Anti-abortion laws kill yet another woman

[Herbert Derp]

I meant that if a woman is intent on callously aborting an otherwise viable post-26 week baby, then simply giving birth to it isn’t going to make that situation better. She will, in all likelihood, find a way to kill that baby either before or after it is born, and neither society nor the woman/fetus is well served by criminalizing abortion in that instance.

Sorry, I just read into this. So basically, I think we are both in agreement that unnecessary late-term abortions are ethically and morally wrong. It’s just that you don’t think codifying these ethics into law will do society any good.

I can understand this position. I also agree that most of ethics should not be written into law. For example, it doesn’t make any sense to me to make it illegal to mock religious people, although I think people who do that are jerks.

I guess whether someone thinks that the protection of unborn sentient humans should be written into law depends on how much they value the lives of sentient human beings.

Do you assign different ethical weights to an unborn human one day before birth versus a one day old newborn? I would argue that there is practically no ethical difference between these two human lives, and that almost everyone agrees that the protection of the latter should be written into law.

[Herbert Derp]

Even if no one's survival is being jeopardised, if delivery of the foetus would cause a mother significant physical or psychological harm, then the interests of the mother, as a fully fledged sentient being with very significant intelligence and consciousness, should grossly outweigh the interests of a foetus, who has at MOST been sentient for a few weeks and who represents nothing more than potential. I doubt a foetus has any greater sentience than, say, a bird, and no one would say that a bird's interest in life outweighs a mother's, if the latter so chooses.

This position seems questionable to me. Why should an unborn sentient fetus that is one day before birth be worth any differently than a one day old newborn? Both have only been sentient for a few weeks. Both “belong” to the mother. Both represent nothing more than potential. Neither has any greater sentience than say, a bird.

Also, we do have laws against animal cruelty. Killing a bird for no good reason is illegal in many places.

Sentience is a pre-requisite. It doesn't then immediately gain full weight. Particularly when it 'belongs' to the mother in utero. It is not like the mother is choosing the fate of another child. She is choosing the fate of her own. But even that aside, there are degrees of moral weight to attach to sentient beings who have differing levels of consciousness, intelligence and memory.

I don't think human "life" is sacred in any sense. Everything is a weighing exercise.

I don’t think it is a good idea to construct an ethical framework that weighs the lives of humans differently. Should people with Down syndrome be worth less than Harvard graduates?

[twinstudy]

This position seems questionable to me. Why should an unborn sentient fetus that is one day before birth be worth any differently than a one day old newborn? Both have only been sentient for a few weeks. Both “belong” to the mother. Both represent nothing more than potential. Neither has any greater sentience than say, a bird.

There's only a marginal difference between the two. The newborn simply has passed a pragmatic line of demarcation. I don't think they have greatly different moral weights at all.

But the mother now has delivered the newborn, so there are far fewer 'negatives' to carrying it to term - you can't use the health/safety of the mother as an excuse any more.

I don’t think it is a good idea to construct an ethical framework that weighs the lives of humans differently. Should people with Down syndrome be worth less than Harvard graduates?

Someone with anencephaly is clearly of less moral weight than someone with sentience.

As for your question, if both have similar capacity to feel pain and to understand terror and negative emotions, both have very similar (if not identical) moral weight.

By the way, every ethical framework weighs the lives of humans differently. An 85 year old with 2 months left and a 15 year old healthy teenager are on a set of tram tracks. You going to sacrifice the 15 year old? I think not.

[Herbert Derp]

Someone with anencephaly is clearly of less moral weight than someone with sentience.

Let’s just get this one out of the way. It is obvious from my first post in the topic that I agree with this statement. My concerns only relate to sentient beings. I believe non-sentient human tissue does not have any ethical weight.

I don’t think it is a good idea to construct an ethical framework that weighs the lives of humans differently. Should people with Down syndrome be worth less than Harvard graduates?

As for your question, if both have similar capacity to feel pain and to understand terror and negative emotions, both have very similar (if not identical) moral weight.

By the way, every ethical framework weighs the lives of humans differently. An 85 year old with 2 months left and a 15 year old healthy teenager are on a set of tram tracks. You going to sacrifice the 15 year old? I think not.

Actually, my ethical framework says that all sentient beings have equal ethical weight. In my view of the trolley problem, the ethical thing to do is to make the decision that lets the most people live. If the same number of people will live either way, the decision is left completely up to the trolley operator.

In your example with the old person and the teenager, I would choose the person who I liked the most for whatever arbitrary reason appealed to me, and I don’t think it would be ethically wrong.

If the trolley operator decides to sacrifice many people so that someone they care about more can live, this is understandable but not ethical. It’s the same as me killing those ants. I don’t think every action we take needs to be ethical for us to justify it. We can just admit that we think it’s wrong but we did it anyway for some selfish reason.

Re-read my story about the ants. I make it clear that my moral feelings are not 100% aligned with my ethics. In my ethics, all sentient beings are considered equal. But because I am an irrational emotional being, I assign different moral weights to different sentient beings. I find that I am unable to codify my irrational moral feelings into a logically consistent code of ethics.

So therefore, the ethical code I follow is more of a North Star for me, and often I end up doing things that I consider to be ethically wrong, even though I strive to follow my ethical code as much as possible.

That said, if I am the trolley operator and my best friend is on one side and the other side has 1,000 ants, I’m obviously going to selfishly pick my friend every time.

[twinstudy]

Actually, my ethical framework says that all sentient beings have equal ethical weight.

I disagree. A pig is sentient, but it has less moral weight than a human. An 85 year old who's about to die has less moral weight than a 15 year old with his whole life ahead of him (moral weight meaning how much this thing tips the scales when evaluating the trolley problem - separate from dignity or whatever similar concept you want to use. You could easily say all sentient beings have the same 'dignity' - I have no view on that because I don't see the value in some amorphous motherhood concept like dignity).

You are welcome to disagree - but those are my moral weights.

Under your value system, a pig and a human would have equal weight, which would instantly make all farming and meat-eating not only illegal but equivalent to mass murder. It would also mean we need to divert a lot of resources that we currently spend on curing human diseases towards curing pig diseases.

Re-read my story about the ants.

Ants are minimally, if at all, sentient, and therefore in my worldview carry negligible moral weight. Ant colonies can make group decisions that seem to have a hive-mind effect but unless something has consciousness and perceptive understanding, I don't see it as having true sentience.

[NotJen]

Like I said, I had not heard of them until this thread.  10 minutes on their website, and I did see that they opened 2 abortion clinics, but I did not see the words "satanic ritual abortion" on the pages I was on on the website.  In fact, based on their website alone, the only baiting/provoking that stands out to me is the use of the word Satan (and associated imagery).  But again, I'm possibly missing a lot of history with this group since I just heard of them.

You can read more about the satanic ritual abortion thing here:
https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2024/02/09/the-satanic-temple-asserts-medication-abortion-is-a-religious-right/

The "satanic abortion ritual" document linked in that article does not appear on the TST's main website.  The ritual IS mentioned on the abortion clinic's website (which I hadn't visited).  Honestly, I don't see anything asshole-y in the ritual.  Perhaps the people promoting this are being assholes?  That I don't know.

They are making a point that religious views are taking precedence.  In this climate, a religion that sees abortion as an important right seems inevitable.  I don't see a problem with that, but understand that the law will likely not agree in abortion-ban states.

I think this is a reasonable point of view. I’m curious what you think of my earlier question regarding the broader ethical framework underlying the trust argument.

A question for those of you who follow the trust argument.
Do you agree that it is ethically wrong to take the life of a sentient being when nobody’s survival is being threatened?

I believe that the pregnant person's survival is being threatened, or they would not be making the abortion choice.  Just because you might not feel like their survival is being threated doesn't matter.

I don't believe that reputable doctors are aborting fetuses that can be safely/healthily birthed a day later.

[cpa cat]

A question for those of you who follow the trust argument.

Do you agree that it is ethically wrong to take the life of a sentient being when nobody’s survival is being threatened?

Is the crux of the issue really that you are in agreement with the above, and that you trust other people to make the right decisions, but still think they are morally wrong if they violate your trust and kill someone for the wrong reason?

And it is them who has to live with the guilt of making the wrong decision, and you can absolve yourself because it was not your decision to make, because you chose to trust in them?

I’m not saying that this position is wrong. I just want to understand the overall ethical framework underpinning the trust argument.

I don't think the question is black and white. And I do think it's morally wrong to violate someone's bodily autonomy for the benefit of another person.

For example, if I will die without a kidney donation and my mother is a match, is it right for the government to force my mother to donate her kidney to me? Neither of us will die if the government forces her to do this, and many people likely believe that if my mother was a good mother, she would want to give me her kidney. I think it would be wrong to violate my mother's bodily autonomy in order to harvest her kidney for my survival.

About 20 years ago, I was at the vet and my cat was diagnosed with kidney disease. The vet handed me a pamphlet for cat kidney transplants. I asked her "Where does the kidney come from?" She told me the kidney comes from a cat that I would adopt from the pound. I told her I thought this was ethically wrong: the cat at the pound can't consent to donate its kidney and is likely to have health problems later in life from this; and my cat can't understand the side effects of kidney donation. Why would I subject these animals to this? She got offended (maybe she thought I was calling her unethical), and told me that if I didn't want to take care of my cat properly, I should take her to the pound so someone else can take care of her. I asked her if she realized that 14 year old cats with kidney disease get put to sleep at our local pound.

I tell this story, because I think it illustrates my ethical code in this situation well: I don't think it's ok to use an unwilling donor's body to assist another person/animal, even if the unwilling donor will be able to live a normal life afterward. And I do think it's ok for the local pound to terminate the life of a diseased cat so that it can dedicate its resources to healthy cats. Likewise, I think it's ok for a woman to terminate a problematic pregnancy so that her life will be better. I also think it's ok for a woman to make a decision to terminate a pregnancy if the child won't have a good quality of life, just like we make the decision to put animals to sleep.

I want to be clear that I don’t think it’s right to kill diseased humans so that there are more resources for healthy ones, but I do think that patients (or their representatives) should have the right choose what level of life-saving care they receive. In the case of a sentient fetus that is not yet born, the mother is the representative I imbue with this decision making authority.

A law is black and white. "No abortion after 26 weeks unless the mother's life is in danger" has no nuance. It can't make a decision about when a woman's life is in danger. It can't make an exception for a baby who will die within hours of birth. It can't weigh quality of life, treatment options, financial burden, other family members, or other complicating factors. The pregnant woman can.

And because I do not believe that most women are callous and uncaring, and because I do not believe in violating a woman's bodily autonomy, I will never support an anti-abortion law. Just because I might make a different decision than her, does not make her wrong.

I also want to be very clear about one other thing: I do not think a baby is an appropriate punishment for a woman's "irresponsibility." If a woman does not want to carry a pregnancy to term, she shouldn't have to. Period. It's her body. Regardless of what some people may think, I do not believe that women are ethically obligated to grow other humans in their bodies.

[kenner]

I don't think the question is black and white. And I do think it's morally wrong to violate someone's bodily autonomy for the benefit of another person.

For example, if I will die without a kidney donation and my mother is a match, is it right for the government to force my mother to donate her kidney to me? Neither of us will die if the government forces her to do this, and many people likely believe that if my mother was a good mother, she would want to give me her kidney. I think it would be wrong to violate my mother's bodily autonomy in order to harvest her kidney for my survival.

I actually wish all of the anti-abortion advocates had to answer the question whether they still have both their kidneys.  There's no true parallel obviously, but that would be the truly pro-life stance--a human can generally live without both kidneys, a person on the donation list has functionally zero, so they should be jumping at the chance to preserve life and use their own body to do it, right?  Even if it has risks?  That's what they're advocating for pregnant women.  And I'm sure you'll get a few people who say yes they absolutely stepped up and donated, and while I still won't agree with their anti-abortion stance because I stand by personal choice, I would respect that they are at least living their values.

But I don't believe the preservation of life is the actual value for 99% of the anti-abortion crowd given both the complete lack of care that happens once actual babies are out in the world and the fact that the few times I've asked I've gotten blank stares and "Well, that's different" which is both true and pretty ignorant given that pregnancies have something like 2x the chance of complications as kidney donation (for the donor).  But of course being anti-abortion rather than pro-life only risks the lives and health of the women involved, not the people who want to control the women.

[GuitarStv]

Actually, my ethical framework says that all sentient beings have equal ethical weight.

I disagree. A pig is sentient, but it has less moral weight than a human. An 85 year old who's about to die has less moral weight than a 15 year old with his whole life ahead of him (moral weight meaning how much this thing tips the scales when evaluating the trolley problem - separate from dignity or whatever similar concept you want to use. You could easily say all sentient beings have the same 'dignity' - I have no view on that because I don't see the value in some amorphous motherhood concept like dignity).

You are welcome to disagree - but those are my moral weights.

Under your value system, a pig and a human would have equal weight, which would instantly make all farming and meat-eating not only illegal but equivalent to mass murder. It would also mean we need to divert a lot of resources that we currently spend on curing human diseases towards curing pig diseases.

Re-read my story about the ants.

Ants are minimally, if at all, sentient, and therefore in my worldview carry negligible moral weight. Ant colonies can make group decisions that seem to have a hive-mind effect but unless something has consciousness and perceptive understanding, I don't see it as having true sentience.

I was going to post something similar . . . with the caveat that morally I believe that our species overvalues human live by default.  It's really hard for me to argue that we should spend equal time curing disease for sentient rats as we do for sentient humans, so I have to conclude that deep down I don't believe sentience is all that important.  Maybe a factor, but certainly nothing to base a philosophy of the value of a life around,

[Kris]

Actually, my ethical framework says that all sentient beings have equal ethical weight.

I disagree. A pig is sentient, but it has less moral weight than a human. An 85 year old who's about to die has less moral weight than a 15 year old with his whole life ahead of him (moral weight meaning how much this thing tips the scales when evaluating the trolley problem - separate from dignity or whatever similar concept you want to use. You could easily say all sentient beings have the same 'dignity' - I have no view on that because I don't see the value in some amorphous motherhood concept like dignity).

You are welcome to disagree - but those are my moral weights.

Under your value system, a pig and a human would have equal weight, which would instantly make all farming and meat-eating not only illegal but equivalent to mass murder. It would also mean we need to divert a lot of resources that we currently spend on curing human diseases towards curing pig diseases.

Re-read my story about the ants.

Ants are minimally, if at all, sentient, and therefore in my worldview carry negligible moral weight. Ant colonies can make group decisions that seem to have a hive-mind effect but unless something has consciousness and perceptive understanding, I don't see it as having true sentience.

I was going to post something similar . . . with the caveat that morally I believe that our species overvalues human live by default.  It's really hard for me to argue that we should spend equal time curing disease for sentient rats as we do for sentient humans, so I have to conclude that deep down I don't believe sentience is all that important.  Maybe a factor, but certainly nothing to base a philosophy of the value of a life around,

On that note, I don’t think I would really take the opinion of someone who says all sentient life has equal value seriously unless they were vegan. Or at the very least strict vegetarians who don’t use leather or any animal product that requires killing the animal to procure it. Including drugs or any products that were tested on animals, frankly.

[GuitarStv]

Actually, my ethical framework says that all sentient beings have equal ethical weight.

I disagree. A pig is sentient, but it has less moral weight than a human. An 85 year old who's about to die has less moral weight than a 15 year old with his whole life ahead of him (moral weight meaning how much this thing tips the scales when evaluating the trolley problem - separate from dignity or whatever similar concept you want to use. You could easily say all sentient beings have the same 'dignity' - I have no view on that because I don't see the value in some amorphous motherhood concept like dignity).

You are welcome to disagree - but those are my moral weights.

Under your value system, a pig and a human would have equal weight, which would instantly make all farming and meat-eating not only illegal but equivalent to mass murder. It would also mean we need to divert a lot of resources that we currently spend on curing human diseases towards curing pig diseases.

Re-read my story about the ants.

Ants are minimally, if at all, sentient, and therefore in my worldview carry negligible moral weight. Ant colonies can make group decisions that seem to have a hive-mind effect but unless something has consciousness and perceptive understanding, I don't see it as having true sentience.

I was going to post something similar . . . with the caveat that morally I believe that our species overvalues human live by default.  It's really hard for me to argue that we should spend equal time curing disease for sentient rats as we do for sentient humans, so I have to conclude that deep down I don't believe sentience is all that important.  Maybe a factor, but certainly nothing to base a philosophy of the value of a life around,

On that note, I don’t think I would really take the opinion of someone who says all sentient life has equal value seriously unless they were vegan. Or at the very least strict vegetarians who don’t use leather or any animal product that requires killing the animal to procure it. Including drugs or any products that were tested on animals, frankly.

You can't value sentient human life and drive a car either.  Exhaust from automobiles is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of human deaths each year.  To drive a car you are valuing mobility over the lives of sentient humans.

[cpa cat]

I don't think the question is black and white. And I do think it's morally wrong to violate someone's bodily autonomy for the benefit of another person.

For example, if I will die without a kidney donation and my mother is a match, is it right for the government to force my mother to donate her kidney to me? Neither of us will die if the government forces her to do this, and many people likely believe that if my mother was a good mother, she would want to give me her kidney. I think it would be wrong to violate my mother's bodily autonomy in order to harvest her kidney for my survival.

I actually wish all of the anti-abortion advocates had to answer the question whether they still have both their kidneys.  There's no true parallel obviously, but that would be the truly pro-life stance--a human can generally live without both kidneys, a person on the donation list has functionally zero, so they should be jumping at the chance to preserve life and use their own body to do it, right?  Even if it has risks?  That's what they're advocating for pregnant women.  And I'm sure you'll get a few people who say yes they absolutely stepped up and donated, and while I still won't agree with their anti-abortion stance because I stand by personal choice, I would respect that they are at least living their values.

But I don't believe the preservation of life is the actual value for 99% of the anti-abortion crowd given both the complete lack of care that happens once actual babies are out in the world and the fact that the few times I've asked I've gotten blank stares and "Well, that's different" which is both true and pretty ignorant given that pregnancies have something like 2x the chance of complications as kidney donation (for the donor).  But of course being anti-abortion rather than pro-life only risks the lives and health of the women involved, not the people who want to control the women.

I agree with your viewpoint. When does a parent’s responsibility to sacrifice their body for their child’s life end? Why is pregnancy the only phase of life there is a need to legislate away choice?

My opinion is that it’s not about protecting the child, but is about female sexuality. It’s linked with judgments about female promiscuity, female freedom from male control, and traditional female roles. It’s why even well reasoned anti-choice opinions use words like “irresponsibility.”

[Herbert Derp]

I don't think the question is black and white. And I do think it's morally wrong to violate someone's bodily autonomy for the benefit of another person.

For example, if I will die without a kidney donation and my mother is a match, is it right for the government to force my mother to donate her kidney to me? Neither of us will die if the government forces her to do this, and many people likely believe that if my mother was a good mother, she would want to give me her kidney. I think it would be wrong to violate my mother's bodily autonomy in order to harvest her kidney for my survival.

This is a good perspective. I also agree that nobody should be forced to donate their organs to ensure the survival of others. I need to consider how this can be incorporated into my ethics.

A law is black and white. "No abortion after 26 weeks unless the mother's life is in danger" has no nuance. It can't make a decision about when a woman's life is in danger. It can't make an exception for a baby who will die within hours of birth.

To be clear, I do not support black and white laws like the Texas law. There needs to be an exception for the health of the mother, and it needs to give her the benefit of the doubt in all situations.

All that being said, based on what you said about the kidneys, I’m not sure there needs to be a law about this. I will still believe that it is ethically wrong to abort a sentient human when there is no serious risk to the mother’s health. But not all of ethics should be written as laws.

I also want to be very clear about one other thing: I do not think a baby is an appropriate punishment for a woman's "irresponsibility."

I have a question related to this. If a man gets raped, should he be obligated to pay child support? Because that’s what the law says, and I don’t think it’s fair. One of my exes tried to baby trap me and I’m very glad that she didn’t get away with it.

Regardless of what some people may think, I do not believe that women are ethically obligated to grow other humans in their bodies.

Me too, which is why I’ve never had any issue with over 99% of abortions.

[Herbert Derp]

Under your value system, a pig and a human would have equal weight, which would instantly make all farming and meat-eating not only illegal but equivalent to mass murder. It would also mean we need to divert a lot of resources that we currently spend on curing human diseases towards curing pig diseases.

Yes, I do believe the farming and slaughter of sentient beings should be illegal. In my opinion, it is a grave wrong done by our species, on par with slavery. Our civilization eventually managed to abolish slavery, and I think we can do the same with farming if we strive to do the right thing.

But I am also practical. I don’t think a viable alternative to eating other animals currently exists.

For the record, I’m not a vegan or a vegetarian. I guess you could describe me as an ally of the vegans and vegetarians.

George Washington was a slave owner but he also supported the abolition of slavery. So I guess I am in a similar position to him. The world can be a complicated place.

All I can say is that sometimes the world falls short of our ideals. Sometimes we fall short of our own ideals. But I don’t think this means we shouldn’t have ideals.

[Herbert Derp]

I agree with your viewpoint. When does a parent’s responsibility to sacrifice their body for their child’s life end? Why is pregnancy the only phase of life there is a need to legislate away choice?

Men are subject to child support laws, which I do think legislate away choice in a similar manner to anti-abortion laws. If we abolish all anti-abortion laws, would it also be fair to abolish all child support laws?

[Herbert Derp]

The "satanic abortion ritual" document linked in that article does not appear on the TST's main website.  The ritual IS mentioned on the abortion clinic's website (which I hadn't visited).  Honestly, I don't see anything asshole-y in the ritual.  Perhaps the people promoting this are being assholes?  That I don't know.

It’s not that there is anything particularly wrong about the affirmations. It’s that they’ve labeled these affirmations as a “satanic abortion ritual” in a deliberate effort to mock and provoke religious people by belittling their beliefs. That’s what makes them assholes.

[GuitarStv]

The "satanic abortion ritual" document linked in that article does not appear on the TST's main website.  The ritual IS mentioned on the abortion clinic's website (which I hadn't visited).  Honestly, I don't see anything asshole-y in the ritual.  Perhaps the people promoting this are being assholes?  That I don't know.

It’s not that there is anything particularly wrong about the affirmations. It’s that they’ve labeled these affirmations as a “satanic abortion ritual” in a deliberate effort to mock and provoke religious people by belittling their beliefs. That’s what makes them assholes.

Weak sauce of an argument here.

You are arguing from the assumption that Satanists aren't religious and are belittling their beliefs in your defense of Christianity (from the Satanists).  But that kind of (by your own definition) makes you an asshole, doesn't it?

If you don't believe that Satanists are a real religion, then tell me what makes a religion 'real'.  To me all religious organizations are human created nonsense (and have very likely all been created by people who full well knew about the scam)  For some reason this gets a lot easier to spot with newer religions - Mormonism, Scientology, Satanism, etc.  But fundamentally they're all the same.  Since they're all fantasy it's nonsense to argue about how one is a more legitimate fantasy than another.  You're just guessing based on your own prejudices.  This makes it really hard to get upset about one religion doing things that pisses off another.

For the record - The majority of Christians claim that accepting Jesus as the true son of God is the only way to God's love and that Christianity is the true path to God.  Most sects of Chrsitianity believe in a Hell that non-believers go to (sometimes softened to a purgatory).  Heck, the bible (Exodus 22:20) specifically calls for the death of anyone who believes in another God. How is that less offensive to every other religion than what Satanists do?  I think many of us here in North America have simply been blinded to the silliness of Christianity and Abrahamic religion by proximity.  Take a step back and analyze things.  I don't think you'll be able to clearly say that Satanists are doing things to piss off Christians any more than you'll be able to say that Christians are doing things to piss off Buddhists, those who believe in Norse gods (yes, I know that the neo-nazis have sort of spoiled Wodenism for everyone now but it was just an example that sprang to mind), or those who believe in Gitche Manitou.

[PeteD01]

The "satanic abortion ritual" document linked in that article does not appear on the TST's main website.  The ritual IS mentioned on the abortion clinic's website (which I hadn't visited).  Honestly, I don't see anything asshole-y in the ritual.  Perhaps the people promoting this are being assholes?  That I don't know.

It’s not that there is anything particularly wrong about the affirmations. It’s that they’ve labeled these affirmations as a “satanic abortion ritual” in a deliberate effort to mock and provoke religious people by belittling their beliefs. That’s what makes them assholes.

You realize that you are dealing with satire here, do you?

Satire

A prominent feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—"in satire, irony is militant", according to literary critic Northrop Frye—[2] but parody, burlesque, exaggeration,[3] juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

[Herbert Derp]

You are arguing from the assumption that Satanists aren't religious and are belittling their beliefs in your defense of Christianity (from the Satanists).  But that kind of (by your own definition) makes you an asshole, doesn't it?

Pretty much everyone here agrees that the satanic ritual abortion thing is a satire. I also don’t buy into the notion that it is a serious religious ritual.

You realize that you are dealing with satire here, do you?

Of course, and satire can be used to mock and belittle people. When you satirize someone’s core beliefs, it is incredibly insulting.

The notion of sacrificing babies to Satan in satanic rituals is probably one of the most offensive ideas to Christians. And the Satanic Temple guys are literally doing this, as a satire, specifically to provoke and offend Christians.

Do you support the creation of satirical depictions of the prophet Muhammad to mock and belittle Muslims?

[Kris]

You are arguing from the assumption that Satanists aren't religious and are belittling their beliefs in your defense of Christianity (from the Satanists).  But that kind of (by your own definition) makes you an asshole, doesn't it?

Pretty much everyone here agrees that the satanic ritual abortion thing is a satire. I also don’t buy into the notion that it is a serious religious ritual.

You realize that you are dealing with satire here, do you?

Of course, and satire can be used to mock and belittle people. When you satirize someone’s core beliefs, it is incredibly insulting.

The notion of sacrificing babies to Satan in satanic rituals is probably one of the most offensive ideas to Christians. And the Satanic Temple guys are literally doing this, as a satire, specifically to provoke and offend Christians.

Do you support the creation of satirical depictions of the prophet Muhammad to mock and belittle Muslims?

The question is, is the satire punching up, or punching down? Is it mocking individual people, or the institution of the church and the cancer that it has largely been on many parts of our social contract?

[Herbert Derp]

The question is, is the satire punching up, or punching down? Is it mocking individual people, or the institution of the church and the cancer that it has largely been on many parts of our social contract?

I don’t care how worthy your cause is. Once you become an asshole, you cede the moral high ground. Period.

[NotJen]

Do I have to spell this out to you? The notion of sacrificing babies to Satan in satanic rituals is probably one of the most offensive ideas to Christians. And the Satanic Temple guys are literally doing this, as a satire, specifically to provoke and offend Christians.

Apparently, I do need it spelled out.

There is nothing in the satanic abortion ritual about sacrificing babies to Satan.  Where did you get that from?  It is a self-affirmation for those who have made a difficult choice.  Mostly likely performed before a pre-26 week abortion that you approve of.  I don't see anything about it that is specifically aimed at Christians.

[Kris]

The question is, is the satire punching up, or punching down? Is it mocking individual people, or the institution of the church and the cancer that it has largely been on many parts of our social contract?

I don’t care how worthy your cause is. Once you become an asshole, you cede the moral high ground. Period.

Being an asshole to Hitler or Mussolini doesn’t make one an asshole. Likewise, being an asshole to a large, authoritarian institution that seeks to control people’s lives is not being asshole.

Hence my question. Satire is meant to poke holes in the authoritarian tendencies of the powerful. Is that what TST is doing?

[Herbert Derp]

Apparently, I do need it spelled out.

There is nothing in the satanic abortion ritual about sacrificing babies to Satan.  Where did you get that from?

I can spell this out for you.

1) The ritual includes killing what Christians consider to be a baby.

2) The ritual contains satanic imagery and is entitled “Satanic Abortion Ritual”. Based on the name of the ritual and the imagery associated with it, the implication is that the ritual is done in the name of Satan.

Put 1 and 2 together and you can see that from the Christian perspective, the “Satanic Abortion Ritual” is a ritual for killing babies in the name of Satan.

Finally, killing babies in the name of Satan means more or less the same thing as sacrificing babies to Satan.

I think I’ve made my point abundantly clear. I’m done discussing the topic of satanic ritual abortions. If any Christians are reading this, they can feel free to chime in and let us know their feelings.

[Herbert Derp]

Being an asshole to Hitler or Mussolini doesn’t make one an asshole. Likewise, being an asshole to a large, authoritarian institution that seeks to control people’s lives is not being asshole.

For the record, I do believe that being an asshole to someone makes you an asshole. No matter who that someone is, or whatever cause you are fighting for.

You can resist tyranny without being an asshole. You can condemn someone without being an asshole. You can take up arms and go to war against your sworn enemy without being an asshole.

So the only reason anyone actually needs to be an asshole to someone else is if they are an asshole. Assholery simply isn’t required in any situation.

We can agree to disagree on this, but I still think that people who are assholes to other people are assholes.

Also for the record, I do not seek to condemn anyone in this thread. I don’t think that being an asshole is an innate personality trait. I think being an asshole is something we choose to become in the moment. People who have been assholes in the past can simply choose not to become assholes in the future.

I am done discussing the philosophy of being an asshole. The readers are free to judge the merits of our arguments and come to their own conclusions.

[PeteD01]

I got to say the satire hit the bull's eye.
 

[Herbert Derp]

Satire is meant to poke holes in the authoritarian tendencies of the powerful. Is that what TST is doing?

I got to say the satire hit the bull's eye.

Agreed. It is a perfect satire. The point is that those who engage in satire against someone’s core beliefs, in an attempt to provoke, mock, bully, and belittle them are being assholes.

Whether an act of satire makes you an asshole or not really depends on what the satire is mocking and how. If it is to mock someone’s core beliefs, specifically to provoke and offend them by violating taboos, then I do think it makes one an asshole.

[PeteD01]

Satire is meant to poke holes in the authoritarian tendencies of the powerful. Is that what TST is doing?

I got to say the satire hit the bull's eye.

Agreed. It is a perfect satire. The point is that those who engage in satire against someone’s core beliefs, in an attempt to provoke, mock, bully, and belittle them are assholes.

It's all part of the persecution of Christians.

[Kris]

Being an asshole to Hitler or Mussolini doesn’t make one an asshole. Likewise, being an asshole to a large, authoritarian institution that seeks to control people’s lives is not being asshole.

For the record, I do believe that being an asshole to someone makes you an asshole. No matter who that someone is, or whatever cause you are fighting for.

You can resist tyranny without being an asshole. You can condemn someone without being an asshole. You can take up arms and go to war against your sworn enemy without being an asshole.

So the only reason anyone actually needs to be an asshole to someone else is if they are an asshole. Assholery simply isn’t required in any situation.

We can agree to disagree on this, but I still think that people who are assholes to other people are assholes.

Also for the record, I do not seek to condemn anyone in this thread. I don’t think that being an asshole is an innate personality trait. I think being an asshole is something we choose to become in the moment. People who have been assholes in the past can simply choose not to become assholes in the future.

I am done discussing the philosophy of being an asshole. The readers are free to judge the merits of our arguments and come to their own conclusions.

You cut off my very important question based on that premise.

[Herbert Derp]

You cut off my very important question based on that premise.

It’s addressed in my previous post where I also replied to PeteD01. I’ve been thinking more deeply about what the issue with this particular satire is.

I think it lies in the intent of the satire and the audience of the satire.

For example, Animal Farm is also a satire. But the intent was to call out the injustices of stalinism and the intended audience was non-stalinists.

In the case of satirical satanic ritual abortions and satirical depictions of the prophet Muhammad, the intent is to provoke the target audience by mocking their core beliefs. Because Christians and Muslims are the target audiences of these satires. No injustices are being called out here. It is pure provocation.

And yes, I get it that the satanic abortion ritual is portrayed as an affirmation for people who are having abortions. I get it. But I can’t seriously look at that thing and not see that the primary purpose is a provocation against Christians. Pro-choice activists don’t care about satanic imagery. The satanic imagery is intended for Christian eyes.

[Kris]

You cut off my very important question based on that premise.

It’s addressed in my previous post where I also replied to PeteD01. I’ve been thinking more deeply about what the issue with this particular satire is.

I think it lies in the intent of the satire and the audience of the satire.

For example, Animal Farm is also a satire. But the intent was to call out the injustices of stalinism and the intended audience was non-stalinists.

In the case of satirical satanic ritual abortions and satirical depictions of the prophet Muhammad, the intent is to provoke the target audience by mocking their core beliefs. Because Christians and Muslims are the target audiences of these satires. No injustices are being called out here. It is pure provocation.

I feel like it is easier for you to believe that because the characters were not humans, and therefore abstractible.

[Herbert Derp]

I feel like it is easier for you to believe that because the characters were not humans, and therefore abstractible.

I think the difference is that the satirical depictions in Animal Farm serve to mock the specific injustices done by the stalinists, and mock the behavior of various groups by stereotyping them as animals. Yes, it is insulting to portray stalinists as pigs. But that is not the primary purpose of the satire in Animal Farm.

Whereas in the case of the satirical satanic abortion ritual and satirical depictions of the prophet Muhammad, it is a pure mockery of core beliefs of the target audience, in order to provoke them. These satires do little to call out any injustices. The primary purpose is provocation.

I think satire is a great way to attack powerful authoritarians. It can be used to call them out by highlighting specific injustices. But in these cases, no injustices are being called out. It’s just mocking their core beliefs and calling them stupid in order to provoke them.

[PeteD01]

You cut off my very important question based on that premise.

It’s addressed in my previous post where I also replied to PeteD01. I’ve been thinking more deeply about what the issue with this particular satire is.

I think it lies in the intent of the satire and the audience of the satire.

...

The issue is that the satire cannot possibly attack a core belief unless the core belief depends on believing that there are satanists running around celebrating abortions.

And believe it or not, there are people who believe things like that and that beñief is what is being satirized and rightly so.

[Herbert Derp]

The issue is that the satire cannot possibly attack a core belief unless the core belief depends on believing that there are satanists running around celebrating abortions.

And believe it or not, there are people who believe things like that and that beñief is what is being satirized and rightly so.

I think the satanic temple did create a satanic ritual that kills babies (as perceived by Christians) in the name of Satan. It is a real ritual that does exist, and I am sure that someone has performed it. So I do think that the satire became its own self-fulfilling prophecy. And that was exactly the intent, and why it is so provocative.

The point of this satire is that to a non-Christian, it is meant to be perceived as a harmless joke. But to a Christian, it is intended as an act which genuinely violates their core beliefs. And the target audience of this satire is Christians, solely to provoke them.

It’s the same as the satirical depictions of Muhammad. Sure, they are jokes, not glorifying depictions, which is what the primary purpose of the Muslim taboo seems to be. But they are real depictions, and they actually do violate the taboo, in an intentionally offensive way. Which is why it is so provocative.

The point of this satire is that to a non-Muslim, it is meant to be perceived as a harmless joke. But to a Muslim, it is intended as an act which genuinely violates their core beliefs. And the target audience of this satire is Muslims, solely to provoke them.

[Kris]

The issue is that the satire cannot possibly attack a core belief unless the core belief depends on believing that there are satanists running around celebrating abortions.

And believe it or not, there are people who believe things like that and that beñief is what is being satirized and rightly so.

I think the satanic temple did create a satanic ritual that kills babies (as perceived by Christians) in the name of Satan. It is a real ritual that does exist, and I am sure that someone has performed it. So I do think that the satire became its own self-fulfilling prophecy. And that was exactly the intent, and why it is so provocative.

The point of this satire is that to a non-Christian, it is meant to be perceived as a harmless joke. But to a Christian, it is intended as an act which genuinely violates their core beliefs. And the target audience of this satire is Christians, solely to provoke them.

It’s the same as the satirical depictions of Muhammad. Sure, they are jokes, not glorifying depictions, which is what the primary purpose of the Muslim taboo seems to be. But they are real depictions, and they actually do violate the taboo, in an intentionally offensive way. Which is why it is so provocative.

The point of this satire is that to a non-Muslim, it is meant to be perceived as a harmless joke. But to a Muslim, it is intended as an act which genuinely violates their core beliefs. And the target audience of this satire is Muslims, solely to provoke them.

So then, the question is, who gets the jurisdiction to decide whether it was a satiric punching up, or a mean punching down?

[PeteD01]

The issue is that the satire cannot possibly attack a core belief unless the core belief depends on believing that there are satanists running around celebrating abortions.

And believe it or not, there are people who believe things like that and that beñief is what is being satirized and rightly so.

I think the satanic temple did create a satanic ritual that kills babies (as perceived by Christians) in the name of Satan. It is a real ritual that does exist, and I am sure that someone has performed it. So I do think that the satire became its own self-fulfilling prophecy. And that was exactly the intent, and why it is so provocative.

...

See, that's what I'm talking about - The Satanic Temple is out to expose lunatics by satirizing them and here we go.

[Herbert Derp]

See, that's what I'm talking about - The Satanic Temple is out to expose lunatics by satirizing them and here we go.

I’m curious, do you support creating satirical depictions of Muhammad in order to provoke Muslims?

[cpa cat]

I agree with your viewpoint. When does a parent’s responsibility to sacrifice their body for their child’s life end? Why is pregnancy the only phase of life there is a need to legislate away choice?

Men are subject to child support laws, which I do think legislate away choice in a similar manner to anti-abortion laws. If we abolish all anti-abortion laws, would it also be fair to abolish all child support laws?

Women are also subject to child support laws. Child support laws are applied equally and are a financial cost, not a bodily cost. I disagree that they are the same thing. My position is that anti-choice laws are wrong because they violate a woman’s basic right to bodily autonomy, and that a woman’s rights override the rights of a fetus. We don’t have a right to be free from financial burdens, but minor children do have a right to be supported by their parents (or the state). Therefore, child support laws enforce a child’s rights without violating someone else’s.

If a man is raped, he hypothetically has the same rights as a woman who is raped, wherein he can petition the state to terminate the perpetrator’s parental rights and if he’s successful, choose to raise the child or give it up for adoption. In reality, the legal framework with regard to rape does not always work well to protect victims, however.

[Herbert Derp]

So then, the question is, who gets the jurisdiction to decide whether it was a satiric punching up, or a mean punching down?

I told you, I think it’s a mean punching up. The Christians are being the authoritarians by imposing draconian anti-abortion laws on other people. But this satire does nothing to expose this injustice.

Mean is mean, it doesn’t matter if you are punching up or down. And no particular injustices are being called out by this satire. It’s just being mean to make fun of people you don’t like.

Also, satire can be used to punch down against marginalized groups. I don’t think satire itself has anything to do with punching up or punching down.

[Kris]

So then, the question is, who gets the jurisdiction to decide whether it was a satiric punching up, or a mean punching down?

I told you, I think it’s a mean punching up. The Christians are being the authoritarians by imposing draconian anti-abortion laws on other people. But this satire does nothing to expose this injustice.

Mean is mean, it doesn’t matter if you are punching up or down. And no particular injustices are being called out by this satire. It’s just being mean to make fun of people you don’t like.

Also, satire can be used to punch down against marginalized groups. I don’t think satire itself has anything to do with punching up or punching down.

So, you think that. Meaning that, I suppose, the less powerful can’t really justifiably punch up at the more powerful, in your opinion?

Are we done, then?

[Herbert Derp]

So, you think that. Meaning that, I suppose, the less powerful can’t really justifiably punch up at the more powerful, in your opinion?

No, I don’t think that at all. Of course the less powerful can punch up against the more powerful. It’s just that you can’t punch up and also claim the moral high ground if you are being an asshole about it, is all.

I already made my point clear:

You can resist tyranny without being an asshole. You can condemn someone without being an asshole. You can take up arms and go to war against your sworn enemy without being an asshole.

And yes, you can even use satire to punch up and condemn injustices committed by the powerful without being an asshole, i.e. Animal Farm.

[Kris]

So, you think that. Meaning that, I suppose, the less powerful can’t really justifiably punch up at the more powerful, in your opinion?

No, I don’t think that at all. Of course the less powerful can punch up against the more powerful. It’s just that you can’t punch up and also claim the moral high ground if you are being an asshole about it, is all.

I already made my point clear:

You can resist tyranny without being an asshole. You can condemn someone without being an asshole. You can take up arms and go to war against your sworn enemy without being an asshole.

And yes, you can even use satire to punch up and condemn injustices committed by the powerful without being an asshole.

So, how do you claim to be the person who has final say on “being an asshole”?

[Herbert Derp]

So, how do you claim to be the person who has final say on “being an asshole”?

I think if you are being mean to someone, just to be mean to them, just to provoke them, without calling out any injustices or unacceptable behavior, that it doesn’t matter who you are being mean to.

Do you think bullying is justified, as long as you are “punching up”? I disagree with this. Even if you start bullying a bully, that just makes you a second bully. You cannot do this and claim the moral high ground. You will just be another bully.

And it is absolutely possible to punch up against bullies without being a bully. You can punch up and also claim the moral high ground. Who aspires to become just another bully? Nobody should glorify being a bully.

[Kris]

So, how do you claim to be the person who has final say on “being an asshole”?

I think if you are being mean to someone, just to be mean to them, just to provoke them, without calling out any injustices or unacceptable behavior, that it doesn’t matter who you are being mean to.

Do you think bullying is justified, as long as you are “punching up”? I disagree with this. Even if you start bullying a bully, that just makes you a second bully. You cannot do this and claim the moral high ground. You will just be another bully.

And it is absolutely possible to punch up against bullies without being a bully. You can punch up and also claim the moral high ground. Who aspires to become just another bully? Nobody should glorify being a bully.

So, I keep trying to ask this in different ways:

How do you determine the difference between punching up against an institution snd punching down against individuals? Can you give examples that show the distinction?

[Herbert Derp]

How do you determine the difference between punching up against an institution snd punching down against individuals? Can you give examples that show the distinction?

I think in the cases I keep citing, the provocative satirical attacks are targeted directly at core beliefs held by individuals. So it is an attack on individuals.

Individual Christians have a core belief that it is extremely wrong to kill human babies in the name of Satan. Individual Muslims have a core belief that it is extremely wrong to create depictions of their prophet Muhammad. These attacks deeply offend them on a personal and individual level.

The attacks are not against institutions. The attacks do not call out injustices committed by any institution. The attacks only serve to provoke individual human beings by violating and mocking their core beliefs.

[partgypsy]

Redirecting to topic at hand. Letter signed by 111 Texas ob gyns. https://www.reddit.com/r/houston/comments/1gj44hd/texas_obgyns_released_this_letter_today/. Oops it's now gone. But here is a jama article about the effects of abortion ban on doctors and reproductive healthcare. This affects of course all women of reproductive age in Texas. It will also affect the availability of reproductive healthcare elsewhere, as Texas trains a large number of doctors. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2825887?widget=personalizedcontent&previousarticle=2819785

[Herbert Derp]

Women are also subject to child support laws. Child support laws are applied equally and are a financial cost, not a bodily cost. I disagree that they are the same thing. My position is that anti-choice laws are wrong because they violate a woman’s basic right to bodily autonomy, and that a woman’s rights override the rights of a fetus. We don’t have a right to be free from financial burdens, but minor children do have a right to be supported by their parents (or the state). Therefore, child support laws enforce a child’s rights without violating someone else’s.

If a man is raped, he hypothetically has the same rights as a woman who is raped, wherein he can petition the state to terminate the perpetrator’s parental rights and if he’s successful, choose to raise the child or give it up for adoption. In reality, the legal framework with regard to rape does not always work well to protect victims, however.

By the way, I think this is a perfectly reasonable take. I especially agree that rape laws are difficult to enforce, because it is often impossible to tell if someone actually got raped. Especially male rape victims.

If my ex had gotten away with baby trapping me, unless I had some hard evidence that she had actually raped me, no judge would ever believe me. The laws would be useless.

If you’re curious what actually happened to me, here is my story. My ex was doing egg freezing as part of her fertility treatment. As part of this treatment, she had to go on birth control for a period of time, then take an injection that forced her body to ovulate, and then have some eggs removed from her ovaries immediately afterwards.

The night before she was due to take the ovulation drug, my ex begged me to have unprotected sex with her and finish inside of her, claiming this was “finally our chance” to safely have unprotected sex because of the temporary birth control the fertility people had put her on. I refused, and she got so furious at me that I wouldn’t comply with her demand.

Later on, I realized what was going on was that she had plotted for me to inseminate her and then immediately take a drug to force herself to ovulate. I was very disturbed by the implications.

Perhaps this experience of mine can give some context about why it is not so easy for me to just trust people.

[jrhampt]

And I know mster has left the chat but wow! Is his view human centric or what. Animals do have souls, but those souls die upon death. That kinda goes against every definition of the word soul I've learned. And how incredibly convenient for us humans that our definition of morality dictates that everything on this world, including clearly sentient thinking and fully feeling animals, are just here for our use but otherwise lesser and disposable. A world full of incredible life but empty of compassion and empathy for our fellow companions on earth. If dogs truly were put here on earth for us to learn, maybe we didn't learn the lesson?

I feel like this is how lots of men feel about women...

[ixtap]

I feel like it is easier for you to believe that because the characters were not humans, and therefore abstractible.

I think the difference is that the satirical depictions in Animal Farm serve to mock the specific injustices done by the stalinists, and mock the behavior of various groups by stereotyping them as animals. Yes, it is insulting to portray stalinists as pigs. But that is not the primary purpose of the satire in Animal Farm.

Whereas in the case of the satirical satanic abortion ritual and satirical depictions of the prophet Muhammad, it is a pure mockery of core beliefs of the target audience, in order to provoke them. These satires do little to call out any injustices. The primary purpose is provocation.

I think satire is a great way to attack powerful authoritarians. It can be used to call them out by highlighting specific injustices. But in these cases, no injustices are being called out. It’s just mocking their core beliefs and calling them stupid in order to provoke them.

The sole purpose of the Satanic Temple is to point out how ridiculous attempts at creating a theocracy are. They are not mocking Christian believes; they are mocking the attempts to impose them on the rest of Americans, usually at the local level. You may not think having someone else's religion shoved down your throat is an injustice, but avoiding that is a central tenet of American justice.

[GuitarStv]

You are arguing from the assumption that Satanists aren't religious and are belittling their beliefs in your defense of Christianity (from the Satanists).  But that kind of (by your own definition) makes you an asshole, doesn't it?

Pretty much everyone here agrees that the satanic ritual abortion thing is a satire. I also don’t buy into the notion that it is a serious religious ritual.

Define what makes something a 'serious religion'.

Given Christ's message in the bible and the very contradictory actions of those purporting to be Christians, I think there's a good case to make that Christianity is a satire.