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

[leibowde84]

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?

Secular Christian simply means that I believe in Jesus' teachings, I believe he had an insurmountable relationship with God, but I do not belong to any specific denomination. Why do you feel that is a contradition.

I question Christian arguments because unquestioned faith is just about as worthless as a ketchup popsicle. I make my faith stronger and my beliefs stronger by debating every Christian principal that I feel is unsubstantiated.

I do love Pope Francis, though.

 

[leibowde84]

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?

Our laws are not designed to seperate us from nature, but, instead, are merely ways to make society work. The enforce the social contract that we have all entered into. You should read some Sociological History papers about what we know about the development of legality. It is very interesting how much we know.

 

[1robin]

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

Oh, I have no doubt that whatever position I have on anything you will claim is wrong because truth is not what has determined your position, preference is.

The order this occurred in was;

1. Someone said that the bible cannot be used to form moral codes because the ones who wrote it were just men and got it wrong.
2. I responded that if they meant textually it is very easy to determine that the textual accuracy of the bible exceeds every other text, of any kind, in any period from ancient history (there is not even a second place) and countless later texts.
3. For some bizarre reason the person responded to a point about textual integrity with one about historical accuracy.
4. So I listed everything that was necessary, reminded them which one they had originally mentioned, and asked which one they wished to discuss.

Then you appeared out of some secular worm whole apparently confused by the whole simplistic discussion. I will make it as easy as possible. Pick which related topic you wish to merely yell that I am wrong about and I will show that the evidence contradicts your preference.

 

[1robin]

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.

I did not use it for that purpose. I used it to show that law cannot establish rights. laws are made to protect pre-existing rights. The only source for actual rights is God and that great legal minds like Jefferson who despite not being a Christian were forced to accept.

I am not asking how man came to perceive rights. I am asking how man came to actually have any rights. I can say I have the right to a new car every year but I can not make that true. You can say women have rights to autonomy but you can't make that true. No man has any rights to grant another. If you say we have them then you need to find a source for them.

 

[JerryL]

Oh, I have no doubt that whatever position I have on anything you will claim is wrong because truth is not what has determined your position, preference is.

Ad hominem

The order this occurred in was;

First you said:

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.

Then in direct response to you I said that Green Eggs and Ham was "texutally accurate".

Then in direct response to me you said

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.

So no. We are talking about two posts you made, 6 hours apart, in direct succession (contextually) to each other (that is to say one is a reply to my reply to the other) in which you contradicted yourself.

 

[viole]

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?

Do you think that if spiders would not eat their mate, they would still exist?

You arbitrarily assign moral valence to natural adaptive behavior from organism X to organism Y without keeping into account all the evolutionary variables, and applying, thereby, the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy. The idea, in this case, that amoral and deterministic mechanisms are horrific. There is not such a thing as horrific that trascends the biological imprint. Unless, you beg the question that we are somehow special and entitled, for some reason, to assert what is horrific or not for things like spiders.

In other words, if spiders were intellectually developed, then they would probably write laws that try to oppose the horrific behaviour of humans that horrifically insist that not eating ones spouse is a good thing.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

I did not use it for that purpose. I used it to show that law cannot establish rights. laws are made to protect pre-existing rights. The only source for actual rights is God and that great legal minds like Jefferson who despite not being a Christian were forced to accept.

I am not asking how man came to perceive rights. I am asking how man came to actually have any rights. I can say I have the right to a new car every year but I can not make that true. You can say women have rights to autonomy but you can't make that true. No man has any rights to grant another. If you say we have them then you need to find a source for them.

Then how can you explain different rights in different social contracts?

 

[1robin]

Secular Christian simply means that I believe in Jesus' teachings, I believe he had an insurmountable relationship with God, but I do not belong to any specific denomination. Why do you feel that is a contradition.

I cannot believe you asked.

The definition of secular is: denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis. So it is literally the denial of what you affirm. It is as self contradictory as even theoretically possible for anything to ever be.

So you are not a Christian spiritually, as in how Christ himself defined it in John. You just happen to agree with some of his claims. Is that correct? There is an infinite difference.

I question Christian arguments because unquestioned faith is just about as worthless as a ketchup popsicle. I make my faith stronger and my beliefs stronger by debating every Christian principal that I feel is unsubstantiated.

To question your beliefs is not secularism. To deny lack spiritual beliefs is.

I do love Pope Francis, though.

The Pope is not Christ.

Whatever you are or are not every argument you have made defies biblical teachings. In discourse and even in your beloved legal field things are taken to be what they act like. It is almost schizophrenic to claim to be an Xian and every point you make to defy it. I usually like to consider the worldview of the person I am speaking to but your world view seems to eat it's self.

 

[metis]

Do you think that if spiders would not eat their mate, they would still exist?

You arbitrarily assign moral valence to natural adaptive behavior from organism X to organism Y without keeping into account all the evolutionary variables, and applying, thereby, the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy. The idea, in this case, that amoral and deterministic mechanisms are horrific. There is not auch a thing as horrific that trascends the biological imprint. Unless, you beg the question that we are somehow special.

In other words, if spiders were intellectually developed, then they would probably write laws that try to oppose the horrific behaviour of humans that horrifically insist that not eating ones spouse is a good thing.

Ciao

- viole

You are exactly correct as biologists have attested to. All animals have genes that deal with behavior, but obviously these genes and their manifestations vary from species to species and even within a species.

What is also known by biologists through testing and observing is that in each species there are what we might call "deviants", namely certain individuals whereas they stray from the norm.

Therefore, the claim by some theists that morality can only be put forth by religion is logically bogus, but that still doesn't stop some from pushing it nevertheless. And I can point to Buddhism as an example, which does not posit a creator-god, and yet no one can seriously make the claim that Buddhists have no morals.

 

[1robin]

Do you think that if spiders would not eat their mate, they would still exist?

Yes, it is a fact that both spiders eat or at least kill their mates and yet exist. Which fact do you deny.

You arbitrarily assign moral valence to natural adaptive behavior from organism X to organism Y without keeping into account all the evolutionary variables, and applying, thereby, the inverse of the naturalistic fallacy. The idea, in this case, that amoral and deterministic mechanisms are horrific. There is not such a thing as horrific that trascends the biological imprint. Unless, you beg the question that we are somehow special.

Valence is a property of electrons. Did you mean values? It is not my position that nature is moral. It is the assumption of the person I was speaking with. If I grant the assumption then nature is morally horrific. I deny nature has any moral property and is therefore devoid of any moral foundation. Don't think because I said what would be true of a naturalistic moral fairyland I believe one exists.

In other words, if spiders were intellectually developed, then they would probably write laws that try to oppose the horrific behaviour of humans that horrifically insist that not eating ones spouse is a good thing.

We are not discussing spider legality. We are discussing whether nature is to be used or has ever been used to establish human morality. Since our laws are actually contradictory to evolutionary behavior as whole even if you limit it only to human evolution which is merely preference then the post I responded to is counter indicative.

 

[1robin]

Then how can you explain different rights in different social contracts?

There are no rights in any social contract. There at best is the recognition in a social contract of a right who's source pre-existed the contract. The word "right" that appears on any page of a contract represents a fact that has no dependence on the word. I can write the word "sun" in a contract but my writing it cannot create one.

 

[metis]

Certain species of spiders eat their mates, but it's not immoral for them to do so-- they're just those kind of spiders. It's just like a dog chasing a rabbit to eat-- that's what dogs do, so it's rather silly to claim the dog is acting immorally.

Humans obviously have different genes than spiders and dogs, and much of our behavior is locked in our genes. Since we are a social animal, some of our genetic drives deal with cooperation within our species at the band (local) level. Yes, there are "deviants", but one should not confuse them with the norm.

There's an old English saying that if two Englishmen were stranded on a desert island by themselves, the first thing they would do would be to elect a government. Humans seem to intrinsically demand order because we're social animals.

Spiders do what spiders do; dogs do what dogs do; and humans do what humans do.

 

[viole]

Yes, it is a fact that both spiders eat or at least kill their mates and yet exist. Which fact do you deny.

What? I asked if you think that those spiders would still exist, if they DO NOT eat their mate.

Valence is a property of electrons. Did you mean values?

Oh yeah. Little Germanism.

It is not my position that nature is moral. It is the assumption of the person I was speaking with. If I grant the assumption then nature is morally horrific. I deny nature has any moral property and is therefore devoid of any moral foundation. Don't think because I said what would be true of a naturalistic moral fairyland I believe one exists.

Ok, agreed. There is not such a thing as objective morality in the naturalistic world. Unless, of course, we treat subjective experiences as objective ones. You know, like reading them on brain scan. But what we will read will still be valid only for our biological imprint and limited to members of our species. Any extension of the imperative "thou shall not kill (and eat your spouse)" to the Universe would be totally unwarranted.

We are not discussing spider legality. We are discussing whether nature is to be used or has ever been used to establish human morality. Since our laws are actually contradictory to evolutionary behavior as whole even if you limit it only to human evolution which is merely preference then the post I responded to is counter indicative.

Of course we cannot use nature for our legality. That would be absurd. That would be the naturalistic fallacy, again. Actually, we can, but that might be perilous. Not necessaily though. There are species that are very monogamous...you would probably approve them.

However, our brains are natural. And therefore everything we decide is natural as well. You know, those little electrical flows and algorithms in our head.

And what makes you think that what we strive to achieve is against evolution? You still apply teleology to evolution. There is not such a thing as "against evolution"' especially as long we are here talking about it.

From the naturalistic point of view, everyting is pretty simple. If our moral values whatever they are, helping the poor, comforting the sick, self sacrifice, whatever, allow the current grow of the population, 7 billion and counting, then it should not be surprising that we have them.

And the day we evolve an unstable behaviour that will annihilate us, who cares? Or better, who will care? We will just share the destiny of 99% of the all other species that walked earth and ended...being against evolution

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Oh, I have no doubt that whatever position I have on anything you will claim is wrong because truth is not what has determined your position, preference is.

The order this occurred in was;

1. Someone said that the bible cannot be used to form moral codes because the ones who wrote it were just men and got it wrong.
2. I responded that if they meant textually it is very easy to determine that the textual accuracy of the bible exceeds every other text, of any kind, in any period from ancient history (there is not even a second place) and countless later texts.
3. For some bizarre reason the person responded to a point about textual integrity with one about historical accuracy.
4. So I listed everything that was necessary, reminded them which one they had originally mentioned, and asked which one they wished to discuss.

Then you appeared out of some secular worm whole apparently confused by the whole simplistic discussion. I will make it as easy as possible. Pick which related topic you wish to merely yell that I am wrong about and I will show that the evidence contradicts your preference.

All of these points are inaccurate. Just for starters, I never questioned the textual

There are no rights in any social contract. There at best is the recognition in a social contract of a right who's source pre-existed the contract. The word "right" that appears on any page of a contract represents a fact that has no dependence on the word. I can write the word "sun" in a contract but my writing it cannot create one.

Maybe you don't understand what a Social Contract is. It is not a writing or written contract. It is merely an agreement amongst a society. This is where rights are acgnowledged, or "created" I guess (if you want to say it like that). Rights do not exist until acknowledged by something. There is no way to prove otherwise. So, I guess I am arguing that the recognition of a right is the same as the creation of a right in a specific situation. If a right is not acknowledged in a certain society, then that right does not exist. Our basic rights evolved when we, as human beings, started to live together in communities. They were necessary at that point.

 

[leibowde84]

There are no rights in any social contract. There at best is the recognition in a social contract of a right who's source pre-existed the contract. The word "right" that appears on any page of a contract represents a fact that has no dependence on the word. I can write the word "sun" in a contract but my writing it cannot create one.

Btw, "social contract" is an abstract term, not a concrete entity.

 

[leibowde84]

I cannot believe you asked.

The definition of secular is: denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis. So it is literally the denial of what you affirm. It is as self contradictory as even theoretically possible for anything to ever be.

So you are not a Christian spiritually, as in how Christ himself defined it in John. You just happen to agree with some of his claims. Is that correct? There is an infinite difference.

To question your beliefs is not secularism. To deny lack spiritual beliefs is.

The Pope is not Christ.

Whatever you are or are not every argument you have made defies biblical teachings. In discourse and even in your beloved legal field things are taken to be what they act like. It is almost schizophrenic to claim to be an Xian and every point you make to defy it. I usually like to consider the worldview of the person I am speaking to but your world view seems to eat it's self.

Again, you defined the wrong term. "Secular" means what you claim, but "secular" means that one feels that religious beliefs and ideals have no place in Government. I am a Christian with my own Christian identity, I say Christian prayers every day, and I speak to Mary and Jesus (mostly). But, I understand that to even attempt to legislate based on moral principles is to assault the beliefs of my fellow citizens, which are, most likely, different than my own.

 

[1robin]

What? I asked if you think that those spiders would still exist, if they DO NOT eat their mate.

This is such a bizarre question I am still not sure I get it. You asking if spiders who do not eat each other exist?

Oh yeah. Little Germanism.

Ok

Ok, agreed. There is not such a thing as objective morality in the naturalistic world. Unless, of course, we treat subjective experiences as objective ones. You know, like reading them on brain scan. But what we will read will still be valid only for our biological imprint and limited to members of our species. Any extension of the imperative "thou shall not kill (and eat your spouse)" to the Universe would be totally unwarranted.

The objective nature of a thing is not changed be how we consider it. You cannot make a subjective thing an objective one by thinking it is. Experiences can be objective but they do not make anything moral. I don't care if a brain scan lights up like a pinball machine it does not make anything morally true. If we actually should not eat our spouse then that is not based on a brain scan or a biological imperative. It is an absolute fact grounded in God's nature. If so then his nature has an infinite knowledge of al facts relevant to the issue and issues commands to a our species not to the physics of the entire universe.

Of course we cannot use nature for our legality. That would be absurd. That would be the naturalistic fallacy, again. Actually, we can, but that might be perilous. Not necessaily though. There are species that are very monogamous...you would probably approve them.

I agree but your side of this issue usually either claims morality is based on our observations of nature or a byproduct of it.

However, our brains are natural. And therefore everything we decide is natural as well. You know, those little electrical flows and algorithms in our head.

It is natural but it is not morally objective. The universe tells us what is, not what should be. That is why if our thoughts have a total naturalistic origin then they cannot be used for moral truth.

And what makes you think that what we strive to achieve is against evolution? You still apply teleology to evolution. There is not such a thing as "against evolution"' especially as long we are here talking about it.

Ok, if evolution explains everything then it explains nothing which is one of my chief complaints. If evolution is has principles as I am constantly told it does. And if those principles are things like survival at any cost, our moral codes often contradict them. My own position is that evolution contains all behaviors so it would justify al behaviors and would make the worst basis for laws possible.

From the naturalistic point of view, everyting is pretty simple. If our moral values whatever they are, helping the poor, comforting the sick, self sacrifice, whatever, allow the current grow of the population, 7 billion and counting, then it should not be surprising that we have them.

But it would be impossible that they are objective right. I think you and most agree with me but many seem to be embarrassed by the fact and need to dress it up.

If God does not exist.
1. No entity actually has an inherent right to anything.
2. There is no ultimate objective moral fact of the matter to any claim to what we should or should not do anything.
3. There is no basis for claiming anything has inherent values, sanctity, or dignity.
4. Nothing is actually equal.
etc.......

I agree we can either invent things and assume these to exist but they do not, and we can invent theories about how moral contrivances emerged from natural events. Regardless we stuck with those problems above no matter what semantics are employed.

And the day we evolve an unstable behaviour that will annihilate us, who cares? Or better, who will care? We will just share the destiny of 99% of the all other species that walked earth and ended...being against evolution

Now your getting into the true nihilistic spirit atheism ultimately ends in. Happy nihilism to us all. Deck the nothing in streams of nothing and light the nothing log.

 

[1robin]

All of these points are inaccurate. Just for starters, I never questioned the textual

You said we cannot trust it because fallible men recorded it. That can mean only a few things. The most common being how do we know what we have is what Jesus said.

Maybe you don't understand what a Social Contract is. It is not a writing or written contract. It is merely an agreement amongst a society. This is where rights are acgnowledged, or "created" I guess (if you want to say it like that). Rights do not exist until acknowledged by something. There is no way to prove otherwise. So, I guess I am arguing that the recognition of a right is the same as the creation of a right in a specific situation. If a right is not acknowledged in a certain society, then that right does not exist. Our basic rights evolved when we, as human beings, started to live together in communities. They were necessary at that point.

I know what it is. I can't very well point to an abstract construct so I simply put it in a written form for convenience. It lacking a written form only makes my points stronger. Rights can exist for a thing regardless of whether the thing acknowledges them. That's what makes people constantly put the word inherent before the word right.

None of this is getting any closer to answering my question.

You claim a mother has rights to autonomy. No social contract, no opinion, no natural law, not one natural thing can grant them. The only thing that can (God) has not granted that right as far as I know. Where are you getting any actual right from?

 

[1robin]

Btw, "social contract" is an abstract term, not a concrete entity.

I know, you already said that. It is very hard to quantify a thing that only exists in the mind so if you can turn it into a reality without changing it within a context it is often done. I have to keep changing a very simplistic thing into more emphatic and simplistic things because you do not get my point.

 

[McBell]

You claim a mother has rights to autonomy. No social contract, no opinion, no natural law, not one natural thing can grant them.

And yet, here he did just that....

The only thing that can (God) has not granted that right as far as I know.

Bold empty claims.

Where are you getting any actual right from?

you should start paying better attention