Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual

[Fallen Prophet]

What utter nonsense, the anti-choice side is dealing in emotive sophistry, and superstition, and ignoring facts in order to enslave women, by taking away their bodily autonomy.

“Emotive sophistry” intended to motivate people to examine all the facts - as opposed to the “anti-life” side that uses “emotive sophistry” to ignore the facts.

I don’t know what “superstition” you are referring to - maybe the idea that many women are often plagued by feelings of regret and grief even decades after getting an “abortion”?

I don’t think that is so much a “superstition” as a fact that no matter how hard you try to ignore reality - it can catch up to you.

How is not allowing women to murder their children “enslaving” them? Am I currently a slave because the law forbids me from murdering other people?

Women can do whatever they want with their bodies - until they start infringing upon the rights of others or causing serious bodily harm or death to them.

You cannot claim “bodily autonomy” when you are using your body to murder other people.

Bodily autonomy only goes as far as your own body - and it is a scientific fact that the not-yet-born child's body is separate and distinct from their mother’s body.

Just as many people have pointed out in this thread that the Constitution does not mention anyone having a “right to life” - (even though I never made such a claim) - I would like to point out that the Constitution does not mention anyone having a “right to bodily autonomy”.

I find this position from those on the Left hilarious because they often argue to take away the choices of others; what they can say, what guns they can own, what cars they can buy, what they can do with their own money, what schools their children can go to, what beliefs their children are exposed to, a father not wanting his child murdered, a father wanting to abandon his child, etc.

Yet when it comes to a woman choosing “abortion” - all of a sudden - this choice is inviolate and invulnerable to any and all criticism.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

They don't care about the life of the woman, only of a clump of insentient cells.

This is just not true - and kudos for actually using the term “clump of cells” - I was waiting for that.

I have claimed multiple times that an “abortion” may be warranted if the life of the mother is in jeopardy - even though that is statistically nonexistent.

Today if the mother or not-yet-born child is sick - they can both get treatment - and sometimes that treatment may lead to the death of the not-yet-born child.

It is not an “abortion” - per se - because the procedure is not intended to kill the not-yet-born child.

Either way - it is the mother’s decision on whether or not she and the not-yet-born child receive such treatment.

In the vast majority of “abortion” cases - over 99% - the life of the mother is not in danger.

So - I don’t understand how you can claim that I and others do not care about the life of the woman.

What we do claim is that the temporary inconvenience and discomfort of the woman is not equitable to the life of another human being.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Like your false claim that abortion is murder, while ignoring that this is woefully inaccurate, and just what you want abortion to be.

The only thing that distinguishes “abortions” from other murders is the arbitrary decision made by lawmakers to simply not classify it as such.

And as history has proven - that can be changed - so there is no reason to act like it is an absolute.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don’t think you are the best spokesperson for “which words should be used to describe what” - considering that you believe that “woman” is just a “word we use to describe certain people.”.

Remember when you said that in Post #95 of this thread,

In fairness, it should be asked: What is the definition of... | Page 5 | Religious Forums

Do you also remember that when I first reminded you of that in this thread (Post #396) and you were unwilling to own up to it?

You said in Post #398 - “No, that's not me, you seem unable to resist stereotyping everyone who disagrees with you, so it's not surprising.”

Then I showed you the proof and you said in response in Post #401 - “Which it is, so how does that justify you disingenuously claiming I don't know what a woman is? It's hardly my fault you don't understand it is a name we assign certain people.”

HAH! That’s good stuff!

You acted just like those teachers, administrators and bureaucrats who denied that CRT and “gender theory” were being taught in our public schools - but when contradictory proof was provided - they said that it was a good thing that CRT and “gender theory” were being taught in our public schools.

If “woman” is simply a “word we use to describe certain people” - then why did you initially deny that it was you who said it and then claim that I was stereotyping?

A denial and a baseless personal attack - all to sidetrack - to divert attention from your foible - but then you were forced to double down on it when I shared that other thread.

Just like a politician!

So - basically - if you were to rewrite the dictionary - it would be nothing more than a list of words having the same definition - “A word we use to describe something.”

Yeah - you are not the person who should be playing “word police”.

Anyways - if you had actually read my post you’d know that I believe I had used the term “baby” to refer to the not-yet-born the one time and I immediately recanted and corrected when it was pointed out to me.

The words “child” or “children” can be used to describe the not-yet-born - since biological sex is determined at the moment of conception - therefore making the not-yet-born a son or daughter - and the word “child” or “children” can describe son(s) or daughter(s) of any age.

I don’t know how I incorrectly used the term “infant” - I don’t believe I referred to the not-yet-born as an “infant” - even though that is not entirely inaccurate considering that “infant” can be used to describe “something in an early stage of its development”.

Could you quote where I referred to the not-yet-born as “infant”?

I will continue to maintain that “abortion” is murder - not because I challenge the definition - but because I believe that “abortion” should be included in the list of “unlawful killings”.

It would make no sense for me to advocate that “abortions” should be illegalized - because they are the killing of innocent human beings - and not also argue that “abortion” is murder - since an illegal killing is a murder.

Examine the criteria for what constitutes lawful and unlawful killings and you will soon see how “abortion” differs from “other” lawful killings.

Oh good, you're just going to show up and repeat all your claims that have already been addressed and/or refuted.

I don't think you've thought your position all the way through. If abortion is murder, than a miscarriage must be at least manslaughter. And if it can be shown that a woman either knowingly or unknowingly caused her body to miscarry, is she now a murderer? Do you actually know how many women you'd be jailing/executing if we followed your arguments to their logical conclusion?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Or your claim it involves babies, children, infants etc etc, when it never does, or your claim it is an innocent human being as if an insentient clump of cells can be judged innocent or not, like saying a toothbrush is innocent.

I already covered your claims about the terms - your attempts to dehumanize the not-yet-born.

And I just want to give you props again for using the term “clump of cells” - the balls you got to use such an outdated and asinine argument.

A toothbrush is not a complete living organism - it is not a human being - and no human being in the womb is guilty of any crime or offense.

Therefore he/she is innocent.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

These arguments are so inaccurate they are woefully weak.

You just don’t like them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understand why these designations are so important to you - you want to dehumanize the not-yet-born - to justify murdering them.

However - none of those designations contest the humanity of the not-yet-born - the fact that they are human beings.

It is an irrefutable scientific fact that at the moment of conception a new human life was created - a unique and individual DNA sequence was formed - as well as a mother, father and child.

I understand your - “Establishment and the status quo” - argument - but we have a system in place that can allow us to add to the list of “unlawful killings”.

As I accurately pointed out earlier to you - it was once legal for a slaveholder to kill their recaptured runaway slaves.

Abolitionists and others argued that it was murder - but you maintained that since it was “legal” that it wasn’t murder.

Thank goodness people like you were defeated - because it was murder - abolitionists and other people applying common sense used the system to add that to the list of “unlawful killings”.

And since you seem to be ignorant of history in general - many other changes have been made in our society over the centuries.

So the whole “Establishment and the status quo” argument has been defeated many times.

A new human life is created at the moment of conception? Hmm, well without implantation in the uterine wall, you haven't got anything.
Again, you don't appear to know enough about pregnancy to get any say what other people do with their bodies. And on top of that, you don't appear to have thought out your arguments to their logical conclusions.

Now you're trying to compare blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses (yes, those are the actual terms for them!) with slaves? Gimme a break.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Oh good, you're just going to show up and repeat all your claims that have already been addressed and/or refuted.

I don't think you've thought your position all the way through. If abortion is murder, than a miscarriage must be at least manslaughter. And if it can be shown that a woman either knowingly or unknowingly caused her body to miscarry, is she now a murderer? Do you actually know how many women you'd be jailing/executing if we followed your arguments to their logical conclusion?

Wow - is this one of your examples of "refuting" something I have said?

That's sad.

First off - I have never advocated that any woman should be prosecuted for murder - let only jailed or executed.

There is too much disinformation out there about what it in the womb to claim that any woman who gets an "abortion" has the proper mens rea to be held completely accountable.

My wife and I lost a child. It was horrible. It was an accident. There was nothing we could do. I will never recover from it. I expect to see his little face every morning. He would be twelve if he were alive today.

Sometimes things happen that are out of our control.

Would you claim that we are murderers?

 

[SkepticThinker]

“Fully sentient” as opposed to just “sentient” - you and Skeptical Thinker must be reading from the same playbook.

And again - just like Skeptical Thinker - you are claiming that I am arguing that the not-yet-born have some kind of “right to life” - which I never claimed - so you must be copying her notes.

All I have claimed is that no one has the right to murder another human being.

No woman has the right to murder their children and no one has a “right to life” so no one’s rights are being negated.

Also - the not-yet-born child is not a part of the mother’s body - the mother does not gain an extra head, heart, ten more fingers or toes, or penis if the not-yet-born child happens to be male.

All of those parts belong to the not-yet-born child - they are not a part of the mother.

They are separate and distinct.

Of course the unborn is a part of the woman's body. It's literally attached by the umbilical cord which is connected to the woman's uterus.
Sorry, but you don't know enough about pregnancy to get to dictate to other people what they can do with their own bodies. Go take care of your own body.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wow - is this one of your examples of "refuting" something I have said?

That's sad.

First off - I have never advocated that any woman should be prosecuted for murder - let only jailed or executed.

There is too much disinformation out there about what it in the womb to claim that any woman who gets an "abortion" has the proper mens rea to be held completely accountable.

My wife and I lost a child. It was horrible. It was an accident. There was nothing we could do. I will never recover from it. I expect to see his little face every morning. He would be twelve if he were alive today.

Sometimes things happen that are out of our control.

Would you claim that we are murderers?

Ah, no. It's another point. You can save your snark. What's sad is that you ignored the point and the question.

You've literally called abortion murder in almost every post. I'm just following your thoughts to their logical conclusion.
I had a friend who has MS, who had a miscarriage. She didn't know at the time, that there were special things she had to do, because she had MS, that she didn't know about and didn't do, that probably caused her to miscarry her wanted child. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

 

[Sheldon]

You said in Post #398 - “No, that's not me, you seem unable to resist stereotyping everyone who disagrees with you, so it's not surprising.”

That's because you falsely claimed I had said I did not know what a woman is. Your posts have form for labelling others with these kind of sweeping stereotypes, and using them against anyone who dares disagree with one of your angry disjointed rants.

Then I showed you the proof and you said in response in Post #401 - “Which it is, so how does that justify you disingenuously claiming I don't know what a woman is? It's hardly my fault you don't understand it is a name we assign certain people.”

HAH! That’s good stuff!

So are you saying woman is not a word used to describe certain people, or that it is not adequately defined in the dictionary, which were my responses? So are we done with this red herring ad hominem you're using to avoid addressing my actual post here?

The words “child” or “children” can be used to describe the not-yet-born -

So can the word tomato, but it would also be inaccurate and incorrect and render the claim meaningless, which is what you keep doing when you describe a zygote blastocyst or foetus as a baby, person or child, or legal abortion as murder, as I just pointed out, after you asked another poster how you were constantly resorting to inaccurate, incorrect emotive and misleading words. It's a vapid mix of rhetoric and hyperbole.

I will continue to maintain that “abortion” is murder - not because I challenge the definition - but because I believe that “abortion” should be included in the list of “unlawful killings”.

Exactly as I said then, you are using an inaccurate and incorrect word as hyperbole, based on what you want abortion to be, and not on what the word means. Thanks for proving my point, albeit unintentionally.

It would make no sense for me to advocate that “abortions” should be illegalized

Oh I agree, since this would enslave women, in order to give more rights to a clump of insentient cells, than the woman whose body it is a part of.

because they are the killing of innocent human beings - and not also argue that “abortion” is murder - since an illegal killing is a murder.

IT'S NOT ILLEGAL... ipos facto it is not murder. You cannot simultaneously argue that something should be illegal, and that it is illegal, that's what makes no sense.

It is also pretty meaningless to describe any insentient clump of cells as innocent, as they cannot be otherwise, in that sense toe nail clippings are innocent, so they're murdered every time you cut them off your body. A pretty good example of how using poor reasoning, and incorrect or inaccurate wording, simply renders the claim meaningless.

Abortion is the termination of zygote, blastocyst or developing foetus, that is part of a woman's body, if it is legal then it is not murder, by definition.

Examine the criteria for what constitutes lawful and unlawful killings and you will soon see how “abortion” differs from “other” lawful killings.

That's meaningless gibberish, examine a dictionary, and see if you can present a cogent argument, and not one filled with inaccurate emotive hyperbole, that renders the arguments meaningless.

 

[Sheldon]

I understand why these designations are so important to you - you want to dehumanize the not-yet-born - to justify murdering them.

They're important to anyone who wants to their posts to mean something cogent. I already stated I don't believe a blastocyst is a human being, and have offered biological scientific evidence. No one is murdering anything, unless religious bigots get their way of course, and manage to criminalise and enslave women.

It is an irrefutable scientific fact that at the moment of conception a new human life was created

No it isn't, that's just bombast and rhetoric.

a unique and individual DNA sequence was formed - as well as a mother, father and child.

So three more words you need to look up in a dictionary, and you shed unique DNA every time you scratch your ****, or get your hair or nails cut. Oh the horror...

Thank goodness people like you were defeated - because it was murder - abolitionists and other people applying common sense used the system to add that to the list of “unlawful killings”.

How old did you think I am exactly?

And since you seem to be ignorant of history in general - many other changes have been made in our society over the centuries.

Well I've never claimed to be an historian of course, but you're the one who seems to think I was present during the abolition of the North Atlantic slave trade...

So the whole “Establishment and the status quo” argument has been defeated many times.

Cool story, but irrelevant since this was a straw man of your making, and not an argument I have ever presented.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
That's something of an irony overload, as an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, and the fact is that this:

is not a human being.

Wow - so sterile - “abortion” and “termination of a pregnancy” - you can’t even own up to what you are advocating.

That's gibberish sorry? I don't even know what you're attempting to say, let alone what it has to do with my post?

Are you claiming that we cannot distinguish a human blastocyst from any other mammalian blastocyst?

Not to any halfway literate person, no.

Not only that but we can also determine the biological sex, color of the eyes, shape of the hands, height and even the size of the nose that the human being that is currently a blastocyst will have.

At last you finally accept it is not a child, but a blastocyst, this is progress of a sort I suppose.

A human blastocyst is a complete living organism that only requires the proper environment - and being left alone - to become a fully developed human being.

Are you trying to set a new straw man fallacy record on here or something? Only I must warn you some theists and apologists have set the bar pretty high. Still don't be disheartened, you're definitely in the running if you keep this pace up.

FWIW the "proper environment" is to remain part of a woman's body, topologically connected, using and dependant on here immune system and metabolism, and her blood for oxygen and nutrients, and since it is her body, she must be allowed to say how it is used, and to paraphrase Matt Dillahunty, I don't care if you think it's in there writing poetry.

 

[Sheldon]

So the old “clump of cells” and “sentience” arguments. Yawn.

Ah more meaningless vapid hand waving, yawn.

I must then offer up the obligatory response of, “All people are just clumps of cells!”

I'm not sure you must, but I am sure you're wrong though, or did you think we wouldn't notice you have omitted the word insentient? All people are also not part of a pregnant woman's body in the ways already described, so again the claim is as irrelevant as it is inaccurate.

And I need to ask - “So you are against “abortions” that take place after 18 weeks?” since that is when we believe the not-yet-born start to gain sentience.

You can believe the moon is made of cheese if it makes you happy. I prefer to base what i believe on medical science, and have found that anti-choicers tend to make up blatant lies in their propaganda. The medical evidence indicates a developing foetus is never sentient. However late term abortions should be and are legislated against, except in extreme circumstances. In most of the UK 82% of abortions are performed under 10 weeks, but can be legally obtained up to 23 weeks. I would imagine this is because the neural connections required (as a bare minimum), to feel pain don't form until 24 weeks.

And depending on how you define “sentience” - you may be arguing that it is justifiable to kill already-born human beings.

A slippery slope fallacy, well done.

A toenail is not a complete living organism - growing through cellular division and comprising several differentiated cells.

Wow yet another straw man fallacy, as I never remotely claimed it was. You claimed an insentient blastocyst was innocent and had unique DNA, I merely pointed out this is equally true of toe and fingernail clippings. The rest you have made up, who knows why?

 

[Sheldon]

You are the one inaccurately comparing a human blastocyst with a toenail - completely ignoring what a blastocyst actually is.

You invited the comparison when you claimed a blastocyst was innocent and had unique DNA, I have made no other comparison, you are simply misrepresenting what I said yet again.

You're making a superficial judgment based on nothing but looks - “It looks different from me - let’s kill it!”

Anyone can read through the thread to see that this is not the case.

So - you are presenting inaccurate information and comparisons - all while ignoring the facts.

Yeah, quote a couple of examples? As all you seem to have offered so far are straw man fallacies that you have created, but that have nothing to do with me.

Talk about irony!

Indeed, it's palpable.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Except you're not, you are arguing that an insentient blastocyst or foetus, should have rights that negate those of a fully sentient woman whose body it is a part of, and uses to survive.

“Fully sentient” as opposed to just “sentient” - you and Skeptical Thinker must be reading from the same playbook.

Did you have anything to say about the actual post, or is this cherry picking and ad hominem all you have left now?

 

[Sheldon]

And again - just like Skeptical Thinker - you are claiming that I am arguing that the not-yet-born have some kind of “right to life” - which I never claimed - so you must be copying her notes.

No - I am affording the not-yet-born the same rights as already-born people - nothing special.

You cannot kill already-born people simply because their existence is inconvenient to you.

Oh dear...

 

[Sheldon]

All I have claimed is that no one has the right to murder another human being.

I agree, so why you're telling me this is unclear. Only an abortion isn't murder in the UK or the US, and I don't accept your claim a blastocyst, zygote or developing foetus is a human being, and certainly not in the sense the woman whose body it is a part of, is a sentient human being, capable for example of experiencing physical and emotional pain. I have already given the reasons and the facts to support my reasoning.

 

[Sheldon]

Also - the not-yet-born child is not a part of the mother’s body

It's not a child until it is born, and yes of course it is part of a woman's body, and dependant on it. It is topologically connected and shares a blood flow, from which it derives all oxygen and nutrition, and shares the woman's immune system, and metabolism, it is insentient, cannot experience physical or emotional pain, etc etc..

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree, so why you're telling me this is unclear. Only an abortion isn't murder in the UK or the US, and I don't accept your claim a blastocyst, zygote or developing foetus is a human being, and certainly not in the sense the woman whose body it is a part of it a human being. I have already given the reasons and the facts to support my reasoning.

Even if a fetus is "alive" the women's bodily autonomy still rules. I doubt if any antiabortionist would be agreed to hooked up to a person that needed their kidney for nine months. They would think that they were within their rights to refuse such an order.

They themselves would demonstrate the folly of their arguments.