Satanic Temple challenges Missouri’s abortion law on religious grounds

[sun rise]

I assume this is no surprise.

Satanic Temple challenges Missouri's abortion law on religious grounds

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.”
...
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."

 

[Skwim]

I assume this is no surprise.

Satanic Temple challenges Missouri's abortion law on religious grounds

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.”
...
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."

I hope they prevail.

The requirement that a pregnant women be 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.” is vile and inexcusable.


Added note 20 minutes later. I'm letting my response stand as I wrote it, but want to point out that the situation was apparently not as described above. After posting the above I took a look at the the Case Summary.

" . . her letter advised she has deeply held religious beliefs that a non-viable fetus is not a separate human being but is part of her body and that abortion of a non-viable fetus does not terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being. Her letter further absolved the doctors of their responsibility to deliver the booklet to her or to wait 72 hours before performing her abortion, advising them she voluntarily, freely and without coercion was choosing to have the abortion that day. The clinic, however, refused her request. Instead, as required by the law, it gave Doe an ultrasound and the opportunity to listen to the fetal heartbeat. The clinic made Doe acknowledge receipt of the booklet and advised it would not perform the abortion until after the statutory waiting period. She returned after the time had lapsed and received the abortion.
source​

So, she wasn't "forced" to view the ultra sound or made to "pledge" that she read a booklet.

.

 

[Frater Sisyphus]

WTF?

 

[sun rise]

I hope they prevail.

The requirement that a pregnant women be 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.” is vile and inexcusable.

.

It's stupid policy. If they want to reduce the number of abortions, address the root causes of women getting pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant and take care of the woman and child after birth so there is no economic pressure to abort.

A long time ago the idea that the way to teach a dog not to do something was to rub his nose in it. We've learned better. It's time we learn better when it comes to humans.

 

[Enoch07]

It's stupid policy. If they want to reduce the number of abortions, address the root causes of women getting pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant and take care of the woman and child after birth so there is no economic pressure to abort.

A long time ago the idea that the way to teach a dog not to do something was to rub his nose in it. We've learned better. It's time we learn better when it comes to humans.

There is no excuse nowadays in the age of sex education courses. What's next a profilatic police to make sure birth control measures are in place before each sex act? Come now at certain point self responsibility and self discipline must come into play.

 

[Mindmaster]

I assume this is no surprise.

Satanic Temple challenges Missouri's abortion law on religious grounds

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.”
...
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."

Satanism isn't technically a religion since it lacks a fundamental dogma, so if I was a defense attorney on this case I'd simply mention that and ask the Judge for a motion to vacate on these grounds. They have no codified set of beliefs, so they have nothing to contest with.

The other option would be for the defense to present an argument regarding the consideration of life, and that for example if she was murdered with fetus (regardless of age) it would be classified as a double homicide, ergo the fetus is already considered a separate human being for other legal purpose. Fundamentally, that refutes the plaintiffs charge that the fetus is a lump of cells in her body and could be used as a precedent to further protect the unborn by establishing via case that the fetus is a full human being unequivocally. Either way, I'm predicting much liberal tears after this since I don't see a win condition.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

— 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.”

I oppose this only because it's a form of coercion in an already hard decision- not because I don't appreciate the intent of the Missouri law. Most women are not casually aborting a fetus and have to really battle with themselves to get the procedure done already, so it's undue coercion. I've made clear my views about casual abortion on this forum already, but I think a woman must make the decision. It infringes on a woman's rights too much to do otherwise, and opens doors to all kinds of debates on human rights of females.

 

[Altfish]

Satanism isn't technically a religion since it lacks a fundamental dogma, so if I was a defense attorney on this case I'd simply mention that and ask the Judge for a motion to vacate on these grounds. They have no codified set of beliefs, so they have nothing to contest with.

The other option would be for the defense to present an argument regarding the consideration of life, and that for example if she was murdered with fetus (regardless of age) it would be classified as a double homicide, ergo the fetus is already considered a separate human being for other legal purpose. Fundamentally, that refutes the plaintiffs charge that the fetus is a lump of cells in her body and could be used as a precedent to further protect the unborn by establishing via case that the fetus is a full human being unequivocally. Either way, I'm predicting much liberal tears after this since I don't see a win condition.

I think you will find they have better defined 'rules' than most religions, look at their 7 Tenets in the link below..
Tenets

 

[Father Heathen]

Either way, I'm predicting much liberal tears after this since I don't see a win condition.

Satanic Temple beats Missouri in showdown over abortion rights

I guess It's time for conservative tears to flow now?

Btw, a pro-life LHPer? That's so adorable.

 

[Skwim]

Satanism isn't technically a religion since it lacks a fundamental dogma, so if I was a defense attorney on this case I'd simply mention that and ask the Judge for a motion to vacate on these grounds. They have no codified set of beliefs, so they have nothing to contest with.

Hogwash. Obviously you've never looked into Satanism.

Just as an FYI

dog·ma
ˈdôɡmə/
noun
noun: dogma; plural noun: dogmas
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.​

Satanic principles.

Moreover;

"The Church of Satan is a religious organization dedicated to Satanism as codified in The Satanic Bible. The Church of Satan was established at the Black House in San Francisco, California, on Walpurgisnacht, April 30, 1966, by Anton Szandor LaVey, who was the church's High Priest until his death in 1997. In 2001, Peter H. Gilmore was appointed to the position of high priest, and the church's headquarters were moved to Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, New York City."
Source:Wikipedia

.​

 

[Skwim]

Satanic Temple beats Missouri in showdown over abortion rights

I guess It's time for conservative tears to flow now?

Nice research. Pretty much puts an end to the issue.

.

 

[Mindmaster]

Hogwash. Obviously you've never looked into Satanism.

Just as an FYI

dog·ma
ˈdôɡmə/
noun
noun: dogma; plural noun: dogmas
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.​

Satanic principles.

Moreover;

"The Church of Satan is a religious organization dedicated to Satanism as codified in The Satanic Bible. The Church of Satan was established at the Black House in San Francisco, California, on Walpurgisnacht, April 30, 1966, by Anton Szandor LaVey, who was the church's High Priest until his death in 1997. In 2001, Peter H. Gilmore was appointed to the position of high priest, and the church's headquarters were moved to Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan, New York City."
Source:Wikipedia
.​

The Satanic Temple members aren't Church of Satan members, also there is no "all reaching authority on Satanism" in regard to dogmas/tenets/whatever else. In fact, it's rare that two Satanists even within the same group have the same set of beliefs. Considering I've been a Satanist for 30 years, I probably know something about it. I don't identify by that title much anymore, but to say I don't know what I'm talking about would just indicate the cheese has fully slid of your cracker.

The Satanic Temple in particular only lists this Tenets as their fundamental beliefs, and arguably none of these apply to the case except remotely:

• One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

This tenet is already "violated" by the law in that the state medical authorities can rule you insane, invalid, incompetent, and likewise against your will and otherwise enforce medical procedures where it is deemed you are irrational or to preserve your life even against your will. If the religious argument is that the fetus is part of one's body, then it's a tenuous case because then you can possibly charge that doctors are performing malicious unnecessary medical procedures as well. Since they are unlikely to convict this many doctors of malpractice, they're more likely to call Satanism (in the mainstream sense) out for the bull**** it is.

 

[Skwim]

The Satanic Temple members aren't Church of Satan members, also there is no "all reaching authority on Satanism" in regard to dogmas/tenets/whatever else. In fact, it's rare that two Satanists even within the same group have the same set of beliefs. Considering I've been a Satanist for 30 years, I probably know something about it. I don't identify by that title much anymore, but to say I don't know what I'm talking about would just indicate the cheese has fully slid of your cracker.

The Satanic Temple in particular only lists this Tenets as their fundamental beliefs, and arguably none of these apply to the case except remotely:

• One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

This tenet is already "violated" by the law in that the state medical authorities can rule you insane, invalid, incompetent, and likewise against your will and otherwise enforce medical procedures where it is deemed you are irrational or to preserve your life even against your will. If the religious argument is that the fetus is part of one's body, then it's a tenuous case because then you can possibly charge that doctors are performing malicious unnecessary medical procedures as well. Since they are unlikely to convict this many doctors of malpractice, they're more likely to call Satanism (in the mainstream sense) out for the bull**** it is.

Thanks for the information.

.

 

[Mindmaster]

I think you will find they have better defined 'rules' than most religions, look at their 7 Tenets in the link below..
Tenets

I'm aware of these, but these seem more like guidelines than dogma.

Also, it seems very reaching to think you can apply these to any part of this particular case. The statement:

• One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

Specifically, is the only one that possibly could apply but I find several arguments:

1) How do we know the fetus doesn't have will, albeit an undeveloped one?

2) If the fetus is part of the mother's body, does it indicate psychosis to want to remove it?

3) Transgender patients are often shown material in attempts to "talk them out" of an invasive and possibly dangerous surgery... How is this different?

4) If the woman was going to terminate the pregnancy anyway, why do it matter that she is shown these materials? Presumption of course, that she doesn't actually care and would do it anyway - her mind being made up?

5) Ruling in favor of this case basically makes it against the law to offend someone with medical information, not a good precedent even if it sounds good or feels good to give the case to them.

 

[SomeRandom]

That's a disgusting law IMO. So go Satanic Church.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This tenet is already "violated" by the law in that the state medical authorities can rule you insane, invalid, incompetent, and likewise against your will and otherwise enforce medical procedures where it is deemed you are irrational or to preserve your life even against your will.

Doing so requires specific guidelines, specific situations and circumstances, and it's a hassle to go through the process of getting a court order to detain someone if they pose a danger to themselves or others.

2) If the fetus is part of the mother's body, does it indicate psychosis to want to remove it?

Is it psychosis to want a tumor removed?

3) Transgender patients are often shown material in attempts to "talk them out" of an invasive and possibly dangerous surgery... How is this different?

That is not true. Doctors have to mention there are possible side effects, but they have to do that with any surgery. And the steps of a medical transition put such surgery after everything else is done. The standard protocol for most doctors is a requirement of two recommendation letters from two separate mental health professionals who specialize in such areas.

5) Ruling in favor of this case basically makes it against the law to offend someone with medical information, not a good precedent even if it sounds good or feels good to give the case to them.

The question is is it necessary to make women have to first be forced to look at an ultrasound of their fetus and have to read a booklet? Medically, I doubt you'll find anything to say it's necessary. The possibly risks associated with having the procedure, yes, but the state's law is nothing more than Conservative politicians putting the government firmly between patient and doctor in order to promote Christian ideology.

 

[Mindmaster]

Is it psychosis to want a tumor removed?

Drawing and equivalence between a tumor and a fetus is a bit of a stretch isn't it? I'm not really going bother to address this.

That is not true. Doctors have to mention there are possible side effects, but they have to do that with any surgery. And the steps of a medical transition put such surgery after everything else is done. The standard protocol for most doctors is a requirement of two recommendation letters from two separate mental health professionals who specialize in such areas.

I think women seeking abortions should have such recommendations as well... Any procedure that isn't necessary to save the life of the woman or is purely a restorative cosmetic operation should have the same level of scrutiny.

The question is is it necessary to make women have to first be forced to look at an ultrasound of their fetus and have to read a booklet? Medically, I doubt you'll find anything to say it's necessary. The possibly risks associated with having the procedure, yes, but the state's law is nothing more than Conservative politicians putting the government firmly between patient and doctor in order to promote Christian ideology.

Yes, because you are consciously killing something - the least you could do is look it in the eye when you do it. It's a matter of integrity and respect... Traits that seem to be in short supply these days. I feel that if you make that decision you should at least be fully cognizant that you are murdering a living being regardless of what the law decides to call it.

Why limit the scope to conservatives or Christians? Nearly every mainstream religion is against this practice, and it's not even popular with atheists. There is something entirely morbid about justifying actions which lead to the death of a fetus, and maybe it isn't the law that's wrong but the hollow hole in these women's hearts that allows them to do this or the messed up logic that let's them believe the fetus is a parasite. Killing is killing and whether what you are killing is conscious of the fact that you are doing it or not such things should never be taken lightly or not realized for how vile, in actually, they are.

 

[crossfire]

There is no problem with doctors surgically removing an embryo from a fallopian tube. Why should it be any different when it comes to removing one from a uterus?

 

[Old Scratch]

Satanic Temple beats Missouri in showdown over abortion rights

Excellent!

 

[Liu]

Afaik, the issue wasn't even that she was forced to the ultrasound and given that booklet, but that she had to wait 72 hours to think about her decision, which in this case lead to higher costs for her (travelling/hotel) than she could effort since there was only one abortion clinic in the whole state.

The booklet etc. were mentioned as arguments for why this is religious discrimination because the booklet does mention things that are clearly a matter of belief (i.e. at which point a fetus can be considered a human being) and because the waiting period was based on the reception of the booklet and not on how long the person already thought about their choice beforehand.

Technically, I wouldn't mind a waiting period, as long as it's reasonable - I had a surgery on my nasal sinuses and septum due to some malformations hindering me from breathing properly through my nose, and even when my doctor recommended me to get it done he preferred not giving me a surgery appointment before I had taken some time to think about it (which I used to get a second opinion etc.). So, I'm not in the US, but it seems like this is fairly standard for procedures that are not entirely necessary from a medical standpoint (and what is necessary is often open to interpretation).

But with something like a pregnancy one obviously can't wait forever, and as mentioned before, the issue rather seems to be the lack of clinics ready to do an abortion at all. Which is a shame for a 1st world country like the US.

Whether such a waiting period or such informations are useful in general for helping people making a decision that they won't regret isn't really the argument here, though, but whether people wanting a medical procedure, as controversial as might be, should be given unscientific information.
And I see no reason why that should be.

Personally, I'd tend to be pro-choice. There are already enough humans anyway There certainly are cases in which the situation would have turned out better if the person hadn't aborted, but one can't predict that.

Also, generalizing a lot here, but either people who want to make this choice are intelligent/stable/mature enough to come to a proper decision (and should therefore be left to decide that themselves), or they are not intelligent/stable/mature enough to be expected to be good parents in any case.
And forcing someone to carry out a pregnancy they don't want will obviously lead to all kinds of bad consequences.

I wouldn't be entirely opposed to them having to talk to a psychologist first to make sure that they have thought about it and are not making too hasty a choice, but considering the general waiting periods for psychologists it seems unlikely that this could be organized in a way that doesn't lead to unreasonable waiting periods. Also, from what I hear, a lot of American psychologists seem to be religiously biased and may try to use that position to force their religious beliefs on their clients.