The Satanic Temple challenges new Texas abortion law citing religious freedom

submitted by carn0ld03 from (khou.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

It's perfect - because we need to remind Texans and the Supreme Court OF THE FUCKING NECESSITY OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!

(Roe vs Wade should have protected women from "Christian" extremists.)

[–]Zapped 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

Poor analogy. The Bible says "though shalt not murder" and we have laws against murder. These things are not mutually exclusive.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

It's not an analogy of church and state, it's the legal precident to AVOID a church and state analogy. The Bible isn't part of the discussion, if we want to consider the law, democracy, and Roe v. Wade. Yes, there are laws against murder, and Roe v Wade was agreed upon for a Federal law that legalized abortion, which is for the benefit of the living. If "life begins at conception", or with a beating heard, or with the first brain activity, or at the end of the 1st trimester, Roe v Wade confirmed that none of these definitions of 'life' can be applied to the law regarding abortion. Why separate church and state? Because you cannot legislate morality. You can however legislate criminal activity, which Roe v Wade determined did not apply to many abortions. Who had safe hospital abortions before Roe v Wade? Rich people. Who risked their lives with dodgy methods for illegal abortions? Poor people, and the middle-classes. Don't use a church and state analogy, unless you want to promote theocratic rule. And if you want a theocracy, look at the shitty situations theocracies are in. The vast majority of their constituents are absolutely miserable.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

"Because you cannot legislate morality."

We all know that killing healthy unborn infants is immoral.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Right. But aborting an embryo is not killing an infant.

[–]Zapped 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Honest question here. Would you say that an embryo is 3/5 of a person? I don't know the answer, but I think the heart of this debate is where each person thinks life begins. I used to be totally pro-choice until I became a father. Now, I don't understand how anyone who is a parent can be pro-choice. I agree that a 2 month old embryo is not the same as a 2 month old baby, but it's still life, in my opinion, and I'm non-religious so that doesn't factor into my beliefs.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Would you say that an embryo is 3/5 of a person?

Nope. A collection of cells with no brain is not a fraction of a human.

I don't know the answer, but I think the heart of this debate is where each person thinks life begins.

Agreed.

I used to be totally pro-choice until I became a father. Now, I don't understand how anyone who is a parent can be pro-choice.

Even when the embryo are a rapists genes, and you want to torture a teenager for nine months while she gives her body to carrying someone who violated her?

I agree that a 2 month old embryo is not the same as a 2 month old baby, but it's still life, in my opinion, and I'm non-religious so that doesn't factor into my beliefs.

A bacteria is life.

[–]Zapped 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

A collection of cells with no brain is not a fraction of a human.

Another honest question: why do you think researchers have the 14-day rule when dealing with human embryos?

you want to torture a teenager for nine months while she gives her body to carrying someone who violated her?

No, but again, where does life begin and you allow a murder on top of someone committing a rape?

A bacteria is life.

I guess we should clarify that we are talking about a human life.

I think all of this comes down to the when we think that an embryo or infant or adult is a human life. No bad people in this debate.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Another honest question: why do you think researchers have the 14-day rule when dealing with human embryos?

Ethics committees can get a bit overzealous.

For research purposes iirc you can get 8 or 16 cells. So cell division can occur 3 or 4 times. That was chosen because all the cells are still embryonic stem cells. There's no differentiation between the cells. So augments about whether it's human yet or not can't even begin, because there's no different parts. Just a cell clump.

No, but again, where does life begin and you allow a murder on top of someone committing a rape?

"Murder" is a bit strong for "choosing not to get involved in supporting the life of".

9 million people due from hunger each year. Did those of us who have the resources to feed at least one of them murder them?

But I agree it matters where life begins. Not because some innocent person could ethically be fingered by the state to give of their body to keep a person who they want nothing to do with alive, but because rights must be balanced ... And a clump of cells doesn't have rights.

I guess we should clarify that we are talking about a human life.

Then no. A 2 month old embryo is not human life.

[–]Zapped 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

9 million people due from hunger each year. Did those of us who have the resources to feed at least one of them murder them?

If we took food from them with the intent for them to starve to death, then yes.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Then no. A 2 month old embryo is not human life.

I'm not trying to kick a dead horse here, but fuck, it would become human life.

You're a smart guy. I don't think I need to argue with you, I think now you're going to work it out on your own and come to the rather obvious conclusion.

As an aside, pro life has really shitty PR. They never explain it well. They come off sounding backwards and weird, and it frankly looks bad they care the kid is born but then give zero fucks about it.

But what they're doing is giving the kid a chance. A chance to live as you and I are.

Although if you're like me you never asked to be born and you occasionally wish you were dead. But we have that choice.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Right. But aborting an embryo is not killing an infant

I agree with everything you've written until here. That's bullshit, if someone killed you as an embryo you still wouldn't exist. The problem is that it's going to be a life if you don't fucking murder it.

Now, don't get me wrong, although it's morally reprehensible and murder, I actually do believe in pro choice. I'm just okay with killing kids. I mean fuck, really, you should be able to late term abort them until they're 18.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's bullshit, if someone killed you as an embryo you still wouldn't exist.

There's a couple or few hundred million sperm in the ejaculation that fertilised the egg that grew into me. A couple or few hundred million might have grown into people that don't exist.

All "murdered" according to you, simply because they don't now exist.

You should get 200,000,000 life sentences, just for ejaculating?

No?

Then don't sweat about things that are only potentially people: Not all genetic combinations get to exist. The vast majority don't. Worry about people that do exist. Like raped teen girls and neglected or hungry children.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

A tree starts its life as a seed. If you tore out a freshly planted seed that has begun to sprout, you killed an unborn tree. The same goes for embryos and creatures.

You are vile.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

A tree starts its life as a seed.

Some people would say that the seed is already living. And that a dead seed won't grow into a tree.

If you tore out a freshly planted seed that has begun to sprout, you killed an unborn tree.

Trees aren't born.

Birth is something only viviparous animals do.

You are vile.

Caring about people more than a few cells isn't vile. It's caring.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You are insufferable.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you think caring about people and about society is vile, you're a sociopath.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You don't care about people or society, you would rather people be free to abort their babies whenever they like. That is opposite of caring for humans.

[–]Zapped 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

You made the analogy that Christian extremism was solely behind anti-abortion laws and that Roe vs Wade was to separate Church and State. Own it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

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

[–]Zapped 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The analogy between a) Roe vs Wade is a law that separates Church and State and b) a legal ruling that separates Church and State.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I see. That's much clearer. Sorry I misunderstood. I did not see my comments as making this specific analogy. But I'll have a go. First, there is the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Next there is Roe v Wade:

One reason it successfully arranged for reproductive freedom is because of the legal requirement of church-state separation, for reasons discussed here.

Thus: Roe v Wade is RELATED TO the law that separates Church and State, becaus Churches would otherwise get politicians to overturn any legislation that offers reproductive freedom.

[–]Zapped 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think we'll have to disagree on this diluted tangent to the main discussion.