Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I still don't see how it's ever right to take an innocent life.

Didn't you say that you were a hunter? I find the following a much more compelling argument against killing than anti-abortion arguments defending an insentient fetus. This was a sentient creature that suffered, as the hunter was made to learn. I'd suggest that your empathy for the sleeping fetus is misplaced. Save it for those that can suffer like this deer:

The thing about "pro-choice" activists is that they keep moving the goalpost over the years.
First - "Its not alive its just a clump of cells" - but that was always wrong. Then it was - "It may be alive but, its not human" - but that was always wrong. Now its - "It may be a living human being, but its not a person." Since the inception of the word "person" - it always meant "an individual human being". However - once "pro-choice" activists made that word their keystone - they slapped all kinds of prerequisites to what a "person" really is.

None of those are relevant to the decision whether abortion is moral or not to me, and I consider it a mistake for pro-choice people to buy into any of that. It doesn't matter what one calls what's growing in the womb, nor what it has the potential to become. All that matters is whether there is suffering in a sentient agent. If not, terminating the pregnancy is a medical issue, not a moral one.

The only moral issue regarding the status of a presentient fetus is who gets to decide whether the pregnancy will come to term, the pregnant woman, or the church using the power of the state. That is all that matters - is the conceptus capable of feeling pain or horror, and if not, who get to decide its fate. Not if its human, not if one calls it living or a person or a baby or any other word. The deer in the video above was none of those things, but what was done to it was still immoral.

And I understand that you and other anti-abortion apologists feel the same way about the presentient fetus. Your revulsion is as visceral as mine is regarding the deer. That's unfortunate. And I believe that that feeling has been taught to you, which is why we see it cluster in those that go to churches. Natural, spontaneous outrage such as that the world is expressing for Putin, cuts across multiple demographics and doesn't require people to hear speeches or sermons to experience.

The tip-off that this outrage is manufactured is who it was standing in the protest lines outside of Planned Parenthood. Not humanists. Not Hindus or Buddhists. Not pagans or Wiccans. Almost exclusively people that go to churches.

@Clizby Wampuscat , an atheist opposed to abortion, might be an exception. His visceral response might be unrelated to church indoctrination, but such exceptions are very rare in these threads.

Either way, it's not how most people outside of churches feel, and its unfortunate that so many anti-abortion advocates have been made to suffer over this matter, leading to so many others suffering with the reversal of Roe.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Didn't you say that you were a hunter? I find the following a much more compelling argument against killing than anti-abortion arguments defending an insentient fetus. This was a sentient creature that suffered, as the hunter was made to learn. I'd suggest that your empathy for the sleeping fetus is misplaced. Save it for those that can suffer like this deer:

Lol, really? That's a ridiculous depiction of hunting. Those guys need to learn some gun safety.
And no, I don't put animals on the same level as humans. We were given dominion over the animals. And I bet you eat meat, so you are killing as much as any hunter, we are just honest about it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And I believe that that feeling has been taught to you,

No one has to be taught to be repulsed about killing babies... they have to be taught that it's ok by society repeating the same lies over and over.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No one has to be taught to be repulsed about killing babies... they have to be taught that it's ok by society repeating the same lies over and over.

Whew! It sure is lucky that it is not Bible times and God is not advocating killing babies any longer:

Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

The Bible is not anti-abortion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, really? That's a ridiculous depiction of hunting. Those guys need to learn some gun safety.
And no, I don't put animals on the same level as humans. We were given dominion over the animals. And I bet you eat meat, so you are killing as much as any hunter, we are just honest about it.

I will agree that just about everything that could be done possibly wrong was done in that short clip. Probably an illegal weapon was used, at least it would have been in Minnesota where I grew up. In higher density population areas, and even here we are talking farmland, we were limited to shotguns using slugs. A .30-06 will carry way to far to be considered safe. Guns pointing in all sorts of directions. Shooting a doe when it is almost always illegal to do so. Hunters are not stupid. They know where new deer come from, And judging by the clothing possibly hunting out of season.

This is a problem with Hollywood that they have to portray hunters as evil people.

But even with a clean shot, unless one hits the deer in the head, a deer will suffer far more than a fetus will. if the fetus is less than 24 weeks along.

 

[Father Heathen]

The Bible is not anti-abortion.

I'm fact, it's merely a monetary fine for inducing a miscarriage rather than an eye for an eye death sentence. Exodus 21:22-23

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm fact, it's merely a monetary fine for inducing a miscarriage rather than an eye for an eye death sentence. Exodus 21:22-23

I have pointed that out several times myself. That is also a verse whose translation was changed after Roe v Wade. I have been looking for my old Bible, but cannot find it. But if you find a Bible from the 1960's or earlier it will not say "gave birth prematurely". For once the KJV is the more accurate version it uses the phrase:

" so that her fruit depart from her,"

That sounds much more as if the pregnancy ended than "gave birth prematurely" That assumes something not in evidence, that she gave birth to a live child.

It is not a good sign when one has to tamper with one's own holy book.

 

[Father Heathen]

I have pointed that out several times myself. That is also a verse whose translation was changed after Roe v Wade. I have been looking for my old Bible, but cannot find it. But if you find a Bible from the 1960's or earlier it will not say "gave birth prematurely". For once the KJV is the more accurate version it uses the phrase:

" so that her fruit depart from her,"

That sounds much more as if the pregnancy ended than "gave birth prematurely" That assumes something not in evidence, that she gave birth to a live child.

It is not a good sign when one has to tamper with one's own holy book.

For believers in hell, their tampering and cherry picking is pretty ballsy.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

It has everything to do with claiming that pregnant women should just give up their babies for adoption because so many people are looking to adopt and all will be well!

Well - I never made this claim.

I would claim that women should stop having sex entirely until they are married and ready to have children.

If that standard is too high - then at least practice safe sex in a monogamous and committed relationship.

If that standard is too high - then at least practice safe sex in general - every time.

If that standard is too high - then at least marry the father of your "oops baby" and live happily ever after.

If that standard is too high - then at least don't murder your child - put he/her up for adoption.

You are scraping at the bottom of the barrel of "scenarios" when there were many better options.

Well, it seems people only want to adopt babies.

Correct - which is why couples wait literally years in order to adopt a newborn - there are many more couples ready to adopt than there are newborns needing adoption.

We should be promoting abstinence, self-control, personal accountability, safe sex practices - and not murdering babies.

Not sure if you know this, but children used to be babies

Whoa - wait - are you a biologist?

Because if you ain't an "expert" you can't make this kind of claim.

The foster system is full of children people don't want, but yeah, we should keep pumping out more babies.

I agree that the situation regarding children in foster care is unfortunate - but why are you assuming that all of these children were placed in the system as babies?

You understand that a child can be placed in the system at any time - not just when they are babies?

The vast majority of children in the system are there because their parents made bad life choices - and most are not babies - because babies tend to get adopted.

And the way to fix that problem is not by blaming the children and killing them.

That will solve everything. Well, it won't.

Of course it won't "solved everything" - but it will stop babies from being murdered.

You know - fighting Russia in Ukraine won't "solve everything" - but it will save many Ukrainian lives.

You know - getting the COVID vaccine won't "solve everything" - but it will save many lives.

You are looking for a "cure-all" answer - where there are none - but the least we can do is stop murdering babies.

Then after we get that squared away - let's teach people to not be selfish horndogs - so we can avoid further heartache and tragedy.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I'm pleasantly surprised that you are able to differentiate age brackets. Most anti-choicers can't differentiate between an embryo, a fetus and a baby.

I have ultrasound images of my children all throughout their incubation and I have loads more pictures of them from after they were born - yet all of them are images of the same human being - the same person.

The only reason I differentiated the "age bracket" was to point out the absurdity of what you said.

Most of the children in the system were not placed there when they were newborn babies - because newborn babies tend to get adopted.

When she makes the decision immediately after birth. Sometimes a mother realizes that she shouldn't have had that baby much too late, that is, too late for being adopted.

What do you mean by "mother"?

Don't you mean "birthing person"?

You know - "men can get pregnant too".

And I'm sorry - but that's life - if a woman is too immature, irresponsible, selfish or stupid not to know that she didn't want or could not take care of a child - then she is just going to have to lie in that bed she made.

Whatever the reason - it is not the child's fault - so don't kill him/her.

And when she has been forced or coerced, those who did that should step up and take responsibility, e.g. by adopting older children.

If she has been forced or coerced into getting pregnant and having a child - then call the police - because ain't that rape?

Or are you claiming that someone has confined this pregnant woman and forced her to give birth against her will - then also call the police - because that is kidnapping, holding someone against her will - all kinds of other broken laws.

Or are you talking about people in her life who convinced her to not abort her baby?

This last one kind of absolves her from literally all accountability for her actions - doesn't it?

If we keep incentivizing bad behavior - we will never solve anything - and killing babies isn't helping anyone - especially the baby.

Both. And the bad choice was to have that baby in the first place. (That is, if there was a choice.)

Instances of rape/incest/etc - the situations that "pro-choice" people always mention to try to justify all abortions - account for less than 1% of abortions.

Having a baby is never a bad choice - because the end result is always a baby - and they are pure and sweet and beautiful - and there are a lot of people waiting to adopt them.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Didn't you say that you were a hunter? I find the following a much more compelling argument against killing than anti-abortion arguments defending an insentient fetus. This was a sentient creature that suffered, as the hunter was made to learn. I'd suggest that your empathy for the sleeping fetus is misplaced. Save it for those that can suffer like this deer:

None of those are relevant to the decision whether abortion is moral or not to me, and I consider it a mistake for pro-choice people to buy into any of that. It doesn't matter what one calls what's growing in the womb, nor what it has the potential to become. All that matters is whether there is suffering in a sentient agent. If not, terminating the pregnancy is a medical issue, not a moral one.

The only moral issue regarding the status of a presentient fetus is who gets to decide whether the pregnancy will come to term, the pregnant woman, or the church using the power of the state. That is all that matters - is the conceptus capable of feeling pain or horror, and if not, who get to decide its fate. Not if its human, not if one calls it living or a person or a baby or any other word. The deer in the video above was none of those things, but what was done to it was still immoral.

And I understand that you and other anti-abortion apologists feel the same way about the presentient fetus. Your revulsion is as visceral as mine is regarding the deer. That's unfortunate. And I believe that that feeling has been taught to you, which is why we see it cluster in those that go to churches. Natural, spontaneous outrage such as that the world is expressing for Putin, cuts across multiple demographics and doesn't require people to hear speeches or sermons to experience.

The tip-off that this outrage is manufactured is who it was standing in the protest lines outside of Planned Parenthood. Not humanists. Not Hindus or Buddhists. Not pagans or Wiccans. Almost exclusively people that go to churches.

@Clizby Wampuscat , an atheist opposed to abortion, might be an exception. His visceral response might be unrelated to church indoctrination, but such exceptions are very rare in these threads.

Either way, it's not how most people outside of churches feel, and its unfortunate that so many anti-abortion advocates have been made to suffer over this matter, leading to so many others suffering with the reversal of Roe.

How do you define "sentience"?

I believe that those who protest against abortion are those who delight in children because they tend to have them.

Also - they do not avoid looking at the science regarding the not-yet-born - because those facts tend to validate their beliefs - rather than contradict them.

There are reasons for why "pro-choice" activists are against waiting periods and ultrasounds for pregnant women seeking abortion - they don't want those women to think about what they are doing.

There are reasons for why "pro-choice" activists want it labelled "abortion" and stress over terms and vague concepts - they don't want those women to think about what they are doing.

"Pro-life" advocates have always demanded more information - more facts - more options - and more time for people to review before making their decision.

Because if they actually gave it some thought - and don't get caught up in the sensationalism and fear-mongering - they realize that it is wrong to kill their child.

 

[Viker]

I would claim that women should stop having sex entirely until they are married and ready to have children.

There ya go flying those true colors again.

Not content with merely saying nay to abortions. You must decide for women what they can do with their lives, not just their bodies.

What about men? Why not say people?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

There ya go flying those true colors again.

I never put them away...

Not content with merely saying nay to abortions.

Of course not - I want everyone to improve eternally and become like our Father in Heaven - perfect.

You must decide for women what they can do with their lives, not just their bodies.

I have not the authority to make such a decision.

I was merely sharing my opinion.

What about men?

Men should also wait until marriage before having sex.

Why not say people?

I did not say "people" because it is women - not men - who have all the reproductive rights.

Therefore - in a discussion about abortion - most if not all of my comments would be directed towards those "people" (i.e. women) who are the ones with the legal right to make that decision.

 

[Viker]

I never put them away...

Of course not - I want everyone to improve eternally and become like our Father in Heaven - perfect.

I have not the authority to make such a decision.

I was merely sharing my opinion.

Men should also wait until marriage before having sex.

I did not say "people" because it is women - not men - who have all the reproductive rights.

Therefore - in a discussion about abortion - most if not all of my comments would be directed towards those "people" (i.e. women) who are the ones with the legal right to make that decision.

I've got my eyes on you.

 

[Heyo]

Instances of rape/incest/etc - the situations that "pro-choice" people always mention to try to justify all abortions - account for less than 1% of abortions.

That reminds me that you haven't answered my question about that 1% fallacy yet.

The other ramblings are as yet too weird for me to answer but I have yet another question.

You don't like women having sex out of marriage and the security to be able to raise the child (but would force those barely able to do it anyway). What about the men?
How many men shy away from their responsibility and flee from having to pay alimony? What about a "man tax" that every male has to pay? It would have to be set at a level so that every child can be raised under the conditions that you said you'd prefer it should have been conceived.
Would you vote for such a tax?

 

[Heyo]

I did not say "people" because it is women - not men - who have all the reproductive rights.

Do they?

Therefore - in a discussion about abortion - most if not all of my comments would be directed towards those "people" (i.e. women) who are the ones with the legal right to make that decision.

Where are you from? This is about reproductive (and religious) rights in the US. And in many states women's rights are limited to non existent - and they are about to be cut even more. And you are advocating for it.
I've offered two solutions to better the circumstances for women and by that make it rational for women to have children so that abortion would become a purely medical decision. Please answer those questions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And I'm sorry - but that's life - if a woman is too immature, irresponsible, selfish or stupid not to know that she didn't want or could not take care of a child - then she is just going to have to lie in that bed she made.

Life isn't you getting to decide what women, and men, can and cannot do. I'm not sorry, that's how it is.

How do you define "sentience"?

I believe that those who protest against abortion are those who delight in children because they tend to have them.

Also - they do not avoid looking at the science regarding the not-yet-born - because those facts tend to validate their beliefs - rather than contradict them.

There are reasons for why "pro-choice" activists are against waiting periods and ultrasounds for pregnant women seeking abortion - they don't want those women to think about what they are doing.

There are reasons for why "pro-choice" activists want it labelled "abortion" and stress over terms and vague concepts - they don't want those women to think about what they are doing.

"Pro-life" advocates have always demanded more information - more facts - more options - and more time for people to review before making their decision.

Because if they actually gave it some thought - and don't get caught up in the sensationalism and fear-mongering - they realize that it is wrong to kill their child.

Sounds like you are just interested in controlling women. Like the waiting periods, those are bad because abortion is very much a time sensitive thing. And ultrasounds? They are medically unnecessary and do nothing but force women to jump through hoops to appease those who want to control her reproductive rights and choices.
I'm curious, what is your opinion on hysterectomies?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We were given dominion over the animals.

That's a religious belief I don't share.

No one has to be taught to be repulsed about killing babies

The evidence I cited says otherwise. You even need to be trained to call it killing babies. That behavior is confined almost exclusively to people who have learned that kind of thinking in church, which is how we know where they learned it and why they say it.

I would claim that women should stop having sex entirely until they are married and ready to have children.

That's also a religious belief. Women should do as their consciences direct them, not as a holy book or a religion directs them. Sex is rarely about having children.

We should be promoting abstinence, self-control, personal accountability, safe sex practices

There is no virtue in abstinence for its own sake. When one is ready for a Personal accountability doesn't include being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to satisfy the desires of others.

How do you define "sentience"?

Awareness of self and ones surrounding. In this matter, it also includes the ability to suffer.

There are reasons for why "pro-choice" activists are against waiting periods and ultrasounds for pregnant women seeking abortion - they don't want those women to think about what they are doing.

That is not among the reasons. Not caring what others want them to do is, however.

There are reasons for why "pro-choice" activists want it labelled "abortion" and stress over terms and vague concepts - they don't want those women to think about what they are doing.

I don't know anybody objecting to the term abortion, and once again, what others want pregnant women to think about is not relevant.

"Pro-life" advocates have always demanded more information - more facts - more options - and more time for people to review before making their decision.

Demanded? You have no standing to demand anything in this matter. You don't seem to understand that you are not a part of the decision others make for themselves. Your sensibilities are not part of her equation. It's like you telling others what not to eat based on what tastes good to you.

Men should also wait until marriage before having sex.

Here you go again telling others how they should live. You come by it honestly, however. It's pretty much what religion is, isn't it? After a few decades of hearing thou shalts coming from the pulpit, it's probably hard to resist doing it yourself.

 

[wellwisher]

The Satanic abortion ritual provides spiritual comfort and affirms bodily autonomy, self-worth, and freedom from coercive forces with the affirmation of TST's Seven Tenets. The ritual is not intended to convince a person to have an abortion. Instead, it sanctifies the abortion process by instilling confidence and protecting bodily rights when undergoing the safe and scientific procedure.
https://announcement.thesatanictemple.com/rrr-campaign41280784

I find the music from the video a bit disturbing.

Do you think abortion should be protected as a religious right?

If abortion was a religious right, the government could not support it, in any way, since there is separation of church and state. If government funded or promoted abortion, it would be endorsing a particular religion through tax payer funding and public education. That would be illegal. Overturning Roe v. Wade, would have to be the next step since government can't play religious favorites.

 

[Sheldon]

No one has to be taught to be repulsed about killing babies... they have to be taught that it's ok by society repeating the same lies over and over.

No babies are killed when a pregnancy is terminated. Given how many times and how thoroughly this has been explained to you, I don't think accusations of duplicity are stones you ought to be throwing.

There is however a sentient woman involved, who can and will suffer if laws are used to enslave her, by taking away her right to bodily autonomy.