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

[Koldo]

There's less troubling about that than with someone who decides not to donate bone marrow because it would interfere with his drinking, which is perfectly legal.

The really troubling thing here, IMO, is the idea that we should examine people's motives to see whether they really deserve a right they want to exercise.

The way we settle a dispute between rights generally varies according to the circumstances. Motives change circumstances.

 

[Koldo]

Sure, I was saying that the moral (again, not a legal question this time) thing to do would be to have the child and then give it up for adoption.

Ok, I comprehend.
I don't see anything wrong with a person getting rid of a parasite, both legally and morally.

 

[1robin]

You still have not identified what you mean by "accurate", assuming that adherence to fact is not the case. Why should we believe anything in the Bible is correct if we find historical innacuracies?

I don't get it.


1. You said we don't know if they recorded the bible accurately. This is textual accuracy and I have shown it has been.

2. You mentioned Bart Ehrman talking about Moses. This is historical accuracy and I asked if you wanted to debate it but said the bible is as astronomically accurate in this regard as it is textually.

3. The only accuracy issue left is inspirational accuracy. This one can be inferred by historical accuracy, philosophical accuracy, and consistency but cannot be determined to a near certainty. Between Christians this is usually assumed. If your challenging this one then I do not see on what basis you became a Christian.
If your claiming the treasure map is inaccurate how did you find the treasure or even know to look for one?

 

[1robin]

Ok, I comprehend.
I don't see anything wrong with a person getting rid of a parasite, both legally and morally.

First of all that is purely a preference. Second it is to commit the fallacy "of exclusivity". It occurs when you claim is merely something else in order to dismiss it. In this case a fetus is far more than a parasite. If it is only a parasite then every living thing is merely parasites as we all live on each other. The extent that people go to justify taking lives on an industrial scale for convenience is truly terrifying.

 

[Koldo]

First of all that is purely a preference. Second it is to commit the fallacy "of exclusivity". It occurs when you claim is merely something else in order to dismiss it.In this case a fetus is far more than a parasite.

I don't remember saying it is merely something else. Please, quote where I have said so.

If it is only a parasite then every living thing is merely parasites as we all live on each other. The extent that people go to justify taking lives on an industrial scale for convenience is truly terrifying.

Oh, please. Don't redefine how I am using the word 'parasite'. It is silly to do so.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't get it.


1. You said we don't know if they recorded the bible accurately. This is textual accuracy and I have shown it has been.

2. You mentioned Bart Ehrman talking about Moses. This is historical accuracy and I asked if you wanted to debate it but said the bible is as astronomically accurate in this regard as it is textually.

3. The only accuracy issue left is inspirational accuracy. This one can be inferred by historical accuracy, philosophical accuracy, and consistency but cannot be determined to a near certainty. Between Christians this is usually assumed. If your challenging this one then I do not see on what basis you became a Christian.
If your claiming the treasure map is inaccurate how did you find the treasure or even know to look for one?

1. If by saying that it was "recorded accurately," how on earth would anyone be able to prove this without being able to ask God? What are you comparing it to that proves it was "recorded accurately?" You have not provided any proof or reasoning for this. Please explain why you feel that you have any ability to decipher whether the Bible was recorded accurately.
2. Why does Ehrman mentioning Moses prove historical accuracy? I cannot fathom how that would prove anything. There are hundreds of examples of historical innacruacy in the Bible. One startling example is the census during the time of Jesus' birth, which there is absolutely no record of.
3. You have not proved any kind of accuracy, but, instead, have merely claimed that you have. Please provide evidence of textual accuracy from a source other than scripture, as scripture would merely provide circular logic.

 

[leibowde84]

First of all that is purely a preference. Second it is to commit the fallacy "of exclusivity". It occurs when you claim is merely something else in order to dismiss it. In this case a fetus is far more than a parasite. If it is only a parasite then every living thing is merely parasites as we all live on each other. The extent that people go to justify taking lives on an industrial scale for convenience is truly terrifying.

I still think that you don't understand the meaning of "bodily autonomy." It ONLY refers to the right to refuse the DIRECT PHYSICAL use of one's body. Dependance, financial support, philosophical support, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing. The issue ONLY arises when one is forced to give up the use of their physical body against their will.

 

[columbus]

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?

If a parent (or anybody) made a choice that predictably resulted in a baby requiring a liver transplant I think that they have indeed chosen an obligation. Wishing that they had chosen differently in the first place doesn't change their obligations.

Tom

 

[leibowde84]

If a parent (or anybody) made a choice that predictably resulted in a baby requiring a liver transplant I think that they have indeed chosen an obligation. Wishing that they had chosen differently in the first place doesn't change their obligations.

Tom

What if the liver transplant wasn't necessary because of any choices made by the parents?

 

[leibowde84]

I don't remember saying it is merely something else. Please, quote where I have said so.



Oh, please. Don't redefine how I am using the word 'parasite'. It is silly to do so.

He tends to have his own meaning for words. Parasite is technically accurate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If a parent (or anybody) made a choice that predictably resulted in a baby requiring a liver transplant I think that they have indeed chosen an obligation. Wishing that they had chosen differently in the first place doesn't change their obligations.

Why would choice matter in this circumstance? Why would the obligation flow from that decision? It seems to imply that a life is worth less if we didn't have a hand in causing it. It also implies that most of the time, autonomy is still more valuable than life.

And does choice matter only for the parents? What if, say, the reason that the baby needs a liver transplant is because of a condition contracted from a chemical spill. Should the company manager whose negligence caused the spill be forced to donate part of his liver (assuming he's a match, of course)? After all, his choices are just as responsible for causing the situation as the parents' are.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The way to settle a dispute between rights generally varies according to the circumstances. Motives change circumstances.

What are your motives for this post? I want to decide whether you should have the right to write it.

 

[1robin]

I don't remember saying it is merely something else. Please, quote where I have said so.

Ok,

I don't see anything wrong with a person getting rid of a parasite,

Maybe you were quoting someone else but you did not indicate that.

Oh, please. Don't redefine how I am using the word 'parasite'. It is silly to do so.

I did not define or redefine how you used the word parasite. I said you only used the word parasite. You did not say that is a human life in a parasitic relations, with rights, sanctity, value, etc..... You said it was a parasite.

 

[leibowde84]

Ok,


Maybe you were quoting someone else but you did not indicate that.

I did not define or redefine how you used the word parasite. I said you only used the word parasite. You did not say that is a human life in a parasitic relations, with rights, sanctity, value, etc..... You said it was a parasite.

If something is in a parasitic relationship it is a parasite by definition, right?

 

[columbus]

What if the liver transplant wasn't necessary because of any choices made by the parents?

Then the hypothetical question would cease being relevant to the issue. Abortion is always a result of somebody making a choice.

Tom

 

[Koldo]

Ok,


Maybe you were quoting someone else but you did not indicate that.

Where did I state on that sentence that the fetus was merely a parasite?

I did not define or redefine how you used the word parasite. I said you only used the word parasite. You did not say that is a human life in a parasitic relations, with rights, sanctity, value, etc..... You said it was a parasite.

Clearly, the way I have used the word 'parasite' was in the biological sense ( not at the strict sense since it is a term that doesn't apply to the same species, but that's the only divergence ). Therefore, your use of the word 'parasite' entailing that ''we all live on each other'' is not proper to how I was using the term. You were redefining the way I was using 'parasite'.

 

[1robin]

1. If by saying that it was "recorded accurately," how on earth would anyone be able to prove this without being able to ask God? What are you comparing it to that proves it was "recorded accurately?" You have not provided any proof or reasoning for this. Please explain why you feel that you have any ability to decipher whether the Bible was recorded accurately.

By recorded accurately I meant copied. If that was not apparent I made sure to make it so by saying that was textual integrity.

2. Why does Ehrman mentioning Moses prove historical accuracy? I cannot fathom how that would prove anything. There are hundreds of examples of historical innacruacy in the Bible. One startling example is the census during the time of Jesus' birth, which there is absolutely no record of.

I did not say it did. Your misunderstanding most of what I say is causing you (and me) a lot of work. I said you mentioned Bart's statement about Moses. That statement is about historical accuracy, I did not say it proved historical accuracy. I was giving you three type of accuracy to chose to debate because no matter which one is mention your respond with claims in another one.

3. You have not proved any kind of accuracy, but, instead, have merely claimed that you have. Please provide evidence of textual accuracy from a source other than scripture, as scripture would merely provide circular logic.

No scripture would not be circular in a textual sense. The scripture does not make textual claims. Textual claims however are about scripture alone. I never said that scripture is textually accurate because scripture says it is. That is circular. I said it scripture is textually accurate because it passes every single test used for textual criticism for accuracy and it does so by massive margins compared with any other ancient work of any kind. There is not even a close second. None of these test are made by scripture but all must be made about scripture.

I have already given you quite a few tests for establishing reliability for the original. I have given you the best sources I know of, I have even told you that you can easily prove this for your self using software, not circular reasoning. I have given you the numbers that make textual accuracy a matter of fact and I used the highest range from a critic not a theologian. You cannot possibly expect more.

Something is starting to appear very wrong here.

I credit you with being intelligent yet you seem to misunderstand almost everything I say.
I credit you with honestly about being a Christian but you contend with the primary foundations of Christianity.

 

[Koldo]

What are your motives for this post? I want to decide whether you should have the right to write it.

To propagate ideas.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To propagate ideas.

But to what end?

I need to know if you want to use your free speech responsibly or carelessly.

 

[1robin]

I still think that you don't understand the meaning of "bodily autonomy." It ONLY refers to the right to refuse the DIRECT PHYSICAL use of one's body. Dependance, financial support, philosophical support, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing. The issue ONLY arises when one is forced to give up the use of their physical body against their will.

That is not what autonomy means.

autonomy
[aw-ton-uh-mee] /ɔˈtɒn ə mi/

noun, plural autonomies.

1. independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions:

If it actually meant what you claim it is still not granted. A mother cannot abort a baby legally after some arbitrary date that keeps changing over time. So some kind of actual autonomy necessitates a lack of restrictions. That is what the word is used to describe. A lack of limits. So if you have limits then you lack actual autonomy. Regardless you have only one source of all rights. That same source denies any autonomy is just that is not morally justified. Taking a life for convenience is the least justifiable action possible.