Anti-abortion laws kill yet another woman

[Psychstache]

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.

"Fun" fact: the Texas law does provide exceptions. Here is the link to the full text:

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/SB00008F.pdf

Section 171.203, paragraph (b): Except as provided by Section 171.205, a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman unless the physician has determined, in accordance with this section, whether the woman ’s unborn child has a detectable fetal heartbeat.

Sec. 171.204.AAPROHIBITED ABORTION OF UNBORN CHILD WITH DETECTABLE FETAL HEARTBEAT; EFFECT. (a) Except as provided by Section 171.205, a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child as required by Section 171.203 or failed to perform a test to detect a fetal heartbeat.

Section 171.205. EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY; RECORDS. (a) Sections 171.203 and 171.204 do not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter.

The problem is that no one will clarify what a medical emergency is* and with draconian penalties for physicians up to life in prison, there will be a chilling effect on the use of abortions in emergency situations and women will continue to die, which seems like a lose/lose if your goal is to preserve life.

*The legislature has declined to further clarify the law except for quietly submitting a revision to the law allowing for abortion in cases of ectopic pregnancy and premature rupturing of the membranes. The Texas Supreme Court advised the Texas Medical Board to issue guidance on interpreting the law, which they initially ignored and then finally took up after facing enough pressure, but they are also limited in their authority as a regulatory body of the executive branch so the confusion continues.

[Captain FIRE]

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 took the ovulation drug, my ex begged me to have unprotected sex with her and finish inside of her, claiming this was “finally our chance” 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.

Except...that isn't rape. It's horrible, and it's completely an attempt to trap you (FWIW, I believe several in your journal warned you about this possibility and suggested abstaining from sex/breaking off the relationship due to other issues), but it's not rape. You would have made the decision to have sex. It's more akin to poking holes in the condom, or claiming to be on the pill when not. A quick google search suggests it might be fraud, coercion (reproductive coercion) etc.

[Herbert Derp]

Except...that isn't rape. It's horrible, and it's completely an attempt to trap you (FWIW, I believe several in your journal warned you about this possibility and suggested abstaining from sex/breaking off the relationship due to other issues), but it's not rape. You would have made the decision to have sex. It's more akin to poking holes in the condom, or claiming to be on the pill when not. A quick google search suggests it might be fraud, coercion (reproductive coercion) etc.

I would argue that it is rape because it is impossible to give informed consent under these manipulative and fraudulent circumstances. It would be similar to other rape situations where proper consent cannot be given, such as statuary rape or having sex with a very drunk person.

I know not everyone agrees with me, even the courts. But this is what I believe.

Edit:

There are laws on the books in various jurisdictions that classify reproductive coercion (i.e. tampering with condoms, etc) as rape. Here is an article showing a recent example:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/13/london-man-jailed-stealthing-removing-condom-without-consent

Relevant legal text from the above article:

Under the England and Wales Sexual Offences Act 2003, “a person consents if he [or she] agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice” and consent is not deemed to have been given if “the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act”.

[Omy]

I would be surprised if you could get anybody to agree that you were raped. She was trying to steal your sperm - which is very different from being forced to have sex against your will.

I assume you were interested and consented to intercourse...or did she drug you or have a gun pointed at you?

[deborah]

It’s nothing like rape. That act is a form of physical violence.

[simonsez]

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?

Roundabout answer would be YES.  In this example I would never be the one creating the satire or the provocation in the first place but I very much support the freedom for others to do so.  I'm sure most of the Midwesterners on here remember (or remember reading/hearing about) when the ACLU argued on behalf of Nazis in Skokie (a 'burb with high Jewish %) to be able to have their stupid march in the late 1970s.

I want to live in a society where things can be mocked.  I want to live in a society where people can think the mocking is funny, or they might ignore the mocking, or they might get offended.  Do whatever works for you.  Just because someone else's threshold for satire/mockery/comedy/insults/etc. is different than yours doesn't mean that much.

No one should be thrown in a cage for expressing an opinion in a public space that is not physically endangering anyone.  Earlier you said you would physically assault and batter someone who would bring something provocative to a Free Palestine rally.  That's your right to do so, but many societies have decreed that the physical violence has consequences.  The use of physical force seems like an unnecessary escalation.  I agree that mocking Muslims is also an unnecessary escalation but you don't go to jail for that, at least not in the US.

I don't think anything is too sacred that protects it from being lampooned.  You can disagree, that's fine.  Hell, I don't find a ton of various mockery that funny or as a net-positive but I'd still fight for someone to have the ability to do so.

I see many parallels with abortion.  Just because I (or my wife) would or would not have an abortion in certain context doesn't mean that we require everyone else to follow our example.  It's not our choice to make.

I've seen firsthand evidence (through my household's experience with IVF in the Midwest in a post-Roe environment) that "except in the case of risk to the mother" is unfortunately a very subjective term that can mean a lot of different things to healthcare providers.  Since medical information is private and usually unknowable to the average person not involved with a particular situation, I guess I'd rather live in a society where more access to abortion is normalized, providers aren't stressed by convoluted laws and restrictions, and women/households are free to shop around for various providers in the geographic area they live (like if the woman in the OP could've in theory gone to a different practice/clinic within a few hours of that first day, her life would've been saved).  Thus, regardless of how I or my wife personally feel about abortion in a certain context or attached with certain timeframes, as long as the fetus has not been born, I will fight for that ability to exist for others to take advantage of abortion rights (since I can't really ever know what the risk factors were, it's none of my biz).

How do you define sentience?  Can plants and fungi have it?  They can certainly make choices and solve puzzles that a sentient fetus/infant could not and respond to many stimuli in ways that are not that different from what we would call senses and possibly even feelings (not sure how plants that get talked to lovingly grow better than others in the same environment).  Many species (especially fungi) can learn and have something akin to short-term memory.

[Herbert Derp]

Roundabout answer would be YES.  In this example I would never be the one creating the satire or the provocation in the first place but I very much support the freedom for others to do so.

It looks like you fall into the camp of “I personally think this is wrong but there should not be a law prohibiting other people from doing it.” I’ve seen this same opinion expressed a few times in this thread regarding late-term abortions as well.

I don’t have a problem with this viewpoint. As I’ve said before, I don’t think all of ethics should be written into law.

And for the record, I also fully support the freedom for people to be mean spirited and provocative. It is free speech. People should be free to be assholes if they want to be assholes. I just don’t think people should be assholes. I don’t think it’s a good thing to be an asshole. I may choose to call people out when they are being an asshole. But if someone wants to be an asshole they are free to do so.

Out of curiosity, what is your reason for why you would never be the one to create these provocations against Muslims? Do you agree that it is mean spirited and hurtful to provoke them in this way?

[Herbert Derp]

How do you define sentience?  Can plants and fungi have it?  They can certainly make choices and solve puzzles that a sentient fetus/infant could not and respond to many stimuli in ways that are not that different from what we would call senses and possibly even feelings (not sure how plants that get talked to lovingly grow better than others in the same environment).  Many species (especially fungi) can learn and have something akin to short-term memory.

Honesty it is hard to say. You can write a book on this topic. I certainly don’t understand enough to make a definitive and comprehensive statement.

I can say that I find ant intelligence to be incredibly fascinating, and I absolutely believe that ants have sentience and a higher order of intelligence, at least on the group level. And all intelligence arises from distributed systems. The neural networks possessed by all creatures with neurons are themselves distributed systems.

Ants are one of the most intelligent species on the planet. Like humans, ants posses a higher order of intelligence—societal intelligence. The combined intelligence of a society of individuals is much greater than any individual in the society. Like humans, ants have languages, form complex civilizations, build cities, and fight wars. They do all the same things we do.

In terms of which species of animals have built the most complex civilizations on Earth, humans may currently be at the top, but ants are not far behind, and I would say they are definitely ahead of almost every species of mammal.

I think ant civilizations have reached a higher level of sophistication and development than even chimpanzees. Both ants and chimpanzees have civilizations, have language, use tools, and fight wars. However, chimpanzees do not practice agriculture or build cities, ants do.

Ants are amazingly intelligent, and deserve to be respected as fellow intelligent beings.

[Herbert Derp]

It’s nothing like rape. That act is a form of physical violence.

I would be surprised if you could get anybody to agree that you were raped. She was trying to steal your sperm - which is very different from being forced to have sex against your will.

I assume you were interested and consented to intercourse...or did she drug you or have a gun pointed at you?

NO, I DO NOT CONSENT. I DO NOT CONSENT TO HAVE SEX IF MY PARTNER IS TRYING TO TRICK ME INTO IMPREGNATING HER AGAINST MY WILL. I DO NOT CONSENT. I DO NOT CONSENT. I DO NOT CONSENT.

Rape is not about physical violence, it’s about consent. Is that clear to you?

Do you realize how unfair your attitude is to men who are sexually violated? When a man gets violated, people just laugh at him and say “don’t lie, I know you wanted it anyway.”

People laugh at men who get raped. And some people do laugh at women who get raped too, but it’s a bigger problem for men, because so many more people are willing to take female victims seriously.

To be clear, I do believe if a woman lies about her birth control in order to trick a man into getting her pregnant, it is rape.

If a man lies about his birth control to trick a woman into getting pregnant, it is considered rape in many jurisdictions. The key issue is that consent is being violated.

Here is an article showing a recent example:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jun/13/london-man-jailed-stealthing-removing-condom-without-consent

Relevant legal text from the above article:

Under the England and Wales Sexual Offences Act 2003, “a person consents if he [or she] agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice” and consent is not deemed to have been given if “the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act”.

And you can argue that, oh, the man who got baby trapped could have just used his own birth control or not had sex. Yes, and the woman who got stealthed could have also worn a female condom or been on some other form of birth control, or chose to not have sex. The key is that consent is being violated in these situations.

Imagine if a woman came on to this forum and complained about getting stealthed. Would you blow off her concern and tell her that it’s her fault because she consented to the sex, and tell her that she should have worn a female condom if she was afraid of getting stealthed?

[Kris]

I would be surprised if you could get anybody to agree that you were raped. She was trying to steal your sperm - which is very different from being forced to have sex against your will.

I assume you were interested and consented to intercourse...or did she drug you or have a gun pointed at you?

NO, I DO NOT CONSENT. I DO NOT CONSENT TO HAVE SEX IF MY PARTNER IS TRYING TO TRICK ME INTO IMPREGNATING HER AGAINST MY WILL. I DO NOT CONSENT. I DO NOT CONSENT. I DO NOT CONSENT.

Is that clear to you?

Do you realize how unfair your attitude is to men who are sexually violated? When a man gets violated, people just laugh at him and say “don’t lie, I know you wanted it anyway.”

People laugh at men who get raped. And some people do laugh at women who get raped too, but it’s a bigger problem for men, because so many more people are willing to take female victims seriously.

Did you have unprotected sex with her that night?

[Herbert Derp]

Did you have unprotected sex with her that night?

I refused to comply with her demand to inseminate her, because I did not consent. Because I did not trust her, because I thought she might be planning something like this.

So no, in this case, my consent was not violated, because I did not allow it to be violated. But she came close to tricking me.

[Kris]

Did you have unprotected sex with her that night?

I refused to comply with her demand to inseminate her, because I did not consent. Because I did not trust her, because I thought she might be planning something like this.

So no, in this case, my consent was not violated, because I did not allow it to be violated. But she came close to tricking me.

So, you did not consent. And therefore it did not happen. Is that correct?

[Herbert Derp]

So, you did not consent. And therefore it did not happen. Is that correct?

Yes, she tried to trick me and failed. I was not raped, or reproductively coerced, or whatever you want to call it. She attempted to do it to me and failed. That was my claim from the start. I clearly described exactly what happened in my original post.

[Kris]

So, you did not consent. And therefore it did not happen. Is that correct?

Yes, she tried to trick me and failed. I was not raped, or reproductively coerced, or whatever you want to call it. She attempted to do it to me and failed. That was my claim from the start.

I thought you said you had been raped. And looking back on the comments… honestly I am not sure what you are attempting to claim, given this last comment. I am confused.

[PeteD01]

In other news and to get back on topic:

Texas OB-GYNs urge lawmakers to change abortion laws after reports on pregnant women's deaths
The group of 111 doctors cited recent ProPublica reporting on two pregnant women who died because doctors did not provide lifesaving care.

By Pooja Salhotra

Nov. 3, 2024

A group of 111 OB-GYNs in Texas released a letter to elected state leaders Sunday urging them to change abortion laws they say have prevented them from providing lifesaving care to pregnant women.

The doctors pointed to recent reporting by ProPublica on two Texas pregnant women who died after medical staff delayed emergency care.

Josseli Barnica, 28, died of an infection in 2021 three days after she began to miscarry. More than a dozen medical experts said Barnica’s death was preventable. However, the state’s abortion laws kept doctors from intervening until they couldn’t detect a fetal heartbeat, which didn’t happen until about 40 hours after the miscarriage started.

Nevaeh Crain, 18, died last year after developing a dangerous complication of sepsis that doctors refused to treat while her six-month-old fetus still had a heartbeat. Two emergency rooms didn’t treat her and a third delayed care, moving Crain to the intensive care unit only after she was experiencing organ failure. Medical experts said if the hospital staff had treated her early, they either could have helped Crain with an early delivery or saved her life by ending the pregnancy if the infection had gone too far.

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/11/03/texas-ob-gyn-letter-abortion-laws/

[Herbert Derp]

I thought you said you had been raped. And looking back on the comments… honestly I am not sure what you are attempting to claim, given this last comment. I am confused.

My claim is that my ex tried to baby trap me and failed. I view what happened as attempted rape, or attempted reproductive coercion as some of you may call it. It seems that many legal jurisdictions agree that this was attempted rape.

The topic was around rape victims and the responsibility for child support, and the unfortunate reality that the legal system is often unhelpful in these circumstances. I agreed to what cpa cat was saying and shared my own personal experience as it relates to the topic.

Then people started arguing with me about whether or not someone tried to sexually violate me.

If we can just agree that someone attempted to sexually violate me and failed then that’s ok. Attempted rape, attempted reproductive coercion, whatever you want to call it.

And again for the record, I believe that reproductive coercion is rape, and many legal jurisdictions agree.

[PeteD01]

I thought you said you had been raped. And looking back on the comments… honestly I am not sure what you are attempting to claim, given this last comment. I am confused.

My claim is that my ex tried to baby trap me and failed. I view it as attempted rape, or attempted reproductive coercion as some of you may call it.

The topic was around rape victims and the responsibility for child support, and the unfortunate reality that the legal system is often unhelpful in these circumstances. I agreed to what cpa cat was saying and shared my own personal experience as it relates to the topic. Then people started arguing with me about whether someone tried to sexually violate me.

If we can just agree that someone attempted to sexually violate me and failed then that’s ok. Attempted rape, attempted reproductive coercion, whatever you want to call it.

Yes we agree that you need help and that you are not going to find it here.

[Herbert Derp]

Yes we agree that you need help and that you are not going to find it here.

I’ll admit that I don’t usually post on the Off Topic forum. Usually when I come here, it’s when I’m going through a difficult period in my life and I want to blow off some steam and distract myself by debating random people on the Internet. I think a lot of people come to this place to debate.

For the record, I appreciate the conversations we’ve had here. My views on abortion have actually changed based on this discussion. I understand everyone’s viewpoints much better now. Thank you for having this conversation with me.

I’m glad we’ve had this conversation and I think we should be able to have these conversations. It is important that people can share their points of view and learn from each other.

[PKFFW]

I just don’t think people should be assholes. I don’t think it’s a good thing to be an asshole. I may choose to call people out when they are being an asshole. But if someone wants to be an asshole they are free to do so.

The point I think many are trying to make, and you seem to be missing is......

You don't think people should be what you define as an asshole. You don't think it's a good thing to be what you define as an asshole. That you may choose to call people out when they are being what you define as an asshole. But if someone wants to be what you define as an asshole, they are free to do so.

Why are you the arbiter of how "being an asshole" is defined?

Taking the example of TST, you have made a judgement about the content of their website, made a judgement about the motives of TST in general, made a judgement that their behaviour is "assholey", and stated that they have given up the moral high ground. Never once have you stated that all of that is nothing more than your own personal opinion.

It would be just a plausible for someone to claim making unsubstantiated judgements about the motives of others is being an asshole and therefore you have given up the moral high ground.

[Herbert Derp]

The point I think many are trying to make, and you seem to be missing is......

You don't think people should be what you define as an asshole. You don't think it's a good thing to be what you define as an asshole. That you may choose to call people out when they are being what you define as an asshole. But if someone wants to be what you define as an asshole, they are free to do so.

Why are you the arbiter of how "being an asshole" is defined?

Taking the example of TST, you have made a judgement about the content of their website, made a judgement about the motives of TST in general, made a judgement that their behaviour is "assholey", and stated that they have given up the moral high ground. Never once have you stated that all of that is nothing more than your own personal opinion.

It would be just a plausible for someone to claim making unsubstantiated judgements about the motives of others is being an asshole and therefore you have given up the moral high ground.

Yes, I think we are getting to the heart of the issue here. So the question is, are the satanists being assholes by publishing their satanic abortion ritual?

I will admit that this does come down to a matter of opinion.

Everyone here agrees that the satanic abortion ritual is highly offensive to Christians, on an individual and personal level.

Most people here seem to agree that at least one of the purposes of the satanic abortion ritual is to provoke Christians.

As a counterpoint to the above, there are other possible purposes to the satanic abortion ritual. Could it be a series of affirmations to absolve the guilt of an abortion? Perhaps, but it doesn’t need to be called satanic abortion ritual or involve satanic imagery. The imagery is only relevant to Christian audiences. Could it be a protest involving freedom of speech or freedom of expression? Sure, but that issue has been resolved many decades ago when the satanists put up their statues and the courts ruled that they were protected. Could it be for some other purpose? Honestly I am not sure.

What has the satanic abortion ritual actually accomplished? Did anyone actually absolve their abortion guilt from it? Maybe, but it can’t be many people. Were any new legal precedents set, or freedom of speech protections reinforced? No, not really. Were many Christians offended? Absolutely.

So as far as I can tell, the main purpose of the satanic abortion ritual is to offend Christians. I honestly can’t say that it has any lofty moral cause associated with it. If you have a good agument to the contrary, I would love to hear it.

Some people here think it is ok to bully people if they are in a position of power and committing injustices.

If the above is your stance, then we have to agree to disagree. There isn’t much to debate.

In the case of the Muhammad satire cartoons, after doing some thinking, I do actually think there was a more lofty purpose to it than just bullying Muslims. The Muslim minority in France was trying to impose their religious laws over the laws of the French majority. The French majority believes in freedom of speech, but the Muslim minority wanted certain forms of speech banned, when their religious laws demanded it. The Muhammad cartoons were calling out the tyranny of the minority Muslim population trying to impose their religious laws on the French majority and undermine freedom of speech as well as other French values and customs.

So the Muhammad cartoons were directly calling out tyranny imposed from a dangerous and aggressive minority group that uses terrorism to impose their religious laws on the majority population. Basically saying, you guys won’t let us say this, but we should be able to say this, so we’re going to say it anyway, even if you guys target us with terrorist attacks as a result.

The same cannot be said for the satanic abortion ritual. Firstly, freedom of speech is not in question here, so we can ignore that point. Christians seem to support freedom of speech as it pertains to religion. For the most part they don’t seem interesting in banning Satanism because then Christianity would be at risk of getting banned.

Secondly, most of us agree that a tyrannical Christian minority is trying to impose their anti-abortion laws on the pro-choice majority in the United States. Does the satanic abortion ritual do anything to call them out on this? No. Does it do anything to undermine anti-abortion laws, or protect the perceived right for women to get an abortion? No. So I’m not really sure that the satanic abortion ritual is calling out or resisting tyranny in any form. It’s just being offensive to be offensive.

And what about the satanic panic? The satanic abortion ritual definitely pokes fun at the satanic panic. But the satanic panic is no longer an issue of tyranny. It lost its grip on the country decades ago and nobody except for a small minority really cares about it anymore except as a joke.

Again, I would be interested to hear your opinion of what the purpose of the satanic abortion ritual is.

[Herbert Derp]

The "satanic abortion ritual" document linked in that article does not appear on the TST's main website.

For what it’s worth, the satanic abortion ritual is on TST’s main website. Here’s the link:
https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/rrr-campaigns

[Herbert Derp]

Here is an interesting article that talks about what the satanic abortion ritual may be intended to accomplish:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/19/satanic-temple-fight-against-religious-right

They want to make abortion part of their religion so that it is protected as a religious practice. I think this has already been brought up somewhere in this thread.

I am highly skeptical that any judge in a pro-life state is going to rule in favor of them. This approach won’t work, and the satanists probably know it.

That said, I can get behind this if you take it that this is the primary purpose of the satanic abortion ritual. A legal challenge related to what is considered a protected religious practice. I just don’t see this legal challenge going anywhere or achieving any meaningful results.

[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.

Once you define this, it will be very simple to determine who is being an asshole.  Until then you're just picking winner and loser religions.  I would argue that one of the reasons Christianity exists is to provoke other religions.  Otherwise they wouldn't claim to have the only true religion and that non-believers will go to hell.

[Kris]

The point I think many are trying to make, and you seem to be missing is......

You don't think people should be what you define as an asshole. You don't think it's a good thing to be what you define as an asshole. That you may choose to call people out when they are being what you define as an asshole. But if someone wants to be what you define as an asshole, they are free to do so.

Why are you the arbiter of how "being an asshole" is defined?

Taking the example of TST, you have made a judgement about the content of their website, made a judgement about the motives of TST in general, made a judgement that their behaviour is "assholey", and stated that they have given up the moral high ground. Never once have you stated that all of that is nothing more than your own personal opinion.

It would be just a plausible for someone to claim making unsubstantiated judgements about the motives of others is being an asshole and therefore you have given up the moral high ground.

Yes, I think we are getting to the heart of the issue here. So the question is, are the satanists being assholes by publishing their satanic abortion ritual?

I will admit that this does come down to a matter of opinion.

Everyone here agrees that the satanic abortion ritual is highly offensive to Christians, on an individual and personal level.

Most people here seem to agree that at least one of the purposes of the satanic abortion ritual is to provoke Christians.

As a counterpoint to the above, there are other possible purposes to the satanic abortion ritual. Could it be a series of affirmations to absolve the guilt of an abortion? Perhaps, but it doesn’t need to be called satanic abortion ritual or involve satanic imagery. The imagery is only relevant to Christian audiences. Could it be a protest involving freedom of speech or freedom of expression? Sure, but that issue has been resolved many decades ago when the satanists put up their statues and the courts ruled that they were protected. Could it be for some other purpose? Honestly I am not sure.

What has the satanic abortion ritual actually accomplished? Did anyone actually absolve their abortion guilt from it? Maybe, but it can’t be many people. Were any new legal precedents set, or freedom of speech protections reinforced? No, not really. Were many Christians offended? Absolutely.

So as far as I can tell, the main purpose of the satanic abortion ritual is to offend Christians. I honestly can’t say that it has any lofty moral cause associated with it. If you have a good agument to the contrary, I would love to hear it.

Some people here think it is ok to bully people if they are in a position of power and committing injustices.

If the above is your stance, then we have to agree to disagree. There isn’t much to debate.

In the case of the Muhammad satire cartoons, after doing some thinking, I do actually think there was a more lofty purpose to it than just bullying Muslims. The Muslim minority in France was trying to impose their religious laws over the laws of the French majority. The French majority believes in freedom of speech, but the Muslim minority wanted certain forms of speech banned, when their religious laws demanded it. The Muhammad cartoons were calling out the tyranny of the minority Muslim population trying to impose their religious laws on the French majority and undermine freedom of speech as well as other French values and customs.

So the Muhammad cartoons were directly calling out tyranny imposed from a dangerous and aggressive minority group that uses terrorism to impose their religious laws on the majority population. Basically saying, you guys won’t let us say this, but we should be able to say this, so we’re going to say it anyway, even if you guys target us with terrorist attacks as a result.

The same cannot be said for the satanic abortion ritual. Firstly, freedom of speech is not in question here, so we can ignore that point. Christians seem to support freedom of speech as it pertains to religion. For the most part they don’t seem interesting in banning Satanism because then Christianity would be at risk of getting banned.

Secondly, most of us agree that a tyrannical Christian minority is trying to impose their anti-abortion laws on the pro-choice majority in the United States. Does the satanic abortion ritual do anything to call them out on this? No. Does it do anything to undermine anti-abortion laws, or protect the perceived right for women to get an abortion? No. So I’m not really sure that the satanic abortion ritual is calling out or resisting tyranny in any form. It’s just being offensive to be offensive.

And what about the satanic panic? The satanic abortion ritual definitely pokes fun at the satanic panic. But the satanic panic is no longer an issue of tyranny. It lost its grip on the country decades ago and nobody except for a small minority really cares about it anymore except as a joke.

Again, I would be interested to hear your opinion of what the purpose of the satanic abortion ritual is.

Actually, I did not agree that TST’s only motivation for the abortion ritual was to mock Christians, and neither did a few other people. Satire, when done well, punches up at institutions of power and exposes them to ridicule precisely in an attempt to defuse some of that power. That is at least part of what TST is doing.

Also, it was pointed out to me in a private conversation that the Satanic Temple isn't actually just about satire. They're trying to actually also help women obtain abortions by claiming that denying them is denying their religious freedom. Making it a "ritual" was actually a necessary part of trying to promote abortion access in Missouri (https://theconversation.com/how-the-satanic-temple-is-using-abortion-rituals-to-claim-religious-liberty-against-the-texas-heartbeat-bill-167755).

So it's not just something used to mock - they're actually trying to change things by the claims and rituals.

[Morning Glory]

I think some of the confusion around TST is that there used to be a different group with a similar name that was more troll-y and went after Christmas decorations and stuff.  I could be wrong here. TST seem like the unlikely heroes in this whole mess.

[GuitarStv]

It's really hard for me to see the TST as being assholes and Christians in need of defending when Christians are literally responsible for enacting laws based on their religious beliefs that are currently killing women.  How much more of an asshole can you be than to callously dismiss these deaths?

[PeteD01]

The point I think many are trying to make, and you seem to be missing is......

You don't think people should be what you define as an asshole. You don't think it's a good thing to be what you define as an asshole. That you may choose to call people out when they are being what you define as an asshole. But if someone wants to be what you define as an asshole, they are free to do so.

Why are you the arbiter of how "being an asshole" is defined?

Taking the example of TST, you have made a judgement about the content of their website, made a judgement about the motives of TST in general, made a judgement that their behaviour is "assholey", and stated that they have given up the moral high ground. Never once have you stated that all of that is nothing more than your own personal opinion.

It would be just a plausible for someone to claim making unsubstantiated judgements about the motives of others is being an asshole and therefore you have given up the moral high ground.

Yes, I think we are getting to the heart of the issue here. So the question is, are the satanists being assholes by publishing their satanic abortion ritual?

I will admit that this does come down to a matter of opinion.

Everyone here agrees that the satanic abortion ritual is highly offensive to Christians, on an individual and personal level.

Most people here seem to agree that at least one of the purposes of the satanic abortion ritual is to provoke Christians.

As a counterpoint to the above, there are other possible purposes to the satanic abortion ritual. Could it be a series of affirmations to absolve the guilt of an abortion? Perhaps, but it doesn’t need to be called satanic abortion ritual or involve satanic imagery. The imagery is only relevant to Christian audiences. Could it be a protest involving freedom of speech or freedom of expression? Sure, but that issue has been resolved many decades ago when the satanists put up their statues and the courts ruled that they were protected. Could it be for some other purpose? Honestly I am not sure.

What has the satanic abortion ritual actually accomplished? Did anyone actually absolve their abortion guilt from it? Maybe, but it can’t be many people. Were any new legal precedents set, or freedom of speech protections reinforced? No, not really. Were many Christians offended? Absolutely.

So as far as I can tell, the main purpose of the satanic abortion ritual is to offend Christians. I honestly can’t say that it has any lofty moral cause associated with it. If you have a good agument to the contrary, I would love to hear it.

Some people here think it is ok to bully people if they are in a position of power and committing injustices.

If the above is your stance, then we have to agree to disagree. There isn’t much to debate.

In the case of the Muhammad satire cartoons, after doing some thinking, I do actually think there was a more lofty purpose to it than just bullying Muslims. The Muslim minority in France was trying to impose their religious laws over the laws of the French majority. The French majority believes in freedom of speech, but the Muslim minority wanted certain forms of speech banned, when their religious laws demanded it. The Muhammad cartoons were calling out the tyranny of the minority Muslim population trying to impose their religious laws on the French majority and undermine freedom of speech as well as other French values and customs.

So the Muhammad cartoons were directly calling out tyranny imposed from a dangerous and aggressive minority group that uses terrorism to impose their religious laws on the majority population. Basically saying, you guys won’t let us say this, but we should be able to say this, so we’re going to say it anyway, even if you guys target us with terrorist attacks as a result.

The same cannot be said for the satanic abortion ritual. Firstly, freedom of speech is not in question here, so we can ignore that point. Christians seem to support freedom of speech as it pertains to religion. For the most part they don’t seem interesting in banning Satanism because then Christianity would be at risk of getting banned.

Secondly, most of us agree that a tyrannical Christian minority is trying to impose their anti-abortion laws on the pro-choice majority in the United States. Does the satanic abortion ritual do anything to call them out on this? No. Does it do anything to undermine anti-abortion laws, or protect the perceived right for women to get an abortion? No. So I’m not really sure that the satanic abortion ritual is calling out or resisting tyranny in any form. It’s just being offensive to be offensive.

And what about the satanic panic? The satanic abortion ritual definitely pokes fun at the satanic panic. But the satanic panic is no longer an issue of tyranny. It lost its grip on the country decades ago and nobody except for a small minority really cares about it anymore except as a joke.

Again, I would be interested to hear your opinion of what the purpose of the satanic abortion ritual is.

Actually, I did not agree that TST’s only motivation for the abortion ritual was to mock Christians, and neither did a few other people. Satire, when done well, punches up at institutions of power and exposes them to ridicule precisely in an attempt to defuse some of that power. That is at least part of what TST is doing.

Also, it was pointed out to me in a private conversation that the Satanic Temple isn't actually just about satire. They're trying to actually also help women obtain abortions by claiming that denying them is denying their religious freedom. Making it a "ritual" was actually a necessary part of trying to promote abortion access in Missouri (https://theconversation.com/how-the-satanic-temple-is-using-abortion-rituals-to-claim-religious-liberty-against-the-texas-heartbeat-bill-167755).

So it's not just something used to mock - they're actually trying to change things by the claims and rituals.

The funny thing is that Christians spreading the rumor that satanists perform ritual abortions are actually supporting the cause of The Satanic Temple by providing independent support for the contention that ritual abortions are performed by adherents of the satanist religion.

[PKFFW]

Yes, I think we are getting to the heart of the issue here. So the question is, are the satanists being assholes by publishing their satanic abortion ritual?

I will admit that this does come down to a matter of opinion.

I agree, that is the heart of the matter. And the simple fact is, people will disagree, because, as you say, it is a matter of opinion.

Everyone here agrees that the satanic abortion ritual is highly offensive to Christians, on an individual and personal level.

Most people here seem to agree that at least one of the purposes of the satanic abortion ritual is to provoke Christians.

Nope, I don't agree with either statement.

And I'll be honest, the fact your first statement begins with "everyone here agrees....." led me to not be terribly interested in reading the rest of your post. You've already convinced yourself that your position is the "correct" one and that everyone agrees with you. Still, I struggled through because I'm bored.

As a counterpoint to the above, there are other possible purposes to the satanic abortion ritual. Could it be a series of affirmations to absolve the guilt of an abortion? Perhaps, but it doesn’t need to be called satanic abortion ritual or involve satanic imagery. The imagery is only relevant to Christian audiences. Could it be a protest involving freedom of speech or freedom of expression? Sure, but that issue has been resolved many decades ago when the satanists put up their statues and the courts ruled that they were protected. Could it be for some other purpose? Honestly I am not sure.

What has the satanic abortion ritual actually accomplished? Did anyone actually absolve their abortion guilt from it? Maybe, but it can’t be many people. Were any new legal precedents set, or freedom of speech protections reinforced? No, not really. Were many Christians offended? Absolutely.

So as far as I can tell, the main purpose of the satanic abortion ritual is to offend Christians. I honestly can’t say that it has any lofty moral cause associated with it. If you have a good agument to the contrary, I would love to hear it.

Some people here think it is ok to bully people if they are in a position of power and committing injustices.

If the above is your stance, then we have to agree to disagree. There isn’t much to debate.

In the case of the Muhammad satire cartoons, after doing some thinking, I do actually think there was a more lofty purpose to it than just bullying Muslims. The Muslim minority in France was trying to impose their religious laws over the laws of the French majority. The French majority believes in freedom of speech, but the Muslim minority wanted certain forms of speech banned, when their religious laws demanded it. The Muhammad cartoons were calling out the tyranny of the minority Muslim population trying to impose their religious laws on the French majority and undermine freedom of speech as well as other French values and customs.

So the Muhammad cartoons were directly calling out tyranny imposed from a dangerous and aggressive minority group that uses terrorism to impose their religious laws on the majority population. Basically saying, you guys won’t let us say this, but we should be able to say this, so we’re going to say it anyway, even if you guys target us with terrorist attacks as a result.

The same cannot be said for the satanic abortion ritual. Firstly, freedom of speech is not in question here, so we can ignore that point. Christians seem to support freedom of speech as it pertains to religion. For the most part they don’t seem interesting in banning Satanism because then Christianity would be at risk of getting banned.

Secondly, most of us agree that a tyrannical Christian minority is trying to impose their anti-abortion laws on the pro-choice majority in the United States. Does the satanic abortion ritual do anything to call them out on this? No. Does it do anything to undermine anti-abortion laws, or protect the perceived right for women to get an abortion? No. So I’m not really sure that the satanic abortion ritual is calling out or resisting tyranny in any form. It’s just being offensive to be offensive.

And what about the satanic panic? The satanic abortion ritual definitely pokes fun at the satanic panic. But the satanic panic is no longer an issue of tyranny. It lost its grip on the country decades ago and nobody except for a small minority really cares about it anymore except as a joke.

Again, I would be interested to hear your opinion of what the purpose of the satanic abortion ritual is.

I did start responding at length but I think the rest of your post can be summed up as follows;

You consider Christianity a "real" religion and you don't consider TST to be so.
Because you don't consider TST a "real" religion you refuse to even acknowledge or consider the possibility that the ritual in question is anything but an attempt to mock Christians.
You believe mocking Christians to be "assholely".

Bit of circular logic there, which is interesting coming from someone who sincerely tries to have a logically consisten ethical framework. And it's simply not a position I can agree with, nor is it evidenced based in any way.

Final point I will comment on. I find it interesting that you have changed your stance and now believe it is ok and not assholely to mock Muslims because you agree with the reason for mocking them. Or at the very least you believe it has, or has the possibility of, achieving some outcome that you agree with.

Either the behaviour is assholely or it isn't. It isn't logically consistent to consider it assholely if you don't agree with the reason for it, but not assholely if you do.

[Herbert Derp]

It's really hard for me to see the TST as being assholes and Christians in need of defending when Christians are literally responsible for enacting laws based on their religious beliefs that are currently killing women.  How much more of an asshole can you be than to callously dismiss these deaths?

For what it’s worth, I did end up coming around to the perspective that there were ethically justifiable reasons for the Muhammad cartoons.

When an aggressive minority threatens to impose their religious laws on you under the threat of terrorism and murder, protests that call out the injustice being committed are ethically justified. At least in my opinion. The Muhammad cartoons were a protest against injustice, not bullying Muslims. At least in my opinion, as it has evolved over the course of this thread.

And I am coming around to accept your viewpoint that the TST stuff can be viewed in a similar light.

[twinstudy]

Religion should have no say in politics whatsoever.

What you think your god says is about as relevant as what I think my football team captain says.

The fact that we pay lip service (and more) to religious nutters is ridiculous.

There's a separation of church and state. You are free to believe whatever baloney you want, but don't expect your religious tenets to affect policy any more than my favourite football team song affects public policy.

Sadly, a lot of countries don't get this right. The US is one of the worst in the western world.

Australia is pretty secular. A day ago a major public hospital declared it would not perform surgical abortions unless there was some 'medical complication'. In other words, purely elective abortions would not be performed.

Fortunately, after a day's outdoor, the hospital had to reverse its policy.

In Australia abortion is legal (up to a certain week threshold in the 2nd/3rd trimester depending on state) for any reason or no reason at all. The only non-permitted reason is solely for sex selection. Though frankly I don't see why the last reason should be specifically banned if all other reasons are okay.

Abortion should be allowed complete and utter free rein. Forcing people to have children they don't want hurts them, and hurts society.

[Just Joe]

When an aggressive minority threatens to impose their religious laws on you under the threat of terrorism and murder, protests that call out the injustice being committed are ethically justified.

You mean like MAGA Christians and the Roe vs Wade overturn? Because that is what happened here.

[PeteD01]

And another close call:

A Coast Guard Commander Miscarried. She Nearly Died After Being Denied Care.
by Erin Edwards for ProPublica and Robin Fields
Dec. 13, 2024

The night the EMTs carried Elizabeth Nakagawa from her home, bleeding and in pain, the tarp they’d wrapped her in reminded her of a body bag.

Nakagawa, 39, is a Coast Guard commander: stoic, methodical, an engineer by trade. But as they maneuvered her past her young daughters’ bedroom, down the narrow steps and into the ambulance, she felt a stab of fear. She might never see her girls again.


https://www.propublica.org/article/elizabeth-nakagawa-miscarriage-military-tricare-abortion-policy

[Cassie]

When I was younger and abortion was illegal women could get surgery if they had a ectopic pregnancy and a D and C if they needed it for a miscarriage. You didn’t hear of women being denied care in these situations. So we have really returned to the dark ages unfortunately. The politicians are killing young women and leaving their other children without a mom. Who in a red state is going to be willing to get pregnant and take a chance on dying. The government wants the birth rate up and it’s going to have the opposite effect.

[Just Joe]

And another chapter: https://www.capradio.org/articles/2025/01/30/activists-whose-videos-accused-planned-parenthood-of-selling-fetal-remains-plead-to-felony/

Apparently still no laws against lying... Maybe PPH should have sued them for liable?

Two anti-abortion activists who made sensational videos of Planned Parenthood officials nearly a decade ago pleaded no contest this week to a felony count of illegally recording someone without consent.

David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt secretly filmed Planned Parenthood executives in California and edited the clips in a way that purported to show them selling fetal remains. Monday’s plea deal and felony conviction ends a criminal case that has dragged through the court system since 2017.

Their explosive videos triggered multiple state investigations into the allegations, some of which were led by Republican attorneys general. Those inquiries cleared Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing, but court cases related to the videos are ongoing.

Daleiden and Merritt pleaded no contest in San Francisco Superior Court and waived any right to appeal. A sentencing hearing will happen roughly a year from now.

Attorney General Rob Bonta, who has taken a firm stance supporting abortion access, said in a statement that the conviction helps ensure California residents can exercise their state constitutional rights to reproductive health care.

“We will not hesitate to continue taking action against those who threaten access to abortion care — whether by recording confidential conversations or other means,” Bonta said.

The conviction comes less than a week after President Donald Trump limited federal enforcement of a law meant to protect abortion clinic workers and pardoned 23 anti-abortion activists convicted of harassing abortion clinic workers.

The terms of the plea agreement prohibit Daleiden and Merritt from contacting or naming any of the victims of the illegal recordings. They must also obey all laws.

Daleiden downplayed the felony conviction in a statement on his website, Center for Medical Progress, saying that the conviction comes with “zero punishment.”

“After enduring 9 years of weaponized political prosecution, putting an end to the lawfare launched by Kamala Harris is a huge victory for my investigative reporting and for the public’s right to know the truth about Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby body parts,” Daleiden said.

At the time, then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris launched an investigation into Daleiden and Merritt’s actions after they published a series of videos showing covertly filmed conversations of Planned Parenthood executives discussing abortion procedures and how tissue is collected and exchanged with research companies.

Donating fetal tissue to researchers and recouping expenses is legal under U.S. law and states may impose additional regulations.

[Morning Glory]

I had a falling out with a friend several years ago over that particular conspiracy.  I didn't even really argue about it, just told her I was pretty sure it had been debunked but she kept insisting and bombarding me with it until I cut off contact. She seemed sane enough before that.

[Sandi_k]

I had a falling out with a friend several years ago over that particular conspiracy.  I didn't even really argue about it, just told her I was pretty sure it had been debunked but she kept insisting and bombarding me with it until I cut off contact. She seemed sane enough before that.

My SIL believes it, no matter how many media and science and legal reports there are about the scam.