The Satanic Temple is filing a lawsuit against the state of Missouri, alleging that the state's anti-abortion laws violate their religious beliefs.
The conflict began when a Missouri resident and Satanic Temple member (referred to in the lawsuit as "Mary Doe") went to a Planned Parenthood clinic planning to get an abortion. Instead, she was given an anti-abortion information pamphlet as part of the requirements under the "informed consent" laws on the books in Missouri.
The pamphlet explained that "life begins at conception", and that fetuses are "able to feel pain" during the abortion process controversial claims that were laid out as scientific facts. After being given the pamphlet, Mary Doe was made to wait 72-hours before her request for abortion would be granted.
The Satanic Temple claims these requirements go against their religion beliefs, and filed suit on Mary Doe's behalf.
Taking it to Court
The lawsuit argues that not only do the mandatory abortion pamphlets make dubious scientific claims, but that the entire process required to get an abortion violates fundamental principles of freedom of religion. By endorsing a "religious anti-abortion stance", the government is clearly favoring one side, the group insists.
Furthermore, they say, by spreading misinformation and forcing Mary Doe to jump through hoops to get an abortion, the state of Missouri violated two core tenets of the Satanic faith: "One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone," and "Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs."
What is the Satanic Temple?
The Satanic Temple was founded in the mid-2000s to counter what the founders identified as a growing Christian influence in the U.S. under the Bush administration. They currently have about 20 chapters across the United States. From the group's website:
"The mission of The Satanic Temple is to encourage benevolence and empathy among all people, reject tyrannical authority, advocate practical common sense and justice, and be directed by the human conscience to undertake noble pursuits guided by the individual will."
Quite politically active, the group has "advocated on behalf of children in public school to abolish corporal punishment, applied for equal representation where religious monuments are placed on public property, provided religious exemption and legal protection against laws that unscientifically restrict women's reproductive autonomy", among numerous other activities.
Do They Have a Chance to Win?
Missouri has some of the strictest anti-abortion laws in the country, and the group is dead-set on challenging them. That being said, it looks to be an uphill battle. The Satanic Temple is a relatively small religious organization that lacks the legal resources of larger institutions. Plus, abortion is a hot-button issue in the state, and Missouri will surely fight any attempt to reverse its laws.
That said, only time will tell whether their lawsuit proves successful.
What do you think? Does religious freedom include a woman's right to access abortion services?
182 comments
-
angel
Though shalt not have unprotected sex while conjuring satan!
-
Alicia
Please do some research. Satanists do not "conjure Satan".
-
Stefanie Davenport
What the hell, lol
-
Kate the RC Duid
I agree. Make sure your magic wand is properly shrouded. Lol, giggle, snort.
-
-
John Owens
I find it much more dubious when an abortionist says the infants feel no pain and the dismembering of them is "very humane", than to think the developing embryo feels no pain. It goes against common sense and observable behavior in the embryos themselves. I think they just flat out lie on the "science" in order to justify the practice, and modern people have been conditioned to think the "experts" are above lying, fibbing, or agenda-driven biases for profit.
-
Debra Huddleston
But the question was. . .
-
John Maher
DOES ANYBODY REALLY KNOW WHAT TIME it IS ??? DUMP the tRUMP T I M E !!!
-
Alicia
Obviously, you have an anti-Trump agenda and will use any venue to promote that. This is not the place.
-
Ron
Why not? trump wants to drop you and the rest of us into an overtly polluted indentured servitude to the multi national corporations the politicians real owners!
-
John Owens
Ron and Maher are mindless Trump-haters so they can make up anything or say anything and it's perfectly all right, regardless of history or facts.
-
Aal
But it was funny! snicker too bad it doesn't rhyme with our PM...
-
-
-
John Owens
DEBRA HUDDLESTON: You might have missed this section of Joseph's remarks:
"Taking it to Court
The lawsuit argues that not only do the mandatory abortion pamphlets make dubious scientific claims,.."
I was responding to that apparently misleading portion of the Satanist's claim.
-
-
Reverend Krystina S.
Well John, certainly a girl/woman feels pain? Would you rather in the backalley, due to extreme suffering and terrible circumstance? Certainly it is UnChristian to force someone to be born who is unwanted, severely ill, etc... who may have no chance in life except pain AS AN infant, child and adult, except SUFFERING. I know it is so easy to be self-righteous about OTHER PEOPLE. But... We ought not to tell other people what to do with their own bodies, in their own families. AND-- are you willing to be responsible for the children from prebirth through their entire lives? How many children have you adopted from the US, who were multiracial--drug addicted--older--siblings--born disabled--??? Then I find your concern over the pain of a foetus to be disengenuous.
-
John Owens
There is not a disingenuous bone in my body, Krystina. Nothing I have said is more disingenuous than mentioning all the back-alley, unwanted, disabled, all that suffering stuff YOU mentioned. I think there are RARE circumstances when abortion would be the merciful alternative to misery or death of the mother. I have never stated otherwise. I just believe in true honesty, and saying that a baby developing in the womb feels no pain while being dismembered is patently stupid and immeasurable. Why did you mention multiracial along with drug-addicted and born disabled? I have a bi-racial grandson who just turned twelve this weekend. I don't consider being multi-racial any reason for abortion.
-
Stefanie Davenport
The nervous system must be fully functioning in order to feel pain! An Embryo does not have a functioning nervous system therefore does Not feel pain! Us that "Scientific" enough for you?
-
John Owens
Not scientific at ALL. You poke an embryo, it tries to move. Why can't you see that? who decided it can't feel pain? Maybe it can't at three weeks, but it most certainly can BEFORE IT IS BORN!!! NO. NOT SCIENTIFIC ENOUGH. IT IS STUPID, RIDICULOUS!
-
Joe Smith
What is it with Christians poking minors? Start with the embryo, stick around for the altar boys.
-
-
-
Damon L Gardiner
I think you should pay for your choices men hurt have needs i know its not popular but pay your own way kill your baby pay the bill and bury your dead just like the rest of us
-
-
Damon L Gardiner
I agree... I think its the sign of destruction of a culture when we are so selfish to deny we cause pain to the unborn during abortion because of so called personal choice-freedom this is agenda based d science same as religious right.if i cant get insurance to pay for viagra or a penis implant to make it bigger or fair testosterone replacement therapy practices for malees over 40 then women need to pay for there abortion and birth control.your free choices come with individual responsibility and self pay.equality means equal rights not special rights
-
Dave
Ummmm very well said Damon.
-
Wendy
Fetuses cannot feel pain until the third trimester because the neural pathways haven't developed yet. Movement, yes. That happens early. Organ function happens in stages. Sensory processing happens later. Pain processing doesn't connect until 30 weeks, give or take a couple of weeks because there's no thalamus until then, and that's where pain is processed. Denying science doesn't make it not true. Here's a summary: http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain If you're actually interested in the science, here are details of central nervous system development. It's very information dense, but it's thorough: https://www.slideshare.net/ananthatiger/embryology-development-of-central-nervous-system
-
-
Bill Robinson
You of course are entitled to your opinion but what you think is not supported by scientific facts. In order to refute those facts, you would need to provide scientific evidence that disproves them and, so far, you've not done so. As for whether an embryo feels pain, every step you take crushes a microscopically tiny organism. Did you cause it pain? Does it understand the concept of pain?
-
John Owens
Okay, Mr. Logic, CAN YOU PROVE A NEGATIVE? CAN YOU PROVE THAT AN EMBRYO DOES NOT FEEL PAIN? Is that even possible to prove? Can you prove there is no afterlife? Can you prove there is no God? Can you prove anything to support your position? No. No. No. No. If the embryo reacts to prodding, OBSERVATION (which is not proof, but is all there is) SHOULD inform you the embryo feels the prod. Can the embryo EXPLAIN the sensation? Absolutely not, but neither could you if you were bound and gagged. Would that mean you couldn't feel it? Some of you are taking SUPPOSITION and using it as FACT. If you TRULY believe what you posit is FACT, then you should not need myth or supposition, falsehood or half-truth to justify it. IT IS YOUR SIDE STATING THINGS AS FACT WHICH, IN FACT, ARE AGENDA-BASED SUPPOSITIONS.
-
Wendy
No thalamus, no pain. We know where and how pain is processed in the brain. If that part isn't there, there is no pain. Fetal development happens in stages. Those stages are very well defined, and neurological development has been thoroughly studied because of the many things that can go wrong with it during fetal development. Reflex reactions to prodding are not the same thing as feeling pain.
-
John Owens
Okay, Wendy. Let's assume you are correct (and that is only an assumption, since a negative cannot be proven), but just for the sake of making you feel like you made a point, let's assume your point is valid. Now, AT WHAT POINT IS THE "FETUS" ABLE TO FEEL PAIN? Surely there is SOME point at which it becomes able to feel pain. Since you are so knowledgeable about thalami, please tell us all at what point the "fetus" has a thalamus, enabling it to feel pain, and then stipulate please, that AFTER THAT POINT IT IS NO LONGER HUMANE TO ABORT A HEALTHY "FETUS".
I'll wait.
-
-
-
-
Daniel Walker
"Common sense" isn't an authoritative source for medical science. Whether you think it sounds right or not, the research says what it says.
-
John Owens
Research ALWAYS says what those who FUND the research WANT it to say, Daniel. Still, you cannot accept stupid over observation. If you DO, it means you have been deceived. If I look out the window, and it is raining, I don't listen to the local TV meteorologist about the weather. That is equal to what you are saying. If you believe something an "expert" says, which conflicts with what your own eyes and experience tell you, you are behaving in an insane manner.
-
Wendy
Actually, the research comes from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and other groups that fund research into neural tube defects and other neurological development problems during fetal development. That's why so much is know about the details of the central nervous system development. Knowing when and how things can go wrong is the first step to either prevention or intervention to fix the problem. The information doesn't come from abortion research. But since you're dead set on not believing science, I don't expect you to accept any kind of scientific proof.
-
John Owens
It's like climate bullshit, Wendy. The science says what the politics wants it to say. When global warming is discussed by its believers, they NEVER EVER talk about solar flares or volcanism, or the fact that most CO2 comes from the oceans or rising CO2 levels do not precipitate rising temperatures but FOLLOW them, or that polar bears are NOT going extinct, or that when ice melts it actually takes up LESS space, or ANY of that, SO YOU CANNOT RATIONALLY TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY. Fake researchers are predicting all kinds of crap about 20 years from now and they cannot accurately predict the weather more than three days in advance. You still cannot accept stupid over observation. You can tell me when the moon is full, but if I see it, I KNOW when it is full, no matter what science says, because I believe my eyes when they can see.
I'm not dead set on not believing science. I AM dead set on not believing EVERYTHING that is touted by abortion proponents to justify what they are doing. If what they are doing was just, they wouldn't have to keep justifying it. You pick and choose science and statistics, and what is popular in the circles that fund science has a very strong bias in its favor when it comes to publication. I don't think anyone can deny that.
-
-
-
-
Wendy
It's not an infant. It's a fetus, or an embryo. Fetuses cannot feel pain until the third trimester because the neural pathways haven't developed yet. Movement, yes. That happens early. Organ function happens in stages. Sensory processing happens later. Pain processing doesn't connect until 30 weeks, give or take a couple of weeks because there's no thalamus until then, and that's where pain is processed. Denying science doesn't make it not true. Here's a summary: http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain If you're actually interested in the science, here are details of central nervous system development. It's very information dense, but it's thorough: https://www.slideshare.net/ananthatiger/embryology-development-of-central-nervous-system
-
John Owens
Yeah, Wendy, you never told me at what point the thalamus is developed. We know the baby can feel pain after that, so it is no longer humane to dismember them.
-
-
-
Rev. M. Dash
An argument for upholding a tenet of the Constitution: separation of church and state.
-
John Owens
Sorry. Would you please quote that part of the Constitution, just to refresh everyone's memory?
-
Reverend Krystina S.
Really, John? We are all adults here.
-
John Owens
if we are all adults, why can't we honestly quote that part of the Constitution? I KNOW what it says, and nowhere does it say "separation of church and state."
-
-
Athiest Lite
The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Although open to some interpretation, this prevents congress from imposing any laws that are based on religious precepts. By extension, if it is prohibited to Congress, it is also prohibited to the states. The obvious weak points are that it does not state "pro-religious laws", it says it shall not impose a state religion. And, while the constitution gives the right to the states to pass laws not in conflict with constitutional law, this could be interpreted as an area where the states do have rights.
-
John Owens
Thank you. My point was that the Constitution nowhere says, "separation of church and state," but since most people never read the Constitution, they are brainwashed to think they already know it. Anything like is constitutional, and anything they do not like is unconstitutional. We can believe something, but it says what it says, not what we believe.
-
Daniel Walker
Brainwashed, or just up on several hundred years worth of constitutional law?
-
John Owens
Brainwashed, Indoctrinated, Deceived, Poorly educated, Daniel. The Constitution hasn't been around SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS, and it doesn't say "Separation of Church and State" anywhere. BOOM!
-
T Kosse`
The “Hobby Lobby” case is a more recent example of the Court’s foray into the interaction between religion and the Constitution. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Court struck down a law that required for-profit corporations to provide certain contraceptives as part of their healthcare packages for their employees. The owners and founders of Hobby Lobby, who were opposed to abortion on religious grounds, refused to offer health care packages for their employees that would provide them with contraceptives they deemed abortive. The Court, however, declined to find for Hobby Lobby on the basis of the Free Exercise Clause, but instead found for them on statutory grounds. The Court found that as a matter of statutory interpretation, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 prohibited the federal government from imposing a mandate on corporations to provide certain contraceptives in their health care packages for their employees. LII U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment 14th Amendment The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights), Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination), and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education). See more...
Primary tabs Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
-
-
T Kosse`
Religion and the Constitution Primary tabs Because of their belief in a separation of church and state, the framers of the Constitution favored a neutral posture toward religion. The members of the Constitutional Convention, the group charged with authoring the Constitution, believed that the government should have no power to influence its citizens toward or away from a religion. The principle of separating church from state was integral to the framers’ understanding of religious freedom. They believed that any governmental intervention in the religious affairs of citizens would necessarily infringe on their religious freedom. Thus, the Constitution maintains a general silence on the subject save for two instances. The first instance, in Article VI, is a proscription of any religious tests as a requisite qualification for public service. The second instance is in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
The First Amendment contains two clauses that prescribe the government's relationship with religion. In the first instance, the Establishment Clause states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." In the strictest reading, the Establishment Clause proscribes any adoption of an official religion by the federal government. More broadly, the phrase functions as a way of assuring that the federal government will not adopt any stance in favor of or against any religion. However, the Supreme Court has tolerated a certain degree of government involvement in religion. For instance, the Court has allowed government funding to go to private religious schools and prayers to begin certain legislative meetings, as in Town of Greece v. Galloway. In that case, the Court ruled that a town hall meeting that began with prayers, predominantly given by members of different denominations of Christianity, was not a violation of the Establishment Clause, in part because legislative prayers are for the legislators and not for the public.
-
T Kosse`
The second clause of the First Amendment that deals with religion immediately follows the Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof." Where the first clause prohibits Congress from adopting any particular religion, the second clause prohibits Congress from interfering with an individual's exercise of religion. This second clause is called the Free Exercise Clause. The Free Exercise Clause protects an individual's right not only to believe what he or she would like but also to practice it. The clause protects individuals from laws that would expressly inhibit them from engaging in religious practices.
The Supreme Court has interpreted limits to the Free Exercise Clause and allowed the government to legislate against certain religious practices, such as bigamy and peyote use. In the last 30 years especially, the Court has generally adopted a more restrictive view of the protections of the Free Exercise Clause. Some commentators have suggested that the Free Exercise Clause is contradictory with the Establishment Clause because by protecting certain religious practices that the government would otherwise like to prohibit, the Constitution takes stance in favor of and not neutral to religion.
The Bill of Rights only expressly limits the federal government, so until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, states were not constitutionally required to adhere to the protections of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Many of the framers of the Constitution were staunch supporters of a federalist system in which each state would have the power to decide for itself how to approach religion. However, in a number of decisions, the Supreme Court held that because of the Fourteenth Amendment, the protections of religious freedom in the First Amendment are enforceable against state and local governments. For instance, in Cantwell v. Connecticut, Jehovah’s Witnesses were arrested for proselyting in Connecticut. The Court ruled that a local ordinance that required a license for religious solicitation violated the Free Exercise Clause.
-
-
Jim D.
Well, 226 years, to be exact. Not quite "several hundred," but it wasn't last week either.
-
-
-
-
James
Freedom of religion.... Not from religion. Yet, this is right on the same line of the hail-bobp comet cult. I think abortion in certain classes is understandable. I don't like it but it could be help in a few situations. Just being a whore and aborting a child for convenience? That's disgusting. Do it but remove the ability to ever have a child again. That way the cost is super high in every way. But people might understand what is the definition of a right! We can't have things 2 ways. Either the majority wants govt in every reach of health care, or only in the furtherest regulations of insurance. Yet, we all know that the more people in your business the less control over you business you have. So good luck on being really morally bankrupt. That's my opinion.
-
Daniel Walker
They'll call you a whore for having an abortion.
Or they'll call you a whore for getting pregnant in the first place.
Or they'll call you a whore for even having sex.
At the end of the day, they'll call you a whore just for being a woman. And what's why we no longer take medical advice from strangers shooting their mouths off about who's "being a whore."
-
John Owens
You sound like a whore-hopper.
-
Kate the RC Duid
John, you are just plain insulting and ignorant to anyone who disagrees with you.
-
John Owens
Oh, and I suppose you saying that is NOT ignorant and insulting? Bite me, Wench.
-
-
-
-
-
Gallet Christ Sampu
In this matter; Our best scientific must acknoledge ; it is written in Qu'ran ''And if those who disbilieve join battle with you they will not find for the law of God anything of power to change. And it is He Who has withheld men's hands from you, and haswithheld your hands from them, in valley of Mecca,after He had made you victors over them. God is seer of what you do. They are the ones who disbelieved and debarred you from the inviolable Place of Worship, and debarred thwe offering from reaching its goal. And if it had not been for believing men and believeing women, whom you know not-lest you should tread them underfoot and thus incur guilt for them unknowingly; that God might bring into His mercy whom He will- If (the believers and the disbelievers) had been clearly separated We veritly had punished those of them who disbilieved with painful punishment.
So far in the same Chapter it is written again:''It is He Who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and religion of truth,that He may cause it to prevail over all religions. And God suffices as a witness.
Brothers and sisters I would like to end with this : Say:: Would you teach God your religion, when God knows all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, and God is Aware of all things? They make it favor to you that they have surrendered. Say: Deem not your surrender a favor on you, inasmuch as He has guided you to faith,if you are earnest. Lo! God knows the Unseen of the heavens and the earth. And God is seer of what you do.
Brothers and sisters let the comforter guide us in the right path!!! This is my sharing opinions as guided!!!
-
Rev. Nancy Willingham
The Satanists may be a small group now, but if this case gains national attention, and especially if the Satanists win, won't the pro-abortion folks flock to become Satanists? It may not be a small group for long. The advice given to women might be, "You can't get an abortion in Missouri, unless you're a Satanist. Here is a nice little pamphlet listing when and where they meet..." My personal belief is that a woman has a right to choose what to do with her body up until she puts another person into it. Then there are two people's rights to consider, three, if you count the father. I know all the arguments about rape and incest victims, deformed babies and so forth. But science cannot tell us when the soul enters the body. Does it enter when there are only two cells joined, the egg and sperm? Can two cells contain a soul? If not, how many cells does the soul require? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
-
Reverend Krystina S.
Actually, in the Bible, a person is only a person AFTER they have drawn their first breath. Then they have a soul, ACCORDING to the BIBLE. So there's your answer. Just FYI, since people insist on being so "literal" and all. And no, science isn't about "when the soul enters the body:" lots of people don't even believe in the soul, so... You know, when Christofascists who own businesses want to deny medical coverage because of their "belief," that can discount their costs-- so guess everyone will join a sect that believes ONLY in Faith Healing, to save their business money????? Yeah, sounds pretty silly. You don't have to say what your religious belief is to get an abortion. It's supposed to be OUR RIGHT IN THE UNITED STATES. Because women and girls were suffering terribly, dying, etc. (but only the UNRICH ones who couldn't get an abortion other ways.) We are supposed to be for EQUALITY. And your rhetorical questions are facile and nonsensical, though well-suited to the Middle Ages.
-
Reverend Krystina S.
Forgot to mention, but the egg and sperm each only contain HALF the genetic material for life. They are not able to divide on their own... also, what do you do about identical twins? do they share a soul? SMDH.
-
Rev. Nancy Willingham
Be nice, Krystina. Let's keep our conversation free of angry attacks on each other. You made some good points in your post. However, I am not drawn into further dialogue with someone who responds with insults and name calling.
-
-
John Owens
Krystina, your first statement here is a common misconception. If they have to draw breath first, then why did Mary and Elizabeth's babies "leap" in the womb when the two cousins encountered one another while pregnant, if they were not PEOPLE or AWARE? Many people in scripture were prophesied ahead of time and cared for BEFORE birth--Isaac, Jacob, Samson, Jeremiah, Elijah, John the Baptist, and Christ, among many.
-
Damon L Gardiner
Then pay for it yourself if your such a big girl put on the big girl panties and pay your way.equal rights does not mean special rights same goes for illegals
-
Rev. CC
I can speak for myself, as a woman, and ask how can we pay for it ourselves if the procedure itself is illegal or have the procedure contain so many roadblocks around it as to require religious leaning "instruction" via pamphlets or movies or waiting periods?
Is this argument over abortion and birth control being covered by insurance or is it over the procedure of abortion itself? I don't recall the article mentioning Mary Doe having issues with payment, only access.
I cannot judge anyone for wanting an abortion. Is it right for me? Maybe not, but maybe so. I have not had to make this decision.
But I'm hoping I can have the choice to make a decision for myself without Bibles or other religions telling me what is right or wrong, let alone some male lawmakers that have no idea of my situation, why I have to make this decision, or how I'm going to deal with this decision the rest of my life.
Mind your own body - let me take care of my own, safely, humanely, and out of the judgement of so-called "religious" people. God and I are A-ok and I ask that He protect me from his followers' interpretation of His will.
-
Kate the RC Duid
Well said. I love the last paragraph.
-
Jim D.
Well done. You rock, Rev.!
-
Wendy
The last sentence is maybe the best statement I have ever seen. Thank you for that.
-
-
-
Royal Muser
Psalm 139:13-15 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
-
John Owens
PERFECT quotation, Muser.
-
-
william lemon
The value of a human being cannot be measured in dollars and cents as some of these offerings might suggest . If a person seeks to make a choice it is their God given right. however when you stand in judgement before God be ready willing and able to give an accounting for the choices you make and hope God is merciful.
-
-
-
Doug Barron
Does the satan see a infant human as a human; or not?
-
ldcrone
There is a fine line being walked in this article. From a political perspective, there's not enough information to consider whether they have a case or not. How does it violate their religious freedom? On what grounds? What documented belief is being violated? It's an easy defense to use if you can make up any religious reason to do something then decry someone violated you. On the other hand, from a religious perspective, if a religious right is in deed being violated under the letter of the law, are we not obligated to protect that right even though the religious itself may be totally against what we believe? In the 1980's, Rev. Sun Myung Moon had his tax exempt status stripped from his church so the government could then prosecute him for tax evasion. At the time, clergy everywhere cried foul because it set a dangerous precedent he government could use against churches in the future. And, indeed, they have. Sometimes we have to look beyond the issue and look at the bigger picture to get a better idea of what's really happening.
-
Richard
Yes, they have a case. Their freedom of religion is the same as yours and mine. You are not allowed to force your religious beliefs on me or into our laws. I am not allowed to force mine on you. If a law, any law, denies me access to services or denies me my freedom of expression, the law is wrong and a suit should be filed.
Personally, I believe in freedom of choice. Because someone else's choice is not my business, the choice to have an abortion for any reason must be upheld. Roe v Wade was not a religious judgement. It was a judicial judgement concerning freedom of access to safe medical service. If abortion is illegal, the abortions won't stop, they will just be unsafe.
Get a clue. I reiterate, your religious beliefs and your religious freedom do not give you the right to force your beliefs upon me.
- If you don't believe in abortion, then DON'T GET ONE.
- If you don't believe in abortion, you HAVE NO RIGHT to deny someone else of that choice.
- The God you believe in is no different than anyone else's. Why does your God hate abortion and mine doesn't? Simple answer, religious freedom.
-
John Owens
If only people on the left would apply this same logic to the right to keep and bear arms. If you don't believe in private gun ownership, DON'T GET ONE. If you don't believe in private gun ownership, you HAVE NO RIGHT to deny someone else of that choice. Why does your God hate guns and mine doesn't? Freedom.
-
-
Chad Ali
Abortion is wrong and any one who fights for it has serous issues. I raised my children I didn't kill them like most of these idiot people who can not handle the responsibility of being a parent. Protect your self or stop having sex. God bless
-
Rev. CC
Matthew 7:1-3 English Standard Version (ESV)
Judging Others
7 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"
Just Sayin'.
-
Royal Muser
Matthew 7:1-3 must be used in the full context of what Jesus says, it cannot be standalone; you must include verses 4 and 5 also, for these verses tell us that we are not to be a hypocritical judge. If we are a drunkard, we cannot tell someone that their drinking is a sin; not until we beat that demon that has us. If we are living with someone out of wedlock, we cannot scream about the gay couple down the street; not until we marry and remove the demon of sexual debauchery.
Christians are commanded to judge and rebuke fellow Christians, but not the world; for judgement of the world is left to God.
-
John Owens
All of us should judge ourselves, but having a few "absolutes" in one's ideology is not necessarily judging, as in condemnation of another individual. Is it "judging" if a few mental health professionals deem someone incompetent? If you work a math problem on paper or a board and someone else sees an error in the math, is that judging? If you see an error in a person's logic or a contradiction in their philosophy, is that judging? I'm just asking, for everyone's consideration.
-
-
Richard
Your religious freedom does not allow you the freedom to judge my actions or my choices. Roe v Wade was a judicial decision concerning safe medical procedures. If abortion was illegal, abortions wouldn't stop, they would just become more unsafe.
Your children will make decisions in the future that you might not agree with. You will still love them because they are your children. If your daughter decided to have an abortion (for any reason) it will be her decision, NOT YOURS. If abortion was illegal, she might die during the procedure. Could you live with knowing that?
Get a clue.
-
-
Damon L Gardiner
If i cant use power plant medicines legally for religious purposes you cant kill people.equal rights not special rights.
-
Barry Worthington
Every human being has the right to the health of their own body. No one can say whether a fetus of a few weeks has any sense of self or not. The existence of the intrinsic soul may become an individual anew . Do not presuppose what is the essence of abeing. Does love exist in reality? Can you prove you exist? DeCarte stated that "I think, therefore I am". But was he sure ? Thank you for your existance G. Barry Worthington, Ph. D. Minister
-
Richard
BRAVO!!!
-
-
Mike Hosier
I AM A MINISTER, though my beliefs may differ on this matter, if you dont want children dont have sex, but if you choose to have sex and concive a child dont murder him(her) just because you dont want to be an adult and own your mistake,
HOWEVER, if you did not choose to have sex, and end up pregnant by means of rape or other unformentioned sexual assault it should be the mothers choice what happens not the choice of the government or the church, of course adoption is still an option.
finally as a minister i am obligated, and privilaged to say if a child is concived of a true virgin with no sexual, or mans assistance then the child should be considered to important to KILL and should until proven otherwise be considered the massiah.
-
Elizabeth Bailey
I remember my father telling me of a virgin being inseminated by sperm leftover in the warm tub of a previous user of the tub. He masturbated, emptied the tub, and she came in and filled it within a few minutes. The sperm survived, swam around in her bath water, and then did what sperm were made to do.
-
John Owens
Hmm, sounds like a fish story to explain a pregnancy that should not have occurred. If her hymen was intact, how did the sperm swim past it?
-
-
Richard
Mr MINISTER, Religious freedom is a phrase you obviously do not understand. Your religious freedom gives ypu the right to live YOUR LIFE according to your beliefs. It does NOT give you the right to force me or anyone else to live their lives according to YOUR BELIEFS. My beliefs may be different from yours but I would never expect you to live by MY standards.
You are ignoring your holy book by forcing your beliefs on others.
I suggest you re-read Matthew 7, a few times if necessary. Until you understand your own book and live by it's teaching, you are a hypocrite.
-
-
James
What does the King James Bible say about this matter. Thou shalt not kill. This means the unborn child too. Final answer!!!!
-
Daniel Walker
The King James Bible is not the basis for American law. So who cares what it says in this context?
-
John Owens
It is as least as valid as any other opinion on this matter, so if it matters to anyone, it is as valid as any other authority.
-
-
-
b
Exodus 20:13 Thou shall not murder.you know the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. That describes abortion to many of us. The baby is a human who breathes, feels pain reacts to its mothers voice and other stimuli in utero. . Birth control should not be abortion for both the mother's and the baby's welfare, Two of my children are the result of marital rape. I was beaten to make me lose one of my children. It was not the children's fault they were conceived! The alternative would be better services for the woman carrying the child for adoption by one of the many people unable to conceive a child or for them to become the mother. Who knows that we have not already allowed the person who could cure cancer to be aborted?
-
Richard
Matthew 7: judge not lest ye be judged
You are ignoring the most important passage in your book.
-
-
Pastor Laura
I can't believe I am siding with Satan worshipers but I am pro-choice and believe the government should stay out of my uterus. I agree that there is no scientific proof of anything that PP is required to put in their pamphlets. I also live in the State of Missouri and agree that our laws are extremely overbearing and overreaching. I will write to my legislators and share my opinion as a resident of the State of Missouri.
-
John Owens
If people would control who stays out of their uterus and gets into it, nobody would be talking about this anyway.
-
Linda Yancey
John, if people would use birth control, this wouldn't be such a big deal. But for some reason you are thought to be a slut if you are prepared. When did this happen? When did making a correct decision make you a bad person? It happened when the religious right decided that they needed to control women's bodies. If you taught about birth control in school, the abortion rate would drop like a rock, for teens and for older women who dont really know anything about it and are afraid to ask. Use birth control that is what its for.
-
John Owens
Linda, I didn't say it makes a woman a slut to be prepared, unless she's prepared for a different guy every few days, THEN she's a slut, but then, so are the guys. I don't believe in any of that double standard stuff. And, why do so many people parrot this phrase, "controlling women's bodies?" You know that is a talking point, and not an actual thought, don't you? Like, "women's reproductive rights?" It's a talking point, and using it means you are being indoctrinated. If parents set a good example and governed their children, and schools followed parents' wishes in their teachings, there would be a lot less messing around. People who cannot provide for themselves in life have NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER having sex. We all know they do, but in decades past, they did it a whole lot less or a whole lot more carefully. I strongly believe in birth control. I just do not accept the slaughter of innocents as a form of birth control.
-
biblical scholar
WOMEN should be monogamous.It is in the bible and GODS will. Liberals media indoctrinates women every day into promiscuity and unholy flesh baring.
-
John Maher
JOHN BOOGER OWINS how MANY YEARS did U work on a FISHING TRAWLER BAITING the HOOKS, YOU CERTAINLY POST LIKE a MASTERBATER, PROBOBLY CAUGHT EELs
-
John Owens
I agree, Bernard, except EVERYONE should be monogamous, male and female. "The body was not created for fornication."
-
-
-
John Maher
W T F let YOU OUT of ANY UTERUS, UR from a PLATYPUS NIDO.......................JOHN BOOGER OWINS
-
Jim D.
Holy crap, Dude! What is wrong with you? You hit every blog and say the same stupid stuff. You're clearly a troll, and you need to back under your bridge and eat a goat. Get a life!
-
-
Richard
Matthew 7, read it, learn it and LIVE IT!!!
-
-
Daniel Walker
The Satanic Temple are not Satan worshipers.
-
Garry Lee
Then they should change their name!!
-
John Owens
That's what the experts say, I guess. They had to name it something, so they just named it Satanic. Satanic doesn't mean Satanic. It means something else-- Humanist, I suppose. No reason people should name their church anything related to what they worship.
-
Jim D.
The Hebrew translation of Satan is "enemy" or "adversary." Maybe they were going for that? A poor choice, in retrospect.
-
-
-
Richard
BRAVO!!! Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to force your religious beliefs on me because that would violate MY religious freedom. My belief in right to choice will not be violated by anyone, especially those who ignore their own holy book's (Matthew 7) teachings!
-
dkstevens327
If it makes you feel any better, these are LaVey Satanists (based on Anton LaVey's, "Satanic Bible"). They don't actually worship Satan, they believe in putting the individual first. Most of the ones I've encountered seemed rather nice, although self-centered to a fault, IMO. I do think you should go with your feelings and write to your legislators.
-
-
Reverend Robin
It is about time someone did this. That it is the Satanic Temple, is irrelevant. ALL people in this country have the right to their own beliefs. What they do NOT have, is the right to impose those beliefs on others. The solution is simple. If your belief prohibits abortion, don't have one. It is time to stop the religious supremacists.
-
John Owens
...and if your belief entails human sacrifice, go for it, and don't let those religious kooks stop you.
-
Richard
Your talent for sarcastic irony is not lost on me but is lost on the other religiots.
-
John Owens
Thank you.
-
-
-
-
Johnny Doeseph
They should do whatever they want, but abortions should be legal anyway.
-
Debi K Baughman
"The pamphlet explained that “life begins at conception”, and that fetuses are “able to feel pain” during the abortion process – controversial claims that were laid out as scientific facts. After being given the pamphlet, Mary Doe was made to wait 72-hours before her request for abortion would be granted.
The Satanic Temple claims these requirements go against their religion beliefs, and filed suit on Mary Doe’s behalf."
While the scientific view of when life begins may be dubious, it is not necessarily based on a Religious judgment. Various Nations believe different things based on the same information of the life of a fetus, and when it becomes a 'baby'. Maybe the wording should be changed to include various ideologies on that specific matter, but they can do it easily with-out using any kind of religious or spiritual texts. Because it is another (life) being considered, having a person wait is also not going against any religious belief; a young woman seeking a hysterectomy is often turned down due to age. Sometimes they are asked to wait, to re-examine, re-determine and re-confirm for themselves if this is really want they want, after being given full medical information of pro's and cons.
I fight hard for the right to choose, and I fight hard for Religious vs Constitutional rights, but I don't see these steps as being a religious controversy, only practical.Read more at https://www.themonastery.org/blog/2017/09/satanic-temple-suing-missouri-over-anti-abortion-laws/#2EF11wIF86hUszcl.99
-
Richard
In order for a fetus to FEEL anything, it must have brain waves. Fetuses do not develop brain waves until the beginning of the second trimester (fourth month of gestation). Any arguments that fetuses feel pain duringa first trimester abortion are based on false evidence and lies.
-
John Owens
Well, there you go. After four months, it is cruel.
-
-
-
Don
I believe in totality the word of the Bible. The Bible is quite clear on tbis subject. WE DO NOT KILL CHILDREN.
-
Daniel Walker
Unless they're filthy Canaanites, of course.
-
John Owens
Yes. That was okay. If only they'd killed them all.
-
Jim D.
Or perhaps God killing the first born of Egypt. That seemed to slip under the "WE DO NOT KILL CHILDREN" rule.
-
-
Richard
But having sex wiyh children is fine, right?
You cherry-pick ykur precious book and ignore it's most important passage!
Matthew 7
-
-
Christopher Holloway
Personally, abortion is murder of a unborn child for purposes that could have been avoided, generally speaking. However, that being said, its anti-Christian to believe in abortions and as Christians we should do everything in our power to teach against them. This being said, we're to love everyone and never judge them. By doing this and teaching what God says sin is in a kind way then we can hope for a positive outcome.
-
Richard
Ok, so don't have an abortion. Your religious beliefs do not give you the right to force your beliefs on me.
Roe v Wade will stand.
-
-
Bill Fox
I'm not sure Satan is happy about his offspring being murdered.
-
John Owens
Good one, Bill. Cracked me up.
-
-
william lemon
God gave Adam and Eve a choice, even if you think that's a fairy tale (which I personally don't), and look where we are now.
-
Amber
The point is if God gave the choices then perhaps letting God's Will alone is a better idea... ESPECIALLY if you don't think it a fairytale.
-
-
D. Howe
IF Hobby Lobby can be stated to be a "person" and therefore have rights to discriminate against employees (by virtue of NOT paying for health care THEY deem irreligious) then I don't see why anyone cannot be considered to have legal religious rights.
-
Amber
I'd say of course they do have a case. No law should be made supporting one religious ideal over any other. Even the bible says the laws of the land should be obeyed and if one of the main tenets of this country specifies such, any religious bias should be removed. If you don't agree with them then don't have one. Allow those who might need it due to health or circumstance have access without contest.
-
Johnny Doeseph
I agree completely.
-
-
Jim D.
Oooh... big, messy topic! The one thing that is clear to me is that science does not have a firm grasp as to when life begins, and neither does religion. Oh, as individuals you all appear to know, but none of you seem to agree. We'll shelve that argument for now.
I have one very important question: WHO IS PAYING FOR THIS WOMAN'S ABORTION?
Yes, I hear all the feminists screaming their faces off at me right now. But it matters. The article says she went to Planned Parenthood. Now, I'm not up on all the PP stuff, but I think they offer abortions to women at no charge, which means the government is paying for it, which means WE ALL ARE PAYING FOR IT! I have heard women say it is their right to have abortions. I happen to agree with you. The part that seems to elude all of you is having that right does not mean the government pays for it. We have the right to free speech, but the government doesn't buy me a newspaper company, or a radio station, or even a website. We have the right to keep and bear arms, but the government doesn't buy me a gun. I think you see where I'm going with this.
If this woman wants a no-hassle abortion, she can make an appointment with whichever doctor she wants, have the procedure, and either submit through her insurance (assuming she has insurance), or pay for it herself. This is something that NEVER should have been paid for with government funds.
-
Lili
You're in luck Jim, planned parenthood uses zero government dollars for abortion services, it is against the law for federal government to fund abortions. While PP does receive federal funding, it can only be used for the other 97% of services they offer that do not include abortion.
-
Jim D.
Awesome! Lili, thank you for educating me. Can you give me a few examples of what PP does cover, and are there services for men that would covered, such as prostate exams?
-
Lili
Jim, I don't know how in depth Planned Parenthood covers men's health services, I believe they are mostly women's clinic. But men can have std and HIV tests, counseling and referrals for vasectomy, and receive free prophylactics. As for what else they do...my father was always self employed with no insurance, so my mom, sister, and I utilized PP for all of our gynecology needs. Pelvic exams, cancer screenings, Bladder or yeast infection treatment, regular routine stuff. None of us ever used prescription contraceptive or dealt with an std but if we needed help with either, I'm sure PP would've provided that service too. in my youth I had no idea of the controversy around PP, but was very happy they were there to provide my family with our typical female health care. In fact, when I was finally trying to conceive they did the testing on my husband and I to learn why we couldn't, then referred my husband for a surgery to fix his swimmers. When I did conceive soon after that surgery, it was planned parenthood that did the pregnancy test and provided me with initial pre-natal care. Never once was abortion talked about or considered by anyone at PP. Truly, as a young woman, I would not have been able to have regular health exams without planned parenthood and maybe even owe them some credit for enabling my sons conception. I am a pro-life born again Christian, and while I hate abortion, I do not hate PP, they offer so much more than just abortions. In fact, supposedly less than 10% of their "business" is abortion. When I was in college, most of my girlfriends utilized PP for their health care, and none ever had an unplanned pregnancy or abortion. These are just my experiences, but what better to base conclusions on than your own experience, right? I feel like any media we see is biased one way or the other, the right condemning PP for being an "abortion clinic" and the left defending the "woman's right to choose" it very rarely talks about the other valuable health care offered. Yet, as far as I know they are a full service gynecology clinic,which, like most other gynecologist offices, offers abortion services.
-
-
John Owens
Yeah, that's all bullshit. They are an abortion mill and that is all they are. They don't do anything else and it is a big fat lie that they do.
-
-
John Owens
Absolutely right, Jim
-
-
Dawn Pisturino
Anybody who wants an abortion should pay for it themselves -- not the taxpayers! But abortion is exactly what Satan would condone.
-
Richard
The only thing sadder than an adult with an imaginary friend is an adult with an imaginary enemy. LOL
Matthew 7
stop ignoring the sacred book!
-
Carl Elfstrom
I'm glad I only have imaginary lovers,/two hands, and ten fingers. I ca'nt believe a book can be sacred. All it is is print on paper ( unless maybe it suddenly suddenly appeared, having come from the ether, and was its own beginning and its own end.
-
-
Joe
Federal Tax dollars do not fund abortions, ever. It's illegal. In some states Medicaid, which is paid by local taxes, may provide abortions. However, some states now have a "special rule" that your tax dollars can be redirected to avoid funding that which you are morally opposed to. Perhaps ask your accountant about that. Btw, not only does Satan condone abortion, it surely revels in us all fighting about it....so self righteous in our beliefs, perfect opposition to the Father.
-
-
Lili
After reading all 26 pages of Missouris informed consent pamphlet, I see that this lawsuit it just another opportunity to make one more fight against Christianity. Firstly, they say life begins at conception. Ok, that's something people argue, but really? that argument is lame. I mean, we call it life when we look for a single cell organism on another planet, but refuse to call a human embryo life...again, it's a strategic fight against Christianity, and nothing else. The pamphlets states that at 22 weeks the fetus may be able to feel pain associated with the procedure....uh, duh! The nervous system is functioning and some babies can even survive (with assistance) when born at this age, yes, science does say a 22 week fetus can feel pain, exactly what the pamphlet says. And then they complain about the 72 hour wait period. Wow! The Satanist want to protect woman's reproductive rights but think it's unfair to require a few days to mull over all of the information she just received, while making one of the biggest decisions of her life. If they really cared for the woman, there would be only concern that she was making the right decision for herself, and 72 hours seems a reasonable amount of time. This is a ridiculous claim put out by an organization thats proclaimed purpose is opposing and oppressing Christianity. Ironically, there was absolutely nothing religious written on that pamphlet. Frivolous lawsuit.
-
Minister Anthony Longstreet
They might have s case if there case is based on religious beliefs.
-
Rev Ned
The Pope is truly pro life, believing all life is sacred and should never be terminated. Most anti abortionists believe in the death penalty, which, really, makes them "pro choice".
-
John Owens
Ned, try to see it this way: Big difference in putting someone to death for murder, and MURDERING an innocent child for the sake of your lifestyle or incompetence. If we put convicted murderers to death, there is a net increase in life for everyone else. They never kill again and no one has to watch them to see to that. When putting innocents to death, we are preventing all who would be born FROM their progeny from having life, so it is a huge net loss of life.
-
Carl Elfstrom
When the soul of the embryo can not be born to its first choice of mothers it will wait for another good choice to come along. Besides that, if its mother didn't want it she probably wasn't a good choice anyway.Then again maybe that particular entity only needed to experience embryonic life before moving up to a greater spirit plane. And what's a little pain. Do y'all think all pain isbad. Have y'all ever heard of " No pain, no gain"? Do you think it will traumatize the souls/spirits of the embryos to feel a sudden, sharp pain in death ? And what's wrong with murderers feeling pain in death ? It seems more justified to me to execute them in the same ways they m murdered their victims, times three !!! Of course, I do believe in the three fold law of karma, which is very spiritual, but has nothing to do with Christian spirituality. And I don't care if y'all never come to my church ! We probably won't let y'all in anyway. So there!
-
Carl Elfstrom
Besides that, have y'all ever thought about seasoning an bryo, and putting it on a spicket over a slow fire. Sounds yummy does'nt it? What's the sense in wasting all that good meat? Relax,smoke a joint, I was only joking ! " Life is too important to be taken seriously."---Oscar Wilde And no, you won't find that in the bible either, but it's true.
-
-
-
-
Rev Todd
My personal belief is life begins at conception. That is a person inside the womb, why not give them differing opinion information? Maybe they didn't think about it that way. How about the father is he involved in the abortion process. I would like to see informed consent from the alleged father before abortion as the infant is also his. 72 hours even if you have made up your mind is nothing in the scheme of things.
-
John Owens
Yep. Don't you have to wait 72 hours to buy a handgun (which absolutely is a Civil Right) in some places? I mean, I understand it. It is a cooling-off period in case you are just buying because you are angry or afraid, to prevent you from doing something stupid. Doesn't a baby rate that much of a chance?
-
-
Reverend Elizabeth Parsons
There is a reason there is a separation between church and state. We are given the freedom of religion and we will not all agree on what is right. I have witnessed a friend be forced by her parents to give birth after a gang rape when we were 15. It messed her up when she felt the baby move and she ended up sedated during her 3rd trimester. She also had horrible flashbacks when she and her husband had pregnancies later in life. This topic is a difficult and personal matter and should not be left for us to judge. I do not believe in abortion for myself, but I would never judge a person for having one.
-
John Owens
I am very sorry that happened to her or to anyone. I pray she may find inner Peace.
-
T Kosse`
The second clause of the First Amendment that deals with religion immediately follows the Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof." Where the first clause prohibits Congress from adopting any particular religion, the second clause prohibits Congress from interfering with an individual's exercise of religion. This second clause is called the Free Exercise Clause. The Free Exercise Clause protects an individual's right not only to believe what he or she would like but also to practice it. The clause protects individuals from laws that would expressly inhibit them from engaging in religious practices.
The Supreme Court has interpreted limits to the Free Exercise Clause and allowed the government to legislate against certain religious practices, such as bigamy and peyote use. In the last 30 years especially, the Court has generally adopted a more restrictive view of the protections of the Free Exercise Clause. Some commentators have suggested that the Free Exercise Clause is contradictory with the Establishment Clause because by protecting certain religious practices that the government would otherwise like to prohibit, the Constitution takes stance in favor of and not neutral to religion.
-
T Kosse`
Comment removed by user.
-
-
-
Wendy
I have a very dear friend who had an abortion because she and her husband both carried a recessive gene for a severe form of skeletal dysplasia. As her fetus was developing later in her second trimester, the bones were breaking over and over and over. She could not have been carried to the point of viability without catastrophic skeletal damage, so she had an abortion before her child could feel the pain of what was happening...before she could feel her bones breaking. It was a heartbreaking decision. I know her story. I don't know the stories of others. So I don't judge.
-
Willie
All you nit-wits have evidently not heard the latest scietific news like quantum physics n string theory etc. Read about the scientific facts even on youtube and google! Every thing is vibration/resonance. All creation is created and held together by sound/vibration/Light. That is why Kokopeli\American Indians and Krishna/Hindu belief system are shown blowing a flute creating and holding the world together with sound. That is why the bible says that in the beginning was the Logos/the word and the word was with God and was God. A vibration/creation, even a thought you send out into the world! A spoken word. Before you speak a thought proceded it. Your brain is a sender and receiver. As you think so you are. God created us in its Light/highest vibration/resonance, which cannot be heard or seen with our 5 lower vibrational senses.our human senses. The different religions created all our gods for power and control over us. There is only One God = Light = Resonance = Vibration and all that it entails. Even Jesus in the bible says: "Don"t you know ye are gods and will do greater things than I." The bible was written in symbolic manner not to be translated literally, also said in the bible! Wake up people and the truth will set U free!
-
John Owens
Assuming any of that is true, Pruett, what is anyone supposed to do with it? Sit around and hum? Ping a triangle? What is anyone supposed to with this TRUTH and their freedom?
-
T Kosse`
Comment removed by user.
-
-
-
XaurreauX
This pie was baked by people who desperately need the government to prop up their religion. Now they can eat it. Secularism is for grownups.
-
Richy
All arguments aside no matter what the circumstances it should still be the woman's choice.
-
X1superfly1X
Hold up, first it is Pro Choice concerning the life of an unborn fetus, and now it is a religious belief? What if my religious belief is you can abort up to 2 year old kids if they cant find a home or have health problems? The whole thing is you have the freedom to believe whatever religion you want, but when you talk about an unborn baby the argument is when is it a conscious being. It has nothing to do with religious belief. Satanic idiots. You all are either ignorant, stubborn mules that want to watch the world burn, or you are in fact evil and a pedophile or a psychopath. The soil of America will be refreshed with the blood of the satanists when they try to rise up and their elected officials enforce policy on us.
-
Santa C.
Abortion rights are women's healthcare rights. Die mad about it.
I think they are doing the right thing, but it is going to be a very difficult process. They need to get other organizations to join them.I wish them good luck.
Because of ignorance about the Satanic Temple, no other (or very few) other organizations will join them. I hope they can win this fight alone. Abortion is a personal decision and should not be dictated by the government.
I quite agree
Yes, well said. Why is it EVERYONE'S business to decide or dictate what someone should or should not be doing with such a private matter?? How does this affect them and their own life? Why don't we spend more time worrying about our own lives and stop meddling in others especially when it's about a Very Private issue that Does Not affect them and their lives what so ever!
Why don't "we" worry about whom we are banging, so we don't need abortions? Has anyone thought of that yet? I'm just talking crazy here.
You're right. A husband should not ever have sex with his wife if she has a medical condition that would endanger her life if she gets pregnant. Especially since birth control of any kind is not 100% effective. Yeah, complete abstinence, even inside a monogamous marriage. Good plan.
You know, your sarcasm might seem smart to you, but I had a wife who had ovarian cancer. She only lived about 8 months after being diagnosed. We were in our forties. I was still pretty horny then, but my libido was totally unimportant compared to our knowledge that she had but a short time among the living. Of course I never messed with her or anyone else during that time. We were married for 25 years and only made two children, and we had a very good sex life until her diagnosis with cancer.
I don't have stats here, but you are being a bit close-minded. Married women very seldom abort the children of their husbands. They might abort the children of their lover, but seldom their husband. Still, I'm sure you know how to satisfy a man's sex drive some OTHER way, right? Then, there is that time of the month thing. Before ovulation, those tiny little swimmers have a REAL hard time reaching an egg, so there are roughly 10-12 days a month or more there is NO WAY for a woman to get pregnant short of surgery.
Still, if people ACTUALLY worried about their own private lives, women would not be having many unwanted pregnancies and men would not be contributing to them. You really cannot reasonably argue against that point, as much as you might like to.
I fully agree with John Owens' comment!! There are many forms of contraceptives on the market, including the word "NO"!! If we all act in a responsible manner when sex is concerned, we would not need abortions!
Sometimes birth control fails. Even with responsible use. Also there are women who are forced to deliver babies that died in uterus long before the due date. This us abuse. It's never as easy as you think.
Okay, Tony, but you are bringing up very rare and extreme cases, as though they justify everything else. That's not correct. To use liberal-speak, it's "disingenuous." That's like using self-defense to justify all killings. I didn't say it was so simple. What I SAID IS simple. A very simple question, yet people make complicated arguments against it. Do you realize what "complicated" usually means? it means, "We know what we are doing is wrong, but we want to continue doing it, so we are trying to obfuscate the REAL CORE issue with all these factoids and anecdotal stories." That's what "complicated" has come to mean.
The problem ISN'T unwanted babies. The problem is MOSTLY irresponsible copulation. Are there other factors? Weird blood types and drug abuse, deformities and maladies, rape and incest, etc? NOBODY SAID THERE AREN'T, but the incontrovertible fact remains, MOST OF THE PROBLEM IS IRRESPONSIBLE COPULATION. NOBODY in their right mind has the backbone to address that, because they will be attacked for it, and that's what all the "COMPLICATION" tries to cover up.
Thou shalt not kill. No brainer! Obviously the worst criminal law crime. Religion has nothing to do with it because it's a violation of criminal codified law.
There are reasonable exceptions: 1) potential death or significant medical problems to the mother; 2) Rape or incest. Otherwise, abortion is a crime. At least it should be.
Yep.
Actually, it is a Constitutionally protected right that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. It is perfectly legal and I don't see that changing any time soon.
Actually, it is NOT Constitutionally protected. There is an INTERPRETATION by the Supreme Court of the Constitution which is currently allowing it. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Constitutionally protected. Abortion and many other things going on today, including Roe v Wade, Brown v Board of Education, gay marriage, etc. are not. The Constitution does not mention any of that stuff. It is up to the Supreme Court, which CURRENTLY interprets things.
Removing a zygote is not killing.
I would agree, but a baby that is 4 months into the 9 month gestation period is a lot more than a zygote.
But is it a person? Criminal law says murder is killing a person. The argument is not whether it's alive, mold is alive.
Does mold have a heartbeat? This comparison really shows the sickness of man and the lack of value that we place on human life.
Murder is the illegal killing of a person. You can kill someone and it won't be murder... there are stipulations.... 1) Killing someone because your country told you to (war), 2) Killing someone in self defense, 3) Killing someone to defend someone else, etc...
Regardless of laws people are going to do what they want to do. Those who are against abortion are'nt going to have them, and people who want them will regardless of whether they do it in a clinic or an alley with a clothes hanger. I really don't think this matter is ever going to be completely settled. There will always be people with opposing opposing opinions. And I'm all for diversity. Different strokes for different folks. Is'nt that what the interfaith community is all about. It might be best to go with the flow up front and laugh at them behind their backs. Just make sure you have all the bases covered or you'll be paying a high priced attorney to lie for you in court ( may the best liar win ). I'm still a rebel at heart but when Donald Trump was elected I quit wearing my Wiccan pentagram and started wearing a crucifix, although I still say Blessed Be , except for when I'm doing volunteer work at the Baptist church.
Exactly
I wonder why there's not a clamor from faith communities to make war illegal. It's certainly killing.
God never claimed to be against killing. He is only against murder. You cannot make WAR illegal. It is not regulated and cannot be regulated. Only one side has to want war. The other is forced to fight or be annihilated or enslaved. It is the same principle as individuals fighting. Only one has to WANT to fight, the other has no choice. You can turn the other cheek to your family, friends, even co-workers, but you had better not turn it to someone who really wants to hurt you.
But what about the people who initiate war? Or provoke it?
Vicki, sadly, the faith has been twisted so that penalties for crimes are not teaching the rest of society NOT to commit those crimes. In other words, our judicial system, as unfair and partial and cruel as it is, is too panywaist to deal effectively with crime and criminals. In order to punish people who instigate war, commit treason, etc., we would have to put them to death, and regardless of how heinous their crimes, people say that is cruel and inhuman. It is really incongruous that they do, though, because the ones who are most against the death penalty are those who are irreligious or some pagan or alternative religion, or agnostic or atheistic. That is incongruous, because if one does not believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, there is no valid basis for the value of a human life. It was that God who said that if a person shed's human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed, eye for eye and all that, to teach people what is acceptable behavior. Nations do not live by the same rules as individuals, and governments do not listen to their citizens, but seek to dictate to their citizens.
There is a false gospel being preached to the world, all about Jesus. I'm not saying Jesus is false. I'm saying what people call the gospel is not the same gospel that Jesus preached. He preached the gospel of the Kingdom of God (in Matthew it says Kingdom of Heaven) is coming to Earth one day, and He Himself will be King and put all other governments down. THEN there will be no more war. Until then, we will have war and fear of war. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, calamities, drought, famine, epidemics, etc., because mankind is not fit to rule itself.
Thou shall not kill is one of the ten commandments from GOD. So it is religious. Question is killing what?
Why are OTHER people of FAITH (and those who do not hold religious beliefs) NOT banding together with this group? NOT all Christians, or Jews, etc. are "forced-birthers." WHY is it that we cannot embrace this lawsuit and sign on with it? I have never understood this steamrolling of "Faith" by one small sector of christofascists who--hypocritically-- do not support childrens' nutrition, education, mental health, physical health, dental health, or any other Rights. I have been disgusted with this whole co-opting of the issue. WHY are the "faithful" not speaking out on behalf of the rights of women?
Nicely stated. It is almost amusing that these people call themselves Satanists when they are preaching Christ's message. Well, realistically the message of anyone that wants a society to survive and prosper. Thank you!
We enjoy irony
I think the unfortunate thing for this group is that they have chosen the name "Satanic Temple." Based on the statement quoted from their website, they appear to be quite secular. I cannot imagine they are not aware that the name they have chosen refers to Satan, better known as the one that leads humanity astray through lies and deceptions. Perhaps if they had chosen a different name, more pro-choice organizations would have joined them in this fight.
It may be unfortunate in your judgement, but not in ours, it is a very deliberate choice. Also, the tenets of TST are important to us, Satan is a powerful symbol of humanism and rebellion, it's not just a tactical choice or something.
Satan never lied to anyone..... but God did.... in fact God killed way more people than Satan did as well... I think someone tried to switch everyone to a different team by changing the story line, but missed some stuff. You better re-read your bible. There is even directions on how a priest is to perform an abortion to a wife when a husband suspects her of infidelity.... 2 points to the person that can tell me where that is, without having to look it up. We all know you are going to insist it's taken out of context because it doesn't back up your opinion on abortions.... but at least admit to yourself it's in there :P
Well done and said. I have no opposition to idea of giving a woman in that situation any and all truthful, non-religious information before she commits to an abortion. But pseudo facts should remain in the churches where they originate. I am definitely pro-choice, but no one "loves" abortion. It is a life choice that is difficult. Heart rending. Those who actually walk into a clinic have given it great thought and are there because they feel they know their choice is made. And it has. That also needs to be respected.