What's wrong with this logic?

Women don't owe the world children. They don't owe men babies. They don't owe you an explanation. 

This statement "Women don't owe the world children. They don't owe men babies. They don't owe you an explanation." broadly argues that women have autonomy over their own bodies and reproductive choices. However, let's examine it for any logical fallacies, cognitive biases, poor logic, or poor reasoning.

### Logical Fallacies and Biases:

1. **Straw Man Fallacy**:
- This statement could be seen as combating a simplified or misrepresented version of an opposing argument, rather than addressing a more nuanced stance on reproductive expectations.

2. **Appeal to Emotion**:
- The phrases "owe the world children," "owe men babies," and "owe you an explanation" might evoke a strong emotional reaction rather than fostering a rational discussion about individual rights.

3. **Hasty Generalization**:
- The statement generalizes that all men or society at large impose these obligations on women. While societal pressures exist, it may not reflect the views of all individuals or cultures.

### Cognitive Biases:

1. **Confirmation Bias**:
- The audience may be more likely to accept this statement if it aligns with their pre-existing beliefs about women's rights, thus sidestepping a more balanced evaluation.

### Poor Logic or Reasoning:

1. **Lack of Context**:
- The statement doesn't provide evidence or reasoning to explain why women don't owe these things, which weakens the argument by relying on assertion rather than rationale.

2. **Binary Thinking**:
- The framing suggests a dichotomy where women either owe these things or they don't, without acknowledging that the issue might be more complex. For example, some might argue that socio-economic contributions via reproduction are vital, albeit in a non-compulsory way.

3. **False Equivalence**:
- Equates societal or potentially individual expectations with personal obligations, which may not necessarily be the same. Not owing an explanation doesn’t logically follow from not owing children or babies.

### Conclusion:
While the statement effectively advocates for women's autonomy, it employs some logical fallacies and biases that could undermine its persuasiveness. Clearer reasoning and more nuanced discussion would strengthen the argument, ensuring it avoids emotional appeals and generalizations.

Each of these must be discussed as a stand-alone issue, then analyze it.

I think this one needs a bit more context. In recent years, at least here in the US, some right wing figures have raised concerns about the idea that there may be some sort of population collapse, where there are not enough young people to keep society running. Their answer to this has been to try to increase the social pressure on women to have more children, and to have them earlier in life.

The argument posted is basically a response to this, making the point that no individual woman has any obligation to society to birth and raise children. American culture is largely based on self-determination and bodily autonomy, which is consistent with this statement. However, this may not be consistent with all societal norms in other parts of the world. Not owing men babies is basically another iteration of this statement, but instead focused on a woman's relationship with her partner instead of society. Again, in US culture, it's generally understood that a couple's decision to have children or not is a co-equal decision between both partners, but again, different societal norms may treat this differently. Not owing anyone an explanation speaks to the idea that the choice is her own, and that she does not need anyone's approval.

 So, fundamentally, the logic isn't really wrong. It's just subjectively prioritizing individual rights over perceived collective responsibility. It's also important to point out that there are economic and societal factors that have been named as reasons why people feel like they're less capable of raising children, which isn't really touched on in this argument.