Satanic Temple challenges Missouri’s abortion law on religious grounds

  • 74 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
#1 Edited by deactivated-5b1e62582e305 (30778 posts) -

Not with Lucifer himself, but with a group called the Satanic Temple that is going to bat for a woman identified as "Mary Doe." She contends the state’s informed consent law, which required her to wait 72 hours before having an abortion in May 2015, violated her religious beliefs.

Specifically, the woman — identified in the case summary as a "Greene County resident" — says she was forced to view an ultrasound of her fetus and pledge that she read a booklet stating that the “life of every human being begins at conception.”

This despite the fact that Doe advised the doctors at the St. Louis clinic that "she adheres to principles of the Satanic temple and has sincerely held religious beliefs different from the information in the informed consent booklet," the case summary states.

"Specifically, her letter advised she has deeply held religious beliefs that a nonviable fetus is not a separate human being but is part of her body and that abortion of a nonviable fetus does not terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being."

Jex Blackmore, a spokeswoman for the Satanic Temple, said the woman's religious rights were ignored.

“The State has essentially established a religious indoctrination program intended to push a single ideological viewpoint,” Blackmore said in a statement. “The law is intended to punish women who disagree with this opinion.”

he state will be represented by lawyers from the office of Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley, who is one of the defendants named in Doe’s lawsuit along with Gov. Eric Greitens, who is currently embroiled in a steamy sex scandal.

While Hawley’s office did not release any new statement in advance of Tuesday’s hearing, it is expected to argue, as it did last year, that Doe “failed to allege any conflict between her putative Satanic beliefs and the operation of the Informed Consent Law.”

The Satanic Temple filed state and federal lawsuits on behalf of Doe in May 2015.

“Missouri’s state-mandated informed consent booklets explicitly say that life begins at conception, which is a nonmedical religious viewpoint that many people disagree with,” Blackmore said in a statement Monday. “Forcing women to read this information and then wait 72-hours to consider the State’s opinion is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.”

The state disagrees.

“Even if Doe has alleged a restriction on free exercise (of religion), the Informed Consent Law clearly serves compelling state interests and is not unduly restrictive on Doe’s asserted exercise of religion,” the state argued in court papers on Sept. 21.

That argument, however, failed to persuade a Missouri appeals court, which agreed in October to kick the case up to the state’s top court — a case the panel called the first of its kind.

"Neither the Missouri Supreme Court nor the U.S. Supreme Court has considered whether a Booklet of this nature, an Ultrasound, an Audible Heartbeat Offer, and a seventy-two-hour Waiting Period violate the Religion Clause rights of pregnant women," Judge Thomas Newton wrote for the majority. "Because we believe that this case raises real and substantial constitutional claims, it is within the Missouri Supreme Court's exclusive jurisdiction.”

The Satanic Temple describes itself as “a nontheistic religious organization dedicated to Satanic practice and the promotion of Satanic rights.”

“The Temple understands the Satanic figure as a symbol of man’s inherent nature, representative of the eternal rebel, enlightened inquiry and personal freedom rather than a supernatural deity of being,” it said in a statement.

In a July 2015 interview with The New York Times, one of the co-founders — who used the pseudonym Malcolm Jarry in the story — said he doesn’t really believe in the Devil but believes in strict separation of church and state. His group also opposes tax exemptions for religious organizations.

The Satanic Temple waded into the culture wars in 2013 by working to sabotage Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s push for voluntary prayer at public school functions by standing on the steps of the state Capitol with a banner declaring, “Hail Satan! Hail Rick Scott!”

Then in 2015, the Satanic Temple inserted itself into the battle over the Ten Commandments monument at the Oklahoma State House by insisting that they be allowed to place a statue of the goat-headed deity Baphomet near the Christian statue.

"We believe that all monuments should be in good taste and consistent with community standards," Temple spokesman Lucien Greaves (also a pseudonym) wrote in letter to the state's Capitol Preservation Commission. "Our proposed monument, as an homage to the historic/literary Satan, will certainly abide by these guidelines."

The Ten Commandments monument was removed after the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that placing it on Capitol grounds violated the Constitution.

Everything is worth reading here because it's truly outstanding. Good for them.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/satanic-temple-challenges-missouri-s-abortion-law-religious-grounds-n839891?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

Avatar image for joshrmeyer
#2 Posted by JoshRMeyer (9695 posts) -

People are sick. She thinks a fetus is just part of her body? So her body has two hearts, can think on it's own... Respond to stimuli etc etc etc. If your satanic religion forced you to burn a virgin at the stake I guess it'd be ok because religious freedom and all(sarcasm).

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
#3 Posted by deactivated-5b1e62582e305 (30778 posts) -

@joshrmeyer: You’ve actually demonstrated the inherent flaws in so-called “religious freedom” laws which is the entire point the Satanic Temple seems to want to get across.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
#4 Posted by deactivated-5b19214ec908b (25072 posts) -

Regardless of what you think of the teachings of the satanic temple, you have to admit they've done a great job exposing the hypocrisy within the religious right, and helped move the country further towards true religious freedom.

Avatar image for horgen
#5 Posted by Horgen (117715 posts) -

@perfect_blue said:

@joshrmeyer: You’ve actually demonstrated the inherent flaws in so-called “religious freedom” laws which is the entire point the Satanic Temple seems to want to get across.

I'm so glad we have them.

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#6 Posted by nintendoboy16 (34854 posts) -

Ironic that what is supposed to be an "evil" religion as Satanism (but somehow not as "evil" is Islam), a Temple following it does something good. Yet, Christianity promotes "love" and what do they do?

Avatar image for phbz
#7 Posted by phbz (2917 posts) -

Hail Satan! S.M.R.C

Avatar image for horgen
#8 Posted by Horgen (117715 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

Ironic that what is supposed to be an "evil" religion as Satanism (but somehow not as "evil" is Islam), a Temple following it does something good. Yet, Christianity promotes "love" and what do they do?

Perfect_blue gets it.

@perfect_blue said:

@joshrmeyer: You’ve actually demonstrated the inherent flaws in so-called “religious freedom” laws which is the entire point the Satanic Temple seems to want to get across.

Avatar image for theone86
#9 Posted by theone86 (21740 posts) -

God, I love Satanism.

Avatar image for PraetorianMan
#10 Posted by PraetorianMan (1901 posts) -

This is actually weirdly funny

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
#11 Posted by deactivated-5b1e62582e305 (30778 posts) -

@horgen: They definitely are a colourful bunch lol.

Avatar image for kittennose
#12 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@perfect_blue said:

@joshrmeyer: You’ve actually demonstrated the inherent flaws in so-called “religious freedom” laws which is the entire point the Satanic Temple seems to want to get across.

Two things.

First: This is a textbook case of whataboutery.

Second: The folks who have problems with religious freedom laws do not expect the right to hand folks a pamphlet. If that was the limit of the power they seek, we wouldn't be seeing a push for religious freedom laws. They advocate forced compliance, so we are.

As this is the case they can't really point to this as an example of overreach that proves the other side is acting hypocritically. If you need a good example of hypocrisy from the religious right for your next whataboutism, you should pick one that doesn't ultimately result in an individual making the choice for themselves, absent any legal consequence. It isn't like finding such example are hard.

Heck our prisons would be almost empty if you could make drug fueled orgies legal by claiming to have read a pamphlet entitled "Do you know snorting cocaine off transgendered hookers makes baby Jesus cry?" If anything the "You can do whatever you want, so long as you first read the appropriate propaganda pamphlet" standard seems remarkably progressive.

Assuming of course consent is never violated.

Avatar image for Ish_basic
#13 Edited by Ish_basic (4838 posts) -

@joshrmeyer said:

People are sick. She thinks a fetus is just part of her body? So her body has two hearts, can think on it's own... Respond to stimuli etc etc etc. If your satanic religion forced you to burn a virgin at the stake I guess it'd be ok because religious freedom and all(sarcasm).

she specifies a "non viable fetus," which means one that can't yet exist on its own, even with medical assistance. There is no demonstrable example of "life" with this property. Also, cows can think on their own and respond to stimuli, yet we don't commonly think of cows as a people.

There is as yet no experimental standard that makes pro-life arguments non-arbitrary, which is why all such arguments are pretty much religion based. And if you accept one religious interpretation, you've got to accept the others or you're making a law that establishes a precedence of religion, which is unconstitutional.

Avatar image for Gaming-Planet
#14 Posted by Gaming-Planet (19356 posts) -

Satanism has nothing to with Christianity so I don't know why it rustles their jimmies so hard.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#15 Posted by Jacanuk (14757 posts) -

@Gaming-Planet said:

Satanism has nothing to with Christianity so I don't know why it rustles their jimmies so hard.

Ehmmm, how did you come to that conclusion?

Avatar image for kittennose
#16 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@Ish_basic said:

she specifies a "non viable fetus," which means one that can't yet exist on its own, even with medical assistance. There is no demonstrable example of "life" with this property. Also, cows can think on their own and respond to stimuli, yet we don't commonly think of cows as a people.

There is as yet no experimental standard that makes pro-life arguments non-arbitrary, which is why all such arguments are pretty much religion based. And if you accept one religious interpretation, you've got to accept the others or you're making a law that establishes a precedence of religion, which is unconstitutional.

Wait what? There is an entire classification of life that can not survive absent a host from which it draws both heat energy and nourishment. We call them parasites.

Besides, the entire viability argument is not only arbitrary it is incorrect.Medical science doesn't really need biological incubators anymore. They are presently an inexpensive, safe, time tested, and all natural alternative, but not necessary.

Science doesn't really have an answer to this debate. It can tell you that human life starts at conception. It can not tell you when it becomes immoral to intentionally end that life. You can argue that the line is properly drawn anywhere between conception and death by old age without running afoul of science. An individual is going to use their own subjective views to come to come to a conclusion, and from the perspective of science they are all pretty darn arbitrary.

Avatar image for joshrmeyer
#17 Posted by JoshRMeyer (9695 posts) -

@Ish_basic: "cows can think on their own and respond to stimuli, yet we don't commonly think of cows as a people."

Lol what?? A human is a human... It doesn't become a human when it comes out of it's mother. Science backs this up way more than religion does. Sure a fetus can't live on it's own... Neither can a newborn child. This isn't really the topic so I'll stop, but that response was asinine.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#18 Posted by Jacanuk (14757 posts) -

@joshrmeyer said:

People are sick. She thinks a fetus is just part of her body? So her body has two hearts, can think on it's own... Respond to stimuli etc etc etc. If your satanic religion forced you to burn a virgin at the stake I guess it'd be ok because religious freedom and all(sarcasm).

Of course, she does not believe that.

This group is an activist group that is made for the sole purpose of funding the fight against laws that use religion or protect religious people.

But good luck to them.

Avatar image for drlostrib
#19 Posted by DrLostRib (4047 posts) -

@joshrmeyer said:

@Ish_basic: "cows can think on their own and respond to stimuli, yet we don't commonly think of cows as a people."

Lol what?? A human is a human... It doesn't become a human when it comes out of it's mother. Science backs this up way more than religion does. Sure a fetus can't live on it's own... Neither can a newborn child. This isn't really the topic so I'll stop, but that response was asinine.

when does it become a human?

Avatar image for drlostrib
#20 Posted by DrLostRib (4047 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@joshrmeyer said:

People are sick. She thinks a fetus is just part of her body? So her body has two hearts, can think on it's own... Respond to stimuli etc etc etc. If your satanic religion forced you to burn a virgin at the stake I guess it'd be ok because religious freedom and all(sarcasm).

Of course, she does not believe that.

I mean, she might believe that. It wouldn't be that crazy a point of view

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#21 Posted by Jacanuk (14757 posts) -

@drlostrib said:
@Jacanuk said:
@joshrmeyer said:

People are sick. She thinks a fetus is just part of her body? So her body has two hearts, can think on it's own... Respond to stimuli etc etc etc. If your satanic religion forced you to burn a virgin at the stake I guess it'd be ok because religious freedom and all(sarcasm).

Of course, she does not believe that.

I mean, she might believe that. It wouldn't be that crazy a point of view

She could but again it´s a group with the sole purpose of being active in their delusional fight against religious tolerance.

Avatar image for drlostrib
#22 Posted by DrLostRib (4047 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@drlostrib said:
@Jacanuk said:
@joshrmeyer said:

People are sick. She thinks a fetus is just part of her body? So her body has two hearts, can think on it's own... Respond to stimuli etc etc etc. If your satanic religion forced you to burn a virgin at the stake I guess it'd be ok because religious freedom and all(sarcasm).

Of course, she does not believe that.

I mean, she might believe that. It wouldn't be that crazy a point of view

She could but again it´s a group with the sole purpose of being active in their delusional fight against religious tolerance.

?

Avatar image for joshrmeyer
#23 Posted by JoshRMeyer (9695 posts) -

@drlostrib: When the DNA in place says it's a human? Aka conception. I know there's arguments about when, but there really isn't a better answer science can give.

Avatar image for drlostrib
#24 Posted by DrLostRib (4047 posts) -

@joshrmeyer said:

@drlostrib: When the DNA in place says it's a human? Aka conception. I know there's arguments about when, but there really isn't a better answer science can give.

so as long as it's got a complete set of chromosomes it's a human being?

Avatar image for joshrmeyer
#25 Posted by JoshRMeyer (9695 posts) -

@drlostrib: All it's programming or instructions are there. As soon as those two cells connect, life starts forming. It's hard to think of a blob as being a human, but I really can't give a better answer than that. it's like saying a sprouting seed isn't a tree because it isn't 20 ft tall yet. Life starts on the cellular level. We know those two cells once connected can be classified as a human being... If you argue it's not developed yet, then humans are humans until their 20's? lol What's your opinion?

Avatar image for drlostrib
#26 Posted by DrLostRib (4047 posts) -

@joshrmeyer said:

@drlostrib: All it's programming or instructions are there. As soon as those two cells connect, life starts forming. It's hard to think of a blob as being a human, but I really can't give a better answer than that. it's like saying a sprouting seed isn't a tree because it isn't 20 ft tall yet. Life starts on the cellular level. We know those two cells once connected can be classified as a human being... If you argue it's not developed yet, then humans are humans until their 20's? lol What's your opinion?

all your somatic cells have those sets of instructions.

There's a pretty significant difference between a zygote and a 20 year old

Avatar image for joshrmeyer
#27 Edited by JoshRMeyer (9695 posts) -

@drlostrib: Yeah, definitely. But anyways, there's my answer on that subject.

Avatar image for kittennose
#28 Edited by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@drlostrib said:

all your somatic cells have those sets of instructions.

There's a pretty significant difference between a zygote and a 20 year old

Can you provide a scientific explanation for why any other stage of the human life cycle is the stage a developing human becomes a human?

Avatar image for Serraph105
#29 Posted by Serraph105 (32379 posts) -

Gotta stand up for their religious liberty, isn't that what Trump was saying all of a week ago?

Avatar image for drrollinstein
#30 Posted by DrRollinstein (1109 posts) -

@Jacanuk said:
@Gaming-Planet said:

Satanism has nothing to with Christianity so I don't know why it rustles their jimmies so hard.

Ehmmm, how did you come to that conclusion?

Satanism has literally nothing to do with Christianity. They just took the name because in Christianity, Satan represents all things bad(And arguably, fun), and free will. Satanism is an atheistic religion and believe in no deities except ones own self.

Avatar image for kittennose
#31 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@drrollinstein said:
@Jacanuk said:
@Gaming-Planet said:

Satanism has nothing to with Christianity so I don't know why it rustles their jimmies so hard.

Ehmmm, how did you come to that conclusion?

Satanism has literally nothing to do with Christianity. They just took the name because in Christianity, Satan represents all things bad(And arguably, fun), and free will. Satanism is an atheistic religion and believe in no deities except ones own self.

It sounds like you are describing LaVeyan Satanism, but doing so inaccurately. The Satanic Temple is not the same thing. Just take a look at their tenets.

  1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
  2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
  3. One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
  4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own.
  5. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
  6. People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
  7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word

Unless of course there is an even newer Satanic Temple that flew under my radar.

The entire purpose of going with the name Satanism is however to rustle christian jimmies. LaVeyan said so pretty openly, and the Satanic Temple exists to troll for good.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#32 Posted by mrbojangles25 (41044 posts) -

@horgen said:
@perfect_blue said:

@joshrmeyer: You’ve actually demonstrated the inherent flaws in so-called “religious freedom” laws which is the entire point the Satanic Temple seems to want to get across.

I'm so glad we have them.

same here. I just wish people better understood that the satanic "religion" is not about devil worship, sacrificing goats, and so forth. It's actually pretty legit, just kind of annoying in a "question everything" kind of sense :P

It's basically punk rock religion. 95% of the time they're cool until you do something that generally offends their moral code, then it's all "F*** AUTHORITY!"

Avatar image for joshrmeyer
#33 Posted by JoshRMeyer (9695 posts) -

@mrbojangles25: It's an odd name to choose... Although Satan isn't a name, more so a title. So it makes sense why they chose it, but I can also see the confusion. I pictured Marilyn Manson when I first heard of them. Then understood after reading the article.

Avatar image for Jacanuk
#34 Posted by Jacanuk (14757 posts) -

@drrollinstein said:
@Jacanuk said:
@Gaming-Planet said:

Satanism has nothing to with Christianity so I don't know why it rustles their jimmies so hard.

Ehmmm, how did you come to that conclusion?

Satanism has literally nothing to do with Christianity. They just took the name because in Christianity, Satan represents all things bad(And arguably, fun), and free will. Satanism is an atheistic religion and believe in no deities except ones own self.

You have two things confused here. Satan comes directly from the bible. No-one denies that. What you are describing are people who use a word to describe something else than what is originally intended. The Satanic Temple uses "satanic" because they opposed to the church, not because they really believe in an "evil" deity.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#35 Posted by mrbojangles25 (41044 posts) -

@joshrmeyer said:

@mrbojangles25: It's an odd name to choose... Although Satan isn't a name, more so a title. So it makes sense why they chose it, but I can also see the confusion. I pictured Marilyn Manson when I first heard of them. Then understood after reading the article.

That's because people have been convinced into thinking Satan has hooves, horns, and is some half-man, half-monster. And that's fine provided you realize that's not what Satan is and means to other people.

Satan is an angel that rebelled against God and Heaven, that's the best way I can phrase it. And it works well for people that don't subscribe to traditional religion.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#36 Posted by comp_atkins (34985 posts) -

@joshrmeyer said:

@drlostrib: All it's programming or instructions are there. As soon as those two cells connect, life starts forming. It's hard to think of a blob as being a human, but I really can't give a better answer than that. it's like saying a sprouting seed isn't a tree because it isn't 20 ft tall yet. Life starts on the cellular level. We know those two cells once connected can be classified as a human being... If you argue it's not developed yet, then humans are humans until their 20's? lol What's your opinion?

so a miscarriage is murder?

Avatar image for joshrmeyer
#37 Posted by JoshRMeyer (9695 posts) -

@comp_atkins: Murder is intentional. I think you're mistaking miscarriage for abortion... One is deliberate, one is not.

Avatar image for joshrmeyer
#38 Posted by JoshRMeyer (9695 posts) -

@comp_atkins: Just a few of the 38 states that recognize intentional miscarriage aka abortion as murder/manslaughter:

The “unborn child in the womb at any stage of its development” is fully covered by the state’s murder and manslaughter statutes. For purposes of establishing the level of punishment, a victim who is “an unborn child shall be treated like a minor who is under twelve years of age.”

Effective in August, 2013, the killing of an “unborn child” is capital murder, murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter, or negligent homicide. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-1-102(13)(b)(i)(a), read with Ark. Stat. Ann. §§ 5-10-101 to 5-10-105. (A separate Arkansas law makes it a battery to cause injury to a woman during a Class A misdemeanor to cause her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth, or to cause injury under conditions manifesting extreme indifference to human life and that results in a miscarriage or stillbirth. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5-13-201 (a)(5)(a).) Until August, 2013, “unborn child” was defined as a fetus of 12 weeks or older, but Act 1032 of the 2013 Regular Session (SB 417) changed the definition to “offspring of human beings from conception until birth.”

Too long to post any more... Have a read. Makes ya think twice about safe sex.

https://www.nrlc.org/federal/unbornvictims/statehomicidelaws092302/

Avatar image for sayyy-gaa
#39 Posted by sayyy-gaa (5843 posts) -

I am a moderate Democrat and devoutly Christian. Having said that I don't have a beef with the actions of The Satanic Temple based on TC's post. I'm not a fan of a group trying to eliminate voluntary prayer or get rid of 10 Commandments statues but that is a personal failing and no fault of the Satanic Temple.

They really are pushing the textbook definition of separation of church and state. Early in our country's history separation of church and state really meant separation of non-Christian church and state.

As the population changes, so has the inference in the separation. Problem is many Christians have difficulty reconciling that. We have to deal with it.

Avatar image for Maroxad
#40 Edited by Maroxad (14755 posts) -

I actually have a lot of respect for the Satanic Temple. Far more than I have of any Christian or Muslim temple.

Regarding the abortion discussion later down well...

Human life isnt valuable because it is human life or that it has human DNA or whatever. Human life is valuable because it is sapient, sentient. Most abortions are performed at a point where sapience, let alone sentience has yet to be formed. This is why me and so many others who are defined as pro-choice are in favor of abortions until around 24 weeks. What makes us us, is not our genome, what makes us us is our experiences, our knowledge, our memories. Our head stores infinitely more information than our genome does. Our genome is little more than a molecule. An amazing molecule, no doubt, but a molecule nonetheless. On its own, it is not worth protecting.

Avatar image for kittennose
#41 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@Maroxad said:

I actually have a lot of respect for the Satanic Temple. Far more than I have of any Christian or Muslim temple.

Regarding the abortion discussion later down well...

Human life isnt valuable because it is human life or that it has human DNA or whatever. Human life is valuable because it is sapient, sentient. Most abortions are performed at a point where sapience, let alone sentience has yet to be formed. This is why me and so many others who are defined as pro-choice are in favor of abortions until around 24 weeks. What makes us us, is not our genome, what makes us us is our experiences, our knowledge, our memories. Our head stores infinitely more information than our genome does. Our genome is little more than a molecule. An amazing molecule, no doubt, but a molecule nonetheless. On its own, it is not worth protecting.

What is the justification for 24 weeks? I mean we eat animals that possess a lot more intellectual capacity then four month old babies, much less a four month old fetus.

Avatar image for PurpleMan5000
#42 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (9612 posts) -

@nintendoboy16 said:

Ironic that what is supposed to be an "evil" religion as Satanism (but somehow not as "evil" is Islam), a Temple following it does something good. Yet, Christianity promotes "love" and what do they do?

Feed the homeless, provide disaster relief, provide aid to 3rd world countries needing water, etc.

Avatar image for Maroxad
#43 Edited by Maroxad (14755 posts) -

@kittennose said:
@Maroxad said:

I actually have a lot of respect for the Satanic Temple. Far more than I have of any Christian or Muslim temple.

Regarding the abortion discussion later down well...

Human life isnt valuable because it is human life or that it has human DNA or whatever. Human life is valuable because it is sapient, sentient. Most abortions are performed at a point where sapience, let alone sentience has yet to be formed. This is why me and so many others who are defined as pro-choice are in favor of abortions until around 24 weeks. What makes us us, is not our genome, what makes us us is our experiences, our knowledge, our memories. Our head stores infinitely more information than our genome does. Our genome is little more than a molecule. An amazing molecule, no doubt, but a molecule nonetheless. On its own, it is not worth protecting.

What is the justification for 24 weeks? I mean we eat animals that possess a lot more intellectual capacity then four month old babies, much less a four month old fetus.

Because it is around that time the thalamo-cortical complex begins to develop.

Animals are killed for the sake of our survival. We need to eat.

Now, before you ask about situations where a late term pregnancy puts the mother at risk an abortion may be necessary for survival. I will state, that I am fine with late term abortions in those cases.

Avatar image for kittennose
#44 Edited by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@Maroxad said:

Because it is around that time the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness begins to develop.

Animals are killed for the sake of our survival. We need to eat.

Now, before you ask about situations where a late term pregnancy puts the mother at risk an abortion may be necessary for survival. I will state, that I am fine with late term abortions in those cases.

We don't need to eat animals for survival. In fact as a species we would be doing much better if we moved away from doing it. That doesn't really explain why you can kill an adult pig but not a newborn baby. The line you are drawing is as arbitrary as any other.

Why is your line more enforceable the any other?

Avatar image for Maroxad
#45 Edited by Maroxad (14755 posts) -

@kittennose said:
@Maroxad said:

Because it is around that time the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness begins to develop.

Animals are killed for the sake of our survival. We need to eat.

Now, before you ask about situations where a late term pregnancy puts the mother at risk an abortion may be necessary for survival. I will state, that I am fine with late term abortions in those cases.

We don't need to eat animals for survival. In fact as a species we would be doing much better if we moved away from doing it. That doesn't really explain why you can kill an adult pig but not a newborn baby. The line you are drawing is as arbitrary as any other.

Why is your line more enforceable the any other?

We don't. But we do eat them. We can end meat eating, but good luck getting any decent chunk of people to agree with that (aside from politically motivated vegans and vegetarians). Banning meat eating would just make people hunt outside... kinda like how banning abortions only really achieves moving the abortions to the back alleys.

Of course the line is arbitary, as all lines are. The line where I stand, is the line that protects sapience and sentience. As for enforcability... well 20-24 is usually where abortions begin to become banned in most western countries, although I NEVER said it was more enforceable than any other line. That 6 month mark is still the timespan where the part of the brain providing conciousness begins to develop.

Avatar image for kittennose
#46 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@Maroxad said:

We don't. But we do eat them. We can end meat eating, but good luck getting any decent chunk of people to agree with that (aside from politically motivated vegans and vegetarians).

Of course the line is arbitary, as all lines are. The line where I stand, is the line that protects sapience and sentience, My line is the one that is being enforced in a lot of western countries. Regardless of what you say, that 6 month mark is still the timespan where the part of the brain providing conciousness begins to develop.

Well that means we do not eat mean for survival, we eat meat because we like it. If that is reasonable justification for ending life then there isn't really a justification for prohibiting infanticide.

Your line also don't protect sapience or sentience, it sort of ignores it. It could be argued that it protects potential future high level sapience/sentience, but so does every line that drawn before 24 weeks. So does drawing the line at 4 months old or a year.

If the line you draw is no less arbitrary then any other, what is the point of drawing the line in the first place? Validation?

Avatar image for Maroxad
#47 Edited by Maroxad (14755 posts) -

@kittennose said:
@Maroxad said:

We don't. But we do eat them. We can end meat eating, but good luck getting any decent chunk of people to agree with that (aside from politically motivated vegans and vegetarians).

Of course the line is arbitary, as all lines are. The line where I stand, is the line that protects sapience and sentience, My line is the one that is being enforced in a lot of western countries. Regardless of what you say, that 6 month mark is still the timespan where the part of the brain providing conciousness begins to develop.

Well that means we do not eat mean for survival, we eat meat because we like it. If that is reasonable justification for ending life then there isn't really a justification for prohibiting infanticide.

Your line also don't protect sapience or sentience, it sort of ignores it. It could be argued that it protects potential future high level sapience/sentience, but so does every line that drawn before 24 weeks. So does drawing the line at 4 months old or a year.

If the line you draw is no less arbitrary then any other, what is the point of drawing the line in the first place? Validation?

The line DOES protect sapience or sentience, that is the whole point of it, the line is when sentience/sapience develops.

Laws and lines are all arbitary, as is linguistics. But they work for keeping society afloat regardless of their arbitary nature. The thing isn't to avoid arbitary rules, but rather to provide a set of rules that maximizes the good for society. There is no easy solution to the whole abortion debate, but based on what I have seen, the 24 week seems like the ideal middle ground.

Avatar image for kittennose
#48 Edited by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@Maroxad said:

The line DOES protect sapience or sentience, that is the whole point of it, the line is when sentience/sapience develops. Since the lump of cells, in the early stages of pregnancies doesnt have sentience, whereas the fetus in a late term pregnancy does.

Laws and lines are all arbitary, as is linguistics. But they work for keeping society afloat regardless of their arbitary nature. The thing isn't to avoid arbitary rules, but rather to provide a set of rules that maximizes the good for society.

Okay, then you can prove that a 4 month old fetus is somehow more sentient then all the things we butcher because they are tasty? Or because they are annoying. Or because we want to put up condos where they live...

I am very interested in this data. Particularly since when I google the question I get:

New research shows that babies display glimmers of consciousness and memory as early as 5 months old. For decades, neuroscientists have been searching for an unmistakable signal of consciousness in electrical brain activity

Avatar image for Maroxad
#49 Edited by Maroxad (14755 posts) -

@kittennose said:
@Maroxad said:

The line DOES protect sapience or sentience, that is the whole point of it, the line is when sentience/sapience develops. Since the lump of cells, in the early stages of pregnancies doesnt have sentience, whereas the fetus in a late term pregnancy does.

Laws and lines are all arbitary, as is linguistics. But they work for keeping society afloat regardless of their arbitary nature. The thing isn't to avoid arbitary rules, but rather to provide a set of rules that maximizes the good for society.

Okay, then you can prove that a 4 month old fetus is somehow more sentient then all the things we butcher because they are tasty? Or because they are annoying. Or because we want to put up condos where they live...

I am very interested in this data. Particularly since when I google the question I get:

New research shows that babies display glimmers of consciousness and memory as early as 5 months old. For decades, neuroscientists have been searching for an unmistakable signal of consciousness in electrical brain activity

How do we measure how sentient something is? While we can definately search for brain activity related to what we now know as sentience.

As for the number, good, maybe the line should be lowered to 20 weeks instead. It is the idea behind the number that matters, NOT the number itself.

Edit: And before you mention more about animal eating. Please do note: I do not eat meat... intentionally at least.

Avatar image for kittennose
#50 Posted by KittenNose (2456 posts) -

@Maroxad said:

How do we measure how sentient something is? While we can definately search for brain activity related to what we now know as sentience.

As for the number, good, maybe the line should be lowered to 20 weeks instead. It is the idea behind the number that matters, NOT the number itself.

If you don't know then don't pretend it is justification for why you rationalize your position. You just picked a line that sounded right absent any scientific explanation and ran with it.

Just like the folks who pick 20 weeks, or 12, or 24 hours. Or two years.