It's perfectly possible to have no options and not be forced by anyone. There is no magic law of the universe that says you must have good options left over. What you are left with has no relationship to what is taken from you or what is done to you. I don't care what you are left with, it's none of my business and is not relevant.
Killing you and leaving you with no options but to die are not the same thing. The man who doesn't give you water in the desert did not cause your death, heatstroke did. Capitalism does not kill millions every year through starvation, they just die of starvation in absence of anyone feeding them. It is not logically possible to cause something or force something by doing nothing.
Just saying it over and over again won't make us take it seriously.
Here's a quick rundown: If you say no, and a human being imposes consequences on you for saying no, you are being forced to do the thing. In literally any other case you are not being forced to do anything. You can't say no to me about your pregnancy, because I'm not doing your pregnancy to you. No one is doing anything to you. No one is imposing anything on you. Your pregnancy is happening on its own, without my involvement. Inaction is not action.
I am forcing women not to have abortions. I am not forcing them to be pregnant. Those are very, very different actions. The latter is rape. Did I rape them? No? Then I did not force them to bear a child.
Not a single person in this thread agrees and you have made zero arguments to try to change anyone's mind.
Exactly. She gets herself pregnant. She forced herself to have a baby. I have nothing to do with it.
He made a good argument that shows why your position is silly and instead of responding to it you just offer detached irony.
If a woman is raped than her rapist forced her to have a baby, not me.
But in the case of 99% of abortions, the woman wasn't raped.
It's not that we're "unable to grasp" it. It's that we disagree, and you haven't argued for it.
We aren't dying on it, you are, and you're dying without even bothering to put up a fight.
He doesn't have any.
How many times are you going to say the exact same thing and expect to hear something other than a chorus of "No?"
No, you are not.
It's an incorrect concept.
She can bare [sic] the child.
Incorrect. I am not forcing her to do anything.
I think he genuinely doesn't understand what you're getting at.
There is no conflict. The mother has no right to the "bodily autonomy" of abandoning her child. Her child has implicit rights to her womb. Children are entitled to their parents. It's not a stranger who has taken up residence, it is her child, who she created. She has fundamental responsibilities toward that child which she does not have the option of giving up. She has no right to abandon her child. She has no moral choice but to raise it. She is obligated not just to carry it for 9 months, and not just for 18 years, but for the rest of her life. The two of them have inextricably linked relationship which can never be negated by either of them, and which imposes responsibilities on them both.
