A Woman's Right to her Body

[el ايمان]

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.

Fine. Go back to the definitions I provided; I defined "inclination" and "disposition" (and then "tendency", which was a word in the definitions I provided) to show that your definition of "capable" is dependent on the habitual moods, tendencies, and inclinations of women. I am fairly confident that "aborting a fetus" falls into none of these categories.

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.

It's lovely that you think that way.

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.

My case is supported by the opinions of others (LetThereBe) for one, but I don't cite the alleged opinions of others as a defense to my arguments. Taking a leaf from your book, I could call up women who had abortions and ask them to claim that emotions cannot prevent someone from doing something. You have no substantiation to validate your arguments.

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.

A person admitting that they did not do something that they did not want to do is not support of your claims, nor should it justify a legal system where we allow these people to take money from their ex-partners. I can claim that my emotions made "paying taxes" an impossible choice this year all I want, but I will still get in trouble with the IRS.

And what do you have but your own opinions?

The fact that abortions are legally available to pregnant women.

[LetThereBe]

I believe in equality, just not simply within the law.

Well I do believe in equality within the law. It's kind of a big deal, and generally considered one of our guiding principles in the USA (though so sadly is it actually respected as it should be).

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

Women live longer then men.

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

What is the child a victim of? The only time I would say it is a victim is when it is killed via abortion. You are hardly a "victim" of not being given money.

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

No I'm not. I base everything I can on what you say... unfortunately you so rarely explain yourself that I am left to infer. When I ask for clarification you just say you have already explained yourself and ignore my request.

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

Tens of thousands of dollars are a pretty big deal. Bigger to some people than others.

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

The man has a similar emotional "burden" of choice with his choice to abandon the child or not... so this is still equitable. Even if he didn't, it doesn't matter as she has the control over her choice, which is all that matters for the law.

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.

He isn't putting "serious emotional pressure" on the woman by controlling his own finances. That is just a factor she needs to take into account when making her decision.

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

No he doesn't. The woman gets to decide whether or not he has to pay child support.

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

All are capable. Look at your own definition. You have made it clear that it does by supplying the definition that agrees with my argument. If you mean something else then post a different definition.

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

"Most situations" is irrelevant. What matters is that I have demonstrated that the government can and does limit your body... so the fact that it is the woman's body is not an argument against the government imposing control.

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.

You mean WILL not. She has the choice, that is all that matters.

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

She is always able. She is just unwilling. The important thing is that she has the legal option. Whether she decides to take advantage of it is up to her.

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

There is nothing to address. She has the greater burden, and she has control over that greater burden. The man has the lesser burden, and he has control over that lesser burden. Everything is perfectly equitable.

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

Your grammar is off, and I'm not sure what you are trying to say. The woman has the greater choice. She controls her own greater burden. I just don't give her control over the man's burden.

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

Not so. It isn't putting an emotional burden on her to say that she can't take someone's money.

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

I have addressed it every single time you have brought it up. She has the greater choice to match that greater burden. Will you stop trying to bring up this tired Strawman?

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.

No, the inequity I'm trying to balance is purely a legal one. The woman is given legal authority to decide whether or not the man pays child support. The woman has 100% of the say, over both her own body and also his money. That is not legally equitable.
If we give them each control over their own resources, then it is equitable.

By my argument all along I have made it clear she is not always able to select that option.

No, you have never made anything clear. You have just repeated the same thing ad nauseum.

I posted a definition once because you claimed I didn't understand what capable meant.

Yep, and that definition agreed with me.

Now you are playing semantic games and claiming that I am.

I am just asking what you mean. You clearly mean "willing", but say that isn't what you mean. Now you refuse to post another definition to clarify.

Please support your claim that emotions and morals are irrelevant.

Emotions and morals are not necessary to have a choice available to you. Legally having the option is what matters.

Semantic games over a dictionary definition when I have explained clearly what I mean is meaningless.

You have explained clearly that what you mean is meaningless? I'll agree that what you have been posting has been meaningless.
You have been very unclear. It may be because of your lack of mastery of the English language. If you mean a different definition please post it.

Stating without support that emotions and morals are irrelevant is meaningless.

We don't take emotions and morals into account anywhere else in this way. We respect that an individual HAD the choice, but may just not have chosen it due to their morals and emotions. We understand that the ramifications of THAT CHOICE are THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.

Claiming men face the same thing with their decisions with no detail is meaningless.

I do not claim they face the same thing. I am saying that their choice is also emotional. I am saying the same argument can be made either way: neither is "greater" than the other.

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.

I am concerned about equality before the law. That requires he pays half 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.

Yep, she needs to get a safe and quick medical procedure. Or she can choose more responsibilities for herself. It is up to her.

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?

It is not equitable that one person is giving control over another person's finances.

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

He has control over his finances.

I have never claimed the process was unsafe nor slow.

I never said you did. I'm just pointing out that the procedure is not a major burden.

You are playing games pure and simple to avoid points.

Name one point I have avoided.

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.

What is there to respond to? Yes, she has to make a choice and yes, she is responsible for the choice she makes. The same is true for the man. This 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.

I'm not saying his choice is smaller. They are both big choices and they both have that big burden.

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

Then this is a burden that both have. It isn't just a burden of the mother.

What does universally greater mean?

...greater in every single instance and circumstance.

And please demonstrate how society agrees with you.

Most people would rather lose a fingernail than their house. This proves that sometimes property and "stuff" is more important to someone than a part of their body.

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

How common it is is utterly irrelevant. What matters is that the government can (and does) limit both your property rights and your bodily autonomy rights.

I misunderstood your statement when I responded here. The point is they were not people at that point.

They are only people when we define them as such. We could define them as people two years after birth if we wanted. Some people certainly consider the fetus a person.

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

...kind of like how mandatory child support is legal right now, and how it should be made illegal because it removed one's rights to their property.

Simply because you disagree does not make it stupid.

...no, but the fact that you refuse to address it or explain it and instead make excuses for four posts is a pretty good sign it is stupid.

What point of yours are you speaking of that I do not hold in contention?

You said it wasn't your argument but just your two cents. Either defend your "two cents" with an argument or don't bother posting about it.

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.

It isn't relevant if you don't mean to say that the government can't impose that limitation. How else does it relate at all?

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.

That is giving equal access, and isn't an issue of "human rights" anyway. Human rights laws do not give "extra help".

Finish the rest later.

[LetThereBe]

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.

She always can. She just chooses not to. I don't see why you think the "size" of the burden matters at all.

Still playing the semantic game even though I have explained exactly what I meant?

When you "explained what you meant" it agreed with me. At this point you are either wrong, or had better clarify what you meant in a way that doesn't give credence to my position.

It seems very desperate for you to cling to the dictionary definiton of a word to hinge your defense on.

It was your reference. At this point if you don't mean "willing" I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

if I choose another word you will play the same game.

Only if you choose a word that doesn't make any sense to your argument, like you did last time.

The point is that emotions or morals make it impossible for some women to choose that option.

It is possible. Do you need a definition of possible now?

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.

You have defined what you meant twice... using the same definition... and that definition was a synonym for "willing". If you mean something else, please provide the definition.

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.

By definition of capable, yes you are.

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.

She could kill herself... she just chose not to.

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.

No you haven't. I don't know whether to blame it on your lack of mastery of the English language or laziness, but I honestly have no clue what you mean. Everything you say points to you meaning "willing", but you insist that isn't what you mean. Please explain what you mean.

I don't mean what you interpret that word to mean.

Then please provide another definition.

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?

The word you are looking for is willing.

[BlackSheep]

Fine. Go back to the definitions I provided; I defined "inclination" and "disposition" (and then "tendency", which was a word in the definitions I provided) to show that your definition of "capable" is dependent on the habitual moods, tendencies, and inclinations of women. I am fairly confident that "aborting a fetus" falls into none of these categories.

Did you read what I posted at all?

It's lovely that you think that way.

As you are not defending yourself I can only accept yo agree with my assessment.

My case is supported by the opinions of others (LetThereBe) for one, but I don't cite the alleged opinions of others as a defense to my arguments. Taking a leaf from your book, I could call up women who had abortions and ask them to claim that emotions cannot prevent someone from doing something.

Opinions of people who have not have their emotions or morals prevent them from selecting certain options is in no way evidence that they can not do so.

You have no substantiation to validate your arguments.

And neither do you.

A person admitting that they did not do something that they did not want to do is not support of your claims, nor should it justify a legal system where we allow these people to take money from their ex-partners. I can claim that my emotions made "paying taxes" an impossible choice this year all I want, but I will still get in trouble with the IRS.

Again you twist my words. I never offered to provide people claiming they did not do something they did not want to do.

The fact that abortions are legally available to pregnant women.

That fact has no bearing on your claim that all people can make any choice so long as is it not physically or legally impossible.

[BlackSheep]

She always can. She just chooses not to. I don't see why you think the "size" of the burden matters at all.

I am comparing the burdens of both options, but you refuse to comment directly on that.
Also you have not demonstrated that all women can always choose to abort so long as it is physically and legally possible.

When you "explained what you meant" it agreed with me. At this point you are either wrong, or had better clarify what you meant in a way that doesn't give credence to my position.

Please support that claim. I never agreed with you. The dictionary definition was not my explanation, it was a dictionary definition which we could argue over the interpretation, but it really has no bearing on this debate.

It was your reference. At this point if you don't mean "willing" I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

I am sure you do, but I will explain it one more time.

Some women for emotional and or moral reasons are not able to select the option of abortion.

Only if you choose a word that doesn't make any sense to your argument, like you did last time.

Words have many meanings and splaying this semantic game has no place in this debate.

It is possible. Do you need a definition of possible now?

Please support that all women can make that choice and I am not referring to physical or legal barriers.

You have defined what you meant twice... using the same definition... and that definition was a synonym for "willing". If you mean something else, please provide the definition.

I gave a definition of a word when I was asked if I understood the word and I supplied it later when it was commented on without providing the definition. That definition was never been part of my explanation.

By definition of capable, yes you are.

I said you not me. I know that I have more limitations than that.

She could kill herself... she just chose not to.

Please support that claim.

No you haven't. I don't know whether to blame it on your lack of mastery of the English language or laziness, but I honestly have no clue what you mean. Everything you say points to you meaning "willing", but you insist that isn't what you mean. Please explain what you mean.

I suggest it has more to do with your intellectual dishonesty that any lack on my part. The definition is open to interpretation, but arguing about that will not help you understand my argument.

Some women are not able to make that choice.

Then please provide another definition.

The debate is not about the word capable and so I have been trying to explain what I mean by the use of other words, but as you have no ability to counter that yo continually refer back to this word.

The word you are looking for is willing.

No it is not. That is the word yo are desperately trying to put in my mouth.

[Apeman81]

minorwork;869443]A man first has to know he has offspring. That is easily concealed.

Non-sequitor. This does nothing to affect his right to protect his offspring

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.

Incorrect. If the Mother survives but the child does not, the killer can still be charged with murder

[el ايمان]

Did you read what I posted at all?

As painfully disparaging as it was to women, yes.

As you are not defending yourself I can only accept yo agree with my assessment.

I'm really not concerned with what you think of my integrity so long as you continue to make invalid arguments.

Opinions of people who have not have their emotions or morals prevent them from selecting certain options is in no way evidence that they can not do so.

They're opinions are as valid as evidence as are the opinions of people who do what they want, and don't do what they don't want to do.

And neither do you.

My posts in every thread about this subject disagree with you.

Again you twist my words. I never offered to provide people claiming they did not do something they did not want to do.

You offered to provide testimony from women who did not have abortions because they felt they're emotions were preventing them from it. It's the same thing. They didn't want to have an abortion because it goes against their morals/emotions. They ended up not having an abortion. They did not do something that they did not want to do.

That fact has no bearing on your claim that all people can make any choice so long as is it not physically or legally impossible.

Yes it does. Choosing to keep a baby is equivalent to choosing to not abort.

[ironeagle]

The fetus is alive and is therefore murdered. If a person with a mental retardation or is brain dead basically has limited to no brian function then are they not still alive? They are. We can allow them to die naturally but we cannot for instance kill them that would be murder. This is not about wether the baby is alive or dead. This is about whinny selfish depressed or crazed people who have no sense of morals and don't care who they murder to get what they want, who take no responsibility for their own choices and actions and don't think they should ever have to. This has NOTHING to do with "my body my choice" this is all selfish murder perpetuated by lies and denial by an immoral population of our culture who have lost all self control.

[LetThereBe]

I am comparing the burdens of both options, but you refuse to comment directly on that.

I have commented directly on it many, many times.
The woman has the bigger burden. The man has the lesser burden. The woman has control over her burden and can opt out of the responsibility. The man has control over his lesser burden, and can opt out of his lesser responsibility.
That is equitable. That is commenting directly on their burdens. What more can you possibly want?

Also you have not demonstrated that all women can always choose to abort so long as it is physically and legally possible.

By definition of the word "can", a woman can abort if it is physically and legally possible. That is what the word "can" means: it means it is possible. It means it "can" be done. If they have the option, then they "can".

Please support that claim. I never agreed with you. The dictionary definition was not my explanation, it was a dictionary definition which we could argue over the interpretation, but it really has no bearing on this debate.

Then please give your definition. It was rather silly of you to post a definition that agreed with me instead of posting your own definition that works with your argument.

Some women for emotional and or moral reasons are not able to select the option of abortion.

Explain what you mean by this. By definition of the word "able" these women are able to select the option. They just choose not to. They are unwilling.

Words have many meanings and splaying this semantic game has no place in this debate.

This isn't a technical semantic game, this is an attempt at basic communication. You repeat over and over what clearly means "willing", but insist you don't mean willing. You post a definition, and that definition is either a synonym for "willing" or it agrees with me.
You are failing at communicating. To me it still seems you mean willing.

Please support that all women can make that choice and I am not referring to physical or legal barriers.

If there are no physical or legal barriers, by definition they can.

I gave a definition of a word when I was asked if I understood the word and I supplied it later when it was commented on without providing the definition. That definition was never been part of my explanation.

The definition you gave proves you didn't understand it, because it worked against your own argument. You don't seem to understand the following words:
Can, could, capable, able, possible.
All pregnant women can get an abortion. All pregnant women could get an abortion. All pregnant women are capable of getting an abortion. All pregnant women are able to get an abortion. It is possible for every pregnant woman to get an abortion.
That is what it means to have the option: you can choose it. Maybe you WON'T choose it, but you are capable of choosing it, it is possible that you choose it.

I said you not me. I know that I have more limitations than that.

That seems unlikely. I suppose you may not be physically strong enough for the task... I don't know you.

Please support that claim.

She has fingers that are physically strong enough to pull a trigger of a gun. She has limbs that are capable of orienting a gun toward her own head. With these two components, she can kill herself.
The fact that she is still alive shows that she has not CHOSEN to kill herself.

I suggest it has more to do with your intellectual dishonesty that any lack on my part. The definition is open to interpretation, but arguing about that will not help you understand my argument.

Please provide some interpretation of the definition that supports your argument then. I really don't see room for interpretation here.
It isn't so much that it won't help me understand your argument as that it doesn't actually support it at all.

Some women are not able to make that choice.

You spelled "willing" wrong. Some women are not WILLING to make that choice.

The debate is not about the word capable and so I have been trying to explain what I mean by the use of other words, but as you have no ability to counter that yo continually refer back to this word.

Then please provide the word you do mean, along with the definition of that word.

No it is not. That is the word yo are desperately trying to put in my mouth.

Then please... please please please please just hurry up and post the word you DO mean. You have shown with your own definition that it isn't the word "capable".

[BlackSheep]

As painfully disparaging as it was to women, yes.

I said nothing about women at all in the piece you responded to, so that would seem to be a clear no.
I explained how it would be pointless to continue to argue about the meaning of one word when I have explained what I mean in other words

I'm really not concerned with what you think of my integrity so long as you continue to make invalid arguments.

Too bad that I am not.

They're opinions are as valid as evidence as are the opinions of people who do what they want, and don't do what they don't want to do.

So opinions of people who have not experienced something are as valid as people who have? I have to disagree.

My posts in every thread about this subject disagree with you.

I didn't say you didn't disagree with me on this point. I said you have no support.

You offered to provide testimony from women who did not have abortions because they felt they're emotions were preventing them from it. It's the same thing. They didn't want to have an abortion because it goes against their morals/emotions. They ended up not having an abortion. They did not do something that they did not want to do.

Not at all. As with the example of my friend who desperately wanted to kill herself, but could not. It was not what she wanted at all.

Yes it does. Choosing to keep a baby is equivalent to choosing to not abort.

My friend did not choose to not kill herself, she simply found she was unable to carry the act out. It is the same thing for some women with abortion. Intellectually they know it would be better for them. They want to, but they can not.

[el ايمان]

I said nothing about women at all in the piece you responded to, so that would seem to be a clear no.
I explained how it would be pointless to continue to argue about the meaning of one word when I have explained what I mean in other words

It is pointless, because your definition has already been shown to not support your argument.

So opinions of people who have not experienced something are as valid as people who have? I have to disagree.

In many cases, including this one, yes. But who is to say that Women who get abortions have not experienced what women who have chosen not to get an abortion have? They both deal with the same emotional struggle.

Not at all. As with the example of my friend who desperately wanted to kill herself, but could not. It was not what she wanted at all.

My friend did not choose to not kill herself, she simply found she was unable to carry the act out. It is the same thing for some women with abortion. Intellectually they know it would be better for them. They want to, but they can not.

Chose not to*. Although humans are programmed to not do things that cause them immediate harm (or at least this is what The Happening espouses) we see many humans using their willpower to overcome their aversion to pain in various situations -- this natural defense isn't even applicable to abortions, because pregnancy causes the greater risk of pain and physical damage.

There are a number of methods one can employ to end one's life, so it is inaccurate to say that your friend "could not". She would have to be a quadriplegic without enough jaw-strength to bite off her tongue, and even then I'm sure she could think of something.

[BlackSheep]

I have commented directly on it many, many times.
The woman has the bigger burden. The man has the lesser burden. The woman has control over her burden and can opt out of the responsibility. The man has control over his lesser burden, and can opt out of his lesser responsibility.
That is equitable. That is commenting directly on their burdens. What more can you possibly want?

Can you show me where you have stated that without a caveat before?

The man can not opt out of his duty to his child, you are proposing that he be able to.

By definition of the word "can", a woman can abort if it is physically and legally possible. That is what the word "can" means: it means it is possible. It means it "can" be done. If they have the option, then they "can".

Can mean nothing is stopping them. I am not aware that thing needs to be external.

Then please give your definition. It was rather silly of you to post a definition that agreed with me instead of posting your own definition that works with your argument.

What is silly is for you to use this debate when you claim the word is not what I meant and it is your interpretation of the word.

Explain what you mean by this. By definition of the word "able" these women are able to select the option. They just choose not to. They are unwilling.

As with the example for my friend. She wanted to kill herself. This was very obvious. Why did she not?

This isn't a technical semantic game, this is an attempt at basic communication. You repeat over and over what clearly means "willing", but insist you don't mean willing. You post a definition, and that definition is either a synonym for "willing" or it agrees with me.
You are failing at communicating. To me it still seems you mean willing.

It does not clearly mean willing. That is your interpretation and I have not used that term in another of posts.

If there are no physical or legal barriers, by definition they can.

Please define 'can' with my friends story in mind.

The definition you gave proves you didn't understand it, because it worked against your own argument. You don't seem to understand the following words:
Can, could, capable, able, possible.
All pregnant women can get an abortion. All pregnant women could get an abortion. All pregnant women are capable of getting an abortion. All pregnant women are able to get an abortion. It is possible for every pregnant woman to get an abortion.
That is what it means to have the option: you can choose it. Maybe you WON'T choose it, but you are capable of choosing it, it is possible that you choose it.

It is the interpretation not the word.

That seems unlikely. I suppose you may not be physically strong enough for the task... I don't know you.

I already said not physical.

She has fingers that are physically strong enough to pull a trigger of a gun. She has limbs that are capable of orienting a gun toward her own head. With these two components, she can kill herself.
The fact that she is still alive shows that she has not CHOSEN to kill herself.

She did not choose that. I know her, you do not. There is obviously something you are missing.

Please provide some interpretation of the definition that supports your argument then. I really don't see room for interpretation here.
It isn't so much that it won't help me understand your argument as that it doesn't actually support it at all.

Then why are you asking me over and over to define the word?

You spelled "willing" wrong. Some women are not WILLING to make that choice.

Again with the games. Can't you simply debate honestly?

Then please provide the word you do mean, along with the definition of that word.

Well I think the issue is not so much with the word as your denial to see what I mean. As in my example of my friend you simply deny the evidence and say she choose to not kill herself when her words and actions clearly showed that was not the case.

Then please... please please please please just hurry up and post the word you DO mean. You have shown with your own definition that it isn't the word "capable".

I have explained what I mean. The example of my friend is the best way of explaining it.

And no I did not show with my own definition. It was simply the definition from t he dictionary and your interpretation.