No, they do not. Women do not have to stay in abusive relationships. They can go to court and get a restraining order, a divorce, or sue their employer if they are harassed at the workplace. No one is forcing them to stay in these types of situations. If they chose to do so anyways, they have no one but themselves to blame.
Ah, the good old "systemic oppression doesn't exist because free will"
Next you're gonna say women who are forced by the state to carry pregnancies to term can just choose not to raise their kids
They can always give their children up for adoption, can't they?
What you're failing to understand is that normal people are bound by moral standards of decent behaviour.
So you're saying it's immoral to give up a child for adoption when you are unable to raise it, but it's not immoral to abort it before it even has a chance to take its first breath?
You're very confused. We're talking about women who COULD raise a child while working a job, and would rather have a life of their own, but are bound by basic morality. You also seem to think a single celled organism with no nervous system is a child.
Yes, I am indeed confused. Are you saying that women who COULD raise a child but choose not to are acting immorally when they give their child up for adoption, but they are acting morally if they chose to abort their pregnancy instead?
Because it sounds like that's what you are saying.
No, they do not. Women do not have to stay in abusive relationships. They can go to court and get a restraining order, a divorce, or sue their employer if they are harassed at the workplace. No one is forcing them to stay in these types of situations. If they chose to do so anyways, they have no one but themselves to blame.
Ah, the good old "systemic oppression doesn't exist because free will"
Next you're gonna say women who are forced by the state to carry pregnancies to term can just choose not to raise their kids
They can always give their children up for adoption, can't they?
What you're failing to understand is that normal people are bound by moral standards of decent behaviour.
So you're saying it's immoral to give up a child for adoption when you are unable to raise it, but it's not immoral to abort it before it even has a chance to take its first breath?
You're very confused. We're talking about women who COULD raise a child while working a job, and would rather have a life of their own, but are bound by basic morality. You also seem to think a single celled organism with no nervous system is a child.
Yes, I am indeed confused. Are you saying that women who COULD raise a child but choose not to are acting immorally when they give their child up for adoption, but they are acting morally if they chose to abort their pregnancy instead?
Because it sounds like that's what you are saying.