonest manner.

I have debated honestly thusfar. You, on the other hand, have given your opinion that emotions can take away a person's choice, and given no credible support for your claims.

I disagree with you in that you have been honest. I have given my opinion and you yours I have offered to support mine with the claims of others, but you deny they are honest and you have not supported your claims.

Its wonderful that you have opinions on the capabilities and emotionality of women, but since you have failed time and time again to support your opinions with evidence of the power of emotions, your opinions really have no place in a debate about the equality of parenting-centered legistature.

I have offered support that you refused. You have not even offered support for your claims. You ignore the meat of my statement again in that it is not just my opinions.

And what do you have but your own opinions?

[BlackSheep]

Legally it would be equitable. Biologically there is nothing we can do.

A law that ignores the inequitably of life is a poor law indeed. It must be taken into consideration.

No, but that doesn't make it okay to cede control of our property to some third party just because the government takes some portion in taxes.

Child support is a duty to the person;s child. It is not ceding control over another.

It is a silly answer and a WRONG answer. You are really grasping at straws.
If I ask you to name one thing that can't be avoided by doing X, it is stupid to answer "X", as that is implied in the question.
Still, if you want to get extremely technical you also remove the responsibility of getting an abortion by getting an abortion. You don't need two abortions... getting one fulfills the needs of that responsibility.

Then the question is loaded because the "X" in question is the main difficulty I am speaking of.
Now that is silly. The responsibility is the choice and the abortion is that is what is chosen. Once you have dealt with of course it is gone. The same could be said of raising the child or paying child support.

It is hard to minimize what is already so small. You actually listed "find out you are pregnant" as one of the "obligations". Are you surprised that it is hard for me to take you seriously after that?

An interesting response. What is making it so you could not take me seriously?

You said it was the "most equitable way". So I responded by posting a more equitable way: one where the woman doesn't get to control the man's finances and the man doesn't get to control the woman's body.

actually I said: "If a man does not wish to take the risk he can avoid sex therefor he has 100% control.
There are responsibilities and obligations above and beyond the possibility of child support that are all on the woman that she must deal with that are unfair due to sexual reproduction.
The woman has control over her body.
In the eventuality of the woman becoming pregnant the man is obligated to support the child. Ideally with more than simple money.
While the current system is not completely equitable, it deals best with all the obligations and responsibilities in the most equitable way.
To allow the man to simply state he has no desire to pay child support puts the entire burden on the woman to deal with everything other than his 50% of the abortion costs should she choose that. That would be far less unfair than the current system."

As you can see it was for more than a simple re-declaration of my opinion, I explained why it was more equitable in my opinion. It directly related to what you said.

Why do I need to "counter" it? These "obligations" are laughably niitpicky (or not obligations at all). I said I'd include half the cost of the pregnancy test and half the cost of the stamp. Hell, I'll even throw in two dollars to pay her twenty dollars an hour for the six minutes it takes her to scratch out a letter and drop it in the mail box.
I'll even include the cost of an ounce of water and half a calorie that it took her to lick that stamp!
For an extra ten bucks your "obligations" can be made equitable again.

You need to counter because it is a debate and that is how they work, yo also continue to ignore the meatier responses, but they are all listed because the man has virtually none beyond his half of the money.

She needs to choose whether or not she wants to get an abortion, the man needs to choose whether or not to opt out of child support. They both have a choice to make, so this "responsibility" is perfectly equitable.

You responded to each point individually in an belittling way. They are meant to be taken as a whole, but I am sure you know that.

It is only a "burden" the man doesn't deal with because you refuse to give the man any choices. In our system we give the man choices so he has that equal "burden".
Of course calling the freedom of choice a "burden" is laughable.
If you like we could ban abortion and remove this "burden" of choice from the woman's shoulders.

I never said the freedom to choose is a burden. That would be your twist. The 'freedom' to decide on the fate of a persons life is often in the hands of a judge and or jury. In many cases these are seen as burdens and I am not speaking of the time they mist sacrifice, but rather the burden of the choice. How it will weigh on them. They must live with that choice.

It is the system that is favored by most of those that have entered the debate on this forum. That is the "our" I am referring to.

Our is a pronoun and very unclear. I suggest 'our' would normally be taken as the system that is in place.

It is still a choice they have. That is all that matters when it comes to being equitable before the law.

I think you need to read more about law. Law is never that simple.

...unless she chooses to abort it, when she has no burden.

She has the burden of that choice. No matter which way that goes her burden is greater, but you avoid agreeing with that obvious point, because it does not support your claim.

Sorry, I consider 18 years of child support payments a bigger burden then "finding out you are pregnant" or "contact the father".
In either case, what I lament is the fact that the woman has CHOICES regarding her burdens. The man is given no choice. If you give the man the choice as well for his burdens then everything is equitable and fair.

I have never compared those.

After sex the man says I want nothing to do with a child. In the process you are suggesting he is done, unless she come to as for him to pay his share. She is not. There are many things that she must do.

If the fetus is not aborted then her burden is also much bigger.

There is no comparison of the woman's burden up to the choice and than man's after. Compare apples to apples.

Yes, they are "different". Yes one is more common. It doesn't make one "worse" than the other.

I never said it was worse. It is far more common place. It is far more accepted. We in general control one completely and the other we never really do.

What difference does this make? You are still refusing them the freedom of their body and taking away their right to bodily autonomy.

I have known enough suicidal people to know that in most cases in the long run they are happy they were stopped. When one is suicidal,, generally ones mind is not functioning properly.

Your irrelevant difference aside, this is still a counterexample to your belief that the government can't make laws controlling your body.

It is very relevant. Violating the rights of one person due to issues with another is a very different thing. I never claimed the government can't make laws controlling your body. You again put words in my mouth. I said it is far, far less commonplace and demonstrates the societal understanding that finances are on a whole different playing field than the body.

Will you pretty please explain the purpose of this irrelevant analogy?

That is a loaded question. it is not irrelevant.

If only you were making a point for me to avoid. The real point is that the fetus is a person or it is not a person. If it can be murdered, then it is a person.

The point was there are different levels and mixtures of rights.

See every one of my replies to you. For starters: the inconsistency that you seem to think the government can't put legal restrictions on our body, yet clearly can and does (suicide, the draft, etc)

I never said it could not. You said I did and only starting with this post. You can't put words in my mouth that are inconsistent than then claim I am inconsistent.

I care for both. I give both full power of choice over their responsibilities. That is being equitable.
You give the woman full say over her obligation as well as the man's obligation. That is not being equitable.

I take into consideration that beyond the simple letter of the law. You refuse to do so. The law is there to help life not to resplace it.

Even if it were true it wouldn't matter. I call it "bullshit" because it is meaningless semantic redundancy.

If you wish to makes claims about my definition at least provide it otherwise you are making unsupported claims. I am not afraid of posting the definition you are speaking of.

ca·pa·ble (kp-bl)
adj.
1. Having capacity or ability; efficient and able: a capable administrator.
2. Having the ability required for a specific task or accomplishment; qualified: capable of winning.
3. Having the inclination or disposition: capable of violence.
4. Permitting an action to be performed: an error capable of remedy; a camera capable of being used underwater.
capable - definition of capable by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

I underlined the portion for you. All women are capable, some are not willing. The only portion of the definition by which you can argue that all women are not capable is definition three, which IS A SYNONYM FOR WILLING.
That is why this is redundant bullshit.

I have explained what I mean but this and what I mean is not synonymous with willing in the sense you mean it. It strikes mean it is you are are using semantic games.

Then please explain "very clearly" by what part of that definition a woman is "not capable" of choosing an abortion. Please note that definition three is a synonym of willing.

You ignored my point. I have explained what I meant. If that word does not match it then suggest another. There are women who are not capable/able to choose to abort the fetus for moral or emotional reasons.

What I mean by this is they can not take that option. It is not within them to do so.

[LetThereBe]

A law that ignores the inequitably of life is a poor law indeed. It must be taken into consideration.

Giving the woman control over a man's finances doesn't "take it into consideration" either. That doesn't make things any more equal. Outside of very extreme surgery, genetic modification, or technologies that are currently unavailable, this is just a simple biological difference that will never be "equal".
We don't expect the law to somehow take into account the fact that women tend to live longer. We just accept that it is a biological difference and expect the law to treat us equally, not try to "compensate" for nature.

Child support is a duty to the person;s child. It is not ceding control over another.

The woman has 100% say over whether the man has to pay child support. That mean she has control over it.

Then the question is loaded because the "X" in question is the main difficulty I am speaking of.

No, the question isn't loaded. You just finally are beginning to realize that the "main difficulty" is in fact a benefit and option.

Now that is silly. The responsibility is the choice and the abortion is that is what is chosen. Once you have dealt with of course it is gone. The same could be said of raising the child or paying child support.

The responsibility is as much the choice as any choice is a responsibility...

An interesting response. What is making it so you could not take me seriously?

That you would list "contacting the father" as an "unfair burden" on the mother. That you would list "finding out you are pregnant" as an unfair burden on the mother. Why not extend the list by mentioning how she needs to pull the phone from her pocket, then dial each number on that phone, then talk into that phone, then continue to breathe while doing all of that, then hanging up the phone, then putting it back in her pocket?
These "burdens" are laughably trivial.

actually I said: "If a man does not wish to take the risk he can avoid sex therefor he has 100% control.

Then I'll say the same for a woman. If a woman does not want to take the risk of giving birth she can avoid sex therefore she has 100% control. Let's ban abortions.
As always your arguments work both ways.

There are responsibilities and obligations above and beyond the possibility of child support that are all on the woman that she must deal with that are unfair due to sexual reproduction.

No there aren't. She can get an abortion. Bam. Responsibilities and obligations are gone.

The woman has control over her body.

...and the man has control over his finances. This still works both ways.

In the eventuality of the woman becoming pregnant the man is obligated to support the child. Ideally with more than simple money.

Then in the eventuality of the woman becoming pregnant she is obligated to give birth to the child. This works both ways.

While the current system is not completely equitable, it deals best with all the obligations and responsibilities in the most equitable way.

Not at all. We have suggested a way that gives neither control over the other's responsibilities. It is 100% legally equitable.

To allow the man to simply state he has no desire to pay child support puts the entire burden on the woman to deal with everything other than his 50% of the abortion costs should she choose that. That would be far less unfair than the current system."

This would be perfectly fair. He is obligated to pay half of the cheapest option. No matter what the women chooses she has some cost, and the man must share that cost. If the woman chooses a more expensive option, that additional expense is on her. That is her choice, and she is responsible for her choices.

As you can see it was for more than a simple re-declaration of my opinion, I explained why it was more equitable in my opinion. It directly related to what you said.

All you did was state the exact same thing you have stated already. You haven't explained anything. You just state that "it is unfair that women have more responsibility" to which I respond that our system gives the woman the greater choice to match her greater responsibility. Every one of your "arguments" works both ways.

You need to counter because it is a debate and that is how they work, yo also continue to ignore the meatier responses, but they are all listed because the man has virtually none beyond his half of the money.

Are you kidding me? What have I ignored? I have literally responding to everything you say line by line. Point out what I have ignored.
Yes, the man has virtually no responsibilities beyond his half of the money because that is all he has CONTROL over. It is unfair to make you responsible for something you cannot control. The man cannot control the woman's body, so he has no say over what she does with it. The woman therefore does not get to control his finances. He controls what he is responsible for, she controls what she is responsible for.
That's perfect equity in law.

You responded to each point individually in an belittling way. They are meant to be taken as a whole, but I am sure you know that.

What have I missed? I responded to your trivial points and gave them more respect than they deserved. I agreed that the man should meet halfway for the trivial garbage that is hardly worth bringing up (really would amount to less than ten bucks) and the rest is covered by the woman having the option of abortion.

I never said the freedom to choose is a burden. That would be your twist. The 'freedom' to decide on the fate of a persons life is often in the hands of a judge and or jury. In many cases these are seen as burdens and I am not speaking of the time they mist sacrifice, but rather the burden of the choice. How it will weigh on them. They must live with that choice.

This is true of any choice. The man has this "burden" as well in choosing whether or not he will abandon his child. As always your "argument" works both ways.

Our is a pronoun and very unclear. I suggest 'our' would normally be taken as the system that is in place.

Well while it should have been obvious from context, now that I have explained it explicitly you no longer have any excuse for misconception.

I think you need to read more about law. Law is never that simple.

It is the people that would prefer law to be needlessly complex that are the problem.
"You are responsible for what you have control over. You are not responsible for what you don't have control over".
That is simple, fair, and makes a far better basis for law than this garbage idea of "compensating" for natural biology.

She has the burden of that choice. No matter which way that goes her burden is greater, but you avoid agreeing with that obvious point, because it does not support your claim.

Living with the choice is part of MAKING the choice. The same is true for the man choosing to opt out of child support. The fact that it is a "tough" choice isn't contrary to my claim... it is completely irrelevant to the situation altogether.

I have never compared those.

After sex the man says I want nothing to do with a child. In the process you are suggesting he is done, unless she come to as for him to pay his share. She is not. There are many things that she must do.

That's not true. I say he must pay half the cost of an abortion.

If the fetus is not aborted then her burden is also much bigger.

That's her choice. If she chooses to have a much bigger responsibility, yes, she has a much bigger responsibility. She can also choose to have no responsibility through an abortion, then she has no responsibility.
She only has as much responsibility as she wants.

There is no comparison of the woman's burden up to the choice and than man's after.

Sure there is. They are both choices. They are both potentially life-altering. They both deal with emotionally powerful subjects with social pressure attached.

I never said it was worse. It is far more common place. It is far more accepted. We in general control one completely and the other we never really do.

Who cares that it is more common place? That is utterly irrelevant. All that matters is we have a (limited) right to both. This means laws can be made controlling either, and banning abortion isn't fundamentally more "wrong" than taking someone's property without their say.

I have known enough suicidal people to know that in most cases in the long run they are happy they were stopped. When one is suicidal,, generally ones mind is not functioning properly.

Irrelevant. You are still legally preventing someone from exercising bodily autonomy. I bet there would be plenty of people that would have been glad if their mother's were stopped from getting an abortion.

It is very relevant. Violating the rights of one person due to issues with another is a very different thing. I never claimed the government can't make laws controlling your body. You again put words in my mouth. I said it is far, far less commonplace and demonstrates the societal understanding that finances are on a whole different playing field than the body.

It clearly is not a different playing field. The government can (and does) control both. That is all that is necessary for the argument.
Also, it is NOT a very different thing. A violation of rights is a violation of rights... it doesn't matter that it is because you are "protecting" the person whose rights you are violating vs protecting a person other than the one whose rights you are violating.

That is a loaded question. it is not irrelevant.

Really? You still won't answer? Will you pretty, pretty please with a cherry on top explain the whatever-the-hell you want to call your nonsense example?

The point was there are different levels and mixtures of rights.

You really can't get to a more basic level than "right to life".
You either have a right to life or you don't. If you are murdered you had your right to life deprived. It really is that simple. It is completely binary. Yes or no. Right or no right. Murdered or not murdered.

I never said it could not. You said I did and only starting with this post. You can't put words in my mouth that are inconsistent than then claim I am inconsistent.

I take into consideration that beyond the simple letter of the law. You refuse to do so. The law is there to help life not to resplace it.

The law is not there to "make up for" the cards that nature dealt us. The law is supposed to be blind to all of that. The law isn't supposed to care if you are a man or women, tall or short, rich or poor, black or white. That is what equitable law MEANS.
There is nothing else to take into consideration. Why are you against equality before the law?

I have explained what I mean but this and what I mean is not synonymous with willing in the sense you mean it. It strikes mean it is you are are using semantic games.

Not at all. You provided the definition, and by your own definition it clearly is a synonym with "willing". If you mean something else, please explain it.

You ignored my point. I have explained what I meant. If that word does not match it then suggest another. There are women who are not capable/able to choose to abort the fetus for moral or emotional reasons.

By the definitions 1 and 2 YOU PROVIDED all women are capable of getting an abortion. That word works just fine for me.
That some CHOOSE otherwise for moral or emotional reasons does not change the fact that they were CAPABLE of CHOOSING otherwise.

What I mean by this is they can not take that option. It is not within them to do so.

I have no idea what you mean. They can take the option. That is what having an option means. That is what capable means (read the definitions 1 and 2 in your own post if you need a reminder).

[BlackSheep]

Giving the woman control over a man's finances doesn't "take it into consideration" either. That doesn't make things any more equal. Outside of very extreme surgery, genetic modification, or technologies that are currently unavailable, this is just a simple biological difference that will never be "equal".

The woman does not have control over the man's finances and I never said it would be equal, but I certainly do take it into consideration whereas you do not.

We don't expect the law to somehow take into account the fact that women tend to live longer. We just accept that it is a biological difference and expect the law to treat us equally, not try to "compensate" for nature.

That is for a number of reasons. One, it has no reliance to this situation and two is is simply a statistic.

The woman has 100% say over whether the man has to pay child support. That mean she has control over it.

Not true at all. Only the man has 100% control over that. He can avoid sex. The woman can simply enforce his obligation tot he child or not.

No, the question isn't loaded. You just finally are beginning to realize that the "main difficulty" is in fact a benefit and option.

Please do not place your words in my head. It is loaded based on the claims you have made.

The responsibility is as much the choice as any choice is a responsibility...

A choice is simply to pick. I presented a list of things the woman has as her responsibility which of course you simply belittled. In the plan you are proposing the man simply makes a choice and then is done beyond money. The woman's choice leads to actions in any case.

That you would list "contacting the father" as an "unfair burden" on the mother. That you would list "finding out you are pregnant" as an unfair burden on the mother. Why not extend the list by mentioning how she needs to pull the phone from her pocket, then dial each number on that phone, then talk into that phone, then continue to breathe while doing all of that, then hanging up the phone, then putting it back in her pocket?
These "burdens" are laughably trivial.

You still ignore the larger ones.

Then I'll say the same for a woman. If a woman does not want to take the risk of giving birth she can avoid sex therefore she has 100% control. Let's ban abortions.
As always your arguments work both ways.

If a woman wishes to avoid the burden of the pregnancy she can avoid sex. Due to it being her body she is afforded another decision point. The argument does not work both ways as it is a counter to your the man has no control. He does. Removing the woman's control over her body is not helping anything.

No there aren't. She can get an abortion. Bam. Responsibilities and obligations are gone.

Which requires her to deal with the abortion, which as I have explained is not an easy or possible option for many.

...and the man has control over his finances. This still works both ways.

He does not. No one has full control over their finances as we have seen

Then in the eventuality of the woman becoming pregnant she is obligated to give birth to the child. This works both ways.

You ignore the point. Even in that case she caries by far the biggest burden and she loses control over her body.

Not =LetThereBe;869401at all. We have suggested a way that gives neither control over the other's responsibilities. It is 100% legally equitable.

As I have explained t does not. Your solution ignores the much heavier burden of the woman.

This would be perfectly fair. He is obligated to pay half of the cheapest option. No matter what the women chooses she has some cost, and the man must share that cost. If the woman chooses a more expensive option, that additional expense is on her. That is her choice, and she is responsible for her choices.

I don't think you even read what I write. You simply ignore the main point.

All you did was state the exact same thing you have stated already. You haven't explained anything. You just state that "it is unfair that women have more responsibility" to which I respond that our system gives the woman the greater choice to match her greater responsibility. Every one of your "arguments" works both ways.

You system does not give the woman any more choice than she has. It just dumps more on her.

Are you kidding me? What have I ignored? I have literally responding to everything you say line by line. Point out what I have ignored.

I explained what you ignored. Them altogether. The man's responsibilities vs the woman's both in case of an abortion or the case of the birth.

Yes, the man has virtually no responsibilities beyond his half of the money because that is all he has CONTROL over. It is unfair to make you responsible for something you cannot control. The man cannot control the woman's body, so he has no say over what she does with it. The woman therefore does not get to control his finances. He controls what he is responsible for, she controls what she is responsible for.
That's perfect equity in law.

He has control over his sexual activity.
And the woman as I have explained often has less control that you stipulate. It is not uncommon for it to be a option she can not select for emotional or moral reasons.

What have I missed? I responded to your trivial points and gave them more respect than they deserved. I agreed that the man should meet halfway for the trivial garbage that is hardly worth bringing up (really would amount to less than ten bucks) and the rest is covered by the woman having the option of abortion.

All you seem to be able to understand is money. I explained it is the elements beyond money.

This is true of any choice. The man has this "burden" as well in choosing whether or not he will abandon his child. As always your "argument" works both ways.

He does not. He has the luxury of placing the burden on her and walking away. If she did the same thing (telling him and ignoring it) the child would be born.

Well while it should have been obvious from context, now that I have explained it explicitly you no longer have any excuse for misconception.

We are talking about two things. The current system and your proposed system it was by no ways obvious from the context. I am simply responding to your points now.

It is the people that would prefer law to be needlessly complex that are the problem.
"You are responsible for what you have control over. You are not responsible for what you don't have control over".
That is simple, fair, and makes a far better basis for law than this garbage idea of "compensating" for natural biology.

As I said a law that ignores the reality of life is a poor law. Reality is what law is to help deal with. It is not a thing on it's own. The current model is not needlessly complex,it is just not what you agree with. It is both parents have an obligation to the child. Quite simple.

Living with the choice is part of MAKING the choice. The same is true for the man choosing to opt out of child support. The fact that it is a "tough" choice isn't contrary to my claim... it is completely irrelevant to the situation altogether.

I was talking about the burden of dealing with the abortion or raising the child not living with the choice.

I have never compared those.

I did.

That's not true. I say he must pay half the cost of an abortion.

I know that is why I said unless she comes to get the money.

That's her choice. If she chooses to have a much bigger responsibility, yes, she has a much bigger responsibility. She can also choose to have no responsibility through an abortion, then she has no responsibility.
She only has as much responsibility as she wants.

The point you continually avoid in no matter what option is taken her burden is bigger.

Sure there is. They are both choices. They are both potentially life-altering. They both deal with emotionally powerful subjects with social pressure attached.

I am saying you must compare each persons burden in the same decision branch.

Who cares that it is more common place? That is utterly irrelevant. All that matters is we have a (limited) right to both. This means laws can be made controlling either, and banning abortion isn't fundamentally more "wrong" than taking someone's property without their say.

You made the claim finances and body are equal. It demonstrates society disagrees.

Irrelevant. You are still legally preventing someone from exercising bodily autonomy. I bet there would be plenty of people that would have been glad if their mother's were stopped from getting an abortion.

It is not irrelevant. The person is in general mentally ill.
I doubt that unless they were in a deep depression when you asked them.

It clearly is not a different playing field. The government can (and does) control both. That is all that is necessary for the argument.
Also, it is NOT a very different thing. A violation of rights is a violation of rights... it doesn't matter that it is because you are "protecting" the person whose rights you are violating vs protecting a person other than the one whose rights you are violating.

It is a different thing. Every day we are taxed. Every day people are forced to pay debts. Slavery on the other hand was made criminal.

Really? You still won't answer? Will you pretty, pretty please with a cherry on top explain the whatever-the-hell you want to call your nonsense example?

You continue to insult it. It clearly demonstrates you do not want to understand. It is not a nonsense example.

You really can't get to a more basic level than "right to life".
You either have a right to life or you don't. If you are murdered you had your right to life deprived. It really is that simple. It is completely binary. Yes or no. Right or no right. Murdered or not murdered.

As I said this was not my argument. I just put in my two cents, but yo do try to simplify everyhting to a point where reality is lost.

I never said it could not. You said I did and only starting with this post. You can't put words in my mouth that are inconsistent than then claim I am inconsistent.

You said "For starters: the inconsistency that you seem to think the government can't put legal restrictions on our body, yet clearly can and does"

I never said any such thing and as far as I now that was the first time you claimed that of me.

The law is not there to "make up for" the cards that nature dealt us. The law is supposed to be blind to all of that. The law isn't supposed to care if you are a man or women, tall or short, rich or poor, black or white. That is what equitable law MEANS.

Actually some laws are very there to deal with the cards nature dealt us. They are called human rights.

There is nothing else to take into consideration. Why are you against equality before the law?

The fact that the vast majority of the burden is on the woman.

Not at all. You provided the definition, and by your own definition it clearly is a synonym with "willing". If you mean something else, please explain it.

I have over and over. I did in the last post. "You ignored my point. I have explained what I meant. If that word does not match it then suggest another. There are women who are not capable/able to choose to abort the fetus for moral or emotional reasons. "

By the definitions 1 and 2 YOU PROVIDED all women are capable of getting an abortion. That word works just fine for me.
That some CHOOSE otherwise for moral or emotional reasons does not change the fact that they were CAPABLE of CHOOSING otherwise.

It s all a matter of interpretation of the definitions, but as I said I explained what I mean.

I have no idea what you mean. They can take the option. That is what having an option means. That is what capable means (read the definitions 1 and 2 in your own post if you need a reminder).

No having an option means it is available. It does not mean you can take it. There are more barriers that legalities. The law is not the universe.

If you offered me a million dollars to crush the skull of a living kitten, I would not be able to do it. I have the strength, I have the co-ordination, but my emotions/moral would not allow it. I could not do it.

[LetThereBe]

The woman does not have control over the man's finances and I never said it would be equal, but I certainly do take it into consideration whereas you do not.

So you believe that the law should treat you differently if you are a man vs a woman. I guess if you don't believe in equality before the law, that is just a fundamental difference in philosophy.

That is for a number of reasons. One, it has no reliance to this situation and two is is simply a statistic.

You seem to think that nature is "unfair" to women and that the law needs to compensate. I'm just demonstrating that nature is "unfair" to men as well.

Not true at all. Only the man has 100% control over that. He can avoid sex. The woman can simply enforce his obligation tot he child or not.

If she has the power to enforce his obligation, that is control.

Please do not place your words in my head. It is loaded based on the claims you have made.

Place my words in your head? All I can do is place them in this forum. I would hope you would "place them in your head" by reading them, but I'm suspecting that isn't even always the case.

A choice is simply to pick. I presented a list of things the woman has as her responsibility which of course you simply belittled. In the plan you are proposing the man simply makes a choice and then is done beyond money. The woman's choice leads to actions in any case.

A simple medical procedure that is very safe. If you want, we can increase the man's 50% slightly to take into account that he isn't the one getting this safe medical procedure done.

You still ignore the larger ones.

There are none. All the "larger ones" are covered by abortion.

If a woman wishes to avoid the burden of the pregnancy she can avoid sex. Due to it being her body she is afforded another decision point.

Due to it being the man's finances, he is afforded another decision point. See? As always your argument works both ways.

The argument does not work both ways as it is a counter to your the man has no control. He does. Removing the woman's control over her body is not helping anything.

I'm just saying we either allow both control or we allow neither control. That is equitable law. I don't care which way we do it. I only care that we make it consistent and fair.

Which requires her to deal with the abortion, which as I have explained is not an easy or possible option for many.

It is possible for all, by your own definition.

He does not. No one has full control over their finances as we have seen

Not "full control", but neither does the woman have "full control" over her body as we have seen (like the example with suicide).

You ignore the point. Even in that case she caries by far the biggest burden and she loses control over her body.

No she doesn't. She can choose to get an abortion or not. She maintains control over her body. She has the bigger burden, and she has the bigger choice that governs that bigger burden.
The man has the smaller burden, so he has the smaller choice governing that smaller burden.

As I have explained t does not. Your solution ignores the much heavier burden of the woman.

No it doesn't. She can get an abortion. That alleviates her of that heavy burden.

I don't think you even read what I write. You simply ignore the main point.

I obviously read it. I respond to you point by point, line by line. I miss nothing. I ignore nothing. You just can't accept that your arguments are inconsistent and work both ways. If we can control the man's finances we can control the woman's body. If we allow the woman to discard her responsibilities we allow the man to discard his responsibilities.

You system does not give the woman any more choice than she has. It just dumps more on her.

Of course it doesn't give her more choice than she has. It gives her all the choice she needs and deserves. She chooses what she does with her body. I take away her choice to choose what the man does with HIS finances. She controls her body, he controls his finances.

I explained what you ignored. Them altogether. The man's responsibilities vs the woman's both in case of an abortion or the case of the birth.

There is nothing else to add. I ignored nothing. Everything is either trivial or solved by abortion. Taking it "altogether" doesn't change that.

He has control over his sexual activity.

So does she... so by this logic we can ban abortion.

And the woman as I have explained often has less control that you stipulate. It is not uncommon for it to be a option she can not select for emotional or moral reasons.

By your own definition she is capable. Emotional and moral reasons are irrelevant. On top of that men face the same thing with their decisions.
Your argument fails on three levels.

All you seem to be able to understand is money. I explained it is the elements beyond money.

It isn't about money, it is about choice. It is about freedom to decide what to do with what is yours... be it your body or your property.

He does not. He has the luxury of placing the burden on her and walking away. If she did the same thing (telling him and ignoring it) the child would be born.

Why do you keep raising this strawman? I've already said he would not have that luxury. He is obligated to pay at least 50% of the cheapest option.

We are talking about two things. The current system and your proposed system it was by no ways obvious from the context. I am simply responding to your points now.

This should be simple. If I say it is inequitable I am talking about the current system, where there is no equal treatment before the law and one person get's to force responsibilities on another. If I am talking about an equitable system, I am talking about where each person has the power of choice over their own responsibilities.

As I said a law that ignores the reality of life is a poor law. Reality is what law is to help deal with. It is not a thing on it's own. The current model is not needlessly complex,it is just not what you agree with. It is both parents have an obligation to the child. Quite simple.

Both parents do have an obligation... let's ban abortion so that women must fulfill their obligation.
(It still works both ways).

I was talking about the burden of dealing with the abortion or raising the child not living with the choice.

"Dealing with the abortion" is trivial. It is a quick and safe medical procedure.

I did.

...and it remains irrelevant.

The point you continually avoid in no matter what option is taken her burden is bigger.

I haven't avoided that at all. I've said (repeatedly) that she has the bigger burden... that is why she has the bigger choice. Her responsibility is bigger, and she has the choice over that bigger responsibility. That is fair.
His responsibility is smaller, and he only has control over that smaller responsibility. That is equitable.

I am saying you must compare each persons burden in the same decision branch.

That doesn't even make sense. They both have a big, life-altering, emotional choice to make. You can't say one is a huge burden and completely dismiss the other.

You made the claim finances and body are equal. It demonstrates society disagrees.

I NEVER made that claim. I made the claim that neither is universally greater than the other. Society agrees with me.

It is not irrelevant. The person is in general mentally ill.

The mentally ill still have rights. Even if they didn't, the person isn't always mentally ill, so there are those of sound mind that still have their bodily autonomy deprived.

I doubt that unless they were in a deep depression when you asked them.

I can't ask them. They were aborted.

It is a different thing. Every day we are taxed. Every day people are forced to pay debts. Slavery on the other hand was made criminal.

Who said anything about slavery? Legally controlling your body isn't slavery any more than taxation is robbery.
Each is a limitation of our rights that the government can and does do.

You continue to insult it. It clearly demonstrates you do not want to understand. It is not a nonsense example.

Then prove otherwise. As it stands, it is one of the stupidest things I have ever read on this site. My five year old nephew could come up with a more coherent, relevant analogy.

As I said this was not my argument. I just put in my two cents, but yo do try to simplify everyhting to a point where reality is lost.

I simplify things to the core nature of your argument. I distill truth and consistency from fallacy and bullshit. If you do not hold a point of mine in contention, then do not respond.

I never said any such thing and as far as I now that was the first time you claimed that of me.

You keep saying "It is the woman's body" as if for some reason that means the government can't make a law controlling her body. I guess I just assumed you meant something relevant every time you said that. I guess I was mistaken... it was just more tangential nonsense.

Actually some laws are very there to deal with the cards nature dealt us. They are called human rights.

Human rights are equal, independent of the situation nature has put you in. You don't get "extra free speech" if nature gave you a disease. You don't get "extra right to life" if you were born shorter. You don't get "extra power of choice" just because you were born a woman.

The fact that the vast majority of the burden is on the woman.

...and she can alleviate that "vast majority" through her option of abortion.

I have over and over. I did in the last post. "You ignored my point. I have explained what I meant. If that word does not match it then suggest another. There are women who are not capable/able to choose to abort the fetus for moral or emotional reasons. "

That isn't an explanation! That is a statement!
You provided a definition. That was a step in the right direction... except the definition you provided worked against your own argument!
I'm thrilled with that definition of "capable". You go ahead and suggest another word if you want... but the word "capable" clearly indicates that the women are capable.

It s all a matter of interpretation of the definitions, but as I said I explained what I mean.

Then interpret the definition for me. It seems pretty crystal clear that women are capable by either of the first two... so explain how your interpretation differs. The third is clearly just a synonym for willing... and I already agreed that these women aren't willing.

No having an option means it is available. It does not mean you can take it. There are more barriers that legalities. The law is not the universe.

The law (physical, and legal) determines what you can and can't do. What you will and won't do, depends on your choice.
I can't jump to the moon. It is physically impossible.
I can't rob a bank. It is against our laws.
I WON'T call my boss a dick. It is immoral and would have negative repercussions. I can though. I just won't.

If you offered me a million dollars to crush the skull of a living kitten, I would not be able to do it. I have the strength, I have the co-ordination, but my emotions/moral would not allow it. I could not do it.

If you have the strength and coordination then you can do it. You are "capable" by your own definition. You simply won't do it.
Like I said, this is a matter of you not knowing the difference between can and will, could and would.
I try to be a little understanding, as I get the impression you aren't a native English speaker. All the same, at this point you should really get it given that your OWN DEFINITION agrees with me.

[JimL]

I'm fine with that, but if we consider it the responsibility of the mother, then he is not financially obligated after it is born. Since he was denied any say over it's outcome he has the choice for whether or not he wants to pay child support.

Upon further thought, until it is born, or until it is determined to be a human being, the fetus is nothing other than a part of the womans body, and so the man would have no more rights to it than he has to the woman herself, but once it is determined to be a human being then the man is as responsible for its existence as is the woman herself. In other words your rights and resposibilities to the child can't exist until and unless the child exists.

[minorwork]

Upon further thought, until it is born, or until it is determined to be a human being, the fetus is nothing other than a part of the womans body, and so the man would have no more rights to it than he has to the woman herself, but once it is determined to be a human being then the man is as responsible for its existence as is the woman herself. In other words your rights and resposibilities to the child can't exist until and unless the child exists.

I'd like the kid to be breathing. Very much agree with your position that the man's rights over the woman are null here.

[finder]

I'd like the kid to be breathing. Very much agree with your position that the man's rights over the woman are null here.

There are laws on the books that protect the fetus from second hand smoke and drug use. Also you can be charged for a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman. Doesn't that constitute "existence?" So how can abortion be justified in light of these laws? And why can't the man protect his offspring?

[BlackSheep]

So you believe that the law should treat you differently if you are a man vs a woman. I guess if you don't believe in equality before the law, that is just a fundamental difference in philosophy.

I believe in equality, just not simply within the law. I was merely saying that nothing is perfect.

You seem to think that nature is "unfair" to women and that the law needs to compensate. I'm just demonstrating that nature is "unfair" to men as well.

How is nature as unfair to men? Ho have you demonstrated this?

If she has the power to enforce his obligation, that is control.

She is the advocate for the victim (the child) and like many other crimes there must be a complaint.

Place my words in your head? All I can do is place them in this forum. I would hope you would "place them in your head" by reading them, but I'm suspecting that isn't even always the case.

You are claiming you know what I think. You do not.

A simple medical procedure that is very safe. If you want, we can increase the man's 50% slightly to take into account that he isn't the one getting this safe medical procedure done.

You have already belittled all the other aspects. Finances are not nearly as significant as you think in the grand scheme.

There are none. All the "larger ones" are covered by abortion.

The largest one is the non-mechanical, non-financial aspects of the abortion including the choice.

Due to it being the=LetThereBe;869410 man's finances, he is afforded another decision point. See? As always your argument works both ways.

His is not able to do this -- you want him to be. The problem is that would pt serious emotional pressure on the woman if she is not able for emotional / moral reasons to pick abortion.

I'm just saying we either allow both control or we allow neither control. That is equitable law. I don't care which way we do it. I only care that we make it consistent and fair.

As specified he already has 100% control without this change.

It is possible for all, by your own definition.

Please explain. I ave made it clear it does not.

Not "full control", but neither does the woman have "full control" over her body as we have seen (like the example with suicide).

People under most situations have full control of their body and basically never have full control over their finances.

No she doesn't. She can choose to get an abortion or not. She maintains control over her body. She has the bigger burden, and she has the bigger choice that governs that bigger burden.
The man has the smaller burden, so he has the smaller choice governing that smaller burden.

That is not what I said and as been clearly stated is she can not always take the option of abortion due to emotional / moral reasons.

No it doesn't. She can get an abortion. That alleviates her of that heavy burden.

Not if she is unable to take that option due to emotional / moral reasons.

I obviously read it. I respond to you point by point, line by line. I miss nothing. I ignore nothing. You just can't accept that your arguments are inconsistent and work both ways. If we can control the man's finances we can control the woman's body. If we allow the woman to discard her responsibilities we allow the man to discard his responsibilities.

You have never addressed the greater burden in general that a woman has in both cases, you continually sidestep it.

Of course it doesn't give her more choice than she has. It gives her all the choice she needs and deserves. She chooses what she does with her body. I take away her choice to choose what the man does with HIS finances. She controls her body, he controls his finances.

You said "I respond that our system gives the woman the greater choice" and not you claim it does not.

The problem is the choice you wish to give to the man puts much more emotional burden on her.

There is nothing else to add. I ignored nothing. Everything is either trivial or solved by abortion. Taking it "altogether" doesn't change that.

You have not addresses the concept that in all circumstances the woman has a greater burden.

So does she... so by this logic we can ban abortion.

We don;t remove control over ones body because another wishes to avoid his responsibility. In this case you are trying to change the law to balance an inequity you see beyond the law, which you said you were not doing.

By your own definition she is capable. Emotional and moral reasons are irrelevant. On top of that men face the same thing with their decisions.
Your argument fails on three levels.

By my argument all along I have made it clear she is not always able to select that option. I posted a definition once because you claimed I didn't understand what capable meant. Now you are playing semantic games and claiming that I am. Please support your claim that emotions and morals are irrelevant.

Your counters fail.
Semantic games over a dictionary definition when I have explained clearly what I mean is meaningless.
Stating without support that emotions and morals are irrelevant is meaningless.
Claiming men face the same thing with their decisions with no detail is meaningless.

It isn't about money, it is about choice. It is about freedom to decide what to do with what is yours... be it your body or your property.

You said "I agreed that the man should meet halfway for the trivial garbage that is hardly worth bringing up (really would amount to less than ten bucks) and the rest is covered by the woman having the option of abortion." It certainly seems you are only concerned about money.

Why do you keep raising this strawman? I've already said he would not have that luxury. He is obligated to pay at least 50% of the cheapest option.

Again you are fixated on only money. I have made it clear I recognize he must pay half if requested or even up front, but then his it done. She is not.

This should be simple. If I say it is inequitable I am talking about the current system, where there is no equal treatment before the law and one person get's to force responsibilities on another. If I am talking about an equitable system, I am talking about where each person has the power of choice over their own responsibilities.

The problem with this assessment is it is subjective. I feel the current system is equitable and the system you suggests in inequitable. Is it so hard to understand that your point of view is not the only one?

Both parents do have an obligation... let's ban abortion so that women must fulfill their obligation.
(It still works both ways).

The obligation is to the child not the fetus. She has control over her body.

"Dealing with the abortion" is trivial. It is a quick and safe medical procedure.

I have never claimed the process was unsafe nor slow.

...and it remains irrelevant.

You are playing games pure and simple to avoid points.

I said "She has the burden of that choice. No matter which way that goes her burden is greater, but you avoid agreeing with that obvious point, because it does not support your claim."

You responded "Living with the choice is part of MAKING the choice. The same is true for the man choosing to opt out of child support. The fact that it is a "tough" choice isn't contrary to my claim... it is completely irrelevant to the situation altogether.

I have never compared those."

In response to the last line I said "I did"

Then you respond "...and it remains irrelevant."

You continually avoid responding to the point as I said at the beginning and you clearly demonstrate it here.

I haven't avoided that at all. I've said (repeatedly) that she has the bigger burden... that is why she has the bigger choice. Her responsibility is bigger, and she has the choice over that bigger responsibility. That is fair.
His responsibility is smaller, and he only has control over that smaller responsibility. That is equitable.

You are not responding to the bigger burden in all cases. You ignore the magnitude of emotions and morals on the situation. I also fail to see how his choice to abandon the child is any smaller than hers.

That doesn't even make sense. They both have a big, life-altering, emotional choice to make. You can't say one is a huge burden and completely dismiss the other.

What doesn't make sense. I have never dismissed the man's choice.

I NEVER made that claim. I made the claim that neither is universally greater than the other. Society agrees with me.

What does universally greater mean? And please demonstrate how society agrees with you.

The mentally ill still have rights. Even if they didn't, the person isn't always mentally ill, so there are those of sound mind that still have their bodily autonomy deprived.

The point is this a very rare occurrence compared to taxation. It is control that is very reluctantly applied to a person.

I can't ask them. They were aborted.

I misunderstood your statement when I responded here. The point is they were not people at that point. The same argument could be made about egg cells and sperm. A line must be drawn somewhere.

Who said anything about slavery? Legally controlling your body isn't slavery any more than taxation is robbery.
Each is a limitation of our rights that the government can and does do.

I said something about slavery. Slavery was once legal. It was made illegal because it removed ones right to one's body.

Then prove otherwise. As it stands, it is one of the stupidest things I have ever read on this site. My five year old nephew could come up with a more coherent, relevant analogy.

Simply because you disagree does not make it stupid.

I simplify things to the core nature of your argument. I distill truth and consistency from fallacy and bullshit. If you do not hold a point of mine in contention, then do not respond.

No you twist meanings to try and create straw men you can defeat.
What point of yours are you speaking of that I do not hold in contention?

You keep saying "It is the woman's body" as if for some reason that means the government can't make a law controlling her body. I guess I just assumed you meant something relevant every time you said that. I guess I was mistaken... it was just more tangential nonsense.

I did mean something relevant. But jumping from the woman has a right to control her body to "you seem to think the government can't put legal restrictions on our body" is a huge leap. I would not call that assumption. I would call that clearly a dishonest interpretation of my statement.

Human rights are equal, independent of the situation nature has put you in. You don't get "extra free speech" if nature gave you a disease. You don't get "extra right to life" if you were born shorter. You don't get "extra power of choice" just because you were born a woman.

Human rights often give people "extra" help dependent of the situation nature has put you in. Employers must make allowances for people with disabilities for example.

I am unsure what you mean by "You don't get "extra right to life" if you were born shorter." or how it relates and a woman does not "get "extra power of choice" just because you were born a woman". If a fetus was in a man's body I would fight for his right to control his body as well.

...and she can alleviate that "vast majority" through her option of abortion.

Even if she selects an she has a much larger burden and that choice is not always one she can select due to emotional / moral reasons.

That isn't an explanation! That is a statement!
You provided a definition. That was a step in the right direction... except the definition you provided worked against your own argument!
I'm thrilled with that definition of "capable". You go ahead and suggest another word if you want... but the word "capable" clearly indicates that the women are capable.

Still playing the semantic game even though I have explained exactly what I meant? It seems very desperate for you to cling to the dictionary definiton of a word to hinge your defense on. if I choose another word you will play the same game. The point is that emotions or morals make it impossible for some women to choose that option.

Then interpret the definition for me. It seems pretty crystal clear that women are capable by either of the first two... so explain how your interpretation differs. The third is clearly just a synonym for willing... and I already agreed that these women aren't willing.

Fixating on a word is not going to win you points. I have defined what I mean over and over. I do not meaning willing.

The law (physical, and legal) determines what you can and can't do. What you will and won't do, depends on your choice.
I can't jump to the moon. It is physically impossible.
I can't rob a bank. It is against our laws.
I WON'T call my boss a dick. It is immoral and would have negative repercussions. I can though. I just won't.

That is your point of view, I understand that and possibly you are capable of everything that physics and the law permits you to do, but we are not all that way.

There is a huge spectrum of options we have in life. I have a friend who used to be suicidal. She was haunted by suicidal thoughts every day for years. She tried to kill herself a few times. Two she tried to throw herself off a building. She desperately wanted to do so. She could not. It was not legalities that stopped her nor was it physics. It was not that she suddenly had a change of heart, or felt bad about it, she simply could not. She was devastated by that inability. It made her feel more of a failure that she already felt. She could not even kill herself.

If you have the strength and coordination then you can do it. You are "capable" by your own definition. You simply won't do it.
Like I said, this is a matter of you not knowing the difference between can and will, could and would.
I try to be a little understanding, as I get the impression you aren't a native English speaker. All the same, at this point you should really get it given that your OWN DEFINITION agrees with me.

You really think you will win a debate by your interpretation of a dictionary definition I posted? I could argue the definition with you, but it would be meaningless. If will resolve nothing. I have made it clear what I mean. I don't mean what you interpret that word to mean. Trying to prove that is not what the word means gets us nowhere. You know what I mean, I know what I mean, so please can you give it a break or suggest a word you would rather me use?

[minorwork]

There are laws on the books that protect the fetus from second hand smoke and drug use. Also you can be charged for a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman. Doesn't that constitute "existence?" So how can abortion be justified in light of these laws? And why can't the man protect his offspring?

A man first has to know he has offspring. That is easily concealed.

Ask the woman why she would rather not be pregnant and will not be if allowed. I'm male and would allow the female the right to not have her body torn apart if not necessary. How can state executions of U.S. citizens be justified? Some symbols drawn with a pen is all it takes.

The double homicide charge is evidence that the killer, like you would if honest enough, abrogates the will of the woman. No, that does NOT constitute existence but does constitute a further bargaining tool to be used against the criminal. Bleeding hearts will use the fetus and the dead to further justify supernatural ethics to give their vain morality a voice that can be forced to it by their enforcers (Scott Roeder, Eric Rudolph, legal system.) Rarely by their own hands, that must remain pristine, will they tie the pregnant mother to a gurney and force feed her until delivery, then leave her and the infant to fend for themselves if they've not executed the mother for considering abortion.

[grandpa]

A man first has to know he has offspring.
That is easily concealed.

The question has no effective purpose but to impose a cultural viewpoint (most likely a religious one) on women. The simple reality is, some women will have abortions whether others like it or not. This has been well established. If we wish to treat them all like terrible killers, then that's what we'll do. But it won't stop abortion from ever happening. The futility of it all should really be understood.

Grandpa h.