Satanists Demand Religious Exemption From Abortion Restrictions, Cite Hobby Lobby Ruling

a reply to: gladtobehere

Whats is your point? Pro life is anti choice of those pregnant but pro choice is not necisarily pro abortion except from a legal standpoint but real pro abortion would be forced abortions and neither side wants that. No one is pro murder for either side either.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That is not semantics. If someone sees abortion as murder that doesnt stop it from being abortion so they are still against abortion. Calling it semantics is assuming it means the same thing when its only opinion. Look up the definition of murder and you will see words like killing with malace and the like. There isnt malice in people having abortions. Also murder is a legal term for illegal killing which abortion is not illegal except for late term but i dont know what the laws of that are called and even if abortion was outlawed entirely it wont go under the same laws as murder.

originally posted by: Aural
a reply to: gladtobehere

Whats is your point? Pro life is anti choice of those pregnant but pro choice is not necisarily pro abortion except from a legal standpoint but real pro abortion would be forced abortions and neither side wants that. No one is pro murder for either side either.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That is not semantics. If someone sees abortion as murder that doesnt stop it from being abortion so they are still against abortion. Calling it semantics is assuming it means the same thing when its only opinion. Look up the definition of murder and you will see words like killing with malace and the like. There isnt malice in people having abortions.

It is semantics. Because now I can say they ARE pro-abortion, because they want abortions to happen. Even if people personally do not like it, their desire for it to be legal outweighs their dislike, thus they want it to happen though they would not do it. As I said, semantics.

Malice is "intent to do harm or injury". Are they having accidental abortions? Is it like when someone says I did not mean to have sex with them, did you slip and fall and your penis accidentally inserted itself? Did they go for a checkup and accidentally did the abortion instead? Or are they going with the intent to do it?

malice (ˈmælɪs)

— n
1. the desire to do harm or mischief

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Read my post again i was still tweaking my wording as you were replying. Malice is only one of the words ive seen in definitions of legality some say evil intent youre missing the point. Now youre the one using semantics.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
That’s the whole debate, whether or not an unborn baby is a life. The pro-life group will argue that of-course it’s a life and that no one has a “right” to take or kill that life.

Actually the idea that the unborn is "not alive" is a goalpost-moved strawman pro-lifers like to claim the issue surrounding abortion.

It's been 40+ years since Roe btw with the the same pro-life arguments.

Anti-abortionists' moral objection to abortion relies on the belief that the zygot/embryo/fetus has the same ontic and moral value as a person born and should be offered legal protection. This position has consistently failed to win support and undermine the legal provision of abortion.

So opponents to legal abortion have to turn to other means to further their cause, like claiming mental illness and so on into a legal strategy to undermine the provision of abortion.

I still think it would have been better if those claiming excemption from the laws were either another group of christians or even the chirch of the flying spagetti monster not a satanic group. The wrong message clearly is getting across.

originally posted by: Aural
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Read my post again i was still tweaking my wording as you were replying. Malice is only one of the words ive seen in definitions of legality some say evil intent youre missing the point. Now youre the one using semantics.

No, all you offered was more pedantic semantics. Giving the definition of malice is not semantics, it's showing your claim to be false. Since you did not address anything I said I will say it again.

That is not semantics. If someone sees abortion as murder that doesnt stop it from being abortion so they are still against abortion.

No, it means they are against murder. Abortion being murder is what makes it wrong. If murder was suddenly deemed acceptable they would no longer oppose abortion. Allow me to illustrate.

Someone is against child abuse. Research determines x, y, and z are abusive. The person stops doing x, y, and z. More research comes to light showing x, y, and z are actually not abusive. Now if we follow your semantics .. the person is against x, y, and z, so if that is the case whey do they start doing x, y, and z again after it's found to be healthy? Clearly they are NOT against x, y, or z, only child abuse. It's your desire to distort the argument using semantics that is the problem.

Calling it semantics is assuming it means the same thing when its only opinion.

No, semantics is often used as a logical fallacy to derail the subject rather than focus on what is important.

Look up the definition of murder and you will see words like killing with malace and the like. There isnt malice in people having abortions.

I already defined malice. I proved there is intent. You are welcome to dispute my position and show me that the abortion is not intended ... good luck with that.

Also murder is a legal term for illegal killing which abortion is not illegal except for late term but i dont know what the laws of that are called and even if abortion was outlawed entirely it wont go under the same laws as murder.

Laws change. Laws are often illogical. It has absolutely no bearing on the subject, which is "scientific accuracy". Is the unborn baby a human life? Is the life being taken with the intent and forethought to do so? If so, what makes this not murder (or a less manslaughter charge)?

originally posted by: Aural
I still think it would have been better if those claiming excemption from the laws were either another group of christians or even the chirch of the flying spagetti monster not a satanic group. The wrong message clearly is getting across.

Why should it matter who is doing it? The issue is that they contradict themselves. They claim they desire scientific accuracy, and then do not show how this is being infringed on. In fact the goal of what they say they do not like is to bring about scientific accurate understanding.

originally posted by: Aural
Because now I can say they ARE pro-abortion, because they want abortions to happen.

No they don't.

Pro-lifers and pro-choicers both want less abortions. Only one side (with the law on their side) offers the woman the choice if she really wants one.

Abortion means it's unwanted, sex education and access to contraception is what pro-choicers see as important to prevent women getting an unplanned pregnancy (in_b4 "responsibility argument"), but abortion is an option if it comes to that. Pro-lifers tend to deal more with absolutes in regards to abortion and sex in general.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
Its actually not a great troll. To be honest, its not a troll at all. It’s the same argument used by the pro-abortion types, that its "their body” and that they “have a right to choose whether or not they can keep a baby”.

Oh, but it is. It plays both sides

1 Satanists are pro-abortion baby murderers of course (it's part of the sign-up form), - ergo pro-choicers are akin to satanists. This makes pro-lifers feel good.

2 It exposes the hyprocrisy of The Hobby Lobby ruling allowing exemptions only to Christians. This makes non-Christians feel good, since it's obviously a flawed ruling.

originally posted by: gladtobehere
Personally, I don’t have a problem with people living by their own set of religious laws so long as those laws don’t conflict with US law when it comes to coercion or violence.

Neither do I. Glad abortion has been legal for 40+ years despite attempts from pro-lifers to change that. Seems the relevant parties haven't fallen for the "murder" mantra for quite some time, doubt that will change anytime soon.

a reply to: igor_ats

See my other posts. Everything you said is already covered.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Youre who is using logical fallacies. You tried to assume abortion is murder with nothing to back this up and hide the fact youre doing so by calling it semantics.

originally posted by: Aural
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Youre who is using logical fallacies. You tried to assume abortion is murder with nothing to back this up and hide the fact youre doing so by calling it semantics.

More logical fallacies from you. Here is my post you chose to ignore.

Is the unborn baby a human life? Is the life being taken with the intent and forethought to do so? If so, what makes this not murder (or a less manslaughter charge)?

Answer those two questions please.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: igor_ats

See my other posts. Everything you said is already covered.

It's not actually. Especially abortion being de-facto murder. But it's good to see you have no comeback and prefer to bail out of the discussion.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
No, it means they are against murder. Abortion being murder is what makes it wrong.

What legal U.S. statute are you going to link to that says abortion is murder? Oh wait, you don't have one? That's a surprise (not).

You are free to interpet abortion as murder, but it is important to note that murder is a legal term with a legal definition:

Abortion has never been murder under US law, not even prior to Roe v Wade. Even in the unlikely event that Roe v Wade is overturned, it won't be then either.

There has never been a single state that classified it as a homicide at any time in the history of the US.

"Murder" is a legal term, with a specific definition, and the one you offer isn't it.

A human being can be defined many ways... the only relevant one to the abortion issue however, is the legal one.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
It's your desire to distort the argument using semantics that is the problem.

Saying abortion is murder is semantics. Becuase it isn't murder.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Is the unborn baby a human life? Is the life being taken with the intent and forethought to do so? If so, what makes this not murder (or a less manslaughter charge)?

You pro-lifers are hilarious.

Lots of things are human and alive and can be killed without it being murder.

When a soldier kills "something that is human" in line with the rules of engagement, it isn't murder; when a police officer kills "something that is human" in the line of duty, it isn't; when someone kills "something that is human" in self-defense, it isn't. For that matter, women expel ova every month when they menstruate, and ova are "something that is human" as well, and that isn't murder either.

In some states you can use lethal force to stop someone setting fire to an occupied building. In some states you can use lethal force to stop a kidnapping. Call it "the right to kill" if you will. Seems like it's just semantics here. As far as abortion is concerned, you will not change the law arguing that abortion does/doesn't kill the z/e/f. The quicker you learn this the faster you can present a better argument against abortion.

Is abortion the right to kill? Yes, in self defence.

Pregnancy is far more dangerous than abortion, most abortions are early term. The US government cannot force a woman to become pregnant, nor can it force her to remain so against her will. Gestation requires draining an individual of bodily resources and injects her with hormones. Pregnancy has fewer physical benifits and many detriments and is much more likely to lead to death than an abortion so forcing an unwanted pregnancy to be carried to term is a complete disregard for own her health and safety.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is not a contradiction as it is for mockery. Science has no ruling on when life starts as it has no specific definitions on what life even is. Its to point out the same logic pro life Christians use.

originally posted by: Aural
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is not a contradiction as it is for mockery. Science has no ruling on when life starts as it has no specific definitions on what life even is. Its to point out the same logic pro life Christians use.

No, science does have a ruling on when life starts. What we have is intentional obfuscation as to when that life becomes "human".

Maybe I am wrong .. I am willing to listen, please give me the facts that point to us being unsure that there is indeed a living organism.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Uhhhhh its not a baby its feotus. Its already illegal for late term abortion so you are making an argument where there is none as it is not a baby we are talking about. so calling it a baby is being manipulative. And no its not a human any more than individual skin cells are human. Its human but not not human. Youre playing games of semantics and fallacies ignoring your own trying to make others seem like they are wrong and you are right when you do nothing of the sort.

Do you have a drivers license? Or at least seen one? You know how people have an option to be organ donors or not? Its against the law to take organs from someone without their permision even if it is to save a life even if this person is already dead that the organs would come from. A dead person would have more rights over their own body than a living pregnant woman if abortion was illegal.

originally posted by: igor_ats
Is abortion the right to kill? Yes, in self defence.

I am all for abortion when it is shown the woman has an at-risk pregnancy that makes her susceptible to abnormal death risks.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, no it doesnt. Again you are making presumptions and making that your argument. You have no argument. Life is defined totally differently for each organism. A feotus is not alive the same way a full grown baby is alive. A feotus can not survive on its own outside the body. A feotus does not have the same sentience status as a full grown.

Im not really up for debating this as Ive been mostly sticking to the original subject of the thread as this is not the debate section.

originally posted by: Aural
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Uhhhhh its not a baby its feotus.

Semantics.

Its already illegal for late term abortion so you are making an argument where there is none as it is not a baby we are talking about. so calling it a baby is being manipulative.

Ah yes and refusal to call it a baby is not?

And no its not a human any more than individual skin cells are human. Its human but not not human. Youre playing games of semantics and fallacies ignoring your own trying to make others seem like they are wrong and you are right when you do nothing of the sort.

So it's human, but not human. Please tell me exactly why there is no difference between a fetus and skin cells.

Do you have a drivers license? Or at least seen one? You know how people have an option to be organ donors or not? Its against the law to take organs from someone without their permision even if it is to save a life even if this person is already dead that the organs would come from. A dead person would have more rights over their own body than a living pregnant woman if abortion was illegal.

Logical fallacy. No one is forcing women to become pregnant. When they do I will be right there with you saying it's wrong.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
No, science does have a ruling on when life starts. What we have is intentional obfuscation as to when that life becomes "human".

Maybe I am wrong .. I am willing to listen, please give me the facts that point to us being unsure that there is indeed a living organism.

Red Herring?
www.nizkor.org...

Arguing whether or not the z/e/f is/isn't alive and does/doesn't contain human DNA is a red herring argument only for those with no more straws to grasp.

Unless this discussion isn't about changing the law of course

Roe v Wade wan't about that.

The Constitutional basis for the Roe v Wade ruling is pretty strong; it has certainly withstood many attempts to chip away at it. I'd say the heart of any argument to overturn the ruling would be to answer how forcing a women to gestate an unwanted fetus for nine months and then endure labor is not a violation of their liberty and bodily integrity and obviously constitutional.

originally posted by: Aural
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, no it doesnt. Again you are making presumptions and making that your argument. You have no argument. Life is defined totally differently for each organism. A feotus is not alive the same way a full grown baby is alive. A feotus can not survive on its own outside the body. A feotus does not have the same sentience status as a full grown.

Im not really up for debating this as Ive been mostly sticking to the original subject of the thread as this is not the debate section.

No, life is not defined differently for every organism. So when medical technology makes it possible for a fetus to survive it is suddenly alive? Our definition of when a "fetus" becomes a "person" is solely dependent on technology?

Life has a definition, just because it does not say what you want it to say does not mean you can ignore it.

A commonly used one is ...

1. the state or quality that distinguishes living beings or organisms from dead ones and from inorganic matter, characterized chiefly by metabolism, growth, and the ability to reproduce and respond to stimuli

Every argument you have is destroyed by .. wait for it ... science. Notice how I have not made one single religious argument.