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

[leibowde84]

Soooo....

Pregnancy? Bodily autonomy?

C'mon. Y'all are trying to argue over the validity of the bible as being relevant to the topic?

That leaves non-Christians out of the debate. Since this is not in the same faith debates section, can we move way from this tangent and get back on topic please? Or at least start a new thread?

Good point, buddy. The Bible should not be considered as a source for this topic, as it is a legal question.

 

[averageJOE]

Soooo....

Pregnancy? Bodily autonomy?

C'mon. Y'all are trying to argue over the validity of the bible as being relevant to the topic?

That leaves non-Christians out of the debate. Since this is not in the same faith debates section, can we move way from this tangent and get back on topic please? Or at least start a new thread?

No kidding. When I was trying to read some of the posts I thought I was in a different section all together.

 

[1robin]

By Church teachings, I did not mean the Bible. I mean interpretations of what is written in the Bible. We are tasked to "read between the lines" to get the real message. Some examples are:

1. interracial marriage
2. interreligious marriage
3. divorce
4. whether Christians should follow Jewish tradition
5. whether Slavery is OK'd in the Bible
6. ignore "eye for an eye"
7. preachers/ministers allowed to marry
8. Christianity for jews or gentiles
9. Is the eucharist actually the body and blood, or is it merely symbolic

Something has gone terribly wrong here, I think I agree with all of this.

However our former discussions have not been about second tier moral principles or covenant application but about clear and emphatic point blank commands and descriptions. Nothing of what makes the issues above open for debate makes what Christ's demand that we be born again open for debate (with the exception of covenants, but Christians grant the same covenant claims so it is not an issue either between Christians).

 

[leibowde84]

Something has gone terribly wrong here, I think I agree with all of this.

However our former discussions have not been about second tier moral principles or covenant application but about clear and emphatic point blank commands and descriptions. Nothing of what makes the issues above open for debate makes what Christ's demand that we be born again open for debate (with the exception of covenants, but Christians grant the same covenant claims so it is not an issue either between Christians).

Part of reading between the lines is deciphering what was added to the scriptures for unjust purposes, and what was actually a good presentation of the will of God. I understand that you might not think this is necessary, or it possible that God would allow this, but, imho, this is not only probable, but unavoidable.

 

[1robin]

My posiition is very simple:

If two brains are in the exact same physical state and subject to the exact same physical input, then they will have exactly the same desires and pursue them in the same exact way with the same exact success. This is what I mean with determinism and its relevance towards "free will". I set the initial conditions and check whether there are more solutions from it. If there are not, then determinism is not defeated. I am still waiting for annihiltion of this simple gedanken experiment.

That is not an experiment, it is a declaration. I don't even think anyone ever can make this experiment nor do I think we could ever know we had even if we did. How would anyone ever know that the causal inputs for two brains were identical?

This discussion has gone like this so far.

1. You said determinism is true.
2. I said it was not and could show it was not.
3. I gave one of billions of events that requires intent to explain apart from any causal chain alone.
4. Then the discussion ripped a worm hole in the fabric of the thread and you have asked my why I wanted to go to Wal-mart, addressed ever single thing I said plus a few I did not except for the problem that determinism would not care to actualize a desire, and the whole train wreck has come to rest of a declaration claimed to be an experiment.
5. Is my simplistic argument about causal chains having no intention of gratifying desires conflicting with the fact we gratify them billions of times a day ever going to be reckoned with?

Whether the initial conditions derive from a random past (whatever that is), is not relevant. We are not aware of any annihilating arguments that prevent random bouncing atoms (sic) from creating things like the eye of a hawk or the Ebola virus, either, for evolution by natural selection does not seem to be annihilated by feet stomping theists, currently . Therefore, singling out desires and intentions from other characteristics of phenotypes (including the machine they have in their head) is wishful computing, question begging and not logically warranted.

Again I did not say the eye, evolution, or a virus was evidence against determinism. I can't make my actual argument any clearer. Determinism can explain why we have a desire, a plan, or a question, it cannot explain because it does not care if we ever gratified that desire, carried out that plan (plus the millions of other things that must be purposely actualized to complete the plan), or got an answer to any question. We live in a world full of intent and determinism does not have any. Since this is apparently not going to be acknowledged I will instead give some comic relief that at least mentions the subject.



And if great reasoners are often maniacal, it is equally true that maniacs are commonly great reasoners. When I was engaged in a controversy with the CLARION on the matter of free will, that able writer Mr. R.B.Suthers said that free will was lunacy, because it meant causeless actions, and the actions of a lunatic would be causeless. I do not dwell here upon the disastrous lapse in determinist logic. Obviously if any actions, even a lunatic's, can be causeless, determinism is done for. If the chain of causation can be broken for a madman, it can be broken for a man. But my purpose is to point out something more practical. It was natural, perhaps, that a modern Marxian Socialist should not know anything about free will. But it was certainly remarkable that a modern Marxian Socialist should not know anything about lunatics. Mr. Suthers evidently did not know anything about lunatics. The last thing that can be said of a lunatic is that his actions are causeless. If any human acts may loosely be called causeless, they are the minor acts of a healthy man; whistling as he walks; slashing the grass with a stick; kicking his heels or rubbing his hands. It is the happy man who does the useless things; the sick man is not strong enough to be idle. It is exactly such careless and causeless actions that the madman could never understand; for the madman (like the determinist) generally sees too much cause in everything. The madman would read a conspiratorial significance into those empty activities. He would think that the lopping of the grass was an attack on private property. He would think that the kicking of the heels was a signal to an accomplice.
If the madman could for an instant become careless, he would become sane. Every one who has had the misfortune to talk with people in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder, knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail; a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze. If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humor or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.


Title: Orthodoxy

Author: G. K. Chesterton

 

[1robin]

And, just to be clear, you always argue from one side, so there is no reason why you would have seen me argue from that side. That wouldn't be much of an argument.

That is true and that is what I would have expected. What I did not expect is a Christian to take the contending side of every fundamental Christian doctrine I mention.

 

[1robin]

Soooo....

Pregnancy? Bodily autonomy?

C'mon. Y'all are trying to argue over the validity of the bible as being relevant to the topic?

That leaves non-Christians out of the debate. Since this is not in the same faith debates section, can we move way from this tangent and get back on topic please? Or at least start a new thread?

I will ask you a question. Are you on the side that women have this mystical autonomy over their body?

 

[1robin]

Part of reading between the lines is deciphering what was added to the scriptures for unjust purposes, and what was actually a good presentation of the will of God. I understand that you might not think this is necessary, or it possible that God would allow this, but, imho, this is not only probable, but unavoidable.

This is what we are going to eventually get to if we can ever move on to step two in the process. These kinds of thing are resolved by the process I had told you was going to be long and you agreed to pursue.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I will ask you a question. Are you on the side that women have this mystical autonomy over their body?

Hey, Mystic is my name. Bodily autonomy is my game.

 

[leibowde84]

That is true and that is what I would have expected. What I did not expect is a Christian to take the contending side of every fundamental Christian doctrine I mention.

I guess I disagree more with your reason for believing in it than the doctrine itself.

 

[1robin]

Hey, Mystic is my name. Bodily autonomy is my game.

I take that to be a yes. Ok where does a woman get this right to bodily autonomy from? No person and no atom in the universe possessed that right to dispense to anyone else. What is it's source?

 

[1robin]

I guess I disagree more with your reason for believing in it than the doctrine itself.

Which doctrine and what were my reasons for believing in it which you disagree with?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I take that to be a yes. Ok where does a woman get this right to bodily autonomy from? No person and no atom in the universe possessed that right to dispense to anyone else. What is it's source?

Irrelevant.

If my bodily security and autonomy as a woman is lessened compared to men simply because of a difference of a biological function, then by accordance with our constitutional rights, liberties, and protection, my autonomy is being infringed upon.

 

[1robin]

Irrelevant.

If my bodily security and autonomy as a woman is lessened compared to men simply because of a difference of a biological function, then by accordance with our constitutional rights, liberties, and protection, my autonomy is being infringed upon.

Hold the phone there Mystic. There is nothing more relevant on earth if you claim to have a right (especially one that can take all the rights of another away even the right to live) than you can account for how you got this sacred and inherent right. Your not having an answer does not make the question any less meaningful.

But in the category of what is actually irrelevant a comparison of the magnitude of rights you can't find any source for is irrelevant. Lets go back to the start and try again. If you claim to have a right which means you may strip all the rights including the right to life from another human life then where and how did you acquire this right from? We can eventually get to whether women's and men's rights are or should be equal once you can show we have any to begin with.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Hold the phone there Mystic. There is nothing more relevant on earth if you claim to have a right (especially one that can take all the rights of another away even the right to live) than you can account for how you got this sacred and inherent right. Your not having an answer does not make the question any less meaningful.

It's not that I don't have an answer. It's that a divine source of rights is irrelevant in the discussion. Otherwise, as we have seen in the loooonnnnngggg tangent, the debate turns into a doctrinal back-and-forth on the source material itself. That tangent went nowhere and was unproductive.

But in the category of what is actually irrelevant a comparison of the magnitude of rights you can't find any source for is irrelevant. Lets go back to the start and try again. If you claim to have a right which means you may strip all the rights including the right to life from another human life then where and how did you acquire this right from? We can eventually get to whether women's and men's rights are or should be equal once you can show we have any to begin with.

LOL yeah, not gonna jump down that rabbit hole.

Your body isn't on trial here for any existing governmental agency to decide on invasive procedures as being the choice of the justice system or the choice of the person himself or herself. If the topic was about deciding if men had the right to bodily autonomy when it comes to ejaculation...and if I asked you what mystical right to bodily autonomy did you imagine you had over your own biological functions and thought it would be good to enforce an "ejaculation ban" so that we can keep the sanctity of life intact and our population under control...what place does doctrinal source even enter into that conversation?

The source argument is of your own doing. This is a legal argument, as the OP has specifically stated.

 

[1robin]

It's not that I don't have an answer. It's that a divine source of rights is irrelevant in the discussion. Otherwise, as we have seen in the loooonnnnngggg tangent, the debate turns into a doctrinal back-and-forth on the source material itself. That tangent went nowhere and was unproductive.

I did not say a divine source, I said any source. If you claim to have a right then you must establish that you do actually have it, especially if that right allows you to take the life of another. There is no debate at all until you show you have a right to debate.

LOL yeah, not gonna jump down that rabbit hole.

Exactly what is it necessary to support your entire argument that you do have an answer for? You wanted to debate this issue but you refuse to demonstrate any foundations necessary to have anything that actually exists to debate.

Your body isn't on trial here for any existing governmental agency to decide on invasive procedures as being the choice of the justice system or the choice of the person himself or herself. If the topic was about deciding if men had the right to bodily autonomy when it comes to ejaculation...and if I asked you what mystical right to bodily autonomy did you imagine you had over your own biological functions and thought it would be good to enforce an "ejaculation ban" so that we can keep the sanctity of life intact and our population under control...what place does doctrinal source even enter into that conversation?

What does any of this have to do with your having a right of any kind?

The source argument is of your own doing. This is a legal argument, as the OP has specifically stated.

Do legal issues have no actual grounding. I know our declaration grounds all rights in God. I am not saying you have to use God but if you claim to have rights then you must demonstrate that you actually do.

Rights are different from legal issues. Rights are generally held to be properties inherent to something that governments are not to infringe upon. Governments do not grant rights, they hopefully only promise not to infringe upon them, but far too often they do the opposite.

You are not getting off the hook for demonstrating you actually have this right but I do want to know what legal statements lay out those rights. IOW those rights are never granted carte blanche, but always have contingent bounds where they cease to apply. Just for information's sake what are the legal parameters and declarations about rights to autonomy for a women.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I did not say a divine source, I said any source. If you claim to have a right then you must establish that you do actually have it, especially if that right allows you to take the life of another. There is no debate at all until you show you have a right to debate.

LOL I'm here aren't I? I don't have to prove I have a right to debate. Do you?

Exactly what is it necessary to support your entire argument that you do have an answer for? You wanted to debate this issue but you refuse to demonstrate any foundations necessary to have anything that actually exists to debate.

Oh I gave mine way back in the beginning of the thread. Feel free to go back before the many pages of the Bible tangent to read it.

What does any of this have to do with your having a right of any kind?

Do legal issues have no actual grounding. I know our declaration grounds all rights in God. I am not saying you have to use God but if you claim to have rights then you must demonstrate that you actually do.

Being a legal argument, and has been stated many times, go from our Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Not the Declaration of Independence.

Rights are different from legal issues. Rights are generally held to be properties inherent to something that governments are not to infringe upon. Governments do not grant rights, they hopefully only promise not to infringe upon them, but far too often they do the opposite.

I agree. But....funny....how ironic.

You are not getting off the hook for demonstrating you actually have this right but I do want to know what legal statements lay out those rights. IOW those rights are never granted carte blanche, but always have contingent bounds where they cease to apply. Just for information's sake what are the legal parameters and declarations about rights to autonomy for a women.

Oh, take a chill pill and back off a bit, Robin. This whole "not getting off the hook" rhetoric is so brutish. You're better than that.

As a citizen, I'm recognized by this country to ideally have freedom in so far in that I do not violate the rights of other citizens. The same as it is for men.

Do you believe men and women should have rights that include bodily autonomy? Your turn to answer.

 

[1robin]

LOL I'm here aren't I? I don't have to prove I have a right to debate. Do you?

You did not understand what I said. I said you must show you have a right to begin with in order to debate it. I admit I did say that in a hurry but I have stated it in the longer form so many times I thought you would get it. I did not mean you must have a right - to debate. You must have a right in order to debate IT. I will get to the rest later, have a good one.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You did not understand what I said. I said you must show you have a right to begin with in order to debate it. I admit I did say that in a hurry but I have stated it in the longer form so many times I thought you would get it. I did not mean you must have a right - to debate. You must have a right in order to debate IT. I will get to the rest later, have a good one.

No worries, mate.

 

[jchristopher]

I feel that a lot of pro-lifers refuse to address the issue that makes abortion so debateable. The issue is not the sanctity of life, when life begins, or whether abortion is morally wrong. The legal issue (and it is most certainly a legal question) is whether the fetus' right to live and use the mother's body to do so outweighs the woman's right to bodily autonomy. There is currently no law that forces someone to give up the use of their body to another against their will. So, if the fetus' right to survive inside the woman's body outweighs the mother's, what other laws could be enacted as a result.

Btw, I agree that morally speaking, abortion is wrong (most of the time). And, I also feel that the question of when life begins is not associated with this issue and is a means to distract frrom the real legal issue.

All the issues you mentioned are intertwined. It's obvious life begins at conception because if not, there would be no pregnancy. And if life begins at conception, her body is no longer her own, but the home of another human being. If this is true, which it is, anything she does to harm the child, excluding situations where the mother's life is in imminent danger, is a breach of the child's right to life under the US Constitution.