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

[viole]

About 20 years or so, I remember reading an article written by a Christian missionary that said that maybe 2/3 of all the people living in China could not even give the most basic information about Jesus.

Lucky them.

They cannot possibly deny Him.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

As far as bodily autonomy goes, we're fortunate to have few differences in our rights. Off hand, I can't think of any more significant others. Most rights apply to all genders. (Like my use of "all" instead of "both"? It makes me look really progressive.)
I agree that a reinstated draft would likely affect women too, but it wouldn't be easy. Initially, only men would be drafted for several reasons:
- Men are the only ones registering for it.
- The military isn't ready for a massive influx of women.
- Society still confers the privilege of being too dainty to kill & be killed.
- Drafting women would be more disruptive of families.
- Think men object to being drafted? Just wait til women are drafted...<shudder> <shudder>.

Still, since that is merely speculation, I do not think it is a valid example. It doesn't provide us with any substance to add to this discussion. So, without any other examples, why do you think that pregnancy is the only time that this infringement of rights can take place, and how is it OK that it only effects women?

 

[1robin]

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.

God did not copy the book of John. God guaranteed pure and perfect revelation, not copying. The bibles we have contain errors. However even using the highest range of errors from even the bibles critics which is about 400,000 over the entire textual tradition we wind up with about one meaningful every three pages, 95% accuracy over all, and almost perfect accuracy in core doctrine. As far as textual integrity between extant copies and modern bibles this is not a theory. It is cold hard math and is has little room for debate. However if I claim something about textual veracity I get a complaint about knowing the originals, if I go through how we can have a reliable idea about the originals, I get complaints about historical issues. Lets take it one thing at a time. I also have only studied the NT accuracy and only have general ideas about the OT.

1. So my claim is the textual accuracy between some average mean dating of our oldest manuscripts is about 95% compared with modern bibles, and since virtually all mistakes are known and indicated in modern bibles even the errors are meaningless.
2. My claim about knowing the originals is not something I have any hard percentages on but I gave you some of the tests or methodologies by which scholars go about it and the NT and most of the OT pass with flying colors. However I don't know what grade exactly to apply to it. WE also have the Holy Spirit which guides into all truth and I have not found a spiritual conflict with core Christian doctrine but this is a personal issue not available for testing.
3. As far as it's historical accuracy, the fact that it is a primary source for secular archeology and has embarrassed critics since the conflict began it speaks for it's self. Almost every day new evidence confirming the bible surfaces. However errors do exist. A major one is OT writers getting orders of magnitude wrong.
4. As far as inspiration goes I only have God's promise to reveal his word perfectly and I have no evidence to deny it. That does not apply to copying.

If you disagree please pick only one and why? It is a complex subject and I can't handle effectively more than one.

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

Let me ask you this. I gather from your claims that you simply assign a lower value for it's accuracy than I and scholars like Ehrman and White have. How are you determining this? You can do this with software and get hard numbers, I know what they are. What are you looking at to get differing numbers? Let me remind you again my numbers are solid for the NT, I am not as confident for the OT. The habit the Hebrews had of destroying old copies is problematic for the OT.

 

[metis]

Let me first back up and restate my claims. The NT textual accuracy is between 95% and 99.5% depending on who you ask. The book of Isaiah in modern bibles compared with the DSS is at least 95%.

A mathematician should well know that it is virtually impossible to come up with Amount A being 95% accurate as compared to Amount B unless one knows exactly what Amount B is. Since we have no originals, and since we have no clue if earlier scribes were as careful as later scribes, the figure is nonsensical.

We have much the same problem with the "N.T.", although granted not as much as we do with the "O.T.", in that we have no originals, plus what's missing is where the synoptic gospels were derived from, along with the questionable authorship of some of the other books. There's various theories but no convincing evidence.

All I know of Spinoza's God is casual references made by Hitchens's about him. That is not enough to judge the concept on. Einstein was so self contradictory and inconsistent I just don't take his theology seriously at all. I did not say the Baha'i claim all religions are equal. They claim they are all true. Re-incarnation does defeat it's own purpose, and your claiming it doesn't does not change that

Actually Einstein wasn't contradictory as much as he was quite vague. He sorta played a fine line between making it clear he didn't buy the Abrahamic concepts of God, and some have speculated that his reference to "God" was just a cloaked reference to the laws of physics. Probably the closest we have to a more specific reference is when he hypothesized that God may be "the energy of creation" itself.

Could you please explain why you believe reincarnation defeats its own purpose?

Also, I have to go out and do my walk, so I'll be gone for an hour or so, but I definitely want to mention some things about your "strange religions" comments on some previous posts.

 

[Revoltingest]

Still, since that is merely speculation, I do not think it is a valid example.

Well, spluh! Tis intended to be speculation, not an example of anything.

It doesn't provide us with any substance to add to this discussion.

It adds digression

So, without any other examples, why do you think that pregnancy is the only time that this infringement of rights can take place...

That isn't what I said at all. The point is that pregnancy directly affects women's bodies, but not men's.....at least with current technology.

 

[viole]

I sorta wrote in tongue-in-cheek. Oh, wait a minute-- no I'll not expand on that.

Anyhow, on a more serious note, if the woman has orgasms, thus enjoying the sex act more than if she didn't, then she would more likely want to engage in sex, which increases the chances of pregnancy, which in the "olden days" would be an advantage to most bands.

In anthropology, we sometimes use the term "cultural selection", namely those items that are selected for that may not have that much directly to do with natural selection but for whatever reason got selected for anyway. Human female breasts, for example, tend to remain full even when not lactating, whereas the ape line's females' the breasts tend to deflate, much like the Patriots' footballs. Even though the fuller breasts aren't likely to affect survivability, nevertheless they got preferred over the deflated ones.

I am not sure what a Patriot's football is. Did you use footballs during the independence war?

Well, it could be. Who knows? But I am thrilled that it is the case.

It coukd also be that we inherited that from the split. Like men nipples, so to speak. They look very funny, lol. Sorry

I think that human sexuality and sexual morality, or ethics, ultimately derives from a simple fact that is not shared by other apes: we women do not give visual signs when we are fertile. That is a huge game changer, that ultimately explains why we valued virginity and other traditional family values.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

Well, spluh! Tis intended to be speculation, not an example of anything.

It adds digression

That isn't what I said at all. The point is that pregnancy directly affects women's bodies, but not men's.....at least with current technology.

Right, so how can you rectify the legal issue?

 

[metis]

4. As far as inspiration goes I only have God's promise to reveal his word perfectly and I have no evidence to deny it. That does not apply to copying.

Sorry but perfectly is perfectly, so if there's errors of any type, it ain't perfect.

Let me ask you this. I gather from your claims that you simply assign a lower value for it's accuracy than I and scholars like Ehrman and White have. How are you determining this?

I did not assign a "lower value" as I didn't assign any value at all. What I've consistently been saying is that we simply cannot determine what the percent or fraction may be because of insufficient evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right, so how can you rectify the legal issue?

I only complain about big problems....I don't solve them. I vote Libertarian, which I hope might help, but I don't have unrealistic expectations.

 

[metis]

I am not sure what a Patriot's football is. Did you use footballs during the independence war?

Well, it could be. Who knows? But I am thrilled that it is the case.

It coukd also be that we inherited that from the split. Like men nipples, so to speak. They look very funny, lol. Sorry

I think that human sexuality and sexual morality, or ethics, ultimately derives from a simple fact that is not shared by other apes: we women do not give visual signs when we are fertile. That is a huge game changer, that ultimately explains why we valued virginity and other traditional family values.

Ciao

- viole

The "Patriots" reference is because of a scandal involving the New England Patriots, which are playing in this Sunday's Super Bowl, and balls that were partially deflated in their last game, which is a violation of rules.

There's no doubt differences between us and the apes, some can be accounted for, but some are much more difficult and still having us scratching our heads. The fact that most humans somewhere along the line preferred monogamy does indeed seem to indicate that a reduction in in-fighting was important, and that's probably because of the need to more emphasize cooperation for hunting, although we can't be certain of that. Some human groups were and are polygamous, so it seems to be less genetic and more culturally determined.

 

[viole]

The "Patriots" reference is because of a scandal involving the New England Patriots, which are playing in this Sunday's Super Bowl, and balls that were partially deflated in their last game, which is a violation of rules.

There's no doubt differences between us and the apes, some can be accounted for, but some are much more difficult and still having us scratching our heads. The fact that most humans somewhere along the line preferred monogamy does indeed seem to indicate that a reduction in in-fighting was important, and that's probably because of the need to more emphasize cooperation for hunting, although we can't be certain of that. Some human groups were and are polygamous, so it seems to be less genetic and more culturally determined.

Why do you say: between us and the apes? We are apes.

By the way, there are apes that are much more monogamous than we are. I doubt the conservative Christians will ever use them as a logo, though.

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

Why do you say: between us and the apes? We are apes.

By the way, there are apes that are much more monogamous than we are. I doubt the conservtive Christians will ever use them as a logo, though.

Ciao

- viole

Ah, "The Naked Ape" (Desmond Morris)-- the book that first made me interested in pursuing a career in anthropology.

BTW, this also explains why I was in gymnastics both in high school and college.

 

[viole]

Ah, "The Naked Ape" (Desmond Morris)-- the book that first made me interested in pursuing a career in anthropology.

BTW, this also explains why I was in gymnastics both in high school and college.

Sure. Alas, that does not explain why I hate sport, that goes beyond driving a sport car, so much, lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

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

I don't understand what you mean. The middle east is a mess because Islam is a mess. I don't know what that has to do with biblical textual accuracy. If you look at all the criteria that I listed for what is necessary for the originals to be known even if only copies exist. The Quran fails them all and the bible passes them all. The only place in the middle east that is not a mess is the one place that holds the bible as the most sacred text.

 

[1robin]

How was the Final Solution "consistent with evolution," a non-personified scientific theory/observation?

Evolution selects the strong at the expense of the weak. Hitler at least sincerely believed he was doing the same. The only difference is that evolution gave Hitler a more capable brain than a bear or a jackal so he had the capacity to do what nature does at an extremely accelerated pace.

 

[1robin]

I only said that because using the Bible to prove that things stated in the Bible are true is the very definition of circular logic, and, in actually, does nothing but waste time. It does not support your argument at all, so I did not want to waste time with arguments that do not get us anywhere.

Can you quote anything I have ever said that claimed anything was rue because the bible said it was true? You cannot exclude the bible anymore than you can use it in a circular fashion.

 

[1robin]

And, I'm not trying to be hostile. I just find it incredibly important to question assumptions related to Scripture so that we continue our progress of understanding it.

Your not questioning it, your contradicting it. It is the book subjected to more scrutiny than any other, after 2000 years what it says is well established. It is only a matter of agreeing with it or as you have, assuming it is wrong pre-emptively. I don't see an inquiring mind here, I see one in enmity towards the core doctrines of a faith. That is not sarcasm, it is an intellectual deduction.

 

[leibowde84]

I only complain about big problems....I don't solve them. I vote Libertarian, which I hope might help, but I don't have unrealistic expectations.

Certainly fair enough.

 

[1robin]

Mote the two parts of your post that I underlined as they are the polar opposites of one another because you didn't state exactly what you mean by "Morality" in the latter item and how it supposedly differs from "objective morality". However, I do believe I know what you mean.

I disagree. I said when I say morality I mean a specific thing. The reason I clarified that is because in general (IOW not I) the word is thrown around in so many places it no longer means anything.
It is pliable in general conversations, that is why I specified in what way I mean it. That is perfectly satisfactory. I see no conflict. In fact they resolve conflict or at least misunderstanding.

Biblical morality is not objective but subjective. What is much more objective is what we are genetically predisposed to do, even if there are always going to be some who deviate from those norms for whatever reason.

The bible is no the source of a single moral. God is. If God exists his morality is objective. There have been libraries worth of books that clearly spell this out as a necessity. If God's morality is not objective the term no longer has any meaning.

 

[Revoltingest]

Certainly fair enough.

Wish I could do more.