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

[MysticSang'ha]

Well this thread certainly went on quite a tangent, didn't it?

 

[1robin]

You are mean. And I mean mean. Or is it: your mean?

Actually you being from another country I always think you are using words foreign to me. I thought maybe peaky meant something. Apparently you merely as grammatically impotent as I but unlike me your sensitive about it. I have a peculiar habit of misspelling the word I want to type but properly spelling another meaningless word which spellcheck does not of course indicate. I have never figured out why I have such skill at being that unskillful.

Of course I am a determinist. And I mean everything is deterministic, including quantum mechanics.

But the subject of free will has moral relevance. So, if you can prove, as you claim, that is exists (pending a precise definition of what you mean with free), I am all ears. Or eyes, to be precise.

What have you got?

Ciao

- viole

I am shocked and chagrined. So let me make sure your a true determinist. You believe all events are completely determined by initial conditions? IOW your not a compatibilist, you are actually a hard line determinist? Once you confirm your position then I will annihilate it.

 

[1robin]

Well this thread certainly went on quite a tangent, didn't it?

Apparently the thread has more autonomy than the women it was about?

 

[1robin]

We aren't discussing the Bible in this context. You are questioning my classification as a Christian. Many terms have changed quite a bit since the time the Bible was written, as we have a much greater understanding of the world we live in and the religions we follow. Christianity has changed tremendously since the Bible was written and even in the past 100 years, so it seem foolish to use anything but the definition of the term in use today.

By the way, I feel the same way about you. I have thought about your criticism toward me quite a bit, and a meaningful quote came to mind. It is a clear indication that one's argument lacks strength when one, instead of refuting an argument, attacks personal aspects of the other's character and claims assumptions as certain (even if it's just to you). And, I am not saying that there aren't valid arguments in support of your beliefs. I am merely saying that you have not articulated any of them well. But, again, that is just my opinion. But, I would kindly ask you to not make assumptions about me based on my comments on one site, as it has the opposite effect than what you intend.

Ok, let me give you one more out before I really start getting into this in full. I tried to drop this subject because it is personal. If you still want to discuss it I am going to be far more emphatic and direct. Are you sure you want to carry on with this issue? It is vital but I am not an evangelist. I personally don't like to challenge what a person wants to believe about their own Christian faith but if you want to call down the thunder, so be it.

 

[leibowde84]

Ok, so now the issue is which one is more likely true, correct?

The issue has always been which theory is more reasonable.

 

[leibowde84]

Ok, let me give you one more out before I really start getting into this in full. I tried to drop this subject because it is personal. If you still want to discuss it I am going to be far more emphatic and direct. Are you sure you want to carry on with this issue? It is vital but I am not an evangelist. I personally don't like to challenge what a person wants to believe about their own Christian faith but if you want to call down the thunder, so be it.

I'm fine with it, but it doesn't need to be personal if you have the capability of attacking ideas instead of the people who hold them. But, my main issue is why you feel that you have the authority to make any kind of judgment of my Christianess, when you have never met me, do not know my religious habits, do not know my background, and, finally, have no authority on what God/Jesus considers a good Christian. You might interpret the Bible's authority differently than I do, but you are in no position to say that you are right, as I am in no position to say that you are wrong. That is my only issue with this.

 

[1robin]

The issue has always been which theory is more reasonable.

Reasonable in what way?

 

[viole]

Apparently you merely as grammatically impotent as I but unlike me your sensitive about it.

My I? Lol.

I am shocked and chagrined. So let me make sure your a true determinist. You believe all events are completely determined by initial conditions? IOW your not a compatibilist, you are actually a hard line determinist? Once you confirm your position then I will annihilate it.

Yes. Annihilate me.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

I'm fine with it, but it doesn't need to be personal if you have the capability of attacking ideas instead of the people who hold them. But, my main issue is why you feel that you have the authority to make any kind of judgment of my Christianess, when you have never met me, do not know my religious habits, do not know my background, and, finally, have no authority on what God/Jesus considers a good Christian. You might interpret the Bible's authority differently than I do, but you are in no position to say that you are right, as I am in no position to say that you are wrong. That is my only issue with this.

1. Ok, but I am going to get some lunch before we begin this. Maybe you can start a one on one thread for this issue if you want.
2. I have not attacked a person. I have went out of my way to say I am not making a moral conclusion. I am making a theological comparison.
3. I do not have the authority to make you one thing or the other, but I do have the criteria given by Christ himself and those he commissioned.
4. I can only say what Christ in al likelihood said was what makes one a Christian, your the one who either has obeyed his criteria or not. I have no capacity to make it one way or the other.
5. I can't say you are objectively wrong about what you believe, but I can say that what you believe counters mainstream doctrine and biblical criticism developed by the best minds (and mountains of them) over the lest 2000 years.

Maybe a better angle on this is which doctrinal and biblical textual beliefs have the best justifications. I can show your out of step with the evidence, I can't show to a certainty that makes you objectively wrong. Theological claims and historical events are not argued to certainties but to probabilities.

 

[leibowde84]

Reasonable in what way?

Reasonable = "Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking." In other words, which explanation/theory is in accordance with what we have seen in the natural world. Basically, theories are reasonable when previously attained knowledge is used to support them.

 

[leibowde84]

1. Ok, but I am going to get some lunch before we begin this. Maybe you can start a one on one thread for this issue if you want.
2. I have not attacked a person. I have went out of my way to say I am not making a moral conclusion. I am making a theological comparison.
3. I do not have the authority to make you one thing or the other, but I do have the criteria given by Christ himself and those he commissioned.
4. I can only say what Christ in al likelihood said was what makes one a Christian, your the one who either has obeyed his criteria or not. I have no capacity to make it one way or the other.
5. I can't say you are objectively wrong about what you believe, but I can say that what you believe counters mainstream doctrine and biblical criticism developed by the best minds (and mountains of them) over the lest 2000 years.

Maybe a better angle on this is which doctrinal and biblical textual beliefs have the best justifications. I can show your out of step with the evidence, I can't show to a certainty that makes you objectively wrong. Theological claims and historical events are not argued to certainties but to probabilities.

You are assuming that this aspect of Christ's teaching was accurately portrayed in the Gospels. I disagree, as the founders of the Church had a major interest in making sure that joining their Church was a requirement for salvation. All I am saying is that taking the Bible as it is seems to be a sure way to miss the point. God gave us reason to be able to figure out ourselves what the messasge of Christ was.

1. Why would God care if we worshiped him?
2. Are we supposed to follow the Jewish Rules as Mark said, or was there a new covenant, as Paul stated?
3. Is belief in Jesus necessary for salvation, or can it be achieved through living your lilfe like Jesus did.
4. Jesus was very adamant about socialism, or its equivalent. He ordered on several occassions to give up all your posessions, and there are lines in the Gospels about taking in all posessions of the members of the Church, and distributing them evenly. Was Jesus against personal property?

These are just a few questions I have that cannot be answered by scripture alone. I have to think about my understanding of God and what would make sense, following that reasoning. I do not rely on writers living thousands of years ago. I understand a lot more than they did then, so why should I be limited to that?

 

[1robin]

My I? Lol.

What? Did I make a grammatical mistake in the statement where I was saying I am grammatically flawed?

Yes. Annihilate me.

Ciao

- viole

Ok, so initial (unintentional) conditions created every event in history. So how do all those unintentional forces produce in my mind a goal (which it does not care about in the least, it is even unlikely that unintentionally would produce rational thought but anyway), and the same string of unintentional and events without any goal in mind allow me (or compel me) to satisfy that goal. IOW if atoms bouncing around could even produce a thought like "I need to go to Wal-Mart" what is the probability the same aimless process would also align up in the millions of ways that would allow me to then go to Wal-Mart? The chain of events does not actually want to do anything. It might as well produce the desire to go to the bathroom then tell me to crawl in the doghouse or build a ray gun, next. Now the probability must be extremely small it would ever do that but I guess it could eventually happen, but what it cannot possibly do is to do so as often as it does. Random events are not going to constantly give us desires and then line up to actualize them because it does not care about the desires it produces. It also would not allow us to efficiently seek and find truth. We live in a world of intent yet you say we got it from non-intent. Determinism is just not justifiable to explain gratified will. Anyway this is a start.

 

[1robin]

Reasonable = "Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking." In other words, which explanation/theory is in accordance with what we have seen in the natural world. Basically, theories are reasonable when previously attained knowledge is used to support them.

I know what the word means, I wanted to know what your applying it to. Do you mean subjective morality alone as being the only moral source is more reasonable than objective morality existing?

 

[metis]

Even if it contradict monotheism or any of the other big requirements of the OT?

My limited response here is just on the questions you posed, not on any opinion you posted.

To the above, if one believes in God and follows the basic Golden Rule, the other Laws are not important for a gentile. Some say that only the Noachide Laws (Laws prior to the giving of the Law on Sinai) need to be followed, but most people probably try to follow the Golden Rule, so that should be sufficient.

As far as polytheists, agnostics, and atheists, this is not for us to decide in regards to how God may look at people who take either approach, especially since the Law strongly emphasizes action over politically-correct beliefs.

Do you get some reward for having hundreds of laws to obey that others don't?

No. The Law is considered a burden, but one that has helped us to teach us what we need to do that is moral for us to follow.

Agreed but why would a false prophet teach OT truth?

Because Jesus was Jewish operating mostly out of a Jewish paradigm. Now, whether Jesus ever proclaimed himself to be a prophet, or whether that was sort of put into his mouth by a "N.T." author, is conjectural even amongst some Christian theologians. However, a statement like this drives the literalists up the wall.

 

[viole]

What? Did I make a grammatical mistake in the statement where I was saying I am grammatically flawed?

I am afraid, yes. You said "your sensitive", instead of "you're sensitive" so I felt free to say "my I?" instead of "am I?". Why not?

Ok, so initial (unintentional) conditions created every event in history. So how do all those unintentional forces produce in my mind a goal (which it does not care about in the least, it is even unlikely that unintentionally would produce rational thought but anyway), and the same string of unintentional and events without any goal in mind allow me (or compel me) to satisfy that goal. IOW if atoms bouncing around could even produce a thought like "I need to go to Wal-Mart" what is the probability the same aimless process would also align up in the millions of ways that would allow me to then go to Wal-Mart? The chain of events does not actually want to do anything. It might as well produce the desire to go to the bathroom then tell me to crawl in the doghouse or build a ray gun, next. Now the probability must be extremely small it would ever do that but I guess it could eventually happen, but what it cannot possibly do is to do so as often as it does. Random events are not going to constantly give us desires and then line up to actualize them because it does not care about the desires it produces. It also would not allow us to efficiently seek and find truth. We live in a world of intent yet you say we got it from non-intent. Determinism is just not justifiable to explain gratified will. Anyway this is a start.

Laterz, must run.

Just a little question, before I address the rest: what caused your decision to go to Wal-Mart, in your opinion?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nietzsche]

Ok, so initial (unintentional) conditions created every event in history. So how do all those unintentional forces produce in my mind a goal (which it does not care about in the least, it is even unlikely that unintentionally would produce rational thought but anyway), and the same string of unintentional and events without any goal in mind allow me (or compel me) to satisfy that goal. IOW if atoms bouncing around could even produce a thought like "I need to go to Wal-Mart" what is the probability the same aimless process would also align up in the millions of ways that would allow me to then go to Wal-Mart? The chain of events does not actually want to do anything. It might as well produce the desire to go to the bathroom then tell me to crawl in the doghouse or build a ray gun, next. Now the probability must be extremely small it would ever do that but I guess it could eventually happen, but what it cannot possibly do is to do so as often as it does. Random events are not going to constantly give us desires and then line up to actualize them because it does not care about the desires it produces. It also would not allow us to efficiently seek and find truth. We live in a world of intent yet you say we got it from non-intent. Determinism is just not justifiable to explain gratified will. Anyway this is a start.

I think you're looking at this too shortsightedly. If you start the "process" at the beginning of the universe, there is plenty of time for all these factors to build up and then start reaching crescendo.

 

[1robin]

My limited response here is just on the questions you posed, not on any opinion you posted.

To the above, if one believes in God and follows the basic Golden Rule, the other Laws are not important for a gentile. Some say that only the Noachide Laws (Laws prior to the giving of the Law on Sinai) need to be followed, but most people probably try to follow the Golden Rule, so that should be sufficient.

As far as polytheists, agnostics, and atheists, this is not for us to decide in regards to how God may look at people who take either approach, especially since the Law strongly emphasizes action over politically-correct beliefs.

Well I am surprised by this but very well.

No. The Law is considered a burden, but one that has helped us to teach us what we need to do that is moral for us to follow.

You said the Jews have the burden of the Mosaic law. Usually burdens come with rectifying factors. Either a great reward, or the burden is actually an advantage. Here it just seems incidental.

Because Jesus was Jewish operating mostly out of a Jewish paradigm. Now, whether Jesus ever proclaimed himself to be a prophet, or whether that was sort of put into his mouth by a "N.T." author, is conjectural even amongst some Christian theologians. However, a statement like this drives the literalists up the wall.

I am trying my best not to open a debate on any of these issues but it is hard to not do so. Anyway appreciate the information.

 

[leibowde84]

I know what the word means, I wanted to know what your applying it to. Do you mean subjective morality alone as being the only moral source is more reasonable than objective morality existing?

Sorry for the confusion. Here is the questions:

Which of the following is a more reasonable (or likely) explanation for the development of what we consider to be objective morality? Is our notion (which is all we have to go on in this case) that there actually is a "right" and "wrong," objectively, better explained by societal evolultion or a supernatural source. Which explanation is more reasonable?

 

[1robin]

I am afraid, yes. You said "your sensitive", instead of "you're sensitive" so I felt free to say "my I?" instead of "am I?". Why not?

No argument here. I am a grammatical train wreck. Of course grammar is subjective.

Laterz, must run.

Just a little question, before I address the rest: what caused your decision to go to Wal-Mart, in your opinion?

Ciao

- viole

Rootin tootin Rasputin!!! I go to all that trouble and initial conditions forced you to bail out. I hope you get caused to come back.

My value judgments caused my to want to go to Wal-Mart. Maybe I want to see a Kurosawa movie. It is not that determinism could not account for my desire, it is that determinism does not want to gratify my desire. It has no interest in letting me watch the 7 samurai what so ever. It was just as likely to make me jump in the dryer and turn it on next, as go get a movie.

 

[1robin]

I think you're looking at this too shortsightedly. If you start the "process" at the beginning of the universe, there is plenty of time for all these factors to build up and then start reaching crescendo.

Time is not the issue. Intent is.