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

[metis]

I believe that any benevolent God would give one pure revelation instead of hiding Easter eggs of truth in mountains of man made garbage. That is not to say that other faiths do not contain but I don't think they contain revelation. The Christian doctrine is that revelation was 100% pure but copying has left us with modern bibles that are about 95% accurate. I can give you the whole argument with numbers and equations if you want but even Bart Ehrman agrees. I in fact I use his error rates to avoid contention. Our faiths would be a little different in that mine contains yours so there is no discrepancy. Most faiths at their core are contradictory with each other in claims to exclusive truth and so all but at most one can be true (meaning God's intended revelation, not that they get math wrong).

You can repeat the "95%" until you're blue in the face but even common sense should tell you that this is noting more than an assumption since we have no originals. I don't care whom you get that figure from.

Yes, Pantheism to me is strange. To say everything is God and God is everything adds nothing to either one. It's a meaningless tautology. I think that strange for a religion. Hinduism is strange because re-incarnation defeats the purpose of re-incarnation. Baha'i is strange in that they claim all religions are true and to make them all true they distort them all into unrecognizable forms.

So, Spinoza and Einstein's theory about God is "strange" and "meaningless"? Really? Have you ever read any of Spinoza's works? And you take on reincarnation makes no sense whatsoever, and I say this as one who doesn't believe in it. And the Baha'i faith does not conclude that all religions are equal.

 

[metis]

That is not what I was claiming. I was talking about textual veracity. The DSS are so valuable because they went missing a long time ago and recently resurfaced, so they spell out exactly how much took place in bibles (of the books that compose it) from about 200Bc until today. The textual veracity of bible's is so strong that errors once they appeared were retained until modern times. The men who copied the mainstream texts were so committed to copying the original that virtually all mistakes are known and indicated in most modern bibles. If someone put two N's in john everyone from then on did. I am out of time but biblical text integrity is something I can argue to almost a certainty.

Apparently God can't spell since there are so many spelling and grammatical errors in John's gospel alone. My point being is that we're dealing with books written by humans to other humans, and the issue of "divine inspiration" is much more of a question than an answer.

However, I am in no way denigrating the Bible for it certainly has major value.

 

[pro4life]

Well you don't know much about Spina Bifida. You don't know much about clubbed feet either if you think that condition is so easy to correct.
Physician? What a strange way to describe any work in medicine........
I am a GP. I am a Doctor. I am a surgeon. I am a specialist. I am a consultant.
....... you are a physician? .... interesting.

That's what I find in extremist's posts. When sound points cannot be replied to I often read nonsense such as '...these are women, but you're a man', and such stuff.

I am a human, and I would support the right of females to terminate pregnancies. In situations where their unborn foetus is seriously ill then their decision would certainly be supported and upheld.

I often debate on the other side of the issue in connection with aspects of this subject but I wholly support a 24-25 week law.

But I would always defend a woman's right to choose against, for instance, moralising extremists who would take control of this freedom.

QUESTION:
You are Prolife in-extremis..... if a woman contacted you, explained that her foetus would be seriously ill and disabled once born but was quite unable to shoulder the physical, financial and psychological burden of it's upbringing and future life, what help would you give her? Would you take on the upbringing of the baby and its care for life as a duty motivated by your opinion and belief about Prolife?

History for clubfoot treatment was to commit a surgery to shorten the tendon, but many hospitals have adopted a more effective non-operative treatment, casting the foot incrementally(easy, non-expensive)

Answer: If the birth of the unborn baby will cause the death of the mother, then ethically plausible to terminate the birth. But if the mother is able to go ahead and give birth its not on me or the mother's decision to terminate. If she feels really bad not caring for the baby, she shouldn't kill him/her but can give the baby away for adoption or to an orphanage. But remind me, what kind of mother would throw her baby away. If any women cannot possibly take responsibility after having sex then she should practice celibacy.

 

[leibowde84]

There is some legal precedent for giving up one's bodily autonomy to benefit others, ie, the military draft. It differs in that autonomy is given up for society in general (rather than for a specific individual), but is even worse that mental autonomy is also sacrificed. Note that while the draft isn't currently operating, young males must still register for it under penalty of legal & other sanctions.

In those circumstances, of which there are more than a few, there is always a contract involved, whether it be social, symbolic or in the form of a writing. And there is always a way out ... for your example, you can avoid military service with jail time.

 

[leibowde84]

The state/government should stay out of legislating anything having to do with a woman's reproductive rights. That's between her and her doctor. Having said that, society can come up with all kinds of fancy legal jargon, but at the end of the day...,abortion hurts women more than it helps.

It should remain legal, but changing laws to further absolve people from sexual responsibility isn't helping helping women or society. At the end of the day, you will still have to live with the decisions you make and my friends who've had abortions say a day doesn't go by when they question their decision.

I don't morally judge anyone in these cases but what I am saying is that we need to stop making abortion a legal issue because it distorts what's at stake, and sells a bill of goods to a woman faced with such a decision.

Women should not be singled out for the infringement of Bodily autonomy for the sole reason that they happen to be the gender that can get pregnant ... imho.

 

[leibowde84]

I believe that any benevolent God would give one pure revelation instead of hiding Easter eggs of truth in mountains of man made garbage. That is not to say that other faiths do not contain but I don't think they contain revelation. The Christian doctrine is that revelation was 100% pure but copying has left us with modern bibles that are about 95% accurate. I can give you the whole argument with numbers and equations if you want but even Bart Ehrman agrees. I in fact I use his error rates to avoid contention. Our faiths would be a little different in that mine contains yours so there is no discrepancy. Most faiths at their core are contradictory with each other in claims to exclusive truth and so all but at most one can be true (meaning God's intended revelation, not that they get math wrong).


Yes, Pantheism to me is strange. To say everything is God and God is everything adds nothing to either one. It's a meaningless tautology. I think that strange for a religion. Hinduism is strange because re-incarnation defeats the purpose of re-incarnation. Baha'i is strange in that they claim all religions are true and to make them all true they distort them all into unrecognizable forms.

We can agree to disagree, but I think it only takes one look at the middle east to realize that view is misguided.

 

[leibowde84]

Apparently God can't spell since there are so many spelling and grammatical errors in John's gospel alone. My point being is that we're dealing with books written by humans to other humans, and the issue of "divine inspiration" is much more of a question than an answer.

However, I am in no way denigrating the Bible for it certainly has major value.

I will never get my head around rational adults not realizing this.

 

[Revoltingest]

In those circumstances, of which there are more than a few, there is always a contract involved, whether it be social, symbolic or in the form of a writing. And there is always a way out ... for your example, you can avoid military service with jail time.

Who signed a "social" or other contract binding them to compulsory military service if they get a low lottery number? No one. I know I didn't. So this is really just government saying....."Here is what we will force you to do, & you will do it because we call it a social contract. You're doing it of your own free will....or you'll freely choose go to prison for many years." Some "way out", eh?

 

[leibowde84]

Who signed a "social contract" to bind them to compulsory military service? No one. So this is really just government saying....."Here is what we will force you to do, & you will do it because it's the social contract. But you're doing it of your own free will....or you'll freely choose go to prison for many years." Some "way out", eh?

Citizenship is a social contract. It is what we enter into by living in this country. in this case no signature is required, as continued behavior constitutes acceptance. Continued behavior = continued living in a society.

 

[leibowde84]

Who signed a "social contract" to bind them to compulsory military service? No one. So this is really just government saying....."Here is what we will force you to do, & you will do it because it's the social contract. But you're doing it of your own free will....or you'll freely choose go to prison for many years." Some "way out", eh?

You are trying to back out on your obligation. The draft is still legal.

 

[Revoltingest]

Citizenship is a social contract. It is what we enter into by living in this country. in this case no signature is required, as continued behavior constitutes acceptance. Continued behavior = continued living in a society.

Is this contract written down somewhere, or is it made up ad hoc? Is there any limit to what government can demand of us in exchange for living here?

 

[Revoltingest]

You are trying to back out on your obligation. The draft is still legal.

I deny that an obligation I never agreed to is binding upon me. What part of the Constitution authorizes involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime? Surely, if this authority exists, the Constitution must state so. But if it is there somewhere, why doesn't the equal protection clause apply....you know...cuz only healthy heterosexual non-clergy males around 20 with low draft lottery numbers had the obligation to kill & die for everyone else?

 

[leibowde84]

Is this contract written down somewhere, or is it made up ad hoc? Is there any limit to what government can demand of us in exchange for living here?

It is in fact written in case law, yes. And, as I said before, contracts do not have to be written down.

 

[leibowde84]

I deny that an obligation I never agreed to is binding upon me. What part of the Constitution authorizes involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime? But if it is there somewhere, why doesn't the equal protection clause apply....you know...cuz only healthy heterosexual non-clergy males around 20 with low draft lottery numbers had the obligation to kill & die for everyone else?

You agreed to it by continuing to enjoy the benefits of living here, knowing that this was an obligation. Unless you are under 18, you are free to emigrate.

 

[leibowde84]

I deny that an obligation I never agreed to is binding upon me. What part of the Constitution authorizes involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime? But if it is there somewhere, why doesn't the equal protection clause apply....you know...cuz only healthy heterosexual non-clergy males around 20 with low draft lottery numbers had the obligation to kill & die for everyone else?

It is the same social contracts that requires you to live under US Law and gives police officers authority.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is in fact written in case law, yes. And, as I said before, contracts do not have to be written down.

Case law is not a contract....it is government deciding what its own powers are. Tis a matter of basic law that a contract has 4 essential elements:
- Offer
- Acceptance
- Legal intent
- Consideration
Let's consider these elements:
- Offer: One was never made. Government merely imposes things upon the few males who shoulder the entire burden of military service.
- Accpetance: Draftees accept nothing....they are merely notified that they must report & serve under threat of prosecution & prison.
- Legal intent: There is no article in the Constitution authorizing imposition of involuntary servitude upon citizens not convicted of a crime.
- Consideration: Inductees are paid, but the wages are less than minimum wage.

We have one element of the required 4. No court in the land would rule that is a contract.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is the same social contracts that requires you to live under US Law and gives police officers authority.

Cops execute innocent citizens with impunity. Is this part of the social contract? How would we know if no one has a copy of it? Anyway, could you cite this law which simultaneously gives police powers to the state & also the power to draft men into the military? I have a copy of the Constitution right here, & I just can't seem to find anything enabling government to do this.

 

[Revoltingest]

You agreed to it by continuing to enjoy the benefits of living here, knowing that this was an obligation.

I never signed or otherwise assented to any such agreement. Nor was this agreement made known to me when the draft was on.

Unless you are under 18, you are free to emigrate.

So you propose that government can do anything it pleases (as stated in this unwritten contract) to any of us....& our singular remedy is to leave the country? This would apply to reproductive rights, the right to marry whom we please, the right to blow the whistle on illegal government activities?

Edit: It occurs to me that I refused your contract by my decades of voting for Libertarian candidates, who stand against the draft. By action I also refuted it....I refused to submit to the draft physical.

 

[leibowde84]

Case law is not a contract....it is government deciding what its own powers are. Tis a matter of basic law that a contract has 4 essential elements:
- Offer
- Acceptance
- Legal intent
- Consideration
Let's consider these elements:
- Offer: One was never made. Government merely imposes things upon the few males who shoulder the entire burden of military service.
- Accpetance: Draftees accept nothing....they are merely notified that they must report & serve under threat of prosecution & prison.
- Legal intent: There is no article in the Constitution authorizing imposition of involuntary servitude upon citizens not convicted of a crime.
- Consideration: Inductees are paid, but the wages are less than minimum wage.

We have one element of the required 4. No court in the land would rule that is a contract.

There have been many courts that have decided that the social contract between citizen and government is valid and enfoceable, inluding the SCOTUS. Read the following and you will understand better, I think. But, this is settled law, and this explaains how all 4 elements are satisfied, and the necessity of recognizing this contract. Page 35 explains it rather well.

You are welcome to disagree with the opinions of the Jusitices, but that would merely be your opinion, as you have no authority to disobey the judicial system.

http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cg...M=IE8SRC#search="social contract case law us"

 

[leibowde84]

I never signed or otherwise assented to any such agreement. Nor was this agreement made known to me when the draft was on.

So you propose that government can do anything it pleases (as stated in this unwritten contract) to any of us....& our singular remedy is to leave the country? This would apply to reproductive rights, the right to marry whom we please, the right to blow the whistle on illegal government activities?

Edit: It occurs to me that I refused your contract by my decades of voting for Libertarian candidates, who stand against the draft. By action I also refuted it....I refused to submit to the draft physical.

I never said that the Government can do whatever they want. We have rights enumerated in the Constitution, which is our safeguard against unjust governmental action. Like any contract, both sides are limited. Please do not put words in my mouth, as I never once said that the government could do "whatever they want."