Choice

And that is disingenuous because we all know there are people who meet the criteria provided and I provided evidence to that effect.
How is it disingenuous to describe what a position would be?

You inferred from this would that I hold that there are no such people.
Yep, and I have amended my post accordingly. The salient point is since there are people who do hold it the prior statement claiming no one is pro-abortion is incorrect and so too is your statement I make no distinctions.
Which statement?
 
Yes, that's true - but I don't think it's bad choices that do that alone. Every choice, good or bad, can limit the available next choices. If I do the right thing and take an Uber to the bar, then my choices are limited - I can't drive home. That's a good thing, but it's still a limitation.

Then I was unclear, and apologise. As I said above, every choice limits later choices. I don't know that bad choices do so more than good ones.

For example, if a woman does the "good thing" and bears her child, her choices for the next 20 years are far more limited than had she aborted it. That is not to criticise choosing to bear your child; just to point out that all choices, good or bad, limit subsequent choices.

Is that a bit clearer?
Yeah, that's all fine, but it doesn't affect my point. Maybe it even adds to it.
Whether good or bad, choice does not have to continue to exist for an action to be moral. At times it can even be unnatural.
 
Of course!! all MEN also!!!

We" ALWAYS been able to do exactly what we choose (and are able) to do, for as long as we're able to do it. that's a God given right.

The "Able to" aspect, of course is situational, as controlled by legal limitations (maybe against the LAW), and physical considerations (we'd like to fly, but need "Expensive Appliances" to make that possible. Any number of external constraints can eliminate the possibility of "Doing what we choose to do".

I "Choose" to own a 1931 model SJ Deusenburg Roadster, but my overall circumstances only make a 1931 Ford Sedan possible.

ANd ultimately, what we do will be JUDGED, by the one eternal judge, and we will settle up then.
So if a judge takes away a person's choice, do they have that right to choose anymore?

My question was intentional in using the word "all" in order to include those who break the law.
 
So if a judge takes away a person's choice, do they have that right to choose anymore?
Ridiculous!!! A "Judge" can't take away your "Choice" - only your ability to do what you choose. The "And are able" aspect gets a whole lot narrower, but you've still got free will.
My question was intentional in using the word "all" in order to include those who break the law.
And Breaking the LAW was a free-will choice. ALL "Choices" have consequences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
A "Judge" can't take away your "Choice" - only your ability to do what you choose.
Just to clarify, I talked about a judge taking away a person's choice because of what you said,
"The "Able to" aspect, of course is situational, as controlled by legal limitations (maybe against the LAW), ... Any number of external constraints can eliminate the possibility of "Doing what we choose to do"."
I understand what you mean, so I'm willing to say I didn't word my question correctly.

If I may try again. In light of what you wrote, if a judge takes away a criminal's ability to choose in a particular area, does that person have that right to choose anymore in that particular area?
 
No - IMO, under no circumstances should a person be forced to be pregnant when they don't wish to be.
You're ignoring the gist of the question which is should a foolish woman who can't stop getting pregnant because she literally doesn't care to begin with be allowed to continue wasting the tax payer's money, or should she be sterilized for her own good as well as society as a whole?
 
You're ignoring the gist of the question which is should a foolish woman who can't stop getting pregnant because she literally doesn't care to begin with be allowed to continue wasting the tax payer's money, or should she be sterilized for her own good as well as society as a whole?
No woman is so foolish that she should be forcefully sterilised. Should the foolishly obese be starved? Should the foolishly drunk be forbidden alcohol? Should foolish smokers be deprived of cancer treatment, or foolish mountaineers with broken limbs be untreated? Perhaps STIs should be allowed to run rampant as a punishment for fornication, or Aids medication restricted so that homosexuals get their just deserts. I'm sure that all this forbidding, restricting and punishing would sit very well in a conservative religious society.
 
No woman is so foolish that she should be forcefully sterilised. Should the foolishly obese be starved? Should the foolishly drunk be forbidden alcohol? Should foolish smokers be deprived of cancer treatment, or foolish mountaineers with broken limbs be untreated? Perhaps STIs should be allowed to run rampant as a punishment for fornication, or Aids medication restricted so that homosexuals get their just deserts. I'm sure that all this forbidding, restricting and punishing would sit very well in a conservative religious society.
Why the obese? You didnt answer my question, would you treat an anorexic or would you support their identity as fat?
Why do you say the woman is not foolish to keep getting pregnant when she doesnt want to?
 
Why the obese? You didnt answer my question,
Because I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to someone else. Stop butting in. You are like a two year old constantly tugging at adults clothing trying to get attention. Try and work out for yourself why people so quickly lose interest in talking to you.
 
Because I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to someone else. Stop butting in. You are like a two year old constantly tugging at adults clothing trying to get attention. Try and work out for yourself why people so quickly lose interest in talking to you.
Its s debating fourum and you arent a moderator so dont tell me I am butting in to try and silence me.

Now back to my question. How come you go along with feelings of a woman about her pregnancy but not a woman about her anorexia?
 
Its s debating fourum and you arent a moderator so dont tell me I am butting in to try and silence me.

Now back to my question. How come you go along with feelings of a woman about her pregnancy but not a woman about her anorexia?
Because abortion, and by corollary pregnancy, is the subject of the thread. Because pregnancy is a completely different condition from pregnancy.
Because unlike you, I recognise the unspoken rules of discussion and debate and don't treat every thread as an opportunity to air my own personal obsessions.
 
Because abortion, and by corollary pregnancy, is the subject of the thread. Because pregnancy is a completely different condition from pregnancy.
Because unlike you, I recognise the unspoken rules of discussion and debate and don't treat every thread as an opportunity to air my own personal obsessions.
I accept that abortion is different from obesity and anorexia, and in that respect can be treated exclusively separately. The problem is they are symptoms of a root cause. The root cause is the same inability to recognise what the offspring actually is, and what the biological sex actually is. So the root cause of your opinions is error.
 
I accept that abortion is different from obesity and anorexia, and in that respect can be treated exclusively separately. The problem is they are symptoms of a root cause. The root cause is the same inability to recognise what the offspring actually is, and what the biological sex actually is. So the root cause of your opinions is error.
No, they are not symptoms of the same cause. There is not just one cause of abortion, and the notion that obesity and anorexia are caused by "an inability to recognise... biological sex" is as bizarrely off topic as you have achieved thus far.
 
No, they are not symptoms of the same cause. There is not just one cause of abortion, and the notion that obesity and anorexia are caused by "an inability to recognise... biological sex" is as bizarrely off topic as you have achieved thus far.
I wasnt talking about the causes of abortion, but the root cause behind the positions for and against abortion.
The notions are the inability to recognise what the offspring actually is, and what the biological sex actually is, which you have just proved in your response
 
I wasnt talking about the causes of abortion, but the root cause behind the positions for and against abortion.
The notions are the inability to recognise what the offspring actually is, and what the biological sex actually is, which you have just proved in your response
You are once again reduced to incoherent nonsense. Your reply here has no discernible meaning.
 
You are once again reduced to incoherent nonsense. Your reply here has no discernible meaning.
That is why you cant debate, you cant understand plain logic.
Let me make it simpler.
We dont agree on the nature of the offspring/foetus and we dont agree on the biological sex of man and woman. . until we can agree on these things we cant discuss the opinions and consequences of them.
 
That is why you cant debate, you cant understand plain logic.
Let me make it simpler.
We dont agree on the nature of the offspring/foetus and we dont agree on the biological sex of man and woman. . until we can agree on these things we cant discuss the opinions and consequences of them.
Who is we?
What has sex or gender got to do with abortion? We probably disagree on the who is the world's top rugby player as we, but that isn't relevant to abortion either.
 
Who is we?
Well you and me. You and a couple of other posters as opposed to me and several other posters. Who did you think?

What has sex or gender got to do with abortion?
All the things that have been described.
We probably disagree on the who is the world's top rugby player as we, but that isn't relevant to abortion either.
Depends what you understand by 'Rugby' I have just explained the reason we dont agree and you cant understand it, so what has your post got to do with it?
 
Well you and me. You and a couple of other posters as opposed to me and several other posters. Who did you think?
I assumed that you were using the Royal "we" as usual.
All the things that have been described.
So nothing then.
Depends what you understand by 'Rugby' I have just explained the reason we dont agree and you cant understand it, so what has your post got to do with it?
What has your question got to do with abortion? Nothing.
 
Back
Top