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

a reply to: OccamsRazor04 im just going to ignore you now. You are using logical fallacies as logical fallacies and favoring only your own semantics over anyone elses. Youre going in endless circles.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Every argument you have is destroyed by .. wait for it ... science. Notice how I have not made one single religious argument.

Both of you arguing about "alive or not" won't further the abortion debate. Because the law has nothing to do with the "human" status of the unborn.

Human status has little to do with it. I doubt few people would assert that the fetus does not possess human genetic material, as distinguished, say, from turtle genetic material, and that in regarding biology, would probably develop into a fully functioning human being.

Speaking of science, why do pro-lifers appeal to science when it's convenient to their argument? Just seems funny to me.

originally posted by: igor_ats
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.

You keep wishing to inject yourself. In the process you are unable to follow the argument. So please tell me why whether there is life or not doesn't matter in the discussion we were having.

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.

If you want to know what the discussion is about you should read the post before replying. Works for me, you should try it.

originally posted by: Aural
a reply to: OccamsRazor04 im just going to ignore you now. You are using logical fallacies as logical fallacies and favoring only your own semantics over anyone elses. Youre going in endless circles.

Translation: I asked difficult questions you could not answer. Got it.

originally posted by: igor_ats

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Every argument you have is destroyed by .. wait for it ... science. Notice how I have not made one single religious argument.

Both of you arguing about "alive or not" won't further the abortion debate. Because the law has nothing to do with the "human" status of the unborn.

Human status has little to do with it. I doubt few people would assert that the fetus does not possess human genetic material, as distinguished, say, from turtle genetic material, and that in regarding biology, would probably develop into a fully functioning human being.

Speaking of science, why do pro-lifers appeal to science when it's convenient to their argument? Just seems funny to me.

And yet that is exactly the argument she made, saying the fetus is not alive. My bringing it up was a prelude to the actual argument, it was not intended to be THE argument. If someone is so far down the rabbit hole they are arguing a fetus is not actually alive there really is no place for logical discourse after that.

Convenient? I don't know, maybe you can show me where I have ever done anything but appeal to science. Go look through my posts on the subject. Otherwise you can apologize for insinuating lies.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Translation: I asked difficult questions you could not answer. Got it.

I should say the same about you.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Convenient? I don't know, maybe you can show me where I have ever done anything but appeal to science. Go look through my posts on the subject. Otherwise you can apologize for insinuating lies.

Ok, so you're not pro-life?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
If someone is so far down the rabbit hole they are arguing a fetus is not actually alive there really is no place for logical discourse after that.

Similarly like someone arguing abortion is murder because of "malice and aforethought".

a reply to: grey580

This is awesome and I couldn't agree more. Self determined women know what they're in for when they opt for abortion. They don't need or want to be subject to mandatory counseling, wait period and forced vaginal ultrasound probes.

The pro-life is guilty of forcing false propaganda about abortion, every chance they get. For example, they tell teenagers in sex-ed classes that women who have an abortion have higher risks of cancer, miscarriage and sterility. Abortion murders a baby. A fertilized egg is a person. You can't get pregnant from real rape. Contraception is the same as abortion. Blah Blah Blah!

I applaud these people!

originally posted by: igor_ats

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Translation: I asked difficult questions you could not answer. Got it.

I should say the same about you.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Convenient? I don't know, maybe you can show me where I have ever done anything but appeal to science. Go look through my posts on the subject. Otherwise you can apologize for insinuating lies.

Ok, so you're not pro-life?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
If someone is so far down the rabbit hole they are arguing a fetus is not actually alive there really is no place for logical discourse after that.

Similarly like someone arguing abortion is murder because of "malice and aforethought".

What post with a hard question did I refuse to respond to?

You tell me what I am, why do I need to label myself for you? You are the one making fallacious accusations.

It seems your biggest problem is your lack of reading comprehension. I am not the one who started talking about malice, I simply addressed it when someone else brought it up. Feel free to reprimand Aural as she is the one who brought malice up. Then again she thinks the same as you, so I suppose that means you don't care.

Have you or anyone else addressed the fact that this is not at all the same argument because they claim to be for scientific understanding and then against being educated by that scientific understanding?

What service were they asked to provide that went against their beliefs?

This post and the following posts by me. You didn't answer them.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
You tell me what I am, why do I need to label myself for you? You are the one making fallacious accusations.

Because the question was to a pro-lifer about pro-lifers. Evidently you are not (I guess?).

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
It seems your biggest problem is your lack of reading comprehension. I am not the one who started talking about malice, I simply addressed it when someone else brought it up.

She said there was no malice, you replied that there is:

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

I already defined malice. I proved there is intent.

Unless it is my "bad reading comprehension"?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Have you or anyone else addressed the fact that this is not at all the same argument because they claim to be for scientific understanding and then against being educated by that scientific understanding?

I don't think reading pro-life propaganda and having ultrasounds for no reason other to illicit an appeal to emotion is "being educated by scientific understanding". But I guess pro-lifers like to appeal to science when it suits them.

“informed consent” laws that rely on misleading information about abortion risks - it's scientific!

www.prochoiceamerica.org...

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Now youre making personal attacks and straw mans. No i am saying it is a waste of time because you are distracting away from things too much only arguing arguments rather than stating views and reasons. You are not asking inteligent questions you are running around in a never ending cycle of hypocracy.

originally posted by: igor_ats
This post and the following posts by me. You didn't answer them.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
You tell me what I am, why do I need to label myself for you? You are the one making fallacious accusations.

Because the question was to a pro-lifer about pro-lifers. Evidently you are not (I guess?).

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
It seems your biggest problem is your lack of reading comprehension. I am not the one who started talking about malice, I simply addressed it when someone else brought it up.

She said there was no malice, you replied that there is:

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

I already defined malice. I proved there is intent.

Unless it is my "bad reading comprehension"?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Have you or anyone else addressed the fact that this is not at all the same argument because they claim to be for scientific understanding and then against being educated by that scientific understanding?

I don't think reading pro-life propaganda and having ultrasounds for no reason other to illicit an appeal to emotion is "being educated by scientific understanding". But I guess pro-lifers like to appeal to science when it suits them.

“informed consent” laws that rely on misleading information about abortion risks - it's scientific!

www.prochoiceamerica.org...

What in the post needs to be answered that is not answered?

Exactly, she brought up malice, not me, exactly as I stated. I defined malice for her to show her understanding is wrong. Neither her nor yourself has contradicted what I said, yet you keep bringing it up without showing the statement I made was wrong.

So yes, your comprehension does need work. Exactly what I said happened ... happened. She brought up malice, I responded. You said my argument was it's murder because of malice and forethought. Sorry, I did not bring up malice, how can something I did not bring up be my argument? It can't. Seriously stop responding if you are unable to follow a basic simple argument.

Is the ultrasound not scientific? Is it not portraying exactly what it says? Does it not offer someone additional education? Perhaps you can show me the peer reviewed research that shows ultrasounds are not scientifically sound. Or are you saying the only acceptable science is that which supports your view?

If you believe education provided is inaccurate would the best option be to ensure the education is accurate rather than end the education? If your child comes home with a text book that is in error do you call for the end of public education, or do you demand the errors be fixed?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Is the ultrasound not scientific? Is it not portraying exactly what it says? Does it not offer someone additional education? Perhaps you can show me the peer reviewed research that shows ultrasounds are not scientifically sound. Or are you saying the only acceptable science is that which supports your view?

It's not that ultra sounds aren't scientifically sound. It's the application. There's no medical justification to force every woman seeking an abortion to undergo and pay for a unnecessary vaginal ultrasound. It a tactic to financially burden a woman and to illicit an emotional response of guilt and remorse.

And then there's this:

Legislating Lies: Kansas and Other States Pass Laws Permitting Doctors to Lie to Pregnant Patients About Prenatal Diagnoses

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Is the ultrasound not scientific? Is it not portraying exactly what it says? Does it not offer someone additional education? Perhaps you can show me the peer reviewed research that shows ultrasounds are not scientifically sound. Or are you saying the only acceptable science is that which supports your view?

It's not that ultra sounds aren't scientifically sound. It's the application. There's no medical justification to force every woman seeking an abortion to undergo and pay for a unnecessary vaginal ultrasound. It a tactic to financially burden a woman and to illicit an emotional response of guilt and remorse.

And then there's this:

Legislating Lies: Kansas and Other States Pass Laws Permitting Doctors to Lie to Pregnant Patients About Prenatal Diagnoses

So giving them all the information so they can decide what is right is wrong, it's better to not educate and use as much terminology as possible to alter their perceptions to fit your agenda?

If you doubt both sides use the same tricks you are very mistaken. One side wants to remove the innate human emotion, one wants to use it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So giving them all the information so they can decide what is right is wrong, it's better to not educate and use as much terminology as possible to alter their perceptions to fit your agenda?

Whatever.

Satanism is a legitimately recognized religious group whose tenets conflict with being coerced, forced, or sidetracked from their self determined decision. It looks to me as if SCOTUS has given them that right, through their recent ruling.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So giving them all the information so they can decide what is right is wrong, it's better to not educate and use as much terminology as possible to alter their perceptions to fit your agenda?

Whatever.

Satanism is a legitimately recognized religious group whose tenets conflict with being coerced, forced, or sidetracked from their self determined decision. It looks to me as if SCOTUS has given them that right, through their recent ruling.

Red Herring. I never disagreed. What they are claiming their belief is simply is not against what they claim to have an issue with. On top of that, again I ask, what service are they being forced to PROVIDE. Because that is what the ruling is about, PROVIDING, not USING, a service. For instance can I claim education is against my religion and say my children no longer need to attend school? Nope. Not at all what the ruling is about.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Logical fallacy. No one is forcing women to become pregnant. When they do I will be right there with you saying it's wrong.

This is why I did not bother replying further. You seem to not understand individual autonomy well. A feotus can not survive on its own, it is not its own life, it is an extension of the body of the person pregnant. You have to get permision from someone to take from their body even if to save a life like in organ transplant. So called pro lifers think the body of a woman is not just her own if there is another life involved and this is also the case in some legalities but that is when it is a wanted child and later term often but im not going to get into that as its distracting. See the connection yet? An organ for a life, a feotus to grow into a baby for a life. Of course it is not exactly the same thing. You make the mistake of correlating taking of organs with forced pregnancy. The point is it is the choice of the person what is done with their body. Forcing someone who has become pregnant to go through full term pregnancy is forcing what to do with their body. Let me help a little more.

They did not choose to become pregnant any more than a person chooses to be hit by a car while walking across the street. Should those who cross the street be turned away from hospitals after being hit? Should their desire for medical attention be ignored because they would not have been hit if there was no car? By your logic yes. You see the person who had sex as the one to be blamed because you think they chose to be pregnant just like a person crossing the street chooses to be hit by a passing car. No one thinks abortion should be used as a first step form of birth control it is a necisary thing same as precautions. A person hit by a car should be able to go to get treatment even if their life is not in damger. Sometimes people cross the street (have sex) get hit even if they look both ways (birth control pills / condoms) but some are also hit without intending to be on the street and run down (rape) but even those who cross without looking (unprotected) they too should have the right to go to the hospital (have an abortion) whether their life is in danger or not.

a reply to: windword

Well technically Satanism is a religion not a religious group because it consists of different groups or churches within it that may have some varience between their beleifs. On a governmental level a certain number of followers is needed for legal recognition as far as i know or some other requirements. Not saying its not legit just that it is a bit tricky how classification works. On non legal standards it does fit crieteria as a religion. What or who is scotus?

a reply to: grey580

Oh man, I wish this were true. Just like the statue of Baphomet.

I've never endorsed Satanism much nor ever put it above Christianity but I'm really liking their antics lately. I hope they keep it up and keep everybody honest. Goose... gander... politicians, etc.

originally posted by: Aural

They did not choose to become pregnant any more than a person chooses to be hit by a car while walking across the street.

Terrible analogy. Walking across the street does not lead to getting hit. It's more like saying the guy who jumped off his roof did not choose to break a leg. Sorry, he did. He knew going into it what could happen from jumping off the roof, but he did it anyways for the thrill. As to the rest of your post about denying medical treatment, I do not recall saying pregnant women should be denied medical treatment.

Again, unless someone is forced to become pregnant, no one is forced to carry a child. Much like the man is not forced to break his leg, it's a direct result of his actions.

No one thinks abortion should be used as a first step form of birth control it is a necisary thing same as precautions.

Actually they do. If you think abortion should only be allowed those who took first step birth control and it failed, I would listen to that argument. Otherwise you are saying it's an acceptable first step birth control.

The rest of your post relies on an erroneous analogy that is simply not analogous. The person having sex is trying to have sex, the person getting hit by the car is trying not to get hit. They literally have nothing in common.

originally posted by: Aural
What or who is scotus?

Supreme Court Of The Unites States.

SCOTUS