Should a woman's bodily autonomy be disregarded when it comes to pregnancy?

[metis]

Because I believe in justice, honor and the protection of innocent life. The group that needs to do some explaining are the ones who support abortion and are against the death penalty. Now those are some people who have a twisted idea of ethics.

See my last post, and I wrote it before reading yours here.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Because I believe in justice, honor and the protection of innocent life. The group that needs to do some explaining are the ones who support abortion and are against the death penalty. Now those are some people who have a twisted idea of ethics.

Only if these people believe abortion is killing a life. For people like me, I don't see it as killing a life, but terminating a pregnancy.

I believe in the protection of innocent life in conjunction with protecting bodily autonomy.

For instance, my husband and I agreed in our 30s that to prevent any unwanted pregnancies for us, he would have a vasectomy after he turned 40. Once his 40th birthday came and went, I approached him with what we agreed on concerning a vasectomy.

He responded, "You know, when I think about it now, I just don't want that for my balls."

No argument from me. Absolutely none. It's his body, and he alone decides what is to be done with it. I supported him then, and I support him now. There is NO way I'd ever give him a hard time, harass him, shame him, or somehow give him any indication that a vasectomy was something he promised to or owed me in any way.

I know you see when "life" begins in a very different way than I do. I go by the Roe vs Wade court opinion of fetal viability as determining the legal definition of "personhood." I stated my opinion earlier in the thread regarding how anti-choice people need to change tactics if they are to restrict or criminalize abortion (which doesn't change abortion rates anyway) by showing how personhood must be established differently than the gestational age of viability at roughly 23-26 weeks.

Legislating morality, especially morality based on a religious tradition, is highly problematic. Anti-choice activists ought to go in another direction and look at the legal aspects of bodily autonomy and the definition of personhood.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Ahh. So another book which is similar to the Bible (highly textually accurate, widely produced, etc) would be "Green Eggs and Ham".

Good that we have sorted out the type of "accurate" we are discussing.

I have made this exact comparison before. It seems to me that basing laws on the Bible is no different from doing so based on Green Eggs and Ham. At least the latter is not harmful, actually.

 

[oldbadger]

.....................

I would not expect to be able to debate a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy with you. Your answers demonstrate that you would force women to endure pregnancies even when the foetus is dreadfully incapacitated through Spina-Bifida, Hydracephalus and club feet. Even then you would sentence such a woman to a lifetime of great sadness and toil to suit your own extreme ideas. So the best I can do is identify your extreme lack of reason and leave it at that.
To debate a woman's right to choice in everyday situations would be hopeless.
That's alright....... as long as people with extreme views such as yours are never allowed anywhere near power over women's choices.

As for the cost aspect, there are government programs that cover the expenses..

............ which is why specialist advisors were employed to guide desperately sad parents towards 'feed on demand only'. Of course, today these dreadful situations happen much less often because early scanning and blood tests can identify SB and the mother be guided towards termination.
Such countries need to save Health-Service time and money for conditions which can be cured.
.

You stuck on spina bifida and didn't talk about club foot or hydrocephalus. .

The three conditions are often found together. My example included all three, but don't pretend that club-foot is often treatable.
.

Yes, there are different types of spina bifida but most of them are treatable, above 90%. .

Treatable? I'm talking about ending perpetual pain, suffering and immense costs before birth, through intelligent decisions.
.

For the rest of the cases, there are high to fatal discrepancies. As for the fatal, there is a high chance of the infant to die anyways..

Dear Ms Cousins, We are sad to inform you that your unborn child has Spina Bifida, an extreme type, however we absolutely refuse to perfom a termination and insist that you shall carry this foetus through to birth. On a brighter note, you may be saved from a lifetime of devotion to an invalid in constant need and pain because the child may die at some time.
.

As for the club foot, the procedure is not really costly and very simple..

Utter drivvle. You have no idea. As I said, the three conditions often occur together. Even so, a woman should have the right to terminate a foetus which has physical conditions if she chooses.
.

Hydrocephalus or meningohydrocephalus(fatal). Hydrocephalus is very easily treatable if done on the right time. Meningohydrocephalus is treatable but highly fatal if procedure had errors.

You don't seem to know the difference between treatment and cure.

 

[JerryL]

Looking at the first two sentences in the OT, the error rate is between 50% and 100%, and the error is in the actual thrust of the text.

You are incorrect in any context but your not even on the same page. We are not discussing historical accuracy, we are discussing textual accuracy. This is such a horrific start to a post I am not going to read the rest until I see that you can be corrected with the first mistake because if you cannot there is no point in doing so for the rest of the post. If you can admit the mistake I will respond the rest.

Please do not ask me questions based on what must have been intentionally distorting my claims and then answer them your self.

If we are going to base morality on the bible or s similar book, the first necessity is to establish whether what we have represents the original text. That is only the first step and so where I started but not where anything ends. Then we need to see if is historically accurate and verify any claims that can be. Then determine if a rational case for original divine inspiration exists. Then a whole host of other things. I never even hinted at anything that would lead to your conclusion.

Do please make up your mind

 

[JerryL]

"Choosing to be raped" is an oxy,moron.

Tom

Yes. That was my point.

 

[leibowde84]

There is no point in trying to change legality if we cannot agree on the moral principles so we should do that first.

Why are you still not answering my questions?

Sorry, what is your question? I wasn't able to get back on here after work yesterday. Can you repeat it for me?

 

[leibowde84]

No, you are just not going to ever answer a single question I ask are you. I said no society in history has ever granted that all rights are equal. You know exactly what I am saying, you apparently have no answer, the only thing missing is your simply admitting it.


By the way what in the world have I ever said in 10,000 plus posts that made you think (or say you did) that I was suggesting or even hinting at what you stated above?

You said that the legal issue isn't relevant. Since, for the most part, the moral aspect has already been agreed upon, at least between us, I don't understand how the legal aspect could be anything but supremely important to the conversation.

As for the right to bodily autonomy, it was created, like the right to privacy, through case law. Precedent has demanded that bodily autonomy in its most direct form is required to be protected less all other rights evaporate. This, of course, only includes denying the direct use of one's body. Anything beyond another living thing using your body for survival against your will is beyond the scope of this right.

If you would like some case law citations, I would be happy to provide some links. They are easy to find with a quick google search though. The SCOTUS Justices are a lot better at explaining it than I am.

 

[1robin]

I don't see how. Please do elaborate.

Value. Law in general assume value comparisons. It usually assumes them despite it having no basis for them but it is so indispensable they must assume them anyway. Some of the better legal systems wisely founded those values on God but most just assume them.

We have the significance that we have assigned ourselves. Yet, for some reason, you appear to downplay it. You say that nature can't assign assign value to anything, and yet here we are doing exactly that.

So if turtles band together and claim to have more significance that humans then by your reasoning they actually have it and we must respect it. I can say that I value my car but my saying that does not give my car inherent value. Morality assumes actual value not contrived value. You might as well try and boil water by thinking of 212 degrees.

If you stop distorting what I am saying things will go smoother, I swear.

I am not having this problem with anyone else.

 

[leibowde84]

Value. Law in general assume value comparisons. It usually assumes them despite it having no basis for them but it is so indispensable they must assume them anyway. Some of the better legal systems wisely founded those values on God but most just assume them.



So if turtles band together and claim to have more significance that humans then by your reasoning they actually have it and we must respect it. I can say that I value my car but my saying that does not give my car inherent value. Morality assumes actual value not contrived value. You might as well try and boil water by thinking of 212 degrees.



I am not having this problem with anyone else.

You had this problem with me too when you were arguing about the difference between a hypothesis/theory and a scientific theory. Just sayin' is all.

 

[1robin]

Let me just clarify one thing: Even if morality doesn't exist objectively, it doesn't mean it doesn't actually exist. I don't need objective morality to have morality. And the morality I have is actual.

But you do need it for "your morality" to be objectively true. I do not need to have a ruler to say a building is 1000 ft. high but unless it is what I have said is not true, Without God there is not even a true to be. All you have are 6 billion equally invalid preferences about what we all should be doing.

We can certainly see morality as being emergent from social interaction and biological composition, but generally when theists refer to objective morality they tend to refer to something that goes way beyond biology. As if objective morality was an attribute of the universe or even beyond it, that was not dependent upon biological processes. That's the objective morality that I don't believe that exists.

All we can get from biology is the behaviors that are we cannot get the behaviors that should be. I can literally do any amount of harm or any amount of good and find a naturalistic example or excuse for it. What a I cannot find is any thing telling me what I should do.

Since I see no reason to grant an exception, I can not grant any exception. It is simple as that.
What is your reason to grant an exception?

In one place you try very hard to make humanity special and when convenient in another you do everything you can to make it irrelevant without the power to do either. Human society always places the burden on the one who wishes to take life, not the one who wishes to preserve it. You must prove there is no exception or difference. Death must have justification.

First of all, you have to concede you were redefining my use of the word 'parasite'. Since I don't call carnivores as parasites just because they eat meat.

I used the definition I saw. Something that is dependent on external organisms to survive. I did not define it, I did look it up, I used the definition given in a post by someone arguing your point. Forget the definition, lets pretend a fetus is nothing but a parasite. There is no law ever written I am aware of that says things that are nothing but parasites can be killed for an reason. Nothing leads to that conclusion.

It is not that that killing unborn humans is ok because other parasites have no rights to life, it is rather that the same reason that applies to why people can get rid of parasites applies to a fetus.

Not unless a human life is equal in all ways to all other parasites. How do you even get other things have no rights? How do you get rights or a lack of them for anything of any kind anywhere? Nature does not posses rights to grant to anything.

 

[1robin]

Do please make up your mind

Do you understand that a process can contain an aspect that is not under discussion at the moment? As in to build a skyscraper we need engineering and labor but we are discussing the labor issues at the moment. There are plenty of actual points that can be debated, why are you ignoring them and inventing things that are no contending with each other?

To use the bible as a moral authority many things must be determined but we were only discussing one at that moment. I see nothing complicated about that.

 

[Koldo]

Value. Law in general assume value comparisons. It usually assumes them despite it having no basis for them but it is so indispensable they must assume them anyway. Some of the better legal systems wisely founded those values on God but most just assume them.

And, therefore...?

So if turtles band together and claim to have more significance that humans then by your reasoning they actually have it and we must respect it.

I don't abide by normative moral relativism, therefore I don't think we must respect it. That a group of turtles decided to claim they more significance than humans doesn't entail I must feel the same way.

I can say that I value my car but my saying that does not give my car inherent value.

It doesn't force people into giving the same value as you do indeed.

Morality assumes actual value not contrived value. You might as well try and boil water by thinking of 212 degrees.

Contrived value is actual value. In a way, morality works similar to money.

I am not having this problem with anyone else.

I guess you love me more than others then.

 

[leibowde84]

But you do need it for "your morality" to be objectively true. I do not need to have a ruler to say a building is 1000 ft. high but unless it is what I have said is not true, Without God there is not even a true to be. All you have are 6 billion equally invalid preferences about what we all should be doing.



All we can get from biology is the behaviors that are we cannot get the behaviors that should be. I can literally do any amount of harm or any amount of good and find a naturalistic example or excuse for it. What a I cannot find is any thing telling me what I should do.



In one place you try very hard to make humanity special and when convenient in another you do everything you can to make it irrelevant without the power to do either. Human society always places the burden on the one who wishes to take life, not the one who wishes to preserve it. You must prove there is no exception or difference. Death must have justification.



I used the definition I saw. Something that is dependent on external organisms to survive. I did not define it, I did look it up, I used the definition given in a post by someone arguing your point. Forget the definition, lets pretend a fetus is nothing but a parasite. There is no law ever written I am aware of that says things that are nothing but parasites can be killed for an reason. Nothing leads to that conclusion.


Not unless a human life is equal in all ways to all other parasites. How do you even get other things have no rights? How do you get rights or a lack of them for anything of any kind anywhere? Nature does not posses rights to grant to anything.

It seems probable that morality evolved due to societal evolution. Once we moved into the agricultural revolution, we realized that supporting and living in symbiosis with each other was paramount to the survival of the human race. Things like murder, theft, adultry, and libel could not be tolerated, or our societies would colapse (which ended up happening quite a few times). Moral codes evolved from this basic framework, so I don't see why God would be necessary, as it is no mystery why morality benefits human beings.

 

[1robin]

Sorry, what is your question? I wasn't able to get back on here after work yesterday. Can you repeat it for me?

1. Where does anything get any right of any kind from?
2. Why are you equating the right to autonomy with the right to life? Actually i's worse your saying the right to autonomy for the mother is greater the any possible rights the fetus has. Why?

 

[1robin]

You said that the legal issue isn't relevant. Since, for the most part, the moral aspect has already been agreed upon, at least between us, I don't understand how the legal aspect could be anything but supremely important to the conversation.

It is not irrelevant in general. It is irrelevant to a discussion about morality. Legalism just is not a moral concept.

As for the right to bodily autonomy, it was created, like the right to privacy, through case law. Precedent has demanded that bodily autonomy in its most direct form is required to be protected less all other rights evaporate. This, of course, only includes denying the direct use of one's body. Anything beyond another living thing using your body for survival against your will is beyond the scope of this right.

A law cannot possible create a right. Laws about rights assume the rights to be inherent to the entity. Laws are designed to protect a law a thing already has. Governments cannot grant rights, they do not have any to give, rights are things government are not supposed to take away. Look at our declaration it does not say we have rights because of case law, they were not created, or precedent. It says God is the source for our rights. So your answer is incorrect. A law cannot grant a right, a law can only recognize a right that is inherent to a thing. So how does anything get a right to anything. You claim a women has rights to autonomy, who had that right to grant it to her?

If you would like some case law citations, I would be happy to provide some links. They are easy to find with a quick google search though. The SCOTUS Justices are a lot better at explaining it than I am.

Why are you so obsessed by law? It seems that every question (even ones that do not even have potentially legal answers) are answered with legality. A law is powerless to create a right, at best we can only hope it can perceive them.

So you have not even begun to supply what I asked. If you want o save some time, I already know that God and God alone is the only possible source of rights. We can save a lot of time if you just admit it. If you can then then you can show me where in the bible God gave the right to the autonomy you claims. Laws can't do it, so if God did not do it then it does not exist.

 

[leibowde84]

1. Where does anything get any right of any kind from?
2. Why are you equating the right to autonomy with the right to life? Actually i's worse your saying the right to autonomy for the mother is greater the any possible rights the fetus has. Why?

1. Well, rights come from social contracts between the citizens of a community and their government. Obviously, since we are human and constantly evolving mentally, some rights come up that are necessary to provide for other rights, so our rights are being discovered in a way. But, rights come from social contracts. In our country, that contract is shown in our Constitution. The Laws of a community are based on this social contract as well. Certain rules must be enforced to guarantee that these rights are protected.
2. I am not trying to equate or compare the two. I don't feel that it is a choice that I can make, as both rights must be protected. The issue that I have is with the claim that a fetus' right to use a woman's body against her will for survival should superscede a woman's right to refuse the right to use her body without her consent. My problem is with forcing anyone to give up the use of their body without their consent or due process of law.

 

[JerryL]

Do you understand that a process can contain an aspect that is not under discussion at the moment?

Yep: and you need to make up your mind which aspect you are discussing; so I can tell you why you are wrong.

 

[1robin]

It seems probable that morality evolved due to societal evolution. Once we moved into the agricultural revolution, we realized that supporting and living in symbiosis with each other was paramount to the survival of the human race. Things like murder, theft, adultry, and libel could not be tolerated, or our societies would colapse (which ended up happening quite a few times). Moral codes evolved from this basic framework, so I don't see why God would be necessary, as it is no mystery why morality benefits human beings.

Most of our laws contradict with evolution. It is said to act consistently with nature is to act inhuman. Our laws are intended to correct the horrific behaviors in nature. We are not to eat our young as lions do, not to rape others as dolphins do, not to kill our mates as spiders, not to throw feces at others as monkeys do, not to over predate as wolves do, not to steal children as many species do, not to kill others young as birds do, etc..... We are not even to behave like we have done in the past. Now to form tribal factions and fight others over resources, not to drag women into caves to mate by force, not to kill the innocent, etc...... Not one society has had laws based on nature because nature can justify anything because it contains everything. The closest we ever got was Hitler's Germany. He did pattern his legal codes (which shows just how immoral legality can be) on natural methods like survival of the fittest and destruction of the weak.

Why is every argument you make in defiance of the God you say you believe in? Something is drastically wrong here. BTW secular Christian is a contradiction in terms. If you do not mind answering why do you claim to be a Christian?

 

[leibowde84]

It is not irrelevant in general. It is irrelevant to a discussion about morality. Legalism just is not a moral concept.

A law cannot possible create a right. Laws about rights assume the rights to be inherent to the entity. Laws are designed to protect a law a thing already has. Governments cannot grant rights, they do not have any to give, rights are things government are not supposed to take away. Look at our declaration it does not say we have rights because of case law, they were not created, or precedent. It says God is the source for our rights. So your answer is incorrect. A law cannot grant a right, a law can only recognize a right that is inherent to a thing. So how does anything get a right to anything. You claim a women has rights to autonomy, who had that right to grant it to her?


Why are you so obsessed by law? It seems that every question (even ones that do not even have potentially legal answers) are answered with legality. A law is powerless to create a right, at best we can only hope it can perceive them.

So you have not even begun to supply what I asked. If you want o save some time, I already know that God and God alone is the only possible source of rights. We can save a lot of time if you just admit it. If you can then then you can show me where in the bible God gave the right to the autonomy you claims. Laws can't do it, so if God did not do it then it does not exist.

If you are going to use the Declaration of Independence as a source to prove that God granted rights, you are way off. It is merely a document writtten by God fearing men. It is necessary to dig a lot deeper and explore societal evolution and norms to truly discover when/where rights arose.