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

[1robin]

We are looping because I believe you are equivocating determinism with something else. What you are really attacking is: "blind, unintentional forces, cannot possibly generate things with intent". Forgetting for a moment that this has no rational justification, that has nothing to do with determinism. Determinism simply states that, ceteris paribus, the results are the same.

Not exactly. I am saying freewill or intent exists and so pure determinism is not true. I made very certain you were not a compatibilist so this contradicts your world view. Even if pure determinism produced a being with free intent then at that point determinism is no longer the sole explanation for reality.

You can actually have all combinations of blindness, determinism or lack thereof:

That is what I believe. I believe that determinism exist and freewill exists. You don't.

1) Blind forces are deterministic. Same initial conditions, same result

Yes this may very well exist.

2) Blind forces are not deterministic. Same initial conditions. more than one possible result. For instance, purely random mechanisms present.

Yes, this is my boss' specialty, non deterministic systems.

3) Intentional forces/agents are deterministic. Same initial conditions, same decisions, intent. Will defined uniquely by brain states. Not really free.

This one I do not believe possible. I do believe strong influence or coercion may exist but I am still free to chose that which is hard to chose.

4) Intentional forces/agents are not deterministic. Same initial conditions, different decisions, intent. Free will, possibly.

Adding this in makes you a compatibilist which is what you specifically said you were not.

So, you can have not deterministic forces generating intentional agents that are deterministic in their intents (for instance, blind forces leading to agents are subject to pure random events, macroscopic brains are not).

I am not sure I understood this but my claim is that at least some intent is free intent. I was free to chose one intent or another and was not determined to only chose one.

I am deterministic for everything (blind forces and intentional agents), but in order for you to defend free will, you need only to find defeaters of the following statement: the intentions of an intentional agent depend only on the current state of her physical brain (no matter what forces led to its development, deterministic or not).

I do not need to defeat a thing until it is shown to be true. I do not believe decisions are completely determined by chemistry, electrical impulses, and physics and as I have been reading for some time I think science is strongly trending in my direction. I believe intent may require these things (but perhaps not) but it is not determined by these things alone.

Since your not getting the other things I have been saying let me state the same principle on another issue. Consciousness has shown it's self also to be more that the sum of it's natural parts. It is a thorn in any naturalists side and no one has fully explained it on that basis. It is the part of consciousness like freewill that defy natural explanation and produce billions of rational and freely intended events.

What are those defeaters?

Where is the proof of the thing I need to defeat. BTW the absence of a defeater alone is only the burden of faith, not science or claims to knowledge. The latter only require a better explanation. A claim to knowledge is not safe until a defeater is found. Regardless I gave you a defeater for pure determinism but I did not understand what now must be defeated.

 

[1robin]

Would you mind cutting out the personal judgments as to why I do not believe that the Bible is completely accurate.

I did say anything about your not believing it is perfectly accurate. I don't believe that and I know few who do and they are wrong. I was saying the way your going about critiquing not only it but any other document suggests very strongly your just leaving open the option to reject whatever you don't like. If I am wrong just ignore me. I won't be intentionally sarcastic and have not been but I will post my conclusions once they have over whelming evidence.

It is an extremely common opinion to have, even amongst Christians and even more so amongst Skeptics, so I think it would suit you to keep the assumptions about my personal beliefs to a minimum. It just comes off as you trying to hurt my feelings about something that you know absolutely nothing about.

I forgot, I don't want to continue the biblical accuracy debate in this haphazard manner.

One last note. I will never hurt anyone's feeling for the heck of it. I however will risk doing so if I think it could possibly prove beneficial to them at some point and the evidence for my claim is substantial. Don't be over sensitive, compared with some of the garbage I get from non-theists that is extremely mild and one day it may help, who knows. I know a lot of things said to me that I resented at the time turned out to be helpful and true in the long run. I will try and be more delicate (and since I rarely do so you should take that to mean I like you) but I will be as I warned you emphatic and direct.

 

[thau]

What you have laid out may be the real legal matter for you, or the real crux of the argument, but it is not what makes abortion such an intense heart rendering topic for so many.

The real matter in this nation is a spiritual argument for those who believe in the Judeo-Christian G-d. And that would include how many?... 80%? 85% So if this 85% has even the slightest measure of wisdom and intelligence the question will not be "what rights does the mother have or what rights does the unborn have?' ----- the question is simply Does this matter to God?

The answer to that is a resounding YES and that is why abortion is the scourge upon this nation. We know better, we just choose to not inconvenience our lives and do away with the unborn child. There is no mystery here. God is hurt and angered by (as the Virgin Mary once put it) "our shameless immorality and our foul ingratitude." We, as a nation, shall pay a very heavy price for all this and no doubt we already are.

 

[jchristopher]

Legally speaking, having sex has never been recognized as an acceptance of pregnancy. Thus, no right can be diminished. I understand that you think sex SHOULD be a form of acknowledged relinquishment of rights, but that is not the case. There is a major issue because this relinquishment would only effect women, not men who whose bodily autonomy would not be at issue in the least. So, how would you suggest we get around this legal dilemma?

The laws of man are inferior to the laws of God, and so are the consequences of breaking them. This debate hardly calls for legal reference. The laws of the land have become so corrupt with respect to moral issues as to leave any man inclined to live by them utterly lost and miserable. For civilizations to prosper both temporally and spiritually, the laws of the land must mirror the laws of God. Leibowde84, it's simple. The choices we make have immutable consequences. By divine design, pregnancy is a very likely consequence of sex. Conception is the planting of a seed, the seed of human life. There is no arbitrary point in which life becomes sacred or valuable. The reason it is so wrong to make decisions that destroy that life is because procreation is a God-given gift and it was commanded to be used in God's own appointed way. Another reason is that through those procreative powers, we assist God in providing the souls of His children physical bodies, bodies that are created in HIS own image. When one destroys human life, they destroy a child of the almighty God and will be held accountable, a bar of judgment to feared infinitely more than any earthly tribunal.

 

[leibowde84]

The laws of man are inferior to the laws of God, and so are the consequences of breaking them. This debate hardly calls for legal reference. The laws of the land have become so corrupt with respect to moral issues as to leave any man inclined to live by them utterly lost and miserable. For civilizations to prosper both temporally and spiritually, the laws of the land must mirror the laws of God. Leibowde84, it's simple. The choices we make have immutable consequences. By divine design, pregnancy is a very likely consequence of sex. Conception is the planting of a seed, the seed of human life. There is no arbitrary point in which life becomes sacred or valuable. The reason it is so wrong to make decisions that destroy that life is because procreation is a God-given gift and it was commanded to be used in God's own appointed way. Another reason is that through those procreative powers, we assist God in providing the souls of His children physical bodies, bodies that are created in HIS own image. When one destroys human life, they destroy a child of the almighty God and will be held accountable, a bar of judgment to feared infinitely more than any earthly tribunal.

So, you it sounds like you are strongly in favor of turning the United States into a Theocracy. Is that correct?

 

[leibowde84]

I did say anything about your not believing it is perfectly accurate. I don't believe that and I know few who do and they are wrong. I was saying the way your going about critiquing not only it but any other document suggests very strongly your just leaving open the option to reject whatever you don't like. If I am wrong just ignore me. I won't be intentionally sarcastic and have not been but I will post my conclusions once they have over whelming evidence.





I forgot, I don't want to continue the biblical accuracy debate in this haphazard manner.

One last note. I will never hurt anyone's feeling for the heck of it. I however will risk doing so if I think it could possibly prove beneficial to them at some point and the evidence for my claim is substantial. Don't be over sensitive, compared with some of the garbage I get from non-theists that is extremely mild and one day it may help, who knows. I know a lot of things said to me that I resented at the time turned out to be helpful and true in the long run. I will try and be more delicate (and since I rarely do so you should take that to mean I like you) but I will be as I warned you emphatic and direct.

You have nothing to go on but my comments on a religous debate website. So, how on earth could you feel that you have substantial knowledge or insight to make a conclusion about my faith. How could you begin to "help me with my faith" if you don't even have any information as to what I believe? Just don't assume so much and you'll be fine.

 

[leibowde84]

What you have laid out may be the real legal matter for you, or the real crux of the argument, but it is not what makes abortion such an intense heart rendering topic for so many.

The real matter in this nation is a spiritual argument for those who believe in the Judeo-Christian G-d. And that would include how many?... 80%? 85% So if this 85% has even the slightest measure of wisdom and intelligence the question will not be "what rights does the mother have or what rights does the unborn have?' ----- the question is simply Does this matter to God?

The answer to that is a resounding YES and that is why abortion is the scourge upon this nation. We know better, we just choose to not inconvenience our lives and do away with the unborn child. There is no mystery here. God is hurt and angered by (as the Virgin Mary once put it) "our shameless immorality and our foul ingratitude." We, as a nation, shall pay a very heavy price for all this and no doubt we already are.

That is all well and good, but it is a waste of time, as there is no way an argument of this nature could do any actual good. If those with faith in this matter simply shy away from the legal argument, refusing to take it head on, the legal system will be unchanged, and abortion rights will carry on. In order to change laws, you must have a legal argument that acts to do away with legal dilemmas. Stating opinions of God, the sanctity of life, the feelings of Mary, etc. won't do anything to "protect the rights of the fetus." This is why I feel that this discussion is so important to have in the legal forum instead of bringing in assumptions that not everyone shares about God's nature.

 

[thau]

That is all well and good, but it is a waste of time, as there is no way an argument of this nature could do any actual good. If those with faith in this matter simply shy away from the legal argument, refusing to take it head on, the legal system will be unchanged, and abortion rights will carry on. In order to change laws, you must have a legal argument that acts to do away with legal dilemmas. Stating opinions of God, the sanctity of life, the feelings of Mary, etc. won't do anything to "protect the rights of the fetus." This is why I feel that this discussion is so important to have in the legal forum instead of bringing in assumptions that not everyone shares about God's nature.

I am not disagreeing with you. I am just emphasizing something else of equal or greater importance than what you are discussing. Changing laws is very important and what you suggest is the path to take. But changing the hearts and minds of Christians for their own good cannot be overstated.

And if those who say they are Christian in this nation followed the commands of their God, there would not be too many abortions, legal or illegal, period. Unless you can somehow show me where God does not consider abortion to be a grave offense? (I am referring to 95%+ abortions that do not have anything to do with rape or the health of the mother)

 

[leibowde84]

I am not disagreeing with you. I am just emphasizing something else of equal or greater importance than what you are discussing. Changing laws is very important and what you suggest is the path to take. But changing the hearts and minds of Christians for their own good cannot be overstated.

And if those who say they are Christian in this nation followed the commands of their God, there would not be too many abortions, legal or illegal, period. Unless you can somehow show me where God does not consider abortion to be a grave offense? (I am referring to 95%+ abortions that do not have anything to do with rape or the health of the mother)

The only thing we have to go on in regards to "how God feels about abortion" is heresay, as God himself has not written anything down. All we have to go on is the writings by men thousands of years ago that may or may not be 100% accurate. It is important to acknowledge that, while we both might agree that the Bible is a good representation of the nature of God, there are many citizens of this nation that don't feel the same way. Even the founding fathers were, to a large degree, deists, not Christians per se, so basing laws on what Christians believe to be the will of God would be unacceptable, imho.

That being said, I think it completely reasonable to think of God as feeling this way towards abortion. I agree, but everything comes back to how the law treats it. And, even if the law changes, history tells us that the amount of abortions will not decrease and the methods used will become much more dangerous.

Thus, we need to think outside the box on this issue. I don't think it is an issue where too many women feel that abortion is morally justifiable in most circumstances, but, usually, when faced with hard choices like this, often morality is thrown out the window. Instead of showing the horrors of abortion, the faithful should be focused on the wonders of life. Instead of showing pictures of dead fetus', show pictures of beautiful babies.

Just a thought.

 

[thau]

The only thing we have to go on in regards to "how God feels about abortion" is heresay, as God himself has not written anything down. All we have to go on is the writings by men thousands of years ago that may or may not be 100% accurate.

No, that is not it. I do not need faith to be certain the God of the Bible is God. I am certain. Based on the signs and wonders He has revealed to man since the time of Jesus Christ alone, is enough for me. I have no doubts. And given that as my understanding, there is also no doubt whatsoever what God feels about abortion. I would be a fool to pretend otherwise.

As to the other 80% or more who say they are Christian in this nation, I cannot speak for. But to those who are certain God exists, and not just hopeful, then they too have no excuse. If they are certain the Judeo-Christian G-d is God, then they know for certain what God feels about abortion. There is no equivocating.

Beyond that, Jesus Christ established the one true Church to be His authority here on earth. That, too, is very plane to see. And when Jesus said “whatsoever you hold bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven,” then that relieves the individual souls from saying “they do not know what to do or what God wants.” The Church will guide them. And the Church is as clear as can be about abortion. It is very deadly and wrong.

I also do not agree at all that the number of abortions would be the same whether it were legal or illegal, but I do not care to go into a long explanation as to why.

It is important to acknowledge that, while we both might agree that the Bible is a good representation of the nature of God, there are many citizens of this nation that don't feel the same way. Even the founding fathers were, to a large degree, deists, not Christians per se, so basing laws on what Christians believe to be the will of God would be unacceptable, imho.

I am well aware of the fact many citizens do not feel the same way including some of the founding fathers. There is no argument there. But if you are also saying that a Christian cannot exercise his or her right to vote based upon their own beliefs that is wrong. I vote against abortion because my God says it is a grave sin. That is as defensible and proper as whatever reasons an atheist or dissenting Christian may vote in favor of it. For anyone to suggest citizens cannot vote based on their religious beliefs makes zero sense to me.

Women are faced with hard choices and ones that will complicate their lives, agreed. But I do not believe our allowing abortion as a way out is truly ever the right choice for them. It is very sad there are tens of thousands of couples on waiting lists for newborns to adopt while hundreds of thousands of babies are aborted. I also wonder how many mothers who struggled with this choice to abort or not and then went through giving birth would look at their child six months later and say “I wish I had aborted you?” If there are regrets it's pretty much on the other side.

 

[leibowde84]

No, that is not it. I do not need faith to be certain the God of the Bible is God. I am certain. Based on the signs and wonders He has revealed to man since the time of Jesus Christ alone, is enough for me. I have no doubts. And give that as my understanding, there is also no doubt whatsoever what God feels about abortion. I would be a fool to pretend otherwise.

As to the other 80% or more who say they are Christian in this nation, I cannot speak for. But to those who are certain God exists, and not just hopeful, then they too have no excuse. If they are certain the Judeo-Christian G-d is God, then they know for certain what God feels about abortion. There is equivocating.

Beyond that, Jesus Christ established the one true Church to be His authority here on earth. That, too, is very plane to see. And when Jesus said “whatsoever you hold bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven,” then that relieves the individual souls from saying “they do not know what to do or what God wants.” The Church will guide them. And the Church is as clear as can be about abortion. It is very deadly and wrong.

I also do not agree at all that the number of abortions would be the same whether it were legal or illegal, but I do not care to go into a long explanation as to why.


I am well aware of the fact many citizens do not feel the same way including some of the founding fathers. There is no argument there. But if you are also saying that a Christian cannot exercise his or her right to vote based upon their own beliefs that is wrong. I vote against abortion because my God says it is a grave sin. That is as defensible and proper as whatever reasons an atheist or dissenting Christian may vote in favor of it. For anyone to suggest citizens cannot vote based on their religious beliefs makes zero sense to me.

Women are faced with hard choices and ones that will complicate their lives, agreed. But I do not believe our allowing abortion as a way out is truly ever the right choice for them. It is very sad there are tens of thousands of couples on waiting lists for newborns to adopt while hundreds of thousands of babies are aborted. I also wonder how many mothers who struggled with this choice to abort or not and then went through giving birth would look at their child six months later and say “I wish I had aborted you?” If there are regrets it's pretty much on the other side.

That is the problem. Abortion will never be able to come to a vote until the legal issue with bodily autonomy is addressed. The SCOTUS will be forced to illegitimize any vote, as it has been defined as a protected right. This is the same exact issue with same-sex marriage. Naiive congresssmen think they can get away with voting on marriage, but constitutional protected rights cannot be voted upon.

Thus, it is paramount to address the legal issue ASAP, if at all possible. Voting will do no good until that is done.

 

[Etritonakin]

As this is in "Religious Debates", how should those who seek to adhere to the bible view bodily autonomy given the following statement?

1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

Also, if one associates autonomy with decision, would that not only apply to sex or artificial insemination (don't think it doesn't happen) without consent, rather than simply not desiring to become pregnant, but still engaging in behavior which is known to cause pregnancy?

Why should the autonomy of one outweigh that of another unless the other is acting against the one -not simply going about their usual business.

When does a woman's autonomy begin? When she can speak up for herself? When she learns the definition of autonomy? Only when others power of decision is less than hers?

Autonomy is about self, but requires that all others allow it. Do those who are unable to make or enact decisions automatically lose their autonomy -or do they have basic rights of autonomy which should affect the decisions of others, and keep others from making certain decisions for them?

So -if an unborn child has an equal right to autonomy, and the mother knowingly and willingly engaged in behavior known to cause pregnancy, does she have a right to act against the unborn child simply because it cannot yet speak or decide for itself?

If the pregnancy occurred without the mother knowingly or willingly engaging in behavior known to cause pregnancy, does that negate the right of the unborn child to autonomy?

If one seeks to adhere to biblical principles, would not the commandment against killing apply?

It would be a very unfortunate situation for a woman -having a decision made for her which affected the rest of her life regardless of her decisions which followed.

 

[leibowde84]

As this is in "Religious Debates", how should those who seek to adhere to the bible view bodily autonomy given the following statement?

1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

I would say that religious beliefs, such as this, have no place in governmental decision making. This should be clear, as Christianity is in no way respected as the official religion of this country. Thus, passages from scripture should not be considered by the courts or legislative bodies.

 

[leibowde84]

No, that is not it. I do not need faith to be certain the God of the Bible is God. I am certain. Based on the signs and wonders He has revealed to man since the time of Jesus Christ alone, is enough for me. I have no doubts. And given that as my understanding, there is also no doubt whatsoever what God feels about abortion. I would be a fool to pretend otherwise.

As to the other 80% or more who say they are Christian in this nation, I cannot speak for. But to those who are certain God exists, and not just hopeful, then they too have no excuse. If they are certain the Judeo-Christian G-d is God, then they know for certain what God feels about abortion. There is no equivocating.

Beyond that, Jesus Christ established the one true Church to be His authority here on earth. That, too, is very plane to see. And when Jesus said “whatsoever you hold bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven,” then that relieves the individual souls from saying “they do not know what to do or what God wants.” The Church will guide them. And the Church is as clear as can be about abortion. It is very deadly and wrong.

I also do not agree at all that the number of abortions would be the same whether it were legal or illegal, but I do not care to go into a long explanation as to why.


I am well aware of the fact many citizens do not feel the same way including some of the founding fathers. There is no argument there. But if you are also saying that a Christian cannot exercise his or her right to vote based upon their own beliefs that is wrong. I vote against abortion because my God says it is a grave sin. That is as defensible and proper as whatever reasons an atheist or dissenting Christian may vote in favor of it. For anyone to suggest citizens cannot vote based on their religious beliefs makes zero sense to me.

Women are faced with hard choices and ones that will complicate their lives, agreed. But I do not believe our allowing abortion as a way out is truly ever the right choice for them. It is very sad there are tens of thousands of couples on waiting lists for newborns to adopt while hundreds of thousands of babies are aborted. I also wonder how many mothers who struggled with this choice to abort or not and then went through giving birth would look at their child six months later and say “I wish I had aborted you?” If there are regrets it's pretty much on the other side.

No matter how much subjective certainty you have, it is still faith.

 

[thau]

No matter how much subjective certainty you have, it is still faith.

Really? You think Joan of Arc based it all on faith? How about Padre Pio?

What is the larger point you are trying to make with that statement anyway? Could it be we are free to believe what we want because God is not providing evidence for us to know anything at all?

 

[leibowde84]

Really? You think Joan of Arc based it all on faith? How about Padre Pio?

What is the larger point you are trying to make with that statement anyway? Could it be we are free to believe what we want because God is not providing evidence for us to know anything at all?

Yes, absolutely. Joan of Arc and Padre Pio based their works on faith in God. I'm sure they thought they "knew" in the way that you describe, but, by the definition of the terms, they were merely confident in their faith.

And, yes, we are free to have faith in what we believe. There are arguments on either side of every relgion with merit, but it is up to the individual to figure out what they think or believe to be true.

 

[Etritonakin]

I would say that religious beliefs, such as this, have no place in governmental decision making. This should be clear, as Christianity is in no way respected as the official religion of this country. Thus, passages from scripture should not be considered by the courts or legislative bodies.

However, the principles of certain religious beliefs can also apply to government separate from religion. Association with religion does not automatically make something illogical or unworthy of consideration.

That particular verse refers to a specific God/religion, etc., but the principle should apply to human government in some cases (though is incorrectly applied too often by humans and human government).

Our rights are basically equal to all others (which means that we are both our own in one sense, but are all each others to consider, as we are able to affect each other. We are our brothers' keepers -and that's simply a fact that also happens to be associated with religion) -and the autonomy of one who infringes upon the rights of others then defaults to government -and so they are not their own. The government -in certain cases -necessarily supersedes the autonomy of one in order to safeguard the autonomy of others.

 

[leibowde84]

However, the principles of certain religious beliefs can also apply to government separate from religion. Association with religion does not automatically make something illogical or unworthy of consideration.

That particular verse refers to a specific God/religion, etc., but the principle should apply to human government in some cases (though is incorrectly applied too often by humans and human government).

Our rights are basically equal to all others (which means that we are both our own in one sense, but are all each others to consider, as we are able to affect each other. We are our brothers' keepers -and that's simply a fact that also happens to be associated with religion) -and the autonomy of one who infringes upon the rights of others then defaults to government -and so they are not their own. The government -in certain cases -necessarily supersedes the autonomy of one in order to safeguard the autonomy of others.

Oh, just to be clear, I am not discussing "atonomy" in general, but "bodily autonomy" specifically. Only the physical, direct use of another's body without their permission or the due process of law is at issue here. The Government cannot infringe on "bodily autonomy" in the way you describe. "Autonomy", obiously, is a different matter.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Are zygotes and fetuses autonomous beings?

How would that be legislated? How would the rights of a zygote be protected? Would spontaneous miscarriage resulting in the death of a zygote or gestationally young fetus place the woman gestating the fetus in a position where she can be arrested for suspicion of manslaughter?

 

[leibowde84]

Are zygotes and fetuses autonomous beings?

How would that be legislated? How would the rights of a zygote be protected? Would spontaneous miscarriage resulting in the death of a zygote or gestationally young fetus place the woman gestating the fetus in a position where she can be arrested for suspicion of manslaughter?

Very good point. THE POINT actually. Since fetuses are not autonomous beings, their bodily autonomy would not be at issue or up for consideration. It is not possible for them to have bodily autonomy, as their very existance depends on the direct physical use of someone else's body.