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

[Revoltingest]

Considering how many Texan doctors are pro-life, I'd consider avoiding them.

One should hire a doctor who isn't opposed to one's preferred options, regardless of the state.

 

[dust1n]

One should hire a doctor who isn't opposed to one's preferred options, regardless of the state.

Mmhmm, and if God has a problem with someone's preferred options, he can take it up with them personally.

 

[Revoltingest]

Mmhmm, and if God has a problem with someone's preferred options, he can take it up with them personally.

In my experience, God is pretty tolerant about sinful behavior. But boy oh boy, doe he ever visit woe onto those of us who make unwise investments.

 

[dust1n]

In my experience, God is pretty tolerant about sinful behavior. But boy oh boy, doe he ever visit woe onto those of us who make unwise investments.

Which is unfair of him to set humans to such an impossibly high standard. How is a human suppose to make all the money that's ever existed?

 

[1robin]

I think I can address this question with a simple thought. It would be extremely misguided to use the Bible or any Scripture as the basis for law. It was written by imperfect men who knew far less about societal organization and the meaning of justice, which is obvious from the presence of things like slavery, common capital punishment, the subjugation of women, etc. So, I cannot imagine why it would ever be used as justification for laws. That being said, it is a great (if not the best) guide for morality, assuming that you keep in mind my previous point and read it knowing that it was written by men from a very different culture and far less scientific understanding than we have now. Eventhough this is all true, it is increasingly valuable as a moral tool today and will be for generations to come.

Well I was not suggesting we use the bible to make legal codes because I am not that concerned with legality but I disagree with you reasoning. The bible is not considered to be to ultimate product of fallible men (beyond the idea that it's copying was imperfect). It is considered to be an extremely accurate account of perfect revelation with God as it it's source. I would hesitate to use it for legality because it was intended to bind an individual not a nation. Regardless whatever disadvantage sit would have are more advantageous that just winging legality but I am not trying to ground legality but morality. The problems whatever they may be are not the fault of the text.

I know that the Bible has been penetrated by those who had their own perversions and desires for power/influence. I also know that many of the authors were way ahead of their time. All in all, it is necessary to explore where anything in the Bible came from historically and culturally before you give it any weight.

Now your in my territory. The bible is very unusual in that because it has so many errors we know it to be more accurate than any other text in ancient history of any type, there is not even a close second. That seems counter intuitive but it is a fact. The bible even by it's scholarly critics is 95% accurate with the source, and by theologians about 99.5%. I am very pressed for time and hate to cut this about 95% short of my goal but I am going to have to continued this tomorrow.

Divine ispiration doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit wrote anything. It merely means that the authors were guided, imho. So, to ignore the necessary imperfections of the authors is to do yourself a huge disfavor.

I am not ignoring it. I am granting what Christianity is almost exclusively so ready to admit and does so in all modern bibles. The bible is not perfect but it is way way closer than anything else comparable and that we can rightfully even expect.

The mainstream doctrine is the God perfectly revealed his word but because it was copied in thousands of traditions and not controlled we can easily see where the writers changed things. You in fact can even buy software to verify everything I am saying. Even between the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts which are the most different in any mainstream traditions they have approx. 95% agreement. Before we launch into a long drawn out textual criticism which I would love to have lets pretend the bible is only 50% accurate to the objective truth. Having a source that is only 50% accurate is infinitely better than using some opinion which there is no fact of the matter to compare it to. With religion at least there is some actual fact of the matter to try and perceive.

Anyway take your pick, I will give you names of atheists who would love to defend that abortion is justifiable for convenience, we can resolve the textual issues, debate the doctrine of inspiration, or waste a couple of hours on legality. It is your choice.

 

[leibowde84]

Well I was not suggesting we use the bible to make legal codes because I am not that concerned with legality but I disagree with you reasoning. The bible is not considered to be to ultimate product of fallible men (beyond the idea that it's copying was imperfect). It is considered to be an extremely accurate account of perfect revelation with God as it it's source. I would hesitate to use it for legality because it was intended to bind an individual not a nation. Regardless whatever disadvantage sit would have are more advantageous that just winging legality but I am not trying to ground legality but morality. The problems whatever they may be are not the fault of the text.

Now your in my territory. The bible is very unusual in that because it has so many errors we know it to be more accurate than any other text in ancient history of any type, there is not even a close second. That seems counter intuitive but it is a fact. The bible even by it's scholarly critics is 95% accurate with the source, and by theologians about 99.5%. I am very pressed for time and hate to cut this about 95% short of my goal but I am going to have to continued this tomorrow.

I am not ignoring it. I am granting what Christianity is almost exclusively so ready to admit and does so in all modern bibles. The bible is not perfect but it is way way closer than anything else comparable and that we can rightfully even expect.

The mainstream doctrine is the God perfectly revealed his word but because it was copied in thousands of traditions and not controlled we can easily see where the writers changed things. You in fact can even buy software to verify everything I am saying. Even between the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts which are the most different in any mainstream traditions they have approx. 95% agreement. Before we launch into a long drawn out textual criticism which I would love to have lets pretend the bible is only 50% accurate to the objective truth. Having a source that is only 50% accurate is infinitely better than using some opinion which there is no fact of the matter to compare it to. With religion at least there is some actual fact of the matter to try and perceive.

Anyway take your pick, I will give you names of atheists who would love to defend that abortion is justifiable for convenience, we can resolve the textual issues, debate the doctrine of inspiration, or waste a couple of hours on legality. It is your choice.

Can you provide some evidence to support your claim that the Bible is 95% accurate according to skeptical scholars? I've studied the subject fairly extensively, and I have not heard that from non-Christian scholars. It's hard for me to get my head around with the inconsistencies in the New Testament and Gospels. But, I am certainly open to new information.

 

[leibowde84]

Well I was not suggesting we use the bible to make legal codes because I am not that concerned with legality but I disagree with you reasoning. The bible is not considered to be to ultimate product of fallible men (beyond the idea that it's copying was imperfect). It is considered to be an extremely accurate account of perfect revelation with God as it it's source. I would hesitate to use it for legality because it was intended to bind an individual not a nation. Regardless whatever disadvantage sit would have are more advantageous that just winging legality but I am not trying to ground legality but morality. The problems whatever they may be are not the fault of the text.

Now your in my territory. The bible is very unusual in that because it has so many errors we know it to be more accurate than any other text in ancient history of any type, there is not even a close second. That seems counter intuitive but it is a fact. The bible even by it's scholarly critics is 95% accurate with the source, and by theologians about 99.5%. I am very pressed for time and hate to cut this about 95% short of my goal but I am going to have to continued this tomorrow.

I am not ignoring it. I am granting what Christianity is almost exclusively so ready to admit and does so in all modern bibles. The bible is not perfect but it is way way closer than anything else comparable and that we can rightfully even expect.

The mainstream doctrine is the God perfectly revealed his word but because it was copied in thousands of traditions and not controlled we can easily see where the writers changed things. You in fact can even buy software to verify everything I am saying. Even between the Alexandrian and Byzantine texts which are the most different in any mainstream traditions they have approx. 95% agreement. Before we launch into a long drawn out textual criticism which I would love to have lets pretend the bible is only 50% accurate to the objective truth. Having a source that is only 50% accurate is infinitely better than using some opinion which there is no fact of the matter to compare it to. With religion at least there is some actual fact of the matter to try and perceive.

Anyway take your pick, I will give you names of atheists who would love to defend that abortion is justifiable for convenience, we can resolve the textual issues, debate the doctrine of inspiration, or waste a couple of hours on legality. It is your choice.

I guess I'm just confused as to what you mean by "accurate." What could they compare the Bible to in order to judge it's accuracy? Mark was a guide for the rest of the Gospels, as it was written first, so comparing gospel to gospel seems like a worthless endeavor.

 

[Koldo]

Just out of curiosity, have you ever spoken with someone who felt that abortion is not morally wrong when done in the interest of convenience? I've talked to a ton of people about this, but I have yet to meet ANYONE making this claim. I didn't think the moral aspect was at issue with most people who are pro-choice.

I don't think abortion is morally wrong before the 20th week or so. Nice to meet you then. How are you?

 

[metis]

I never stated nor implied that the doctor should make the decision for the woman. I would hope instead that the woman consults with her doctor, plus possibly other people as well, and then make her decision.

What I find hypocritical with many on the right is they falsely blamed the ACA for "getting in between a patient and their doctor", but that's what so many of the right want to do with the area of abortion and even birth control.

 

[metis]

Can you provide some evidence to support your claim that the Bible is 95% accurate according to skeptical scholars? I've studied the subject fairly extensively, and I have not heard that from non-Christian scholars. It's hard for me to get my head around with the inconsistencies in the New Testament and Gospels. But, I am certainly open to new information.

Better get used to this from 1robin as he so frequently cites such claims that simply cannot be verifiable in the slightest. Logically, to supposedly know that the Bible is "95% accurate", one would have to pretty much be omniscient whereas they would have to be 100% accurate.

Anyhow, better get used to such bogus claims coming from him as he has plenty more where that came from, let me tell ya.

 

[JerryL]

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.

I have a related question.

A baby has just been born. It needs a liver replacement. The father is a match but refuses to donate part of his liver.

Does the baby's right to live outway the father's right to bodily autonomy? Should the father be forced by the government to donate part of his liver?

 

[leibowde84]

I don't think abortion is morally wrong before the 20th week or so. Nice to meet you then. How are you?

I don't think abortion is morally wrong before the 20th week or so. Nice to meet you then. How are you?

I'm good. Nice to meet you too, finally ... haha. No judgment, but can you fill me in on why you feel this way? And, remember, this is only in reference to abortions for the sole reason of convenience.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

However those rights to autonomy are not automatically granted if they conflict with the autonomy of another. I have no right to break your hand simply because it is contained by mine.

The right you have is to remove your hand. You still have this right even if you have to break my hand to exercise it.

 

[leibowde84]

I have a related question.

A baby has just been born. It needs a liver replacement. The father is a match but refuses to donate part of his liver.

Does the baby's right to live outway the father's right to bodily autonomy? Should the father be forced by the government to donate part of his liver?

Absolutely not. That's my point. I think that the right to bodily autonomy is paramount.

 

[leibowde84]

I have a related question.

A baby has just been born. It needs a liver replacement. The father is a match but refuses to donate part of his liver.

Does the baby's right to live outway the father's right to bodily autonomy? Should the father be forced by the government to donate part of his liver?

Do you think that the father should be forced? Morally speaking, this would be an entirely different question, but this thread is about the legality of abortion.

 

[JerryL]

Do you think that the father should be forced? Morally speaking, this would be an entirely different question, but this thread is about the legality of abortion.

No I do not.

I thought the thread was about whether the requirement to preserve one life superseded the autonomy of another life. I figured abortion was the example, but not the topic; so I offered another example not far removed from abortion to add more perspectives.

 

[leibowde84]

No I do not.

I thought the thread was about whether the requirement to preserve one life superseded the autonomy of another life. I figured abortion was the example, but not the topic; so I offered another example not far removed from abortion to add more perspectives.

Haha. I actually used the same example earlier on with 1Robin, and he something kind of peculiar. He thinks that the autonomy of the fetus is an issue, but I'm not sure that he gets the meaning of the word autonomy.

 

[leibowde84]

No I do not.

I thought the thread was about whether the requirement to preserve one life superseded the autonomy of another life. I figured abortion was the example, but not the topic; so I offered another example not far removed from abortion to add more perspectives.

But, he also thinks that this should only be a moral issue, so he kind of refuses to acknowledge the monumental legal dilemma. Thanks for contributing!!

 

[JerryL]

Haha. I actually used the same example earlier on with 1Robin, and he something kind of peculiar. He thinks that the autonomy of the fetus is an issue, but I'm not sure that he gets the meaning of the word autonomy.

I am sorry. I should have read the thread more completely before posting. I did not realize this example had already been raised.

But, he also thinks that this should only be a moral issue, so he kind of refuses to acknowledge the monumental legal dilemma. Thanks for contributing!!

Then I must presume he would require the father to donate part of his liver. The moral issue is, I presume, saving the life of the baby.

So when it's an uncle; same issue? When it's a stranger?

Indeed: The #1 priority of government spending should be saving lives... it's a moral issue. And not just US lives. We are going to have to totally rework the budget. Also: everyone will need to be typed for compulsory donations.

Unless he can find the difference.

 

[1robin]

Can you provide some evidence to support your claim that the Bible is 95% accurate according to skeptical scholars? I've studied the subject fairly extensively, and I have not heard that from non-Christian scholars. It's hard for me to get my head around with the inconsistencies in the New Testament and Gospels. But, I am certainly open to new information.

Not only does the most prolific and respected modern critic Bart Ehrman admit that but he even says that virtually no error exists in core doctrine, he also admits that almost all errors are meaningless, and you can by software to see for your self.

The numbers go like this but I am not doing the math again here. There are 400,000 errors in the NT, 90% are meaningless, but this is not in a single bible, this is across the entire NT textual manuscript tradition, there are more than 5000 Greek manuscripts alone. You have to determine how many average words and average manuscript text has multiply it by how many there are then divide by the total errors. Even without all the Ethiopian, Coptic, etc.... manuscripts it works out to about 5% error in any single bible and virtually all errors are known and indicated and so are not even problem at all anyway.

I will end here with an Ehrman quote:

Let me quote one scholar

on this:

Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the

changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or

ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—

slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders

of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives

were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back

to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached

back to the “original” text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely)


related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of


his teaching.

The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [audience laughter]

IMO the most educating source on biblical textual criticism is debates between Dr. James White, and Dr. Bart Ehrman. I have learned more there than everywhere else combined and there are quite a few of them.