A Woman's Right to her Body

[LetThereBe]

Which post would that be? I am trying to respond to them all.

Post number 180.

Please explain how adoption is a legal option after it is a "child".

If the parents do not think they are fit to care for their children they can give them up for adoption... without going to jail or facing legal repercussions.

I don't need to acknowledge anything of the sort. I see no connection between those two options. If both parents wish to pt it up for adoption because they don't feel they can raise it properly then they are doing what they think it best. I am not very familiar with adoption laws. I would thin they should be such that if either parent wants to keep it the other should support it. Male or female.

But that is not fulfilling the "obligation to the child". They legally can just give it up. If the purpose of the law was to enforce the supposed "obligation" then they wouldn't have this option.

It simply puts more pressure on the woman and deprives the child.

What pressure does it put on the woman? It isn't "putting on pressure" to say that she can't take someone's money.
The child can already be legally deprived through adoption or abortion, so that argument is nil (unless you choose to say we should outlaw these practices as well).

[BlackSheep]

There are no caveats. I just gave you one without caveats:
Each party gets to control their own responsibilities. BAM. No caveats.

Not a response to what I am talking about.

He has no such duty. The mother is "derelict in her duty" when she gets an abortion. She is "derelict in her duty" if she puts it up for adoption.
We still make these legal options.

She is not derelict in her duty if she chooses abortion as it is not a child yet. Most people put a child up for adoption if they feel they are not capable of taking care of it which would be responsible.

It depends how you define "child".

It does indeed.

I'm still just trying to figure out what on Earth you mean. It is hard to have a debate when the opponent hides behind nebulous definitions.

You are the one fixated on that one word that I have avoided for days explaining myself in other ways and I fail to see how it relates to you twisting my words.

There is no point. Some women won't choose to get an abortion due to moral or emotional reasons. So what?
There is no legal weight to this.

Again you twist my words. Some women can not due to moral or emotional reasons.

I can't be wrong, because I'm right by the definitions of the words. I don't need any more support than a dictionary. It isn't my fault that you don't understand the meaning of basic English words.

You said "If she chose to kill herself she would be dead. She either changed her mind or never chose to do it to begin with." Many things could stop her including her emotions. She did not change her mind.

Uh... what? When did the definition of "self" come into this?
No, this is definitely you not understanding words like "can", "possible", "capable", and the like.

Self ties in to the idea of free will, choice and whether one's emotions or morals can prevent them from taking an option.

A word does not define what you mean? It must be pretty hard to communicate a meaning without words. If you cannot translate what you mean in a coherent group of words with agreed upon definitions it is impossible to communicate with your fellow human beings, and you had best just stop posting your non-meaning gibberish.

I never said I had a problem with defining words. I said getting side tracking into a debate over that word was pointless as I had explained it in detail and without the use of that word.

I am trying to eliminate the ambiguity. I want you to define what you actually do mean (and please use words to do so!)

You simply to continue to ask what a single word I used over and over means. Even after I stopped using it and have explained clearly what I mean before and after that. You are trying to establish a straw man you can knock down rather than simply debate.

adjective
1.
disposed or consenting; inclined: willing to go along.
2.
cheerfully consenting or ready: a willing worker.
3.
done, given, borne, used, etc., with cheerful readiness.

Here is your citation: Willing | Define Willing at Dictionary.com

If that is what you mean it does not match what I am saying. Willing refers to the conscious self and I am talking about emotions and morals which are not under conscious control and can be overwhelming.

Would you say I "can" order onion rings, even if I hate onions and therefore will never choose to order them?

Yes. Simply hating something on its own would unlikely make you unable to do so, but that is not on the same scale as being powerfully morally apposed to abortion or the emotions of accepting the fetus as your child that you could never harm.

Do I have the "ability" to order onion rings if I mentally hate onions?

Yes, but as stated it is on a wholly different scale than what I am speaking of.

Much like how my process of personal preference prevents me from ordering onion rings.

Not at all.

Yes, it is also possible that she forgot about it. I sometimes choose to do something, but then get caught up in something else and subconsciously forget my decision.

I don't think you realize how strong these feelings were. She could never forget. Once she was thwarted because the door to get to the roof of a high rise was chained, but as you know I am not speaking of physical barriers to the action.

You have it backwards. The fact that your emotions and morals come into your decision IS the freedom of choice.
Just like how my distaste of onions prevents me from ordering onion rings... the fact that I can make personal preference the deciding factor is proof of my freedom to choose. I can choose onions, but I am prevented from doing so by my personal preference.

I don't have it backwards at all. You are trying to back-peddle as you clearly admitted "They can prevent us from choosing certain choices."

I agree that in the vast majority of cases emotions / morals simply do apply pressure to that decision making process, but in some cases that pressure is overwhelming.

So too is it with abortion. These women can get abortions. They just choose not to for their own reasons.

In most cases it is, but in some cases our emotions/morals "can prevent us from choosing certain choices" such as abortion.

It is very clear they can. Emotions and morals can prevent you from making certain choices by making you unwilling. Just like I am unwilling to order onion rings. Gross.

And the ideal of unwilling depends on the idea of self.

If she did her best then she is incompetent. Did you explain to her how a gun works? It is actually very, very simple.

She is highly intelligent, gifted in fact, but she did not have a gun. She tried to jump from a tall building and was unable to.

I've said this from the beginning. They make you unwilling.
Like ordering gross onion rings. Onions. Gross.

If you found them gross you would not wish to order them. Your belittling example does not work with her inability to kill herself.

Nonsense. They can take the option. They just aren't willing.
We don't take "emotions and morals" into account for other legal decisions. We respect that they have the choice, and if they don't take that choice for personal reasons it is their responsibility.

We take emotions and morals into consideration all the time for legal decisions. If a convicted person shows no remorse for example they will generally be sentenced to longer time or be refused parole. It can mean the difference between first degree murder and lesser charges. It can mean the difference between guilt an innocence. The law recognizes that emotions can override choice

[BlackSheep]

Post number 180.

I will respond to that post.

If the parents do not think they are fit to care for their children they can give them up for adoption... without going to jail or facing legal repercussions.

My bad I read that as abortion somehow when I responded.

But that is not fulfilling the "obligation to the child". They legally can just give it up. If the purpose of the law was to enforce the supposed "obligation" then they wouldn't have this option.

It is indeed. If they don't feel they can raise it properly then it is in the best interest of the child.

What pressure does it put on the woman? It isn't "putting on pressure" to say that she can't take someone's money.
The child can already be legally deprived through adoption or abortion, so that argument is nil (unless you choose to say we should outlaw these practices as well).

As I said she made unable to take those options due to emotional / moral reasons and in that case she is going to feel massive stress.

[LetThereBe]

Not a response to what I am talking about.

Then what on Earth ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
I've asked you three times now, and you haven't clarified. What caveats are you referring to?
All you can do is hide behind ambiguity and your own poor English.

She is not derelict in her duty if she chooses abortion as it is not a child yet. Most people put a child up for adoption if they feel they are not capable of taking care of it which would be responsible.

They can do either for whatever reason they like. She can choose to be derelict in her duty because she doesn't have enough money, because she doesn't feel ready to be a parent, or whatever.
Plenty of men would prefer not to pay child support because they feel they don't have enough money.
Your position remains grossly inconsistent.

It does indeed.

..so for those many people that define child at the point of conception your argument is not applicable.

You are the one fixated on that one word that I have avoided for days explaining myself in other ways and I fail to see how it relates to you twisting my words.

It is because I don't understand you! If you don't explain yourself or what you mean you can't communicate, and you can't have an effective discussion. Repeating the same phrase using the same word that I don't know what you mean isn't explaining anything. It is depending on ambiguity so that I can't answer your post without making an assumption.

Again you twist my words. Some women can not due to moral or emotional reasons.

Every woman can. I already gave you a definition of "can" proving this. Some women are not willing.

You said "If she chose to kill herself she would be dead. She either changed her mind or never chose to do it to begin with." Many things could stop her including her emotions. She did not change her mind.

As I said, changing her mind isn't the only option. She could have lied to you when she said she chose to do it. She could have forgotten about her decision. She could have actually decided and simply not gotten around to it yet.
There is a difference between choosing to do something and actually choosing to follow through. She has not chosen to actually act on her decision yet (if that is what she decided).

Self ties in to the idea of free will, choice and whether one's emotions or morals can prevent them from taking an option.

All that matters is that they have the free will. Emotions and morals which "prevent" them are part of free will. If you are unable to allow emotions and morals to influence your decision then it isn't true free will.

I never said I had a problem with defining words. I said getting side tracking into a debate over that word was pointless as I had explained it in detail and without the use of that word.

You have always used the word "can", "able", "incapable", or "possible" in a context that does not make any sense to me. Swapping out one word for another that still doesn't make sense isn't explaining anything. You should provide an exact definition to show what you really mean.

You simply to continue to ask what a single word I used over and over means. Even after I stopped using it and have explained clearly what I mean before and after that. You are trying to establish a straw man you can knock down rather than simply debate.

It isn't a straw man to ask you to clarify your position. That is the opposite of a straw man. A straw man would be if I was setting up an argument that was NOT representative of your position and knocked it down. I'm asking you to give a definition of what you actually mean, then it will be your inconsistent position that I am eviscerating.
This has already happened once when you posted a definition that completely disagreed with you. I'm giving you the opportunity to post a different definition... though it will surely just happen again.

Here is your citation: Willing | Define Willing at Dictionary.com

If that is what you mean it does not match what I am saying. Willing refers to the conscious self and I am talking about emotions and morals which are not under conscious control and can be overwhelming.

Being "disposed" toward something isn't necessarily conscious. Whether or not you are willing is a state of mind, but it doesn't have to be a conscious decision. If you are unwilling to commit murder due to your fear of hell and the morality of your religion, you don't have to be conscious of the reason for your decision. You are still unwilling (even if you are able and capable of committing murder).

Yes. Simply hating something on its own would unlikely make you unable to do so, but that is not on the same scale as being powerfully morally apposed to abortion or the emotions of accepting the fetus as your child that you could never harm.

... so you are saying this meaning of "can" is fundamentally the exact same thing as any other reason for not choosing something?
This is laughable. The scale is irrelevant. Laws don't take into account if something is "extremely" emotional vs "kind of" emotional. This is impossible to measure, and that is why laws don't take into account the emotional component at all.

Yes, but as stated it is on a wholly different scale than what I am speaking of.

Haha... how do you know that? You aren't inside my head. Maybe I hate onions more than these women hate abortion!

Not at all.

How is it different? They are both internal, mental processes that make me "incapable" (by your silly definition) of choosing something.

I don't think you realize how strong these feelings were. She could never forget. Once she was thwarted because the door to get to the roof of a high rise was chained, but as you know I am not speaking of physical barriers to the action.

So she chose to do it by a certain method, and that particular method was barred to her. She was unable to kill herself in a certain way. She could have still chosen to kill herself in a different way and then followed through.
It doesn't matter how "strong" the feelings are. They can be strong enough to make you unwilling to do something, but that is part of what choice means.
I don't think you realize how strong my dislike of onions is!

I don't have it backwards at all. You are trying to back-peddle as you clearly admitted "They can prevent us from choosing certain choices."

I'm not trying to backpedal. I am just explaining what I mean. The fact that an internal process prevents you from making one choice and instead leads you to a different choice is what free will means. That is what it means to HAVE a choice.
You've already admitted that it is fundamentally the same thing for EVERY choice (like my dislike of onions) so why should I care about this at all? It clearly should have no legal bearing when it is just part of the normal choosing process and isn't any different than any other decision.

I agree that in the vast majority of cases emotions / morals simply do apply pressure to that decision making process, but in some cases that pressure is overwhelming.

No kidding. Like my dislike of onions. That always completely overwhelms my decision and I end up choosing something else.

In most cases it is, but in some cases our emotions/morals "can prevent us from choosing certain choices" such as abortion.

That is what it means to make a decision. The factors that you take into account will prevent you from taking one option and will lead you to take another option. That is how decisions work. That is what deciding means.
My dislike of onions can prevent me from ordering onion rings. That is how choices work.

And the ideal of unwilling depends on the idea of self.

Um... okay?
My "self" is unwilling to order onion rings because of my "self's" dislike of onions.

She is highly intelligent, gifted in fact, but she did not have a gun. She tried to jump from a tall building and was unable to.

If she wants to kill herself, you should explain to her that there are methods that are quicker, more painless, and/or more easily available than jumping from a tall building.

If you found them gross you would not wish to order them. Your belittling example does not work with her inability to kill herself.

It is an internal process that prevents me from taking one option and leads me to a different option. It is exactly the same thing, because this is how all choices work... no matter how small or how big.

We take emotions and morals into consideration all the time for legal decisions. If a convicted person shows no remorse for example they will generally be sentenced to longer time or be refused parole. It can mean the difference between first degree murder and lesser charges. It can mean the difference between guilt an innocence. The law recognizes that emotions can override choice

Haha... when does the law ever take emotions and morals into account for guilt and innocence?
I think you are confusing "emotions and morals" with "motive". The law takes things into account that impact the likelihood of committing the crime again. The only reason we care about remorse is it shows that the individual regrets committing the crime, and (if it is sincere) will not decide to commit the crime in the future.

[LetThereBe]

It is indeed. If they don't feel they can raise it properly then it is in the best interest of the child.

...or if they feel that it will take too much away from their time watching Jersey Shore, or too much away from their budget and time for traveling the world.
They can have any reason they want. They can believe it is in the WORST interest of the child and still legally do it.

As I said she made unable to take those options due to emotional / moral reasons and in that case she is going to feel massive stress.

Big decisions are stressful. That is part of life.
Seizing someone else's property isn't a way of dealing with or lessening that stress.
If moral/emotional reasons make her unwilling to choose that option, then yes, she must deal with the repercussions and responsibilities of the choice she does make.

[BlackSheep]

Then what on Earth ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
I've asked you three times now, and you haven't clarified. What caveats are you referring to?
All you can do is hide behind ambiguity and your own poor English.

My English is just fine and I am not the one who is being ambiguous or evasive. You seem to try evade until the question is all but forgotten.

The original issue I was talking about was "comparing the burdens of both options, but you refuse to comment directly on that." Post 141 was the first time I am aware of where you commented directly on that with out a caveat or being evasive such as "She always can. She just chooses not to. I don't see why you think the "size" of the burden matters at all."

They can do either for whatever reason they like. She can choose to be derelict in her duty because she doesn't have enough money, because she doesn't feel ready to be a parent, or whatever.
Plenty of men would prefer not to pay child support because they feel they don't have enough money.
Your position remains grossly inconsistent.

There is a huge difference between deciding you don;t have enough resources to raise a child and to put it up for adoption and recognizing it is not up for adoption and just avoiding your duty. They are not comparable. There is no inconsistency on my part.

..so for those many people that define child at the point of conception your argument is not applicable.

That is why we needs laws to have consistency in these matters.

It is because I don't understand you! If you don't explain yourself or what you mean you can't communicate, and you can't have an effective discussion. Repeating the same phrase using the same word that I don't know what you mean isn't explaining anything. It is depending on ambiguity so that I can't answer your post without making an assumption.

So even though I have explained my position many times without the use of that word you go back to that one word and demand a definition? It seems maybe if you put as much effort into trying to understand we would get somewhere.

Every woman can. I already gave you a definition of "can" proving this. Some women are not willing.

Simply stating they can does not support the claim and defining words does not change the fact. How can you support your claim that every woman is capable of selecting those options regardless of emotions / morals?

As I said, changing her mind isn't the only option. She could have lied to you when she said she chose to do it. She could have forgotten about her decision. She could have actually decided and simply not gotten around to it yet.
There is a difference between choosing to do something and actually choosing to follow through. She has not chosen to actually act on her decision yet (if that is what she decided).

Or you could be wrong. I know her very well. You do not. She decided to kill herself a number of times and was unable to carry the act out and was devastated by that inability.

All that matters is that they have the free will. Emotions and morals which "prevent" them are part of free will. If you are unable to allow emotions and morals to influence your decision then it isn't true free will.

I am not talking about 'influencing' as I have made quite clear, but you ignore it. Please present support that free will exists and that regardless of emotions / morals anyone can make any choice.

You have always used the word "can", "able", "incapable", or "possible" in a context that does not make any sense to me. Swapping out one word for another that still doesn't make sense isn't explaining anything. You should provide an exact definition to show what you really mean.

If the context makes no sense then instead a constant stream of denial and demanding I define a word I have not used in days maybe you should be open and try to ask something in a way that implies an attempt to understand instead of simply an insult. Which is why I asked you about the self.

It isn't a straw man to ask you to clarify your position. That is the opposite of a straw man. A straw man would be if I was setting up an argument that was NOT representative of your position and knocked it down. I'm asking you to give a definition of what you actually mean, then it will be your inconsistent position that I am eviscerating.

It clearly is a straw man to try to force me into making my argument about a word I deny is important and have striven to explain to you in other words.

I have said, over and over and over that some peoples emotions / morals have the capacity at times to make them unable of taking a certain option they may wish to take.

This has already happened once when you posted a definition that completely disagreed with you. I'm giving you the opportunity to post a different definition... though it will surely just happen again.

I am explaining what I mean, not arguing over the definition of a word.

Being "disposed" toward something isn't necessarily conscious. Whether or not you are willing is a state of mind, but it doesn't have to be a conscious decision. If you are unwilling to commit murder due to your fear of hell and the morality of your religion, you don't have to be conscious of the reason for your decision. You are still unwilling (even if you are able and capable of committing murder).

Then this is where we differ. When I speak of the person I speak of the self, the conscious part. You claimed any woman can select an abortion, yet if the part that prevents that is unconscious how can they? They are stopped just as surely as if was physically or legally unavailable.

... so you are saying this meaning of "can" is fundamentally the exact same thing as any other reason for not choosing something?

I have no idea how you took that from what I said. I am saying can is of choice of the conscious. If other elements of the mind such as emotions or morals prevent a choice that is not can.

This is laughable. The scale is irrelevant. Laws don't take into account if something is "extremely" emotional vs "kind of" emotional. This is impossible to measure, and that is why laws don't take into account the emotional component at all.

It is not irrelevant at all. Tell a parent who's child was murdered that they are simply feeling loss and the scale is irrelevant. Emotions can debilitate at times and other times they can make us unable to choose certain options.

Haha... how do you know that? You aren't inside my head. Maybe I hate onions more than these women hate abortion!

To me it is the use of the word hate. I don't think hating abortions would make a person incapable of taking one. I think other emotions could. Feeling it is morally wrong could for some people. Emotionally connecting to the fetus at their child could as well. Now in these cases you may also hate abortion, but it is not the hate that prevent you.

How is it different? They are both internal, mental processes that make me "incapable" (by your silly definition) of choosing something.

Because you have not explained that you are made wholly unable to buy them due to it. I guess if that was true then it would be on the scale, but I can't imagine it being so.

So she chose to do it by a certain method, and that particular method was barred to her. She was unable to kill herself in a certain way. She could have still chosen to kill herself in a different way and then followed through.

It was not the method that was barred by her unconscious it was the act itself.

It doesn't matter how "strong" the feelings are. They can be strong enough to make you unwilling to do something, but that is part of what choice means.
I don't think you realize how strong my dislike of onions is!

No she was willing. Another way of saying is that her body would not do what she wanted it to, but that is not accurate as the body is under the control of the brain. Her 'self' wanted to die, but some unconscious aspect of her prevented the action.

I'm not trying to backpedal. I am just explaining what I mean. The fact that an internal process prevents you from making one choice and instead leads you to a different choice is what free will means. That is what it means to HAVE a choice.

But it didn't lead her to another choice. It just prevented her from carrying out what she wanted to do.

You've already admitted that it is fundamentally the same thing for EVERY choice (like my dislike of onions) so why should I care about this at all? It clearly should have no legal bearing when it is just part of the normal choosing process and isn't any different than any other decision.

What are you claiming I admitted is "fundamentally the same thing for EVERY choice"? Your use of the pronoun 'it' is unclear.

No kidding. Like my dislike of onions. That always completely overwhelms my decision and I end up choosing something else.

That is different if you are choosing something else, not to mention I see no insentive for you to choose them in the first place. I hate mushrooms. I avoid ordering mushrooms because I hate them. My hate does not prevent me from ordering them at all, I just don't want to. My friend wanted to kill herself and strove to do so, but part of her unconscious stopped her. There was no choice on the part of her conscious self.

That is what it means to make a decision. The factors that you take into account will prevent you from taking one option and will lead you to take another option. That is how decisions work. That is what deciding means.
My dislike of onions can prevent me from ordering onion rings. That is how choices work.

It is not what making a decision is. A decision is a conscious process. Like a person freezing up on stage, they choose to perform. They prepared and got out on stage and then their unconscious just freezes them up. They did not suddenly choose to stand there with their mouth hanging open.

Um... okay?
My "self" is unwilling to order onion rings because of my "self's" dislike of onions.

There is only one self. The conscious part of you.

If she wants to kill herself, you should explain to her that there are methods that are quicker, more painless, and/or more easily available than jumping from a tall building.

First of all she no longer wishes to.
Second I was trying to stop her.
Third she knows far more that I will likely ever know about killing one's self. She was well prepared beyond her unconscious.

It is an internal process that prevents me from taking one option and leads me to a different option. It is exactly the same thing, because this is how all choices work... no matter how small or how big.

Then it is not a choice.

Haha... when does the law ever take emotions and morals into account for guilt and innocence?

Well the simple answer is that without strong anger/hate etc murder is likely be one of a second degree and one would not be found guilty of first degree, but I already covered that really.

In cases of justified homicide, where the victim has been severely abused, even though is was arguable second or even first degree homicide there have been cases where not guilty was the verdict.

I think you are confusing "emotions and morals" with "motive". The law takes things into account that impact the likelihood of committing the crime again. The only reason we care about remorse is it shows that the individual regrets committing the crime, and (if it is sincere) will not decide to commit the crime in the future.

And regret demonstrates morals or empathy which does indeed indicate you would be less likely to do it again. They also seek out indicator that the person is a good person in general through character witnesses and such which is an indicator of a good morality.

[BlackSheep]

...or if they feel that it will take too much away from their time watching Jersey Shore, or too much away from their budget and time for traveling the world.
They can have any reason they want. They can believe it is in the WORST interest of the child and still legally do it.

Support that please.

Big decisions are stressful. That is part of life.
Seizing someone else's property isn't a way of dealing with or lessening that stress.
If moral/emotional reasons make her unwilling to choose that option, then yes, she must deal with the repercussions and responsibilities of the choice she does make.

That is not the case I am presenting. You misrepresent it. My case, as you well know, she is not capable of choosing that option due to emotions / morals.

The problem with misrepresenting my case is that it takes us in circles and never gets the debate anywhere.

[LetThereBe]

My English is just fine and I am not the one who is being ambiguous or evasive. You seem to try evade until the question is all but forgotten.

The original issue I was talking about was "comparing the burdens of both options, but you refuse to comment directly on that." Post 141 was the first time I am aware of where you commented directly on that with out a caveat or being evasive such as "She always can. She just chooses not to. I don't see why you think the "size" of the burden matters at all."

What is there to compare? Each gets to make decisions regarding there own burdens. This is true no matter what the "size" of the burden is, and it is fair no matter what the size of the burden is.
I have never avoided this, and I don't see what else you possibly expect me to comment on regarding this.

There is a huge difference between deciding you don;t have enough resources to raise a child and to put it up for adoption and recognizing it is not up for adoption and just avoiding your duty. They are not comparable. There is no inconsistency on my part.

But you can decide to put it up for adoption whether or not you have the resources. It is a legal option no matter what, so you either need to oppose adoption or you are being inconsistent.
Also, how are these different? Why is "avoiding your duty" by not paying child support really different from "not doing your duty" by putting it up for adoption?

That is why we needs laws to have consistency in these matters.

Agreed, but right now we don't. Right now the fetus is situationally given the rights of a person (like in double murder charges for pregnant mothers).

So even though I have explained my position many times without the use of that word you go back to that one word and demand a definition? It seems maybe if you put as much effort into trying to understand we would get somewhere.

I can only go back to the one word you have actually defined (and which conveniently disagreed with your position). The rest you have left intentionally ambiguous.
Define what you mean if you don't want to be misunderstood. It is that simple.

Simply stating they can does not support the claim and defining words does not change the fact. How can you support your claim that every woman is capable of selecting those options regardless of emotions / morals?

By definition of the word "capable", combined with the current laws in the United States.
Some things are just true by definition. For example, 1+1=2. I do not need to "support my claim" that 1+1=2. By definition of the numbers and the operators, it is a true statement.
So it is with the word "capable". Using your own definition of the word capable, it is true that all women are capable of getting an abortion when they are pregnant.

Or you could be wrong. I know her very well. You do not. She decided to kill herself a number of times and was unable to carry the act out and was devastated by that inability.

Did she always try that same locked building every time? That was a mistake. You should have suggested a different method. There are plenty of methods she was capable of.

I am not talking about 'influencing' as I have made quite clear, but you ignore it. Please present support that free will exists and that regardless of emotions / morals anyone can make any choice.

Haha... really? You are going to try and make this an argument about free will?
This is not necessary. You have already agreed that it is fundamentally the same as my dislike of onions, and it is therefore fundamentally the same as EVERY choice. Maybe free will doesn't exist. Who cares? Then it doesn't exist for any other choice we make in our lives.
They have as much the choice of an abortion as anyone has the choice about anything ever.
As for the rest, see the definition of "can". This again is true by the definition of the word (which I have already provided).

If the context makes no sense then instead a constant stream of denial and demanding I define a word I have not used in days maybe you should be open and try to ask something in a way that implies an attempt to understand instead of simply an insult. Which is why I asked you about the self.

I have requested over and over that you explain yourself, which you always refuse. At best you repeat the exact same thing again and pretend that is "explaining it", at worst you refuse because I'm "not asking nicely" and then continue to refuse when I "ask nicely" in the next post.
If you want to bring up some garbage about "the self" I will expect you to explain why it is relevant. Your position is deserving of insults when you offer nothing to understand and continue to rely on sexism, inconsistency, and outright evasion.

It clearly is a straw man to try to force me into making my argument about a word I deny is important and have striven to explain to you in other words.

It is never a straw man to ask you to clarify your position. Asking you to define is the polar opposite of a strawman. I can only blame this once again on your own ignorance. A straw man is by definition a misrepresentation. Asking you to correctly represent yourself by definition CANNOT be a straw man.
Get learned:
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have said, over and over and over that some peoples emotions / morals have the capacity at times to make them unable of taking a certain option they may wish to take.

...and I have said over and over and over that this is what making a choice means: being influenced by internal factors like emotions and morals. This is fundamentally the same as every other choice that is ever made, ever. This is the same thing as me not choosing onions. There is no reason to take special consideration because people freely choose not to take advantage of an choice that would best suit them.

I am explaining what I mean, not arguing over the definition of a word.

It would be far easier to explain what you mean if you actually used a definition. Repeating the same thing over and over isn't explaining anything.

Then this is where we differ. When I speak of the person I speak of the self, the conscious part. You claimed any woman can select an abortion, yet if the part that prevents that is unconscious how can they? They are stopped just as surely as if was physically or legally unavailable.

I do not consciously choose to hate onions. This internal personal preference is part of my sub-conscious. I "am stopped as surely as if [sic] was physically or legally unavailable." This is the exact same as every other choice that anyone makes. This is no cause for special consideration.

I have no idea how you took that from what I said. I am saying can is of choice of the conscious. If other elements of the mind such as emotions or morals prevent a choice that is not can.

That is a silly definition of "can", but it means that no one "can" make a choice that they won't make. Every internal factor that goes into decision making means you "can't" make an alternative decision. By your absurd logic all elections are a sham because no one "can" vote for any party other than the one they vote for.
I "can't" order onion rings.
This would be laughable if I weren't afraid you were serious.

It is not irrelevant at all. Tell a parent who's child was murdered that they are simply feeling loss and the scale is irrelevant. Emotions can debilitate at times and other times they can make us unable to choose certain options.

It is legally irrelevant. Legally we don't care if you were devastated by your child's murder or only slightly annoyed: either way we charge the murderer the same. We can't get in other people's heads to know how strong their emotions are. We don't know whether my dislike of onions is more "debilitating" than someone else's dislike of abortion. We don't base our laws off of your nonsense.

To me it is the use of the word hate. I don't think hating abortions would make a person incapable of taking one. I think other emotions could. Feeling it is morally wrong could for some people. Emotionally connecting to the fetus at their child could as well. Now in these cases you may also hate abortion, but it is not the hate that prevent you.

Anything can "prevent" you. Maybe you hate it in principle, maybe you hate the practice for religious reasons, maybe you hate how many syllables are in the word... it really doesn't matter. Any reason at all is internal and "can prevent you" by your silly definition.
Hate is a subconscious emotion. Why would you discount one subconscious emotion that influences our decisions but give credence to another?
You are hopelessly inconsistent.

Because you have not explained that you are made wholly unable to buy them due to it. I guess if that was true then it would be on the scale, but I can't imagine it being so.

I am wholly unable to buy them due to it. It is a choice I will never make due to my internal processes. This is fundamentally no different than the decisions women make regarding abortion due to internal processes.

It was not the method that was barred by her unconscious it was the act itself.

Then it sounds like she was not willing due to reasons she unconsciously possessed.

No she was willing. Another way of saying is that her body would not do what she wanted it to, but that is not accurate as the body is under the control of the brain. Her 'self' wanted to die, but some unconscious aspect of her prevented the action.

Yes, some subconscious factor influenced her choice. This happens all the time with all of our decisions.

What are you claiming I admitted is "fundamentally the same thing for EVERY choice"? Your use of the pronoun 'it' is unclear.

"It" referring to the impact of internal processes in decision making.

That is different if you are choosing something else, not to mention I see no insentive for you to choose them in the first place. I hate mushrooms. I avoid ordering mushrooms because I hate them. My hate does not prevent me from ordering them at all, I just don't want to. My friend wanted to kill herself and strove to do so, but part of her unconscious stopped her. There was no choice on the part of her conscious self.

Your hate of mushrooms is an internal process that influences your decision making. Even if you wished you liked mushrooms, you still wouldn't. You are incapable of changing that internal process which dictates your decision making. As such you cannot choose to order mushrooms unless some other factor overwhelms that first factor.
Similarly with your friend. There is some internal factor that influences her decision making and "prevents" her from choosing to kill herself. Depending on the significance of this influence it may take an extreme opposing factor or a minor opposing factor to reverse her decision.

It is not what making a decision is. A decision is a conscious process. Like a person freezing up on stage, they choose to perform. They prepared and got out on stage and then their unconscious just freezes them up. They did not suddenly choose to stand there with their mouth hanging open.

A decision is a conscious process, but the factors that go into a decision may be conscious or subconscious. Studies show that all kinds of things influence our decisions without us even knowing... whether it is the color of a room or the music playing in the background. This is true of course also with our emotional state or the upbringing that resulted in our morality. People don't consciously think "a man inserting his penis into another man is a bad thing for reasons X, Y, and Z", they just believe it is wrong for subconscious reasons... and this subconscious influence will impact how they vote, how they live, how they see other people, and countless other facets of their conscious life.

There is only one self. The conscious part of you.

My emotions and morals are definitely part of my self. They are part of who I am. They are part of my identity. Every internal process is.

First of all she no longer wishes to.

Fair enough. Everyone has the right to change their mind.

Second I was trying to stop her.

That sounds awfully selfish of you. I thought you said she actually wanted it. Don't you support your friend's decisions or want her to have what she thinks is best? Don't you respect her enough to support her?

Third she knows far more that I will likely ever know about killing one's self. She was well prepared beyond her unconscious.

Haha... but far less than someone that has actually attempted it?

Then it is not a choice.

Then there is no such thing as a choice. Internal processes and the subconscious influence all of our decisions.

Well the simple answer is that without strong anger/hate etc murder is likely be one of a second degree and one would not be found guilty of first degree, but I already covered that really.

That is "motive" again. If you set out with the express purpose of hurting someone, that is different from being incited by unexpected events.

In cases of justified homicide, where the victim has been severely abused, even though is was arguable second or even first degree homicide there have been cases where not guilty was the verdict.

Self-defense doesn't hinge on emotional state.

And regret demonstrates morals or empathy which does indeed indicate you would be less likely to do it again. They also seek out indicator that the person is a good person in general through character witnesses and such which is an indicator of a good morality.

"Good morality" meaning that they won't be a repeat offender. If the individual in question seemed likely to commit the crime again, they would not be released. If they said they "feel absolutely terrible about it" but planned to commit the same crime as soon as they were released, believe me, they would not be getting parole. It isn't about emotion, it is about reform.

[LetThereBe]

Support that please.

I have not found any solid legal resource stating explicitly that "you can give up for adoption for any reason you please", and that is likely because no such law exists. You are allowed to have your own reasons for what you legally do unless stated otherwise.
That said, I just googled it and find plenty of links saying essentially the same thing: you can give up for adoption even if you financially can care for it.
Can any parent give up a child for adoption even if they are financially stable? - Yahoo! Answers

That is not the case I am presenting. You misrepresent it. My case, as you well know, she is not capable of choosing that option due to emotions / morals.

Being unwilling (you already proved that your definition of "capable" doesn't work with your argument) does not change the fact that she needs to deal with the responsibilities of her choice. That is how all choices work.

The problem with misrepresenting my case is that it takes us in circles and never gets the debate anywhere.

Provide your definitions if you mean something else.

[BlackSheep]

What is there to compare? Each gets to make decisions regarding there own burdens. This is true no matter what the "size" of the burden is, and it is fair no matter what the size of the burden is.

No you want them to make choices based on what you perceive is their own burdens, but you ignore that the woman's is much larger and that it begins immediately and must be dealt with with effort unlike the mans. It also ignores that the choice you wish give to him dumps everything on her if she is not able to select abortion or adoption due to emotional / moral reasons.

I have never avoided this, and I don't see what else you possibly expect me to comment on regarding this.

If you have not then support that claim by showing me a response before my challenge that was not either evasive or had a caveat.

But you can decide to put it up for adoption whether or not you have the resources. It is a legal option no matter what, so you either need to oppose adoption or you are being inconsistent.
Also, how are these different? Why is "avoiding your duty" by not paying child support really different from "not doing your duty" by putting it up for adoption?

You have not supported the claim anyone can put any child up for adoption.

Agreed, but right now we don't. Right now the fetus is situationally given the rights of a person (like in double murder charges for pregnant mothers).

We do. For the purposes of abortion we have a definition. The double murder charge has no real relevance in matter of parental duties or abortions.

I can only go back to the one word you have actually defined (and which conveniently disagreed with your position). The rest you have left intentionally ambiguous.
Define what you mean if you don't want to be misunderstood. It is that simple.

I have never left anything I have said intentionally ambiguous. I have avoided getting into a definition war that will just side track up, by choosing other words.

By definition of the word "capable", combined with the current laws in the United States.
Some things are just true by definition. For example, 1+1=2. I do not need to "support my claim" that 1+1=2. By definition of the numbers and the operators, it is a true statement.
So it is with the word "capable". Using your own definition of the word capable, it is true that all women are capable of getting an abortion when they are pregnant.

Let me rephrase. You claim no woman's emotions / morals can prevent the conscious self from taking the option of abortion. You what I am trying to say and yet you play this game every time.

Did she always try that same locked building every time? That was a mistake. You should have suggested a different method. There are plenty of methods she was capable of.

Again you are playing games. I have made it clear this was not the case.

Haha... really? You are going to try and make this an argument about free will?
This is not necessary. You have already agreed that it is fundamentally the same as my dislike of onions, and it is therefore fundamentally the same as EVERY choice. Maybe free will doesn't exist. Who cares? Then it doesn't exist for any other choice we make in our lives.
They have as much the choice of an abortion as anyone has the choice about anything ever.
As for the rest, see the definition of "can". This again is true by the definition of the word (which I have already provided).

Where did I 'already agreed that it is fundamentally the same as my dislike of onions'?
When you claim the woman has the choice even if her emotions / morals disallow it then free will is of paramount importance.
Arguing definitions is just another of your games to avoid tackling the real debate.

I have requested over and over that you explain yourself, which you always refuse. At best you repeat the exact same thing again and pretend that is "explaining it", at worst you refuse because I'm "not asking nicely" and then continue to refuse when I "ask nicely" in the next post.
If you want to bring up some garbage about "the self" I will expect you to explain why it is relevant. Your position is deserving of insults when you offer nothing to understand and continue to rely on sexism, inconsistency, and outright evasion.

I have explained what I mean over and over, I just have not participated in your side tracking the debate into definitions that we will simply not agree on.

It is never a straw man to ask you to clarify your position. Asking you to define is the polar opposite of a strawman. I can only blame this once again on your own ignorance. A straw man is by definition a misrepresentation. Asking you to correctly represent yourself by definition CANNOT be a straw man.
Get learned:
Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But you are not asking me to clarify. You are trying to drag me into a debate on a word. I have clarified what I meant using other words and you know this. I know what a straw man is. I claim her emotions / morals prevent her from selecting an option and you rephrase it as she makes another choice when this is clearly not what I am saying. You are putting words in my mouth to something you feel you can win on instead of actually debating the issue at hand. A classic straw man.

...and I have said over and over and over that this is what making a choice means: being influenced by internal factors like emotions and morals. This is fundamentally the same as every other choice that is ever made, ever. This is the same thing as me not choosing onions. There is no reason to take special consideration because people freely choose not to take advantage of an choice that would best suit them.

Then lets us debate that rather that you simply rewording and twisting everything I say.
To me a choice is made of the self. If the self's hands are tied by emotions or morals then it is not a choice.

It would be far easier to explain what you mean if you actually used a definition. Repeating the same thing over and over isn't explaining anything.

If I a trying to explain what I mean and I tell you what the word means within my explanation and you argue the dictionary definition can fit what you mean instead of trying to understand then no it will not help. If what I am repeating is unclear then ask about that and not the word I basically stopped using.

I do not consciously choose to hate onions. This internal personal preference is part of my sub-conscious. I "am stopped as surely as if [sic] was physically or legally unavailable." This is the exact same as every other choice that anyone makes. This is no cause for special consideration.

I agree you did not choose to hate onions. And if your hate is strong enough it will make impossible I suppose to order onion rings. In that case it is not a choice, you just can't do it. Now the vast majority of choices we make are not affected by such powerful subconscious motivations. There are people I strongly dislike and while I may find it distasteful to interact with them I can. I avoid it most of the time, but I can do it. That is about as strong as it get most of the time.

That is a silly definition of "can", but it means that no one "can" make a choice that they won't make. Every internal factor that goes into decision making means you "can't" make an alternative decision. By your absurd logic all elections are a sham because no one "can" vote for any party other than the one they vote for.
I "can't" order onion rings.
This would be laughable if I weren't afraid you were serious.

Essentially your first claim is correct. "no one "can" make a choice that they won't make." The second is wrong. I hate mushroom and I would not order things with them on it under most circumstances. I could easily order it for someone else and if I was really hungry and it was all there was I could order them so I can. On the other hand I can not kill my mother which is seemingly the same as I won't. I assume you will try to did up some definitions to try to use it against me but I hope we can simply discuss the heart of the matter rather than going that route.

Now while my choices in life are basically always influenced by a series of unconscious motivations in most cases they are not so strong that I can;t do something, more just preferences that I can overcome if the situation warrants. In terms of elections there are a tons of different factors that come into play. Some unconscious and some conscious and they are balances and I choose. They are not the stage fight example I gave where my fears prevent me from doing what I have choose to do.

It is legally irrelevant. Legally we don't care if you were devastated by your child's murder or only slightly annoyed: either way we charge the murderer the same. We can't get in other people's heads to know how strong their emotions are. We don't know whether my dislike of onions is more "debilitating" than someone else's dislike of abortion. We don't base our laws off of your nonsense.

Maybe you don;t care bu the courts do. If someone has been tormented by people for years and they snap and assault them it can be considered justified. If they are insulted a single time it will not be taken the same way.

Anything can "prevent" you. Maybe you hate it in principle, maybe you hate the practice for religious reasons, maybe you hate how many syllables are in the word... it really doesn't matter. Any reason at all is internal and "can prevent you" by your silly definition.
Hate is a subconscious emotion. Why would you discount one subconscious emotion that influences our decisions but give credence to another?
You are hopelessly inconsistent.

It is commonly understood that when a person says I hate X-food with no more explanation is is a very powerful negative reaction to the taste.

I am not inconsistent at all. I would suggest you are. On one hand you say the power of the unconscious 'feeling' is insignificant and then you claim I discount one for another. I have even agreed while unlikely if you hate of onion rings is strong enough it may preclude you from ordering them.

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

I am wholly unable to buy them due to it. It is a choice I will never make due to my internal processes. This is fundamentally no different than the decisions women make regarding abortion due to internal processes.

A choice being one you will never make is not the same a choice you are incapable of making, but I agree it could be that strong. Certainly most of our emotions are not that strong and if so then I agree your freakishly strong hate of onion rings may make you unable to eat them if it meant your death.

Then it sounds like she was not willing due to reasons she unconsciously possessed.

That is not what willing means. Willing refers to the conscious mind. For example someone who is willing to act, but they freeze up on stage due to fear.

Yes, some subconscious factor influenced her choice. This happens all the time with all of our decisions.

Not at all. It didn't effect her conscious choice, she was merely unable to carry out her wises.
I can't recall the last time I was incapable of taking an action due to unconscious things.

"It" referring to the impact of internal processes in decision making.

In that case, not I never admitted that. While every choice may be influenced by unconscious processes, it is rarely dictated by them.

Your hate of mushrooms is an internal process that influences your decision making. Even if you wished you liked mushrooms, you still wouldn't. You are incapable of changing that internal process which dictates your decision making. As such you cannot choose to order mushrooms unless some other factor overwhelms that first factor.

I am not sure where wishing to like mushrooms come into it and I can easily order mushrooms, I can even eat them, but that would take another strong factor, but I could.

Similarly with your friend. There is some internal factor that influences her decision making and "prevents" her from choosing to kill herself. Depending on the significance of this influence it may take an extreme opposing factor or a minor opposing factor to reverse her decision.

You have not quite got it. She did choose. She was overwhelmed by her desire kill herself. It never waned. He conscious mind was always set on it. There was no counter choice - choice is of the conscious mind. The internal factor as you call it simply prevented her from acting like the man with stage fright.

A decision is a conscious process, but the factors that go into a decision may be conscious or subconscious. Studies show that all kinds of things influence our decisions without us even knowing... whether it is the color of a room or the music playing in the background. This is true of course also with our emotional state or the upbringing that resulted in our morality. People don't consciously think "a man inserting his penis into another man is a bad thing for reasons X, Y, and Z", they just believe it is wrong for subconscious reasons... and this subconscious influence will impact how they vote, how they live, how they see other people, and countless other facets of their conscious life.

I agree, but it rarely totally overwhelms the process in a way where we may consciously seek to do something, but are prevented from doing so by a subconscious process and that is what I am talking about.

My emotions and morals are definitely part of my self. They are part of who I am. They are part of my identity. Every internal process is.

There are few definitions of self, but I am talking about the conscious part of you.

Fair enough. Everyone has the right to change their mind.

It took years from her to get past it and I happy to have been part of that.

That sounds awfully selfish of you. I thought you said she actually wanted it. Don't you support your friend's decisions or want her to have what she thinks is best? Don't you respect her enough to support her?

I knew her well enough to know that she had a lot to live for and in the long run she would be thankful for life and to this day she thanks he for saving her life.

Haha... but far less than someone that has actually attempted it?

She did attempt it a number of times. A few times she actually overdosed and was hospitalized, buy the pills she had access to were not lethal enough basically.

Then there is no such thing as a choice. Internal processes and the subconscious influence all of our decisions.

You do like making things very simple. The reason the strength of these internal factors is important is because it is only the extremely powerful ones that make us unable to act how we wish.

That is "motive" again. If you set out with the express purpose of hurting someone, that is different from being incited by unexpected events.

It is still emotions.

Self-defense doesn't hinge on emotional state.

I am not talking about self defense. I am talking about someone being pushed over the line due to years of abuse.

"Good morality" meaning that they won't be a repeat offender. If the individual in question seemed likely to commit the crime again, they would not be released. If they said they "feel absolutely terrible about it" but planned to commit the same crime as soon as they were released, believe me, they would not be getting parole. It isn't about emotion, it is about reform.

I have been in jail. Very little if any reform goes on there. And they have no ability to read minds.

[BlackSheep]

I have not found any solid legal resource stating explicitly that "you can give up for adoption for any reason you please", and that is likely because no such law exists. You are allowed to have your own reasons for what you legally do unless stated otherwise.
That said, I just googled it and find plenty of links saying essentially the same thing: you can give up for adoption even if you financially can care for it.
Can any parent give up a child for adoption even if they are financially stable? - Yahoo! Answers

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

Being unwilling (you already proved that your definition of "capable" doesn't work with your argument) does not change the fact that she needs to deal with the responsibilities of her choice. That is how all choices work.

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

Provide your definitions if you mean something else.

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

[LetThereBe]

No you want them to make choices based on what you perceive is their own burdens, but you ignore that the woman's is much larger and that it begins immediately and must be dealt with with effort unlike the mans. It also ignores that the choice you wish give to him dumps everything on her if she is not able to select abortion or adoption due to emotional / moral reasons.

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

If you have not then support that claim by showing me a response before my challenge that was not either evasive or had a caveat.

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

You have not supported the claim anyone can put any child up for adoption.

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

We do. For the purposes of abortion we have a definition. The double murder charge has no real relevance in matter of parental duties or abortions.

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

I have never left anything I have said intentionally ambiguous. I have avoided getting into a definition war that will just side track up, by choosing other words.

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

Let me rephrase. You claim no woman's emotions / morals can prevent the conscious self from taking the option of abortion. You what I am trying to say and yet you play this game every time.

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

Again you are playing games. I have made it clear this was not the case.

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

Where did I 'already agreed that it is fundamentally the same as my dislike of onions'?

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

When you claim the woman has the choice even if her emotions / morals disallow it then free will is of paramount importance.

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

Arguing definitions is just another of your games to avoid tackling the real debate.

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

I have explained what I mean over and over, I just have not participated in your side tracking the debate into definitions that we will simply not agree on.

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

But you are not asking me to clarify. You are trying to drag me into a debate on a word. I have clarified what I meant using other words and you know this.

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

I know what a straw man is. I claim her emotions / morals prevent her from selecting an option and you rephrase it as she makes another choice when this is clearly not what I am saying. You are putting words in my mouth to something you feel you can win on instead of actually debating the issue at hand. A classic straw man.

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

To me a choice is made of the self. If the self's hands are tied by emotions or morals then it is not a choice.

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

If I a trying to explain what I mean and I tell you what the word means within my explanation and you argue the dictionary definition can fit what you mean instead of trying to understand then no it will not help. If what I am repeating is unclear then ask about that and not the word I basically stopped using.

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

I agree you did not choose to hate onions. And if your hate is strong enough it will make impossible I suppose to order onion rings. In that case it is not a choice, you just can't do it. Now the vast majority of choices we make are not affected by such powerful subconscious motivations. There are people I strongly dislike and while I may find it distasteful to interact with them I can. I avoid it most of the time, but I can do it. That is about as strong as it get most of the time.

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

Essentially your first claim is correct. "no one "can" make a choice that they won't make." The second is wrong. I hate mushroom and I would not order things with them on it under most circumstances. I could easily order it for someone else and if I was really hungry and it was all there was I could order them so I can. On the other hand I can not kill my mother which is seemingly the same as I won't. I assume you will try to did up some definitions to try to use it against me but I hope we can simply discuss the heart of the matter rather than going that route.

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

Now while my choices in life are basically always influenced by a series of unconscious motivations in most cases they are not so strong that I can;t do something, more just preferences that I can overcome if the situation warrants. In terms of elections there are a tons of different factors that come into play. Some unconscious and some conscious and they are balances and I choose. They are not the stage fight example I gave where my fears prevent me from doing what I have choose to do.

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

Maybe you don;t care bu the courts do. If someone has been tormented by people for years and they snap and assault them it can be considered justified. If they are insulted a single time it will not be taken the same way.

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

It is commonly understood that when a person says I hate X-food with no more explanation is is a very powerful negative reaction to the taste.

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

I am not inconsistent at all. I would suggest you are. On one hand you say the power of the unconscious 'feeling' is insignificant and then you claim I discount one for another. I have even agreed while unlikely if you hate of onion rings is strong enough it may preclude you from ordering them.

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

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

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

A choice being one you will never make is not the same a choice you are incapable of making, but I agree it could be that strong. Certainly most of our emotions are not that strong and if so then I agree your freakishly strong hate of onion rings may make you unable to eat them if it meant your death.

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

That is not what willing means. Willing refers to the conscious mind. For example someone who is willing to act, but they freeze up on stage due to fear.

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

Not at all. It didn't effect her conscious choice, she was merely unable to carry out her wises.
I can't recall the last time I was incapable of taking an action due to unconscious things.

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

In that case, not I never admitted that. While every choice may be influenced by unconscious processes, it is rarely dictated by them.

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

I am not sure where wishing to like mushrooms come into it and I can easily order mushrooms, I can even eat them, but that would take another strong factor, but I could.

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

You have not quite got it. She did choose. She was overwhelmed by her desire kill herself. It never waned. He conscious mind was always set on it. There was no counter choice - choice is of the conscious mind. The internal factor as you call it simply prevented her from acting like the man with stage fright.

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

I agree, but it rarely totally overwhelms the process in a way where we may consciously seek to do something, but are prevented from doing so by a subconscious process and that is what I am talking about.

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

There are few definitions of self, but I am talking about the conscious part of you.

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

I knew her well enough to know that she had a lot to live for and in the long run she would be thankful for life and to this day she thanks he for saving her life.

That is up to her if her current situation is worth the suffering she went through at the time. If she feels it was, good for her, I'm glad she changed her mind.

She did attempt it a number of times. A few times she actually overdosed and was hospitalized, buy the pills she had access to were not lethal enough basically.

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

You do like making things very simple. The reason the strength of these internal factors is important is because it is only the extremely powerful ones that make us unable to act how we wish.

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

It is still emotions.

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

I am not talking about self defense. I am talking about someone being pushed over the line due to years of abuse.

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

I have been in jail. Very little if any reform goes on there. And they have no ability to read minds.

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