Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual

[SkepticThinker]

You realize that you immediately and totally contradicted yourself?

"The moment of conception is literally not when human life begins because if it doesn't implant into the uterine wall, it's going to just be flushed out and that life is gone." (Bold and italics added)

What "life is gone" when the fertilized egg does not implant into the uterine wall if human life does not begin at the moment of conception?

<Sigh.

So I used the wrong word. Who cares? You get the point, right? Or not?

Let's re-phrase then. The moment of conception is literally not when human life begins because if it doesn't implant into the uterine wall, it's going to be flushed out and gone."
How about that? Better? Do you understand the point now?

I understand the horrible and illogical point you are trying to make.

We're following the line in your logic here.

If a pregnancy does not occur by the time the woman sheds her uterine lining - the fertilized egg will be "flushed" out - and I do not see at all how that could be seen as a "killing" of any kind.

You don't see how that is "killing of any kind?" But you said that life literally begins at conception. So when the fertilized egg is flushed out, then according to your beliefs, a human life has been ended. Same goes in a miscarriage. Sometimes a miscarriage occurs completely randomly and naturally and other times, they can happen as a result of something the woman has done, whether intentionally or not, as in the example of my friend. This is the slippery slope your line of logic takes us down. There are even some people who think birth control is akin to abortion because it (potentially) prevents an egg from being fertilized. In your mind, a fertilized egg is a human life. Whether or not it's implanted in the uterus is irrelevant than, because it's a human life regardless. Doing anything to end that life is "killing" or "murder" in your view. So having a period, which flushes that "life" (as you call it) out of the body can be viewed as "killing" it. Or slipping really hard on some ice and having a miscarriage can be viewed as "killing" or "murder" in your view. Did she slip on purpose? Was she really being careful? Was she wearing the right shoes? Did she really want the baby? You're potentially opening a whole giant can of worms here. And when it comes down to it, it's none of your business at all.

I mean seriously, people think that the Handmaid's Tale could never happen. Well, this is how we get there. Now the woman isn't viewed as a person at all, but just an incubation machine. The blastocyst/zygote/fetus has all the rights and the woman has none.

"Abortion" - the actual topic of our discussion - is the intentional termination of a pregnancy - the killing of a not-yet-born child.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.

What you are describing is not an "abortion" or "killing" since no action or inaction caused the death of the not-yet-born child.

Except that I already gave you an example of that. My friend who has MS, remember? Did she kill her child? Did the woman who fell down the stairs resulting in a miscarriage kill her child? Maybe should have been more careful. Let's open an investigation and charge her with manslaughter then. This is the path your position leads us down.

This would be like arguing that someone who unknowingly and unintentionally infected someone else with the flu should be accused of "killing" that person if they were to die from complications involving the flu.

Most things are outside of our control, and no one can be blamed for what is outside of their control.

Some things are within our control, even if we aren't aware of them. Like my friend with MS. Had she known the proper diet needed to maintain her pregnancy as a person with MS, her fertilized egg most likely would have made it to term.

It is supreme arrogance, perversion and cruelty to try and claim that a woman should be held responsible if her menstruation causes the death of her not-yet-born child and thank God she will most likely not even be aware of it.

I agree. Which is why I'm trying to get you to think through your beliefs on this to their logical conclusions.

My position is, leave it up to the individual (with their doctor) to decide what's best for them. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else is in the best position to tell someone else what is the best medical route for them to take when it comes to their own body. Pregnancy is a risky business, with a lot of potential problems and complications involved.

And I used the term "baby" to describe the not-yet-born one time - and I immediately recanted and corrected once it was pointed out to me.

So - you and yours need to stop trying to claim that I am constantly referring to the not-yet-born as "babies" - it simply isn't true.

The position I have been maintaining is not connected to your line of reasoning at all.

All you are trying to do is claim that I would somehow blame victims of circumstance - and I would never do that - because it would make no sense.

That is what happens when we go down the road you want to go down. Don't tell me it can't happen because our past is littered with such stuff.

I'm in the camp of, leave these decisions to the people involved and butt out.

Not to mention it would be totally evil.

What I think is totally evil is to force someone who has been raped to carry a pregnancy to term. What I think is evil is to force anyone to carry a pregnancy to term against her will.
What I think is totally evil is to force someone with risky medical complications to carry a pregnancy to term, at risk of her own life. What I think is evil is to demonize women who have had an abortion, for whatever reason.

Let's say abortion becomes illegal (as it has in many states) unless the woman's life is in danger. In this case, who gets to make that determination? The woman? The doctor? The public? Maybe the woman's existing children? Her husband? Are we now having investigations to make sure that her life really is in danger? Maybe she's lying. How do we really know?

I don't think lawmakers (and their supporters) have really thought this stuff through anywhere near well enough.

Not at all. That makes literally no sense.

Oh, you still don't see it?

You think a fertilized egg is a human life. If you think that, then anything that is done to destroy that fertilized egg is "killing."

Bodily autonomy is not an absolute - especially when it comes to how we interact with other people.

When it comes to "civilized society" - we place a lot of limits on what people can and cannot do with their bodies.

There are all kinds of laws restricting what we can do - such as those regarding public nudity/urination/defecation, sexual assault, the classic shouting "Fire!" in a theater, purposely exposing other people to secondhand smoke - or really any action that can hurt another individual.

Not being allowed to show my naked body to others, or to rape someone or to poop in public isn't the same thing as allowing a person autonomy over medical procedures that are performed on one's own body. In fact, raping a person infringes on another person's right to bodily autonomy. All of these things you bring up involve harming another human being.

Yet - these limitations are rarely criticized as unjustified infringements upon one’s "bodily autonomy" - so why is limiting "abortion" criticized as unjustified?

Um, because those involve taking control over other peoples' bodies while abortion is about controlling one's own body.

The claim of "My body - my choice" is a form of begging the question - because it assumes that there is no second individual involved in the pregnancy - the not-yet-born child.

The blastocyst/zygote/fetus depends on the woman's body for survival. It is literally attached to her body. The blastocyst/zygote/fetus doesn't have bodily autonomy.

Not only this - but it also commits the fallacy of special pleading - claiming that the mother had the "right" to "bodily autonomy" while failing to acknowledge that such a claim would inherently mean that others have a "right" to "bodily autonomy" as well.

We shouldn't kill others because that would violate their "bodily autonomy".

You realize that this is the same mentality used by those who commit unspeakable acts against the already-born?

No, it isn't. It can't be because that wouldn't make any sense.

You are claiming that the "fully grown" are more valuable - more worthy of living - than the "not fully grown".

- Please don't kill children.

Children are born. Children are fully formed human beings. They are sentient. They have lives and social ties with other human beings.

You are claiming that the "fully developed" are more valuable - more worthy of living - than the "not fully developed".

- Please don't kill the mentally handicapped.

The mentally handicapped are born. The mentally handicapped are fully formed human beings. They are sentient. They have lives and social ties with other human beings.

You are claiming that those that are "sentient" are more valuable - more worthy of living - than those that are "not sentient".

- Please don't kill people in comas.

I don't know why you're trying so hard not to get this. And just like another poster, you've plucked out just one of the many characteristics I've listed that constitute a human being, in isolation, and completely ignored all the others, as though I didn't group them together on purpose.

People in comas are born. People in comas are fully formed human beings. People in comas are capable of sentience. People in comas have full lives with social ties to other human beings.

You are claiming that those with "full lives" are more valuable - more worthy of living - than those who do not have "full lives"

- Please don't kill those who do not have "full lives" (whatever that means).

You are claiming that those who have "social connections" are more valuable - more worthy of living - than those who do not have "social connections".

- Please don't kill the introverts.

This is just beyond silly now.

I believe that all human beings should receive equitable treatment under the law.

It does not matter if they are not "fully grown and developed, sentient human beings with full lives and social connections" or "blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses" - no one has the right to murder them.

So do I. Blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses aren't yet fully formed and developed sentient human beings with social ties to other human beings, etc. They reside within a fully formed and developed sentient human being with social ties to other human beings, etc. who gets to decide what goes on inside her own body.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Being "attached" or "connected to" does not make the not-yet-born child a "part" of their mother's body.

When I plug my lamp into the outlet - it is "attached" to the wall - it is "connected to" the power grid - but it is not a "part" of my house.

The lamp is a separate and individual device.

I claimed that the not-yet-born child is not a part of the mother's body.

The not-yet-born child has their own body - which is distinct from their mother's - yet they are "attached" or "connected to" their mother.

Yes, it does. It is connected to the woman's body in pretty much every possible way. It feeds off her body and uses it for nourishment.

My mother had to stay in bed, for four full months, and I mean literally, without ever taking one step on the floor or she would have immediately gone into labour with a very premature fetus, as her muscles atrophied and she couldn't even properly bathe for the entire time. And my sister was still born early with underdeveloped lungs anyway. And my mom already had me at home. I guess she was lucky that my grandparents were around to watch me all day long while she was in the hospital. And this happened in Canada, where we have universal healthcare. I often wonder how on earth American women could afford any of this. I mean, how much would such a hospital stay cost? How we she support herself without working every day? And on top of that, the maternal and infant mortality rate in the US is atrocious. Perhaps my mother would not have even made it, had she lived somewhere in the US. Then I would have been motherless. And to top it all off, my mother was told that if she continued to have more children, her uterus was going to continue to break down so that each successive child would be born earlier and earlier, or probably would just be terminated. Or my mother could die. So then she had to get a tubal ligation, which of course was free, because this is Canada. I wonder if those are even affordable to poor women in the US. What if someone couldn't afford such a procedures, then what?

Now, tell me (or my mother) that my sister was not attached or connected to her my mother's body.

And this is one of the myriad reasons why pregnancy and abortion decisions need to be left to the individual and the rest of us need to butt out.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not at all.

Dictating to others what they can do with their own bodies absolutely does lead us down that road.

 

[Sheldon]

Bodily autonomy is not an absolute - especially when it comes to how we interact with other people.

And yet you want to infer rights onto an insentient blastocyst, that would deny the basic human right of bodily autonomy to sentient individual human beings.

 

[Sheldon]

You are claiming that those that are "sentient" are more valuable - more worthy of living - than those that are "not sentient".

Nope this is a straw man, sentience is simply a salient factor, since you keep insisting an insentient blastocyst is an individual person, that should have rights a sentient human being does not.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe that all human beings should receive equitable treatment under the law.

Unless they happen to be pregnant of course, then you think an insentient blastocyst should be allowed to use their body against their will. A pretty obvious contradiction in your rationale.

 

[Sheldon]

Being "attached" or "connected to" does not make the not-yet-born child a "part" of their mother's body.

That's just one factor, but yes it does indicate this, the fact a developing foetus is topologically connected, uses the woman's blood for oxygen and nutrients, and uses her immune system, and her metabolism, cannot live without using her body, forms and develops in it, etc etc., really does suggest it is part of her body.

 

[Sheldon]

Let's re-phrase then. The moment of conception is literally not when human life begins because if it doesn't implant into the uterine wall, it's going to be flushed out and gone."
How about that? Better? Do you understand the point now?

Actually it was fine as it was, he was using semantics, since no one has suggested a blastocyst is not alive, but then so are my kidneys, the idea they should have rights that trump mine though is preposterous. Alive, and human life are not necessarily the same thing

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually it was fine as it was, he was using semantics, since no one has suggested a blastocyst is not alive, but then so are my kidneys, the idea they should have rights that trump mine though is preposterous. Alive, and human life are not necessarily the same thing

Thank you, and agreed!

 

[Fallen Prophet]

How do you guys feel about Roe and Casey being overturned?

 

[Sheldon]

How do you guys feel about Roe and Casey being overturned?

Trump's last ditch to subvert democracy lingers on.

Luckily I don't live in the US, I pity those that do and value freedom. However I believe the majority will prevail over the minority of religious bigotry.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Trump's last ditch to subvert democracy lingers on.

You believe that giving the decision-making power back to the people through their elected officials is "subverting democracy"?

Weird.

Luckily I don't live in the US

Yes - lucky for us - please stay away.

I pity those that do and value freedom.

The Supreme Court painting broad strokes with bad law is not "freedom".

However I believe the majority will prevail over the minority of religious bigotry.

Have you read the decision? It has nothing to do with religion.

And the United States is a "constitutional republic" - not a "mob rule" democracy.

Thank God the States will now be able to choose how they want to address the issue of abortion.

 

[Sheldon]

You believe that giving the decision-making power back to the people through their elected officials is "subverting democracy"?

Nope, that's not remotely what I said.

 

[Sheldon]

Have you read the decision? It has nothing to do with religion.

Oh I think we both know that's not true.

the United States is a "constitutional republic" - not a "mob rule" democracy.

Great, lets hope it stays that way, and this attempt by a mob of religious bigots to force their beliefs onto others fails.

 

[Revoltingest]

Have you read the decision? It has nothing to do with religion.

The wording of the decision might not (haven't read it),
but the motive to rule as they did appears strongly linked
to religion. Of those who voted to overturn abortion rights....
Thomas - Catholic
Barret - Catholic
Kavanaugh - Catholic
Alito - Catholic
Gorsuch - Protestant

All 3 of Trump's appointees voted against abortion rights.
Trump took credit for his people doing exactly this.
Kavanaugh & Gorsuch staunchly supported Roe v Wade
during confirmation. It seems they fibbed to win approval.
Barret was less enthusiastic.
I sense a pattern here.

They had no compelling reason to over-turn Roe v Wade.
It was justifiable under the 9th Amendment. They personally
wanted abortion rights gone. And now Thomas wants to
address gay marriage & birth control.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Trump's last ditch to subvert democracy lingers on.

Luckily I don't live in the US, I pity those that do and value freedom. However I believe the majority will prevail over the minority of religious bigotry.

This ^^^

I feel outraged for all American women today while simultaneously being happy that I live in Canada, where I still have the right to bodily autonomy. Sad to say the America I know and loved is devolving into something I no longer recognize.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The wording of the decision might not (haven't read it),
but the motive to rule as they did appears strongly linked
to religion. Of those who voted to overturn abortion rights....
Thomas - Catholic
Barret - Catholic
Kavanaugh - Catholic
Alito - Catholic
Gorsuch - Protestant

All 3 of Trump's appointees voted against abortion rights.
Trump took credit for his people doing exactly this.
Kavanaugh & Gorsuch staunchly supported Roe v Wade
during confirmation. It seems they fibbed to win approval.
Barret was less enthusiastic.
I sense a pattern here.

They had no compelling reason to over-turn Roe v Wade.
It was justifiable under the 9th Amendment. They personally
wanted abortion rights gone. And now Thomas wants to
address gay marriage & birth control.

But not interracial marriage probably, right?

I can't even believe birth control is a part of this conversation. What is happening to America??

 

[Revoltingest]

I can't even believe birth control is a part of this conversation. What is happening to America??

A court with supreme power has been packed
with fundamentalists who favor theocracy.
I see the solution as expanding the court,
making it less vulnerable to a President who
wants their personal agenda to rule over all
for decades to come.

 

[Revoltingest]

But not interracial marriage probably, right?

I can't even believe birth control is a part of this conversation. What is happening to America??

Is is inappropriate to make the joke that
Mrs Thomas has a case of "jungle fever"?
After all, that was the popular term back in
the day when interracial marriage was illegal.
He's the one who wants to turn the clock back.
Not me.

 

[Sheldon]

This ^^^

I feel outraged for all American women today while simultaneously being happy that I live in Canada, where I still have the right to bodily autonomy. Sad to say the America I know and loved is devolving into something I no longer recognize.

Well these things tend to be cyclical of course, but the damage done by Trump appointing judges from one extreme to the supreme court sadly is going to have a lasting effect. If you need a balance of views anywhere then it would certainly be there.

I guess we can be thankful he was only a single term president. Who knows what other calamities he could have produced with another 4 years as President.