• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual

74x12

Well-Known Member
It's not even that.
Hmm ... that would depend on the individual right? I think satanism is all about the self. So of course it's up to you. Your body is your temple to self and you can do whatever you want with it.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Point one:
Why stop with abortions? If they're protected so is human sacrifice.

Second point:
Whether you agree with abortion as a right or not. What kind of sick religion thinks it's a sacrament?
It seems you may have entirely missed the point.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
That's less than 1% of all abortions when there has been rape or incest involved to create the pregnancy. About 85% of the women who become pregnant through rape or incest choose to have their children anyway.
An Elliot Institute study on rape-related pregnancies found that nearly 80% of the women who aborted said that abortion was the wrong solution.
Many women say that when they see their child, they fall in love at first sight. Others choose adoption because they don’t want an abortion, but don’t want the child either.
I really hate this argument.
Instead of pulling numbers out of our behinds (as if 1% isn't too many to start with), let's look at some data ...


"Results: The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion.

Conclusions: Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization."

Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women - PubMed
_________________________________________________________________________________

"Almost 3 million women in the U.S. experienced RRP [rape-related pregnancy] during their lifetime ...
  • Of women who were raped by an intimate partner, 30% experienced a form of reproductive coercion by the same partner. Specifically, about 20% reported that their partner had tried to get them pregnant when they did not want to or tried to stop them from using birth control. About 23% reported their partner refused to use a condom. ...
These data come from the first study in over 20 years to offer a nationally representative prevalence estimate of RRP of U.S. women by any perpetrator and the first ever to provide these estimates by race and ethnicity. The findings add to the understanding of the relationship between SV and intimate partner violence (IPV) and reproductive health among U.S. women."

Understanding Pregnancy Resulting from Rape in the United States |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC

So that tiny percentage turns out to be a lot of people. A lot of people who are being victimized domestically, on a daily basis, often by their own partners. But yeah, let's force these women to have babies against their will. That should make things better. :rolleyes:
I really wish people would think these positions through a lot more thoroughly.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Well - I never made this claim.
Others have. You jumped into the conversation.

I would claim that women should stop having sex entirely until they are married and ready to have children.
I would argue that's completely unrealistic. By the way, you know pregnancy takes two to tango, right? But here we are just talking about how women should stop having sex entirely, until they're ready to have children.

Not to mention the fact that this view means that sex is entirely for reproduction purposes.

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.
I agree with that. The problem is that protection doesn't always work. Condoms can fail. Vasectomies can fail.


If that standard is too high - then at least marry the father of your "oops baby" and live happily ever after.
What if that man is a rapist? Or your father? Or an abuser? Or someone you don't want to spend your life with?


If that standard is too high - then at least don't murder your child - put he/her up for adoption.
I agree that people shouldn't murder children. Blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses aren't children.

And now we're back to the old "put them up for adoption" argument. Well, that requires carrying the fetus for nine months first. It may be a good option for some, but not-so-good an option for those who can't afford it, or who have health problems that could be exacerbated by a pregnancy.

Which brings us back to my point that the world is already filled with hundreds of thousands of unwanted children as it is. Forcing women to have babies isn't going to magically make this problem go away. It's going to exacerbate it.

You are scraping at the bottom of the barrel of "scenarios" when there were many better options.
My position is that there are so many scenarios and situations that can come into play, that it isn't up to me to decide for anyone else what is best for them. That should be left up to the individual.

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.
Those couples should adopt some of the thousands and thousands of children that are already in the system.

We should be promoting abstinence, self-control, personal accountability, safe sex practices - and not murdering babies.
I'm all for promoting birth control, but the problem seems to be that some conservative types think even that should be outlawed. Which makes me question their motives in the first place.

Whoa - wait - are you a biologist?

Because if you ain't an "expert" you can't make this kind of claim.
That children used to be babies? Please tell me you're joking.

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?
I'm not.

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.
The way to fix the problem is not to exacerbate it by forcing more unwanted children into the world.

Of course it won't "solved everything" - but it will stop babies from being murdered.
If babies are being murdered, those people should be arrested. Blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses aren't babies and don't fit the definition. And their life shouldn't trump that of the actual fully grown and developed, fully sentient human being in which they reside.

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.
Actually, I'm not looking for a "cure-all" answer. My answer is to let every individual decide for herself what is best for her, in her situation. Not having some outside parties dictating to her what they think is best for her. The latter seems to be what you want.

Then after we get that squared away - let's teach people to not be selfish horndogs - so we can avoid further heartache and tragedy.
Human beings have sex. That's a fact of life.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
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.
These last two posts of yours, I think, perfectly demonstrate how attitudes like yours infantilize women.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Sorry, but biased sites are not very reliable. You do realize that is not a science based site, don't you? You can tell by their use of references that this is not an honest site. Instead of going directly to the peer reviewed science articles when they make a claim who do they go to? Another antiabortion site. That is an improper use of citation and is a very bad sign. Why didn't they go to the peer reviewed source? Perhaps it is because the source does not support them.

The evidence may be out there but that does not count.
And the typos. :rolleyes:
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Whether you agree with abortion as a right or not. What kind of sick religion thinks it's a sacrament?

There seem to be at least two very different kinds of people calling themselves Satanists, and one seems to be essentially secular humanists spoofing religion. So, when the church gets permission to put up a religious icon on public property, the Satanists want to get Baphomet out there, not because they consider this to be a real god or want to promote any ism, but just to oppose Christian exceptionalism in the public sphere.

They'll do the same when churches get permission to hand out pro-religious literature in the schools, or public meetings begin with a theistic prayer. They want to hand out their literature right beside it, and give their own Satanic benediction. They're not promoting anything except to get the religious to rethink promoting their religions in public spaces. That's what this abortion thing is as well. Christians consider abortion wrong and want to make recriminalizing it law? OK, let's call abortion a religious ritual and get the protection that that claim garners the theists.

It's nonsensical to say that abortion is a religious right if it has nothing to do with your religion.

Same argument. The Satanists aren't doing what the Christians are doing, which is promoting their religion. The Satanists aren't trying to recruit converts. Convert to what? Satire? They're not promoting anything. They're opposing something using a clever technique, a kind of logistical judo or jujitsu, where one turns the assault back at the assaulter and uses his own moves against him.
This movement seems purely political, not religious.

I am not prolife because I have a visceral response to abortion. I have a moral argument against it.

OK, but I don't make a distinction there between moral judgment and the visceral experience of a moral imperative. My position is also based in a moral argument, but that argument is based in a moral intuition, which is not a product of reason, but of my gut reaction regarding what is morally reprehensible and what is not. Neither of us can justify our positions beyond saying that that is how we feel. You feel something for the conceptus from conception on. I begin later with sentience. What is the argument that either of us could offer to defend those feelings, which I describe as visceral (or gut feeling if you prefer, or moral intuition, or subconscious process), since they are not derived, but rather, discovered within ourselves.

In my opinion, all moral judgments are like that unless one's moral views have been indoctrinated into him, in which case they are learned, not discovered.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Wishful thinking.
I'll bet you're a conspiracy theorist? Do you believe the twin towers of the world trade centre were blown up by the CIA? Or that Kennedy's assassination was not the work of one man? Or that NASA didn't really put men on the moon?

How about Trump's groundless claims the election was stolen from him?

FWIW that video is a propaganda lie, but even were it not, it would not be an argument from enslaving women by taking away their bodily autonomy. Correlation is not causation.
 
Top