Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual

[Sheldon]

If I desire to remain consistent in my argument - I need to claim that “abortion” is murder.

Consistent yes, but inaccurate and false.

And again - if you were to examine all the facts about the not-yet-born and the criteria for determining which killings are “lawful” or not - the only logical conclusion is that “abortion” ia murder.

Nope, you might want to look up the law of non contradiction before you try to invoke logic, and in the same sentence you use such a clear contradiction.

All that is left is for the proper legislation.

Why? I thought you were certain it is already murder? Or was I right, and this is what you want it to be, but not in fact what it is? You seem to be defeating your own hyperbole.

And I’m sorry to bring this up again - but you believe that a man can be a woman - so you have absolutely no credibility in regards to using proper classifications or terms.

Do I? Be a dear and quote where I made this claim? I am also very dubious that you are sorry to bring it up yet again, as despite the fact it has zero relevance here, and is clearly just a piece of obvious ad hominem, that you're obviously using to avoid addressing the arguments made here.

You ignore facts in order to make your claims - while mine are based on all the facts.

Pretty ironic given your previous false claim. I've ignored no facts, and your claims are frequently inaccurate and false, like the claim abortion is murder, when you mean you want it to be murder. Or your claim abortion involves a baby, when it does not and cannot. Or your claim a developing foetus, blastocyst or zygote is not a part of a woman's body, while ignoring all the biological facts that indicate it is.

 

[Sheldon]

Even if a fetus is "alive" the women's bodily autonomy still rules. I doubt if any antiabortionist would be agreed to hooked up to a person that needed their kidney for nine months. They would think that they were within their rights to refuse such an order.

They themselves would demonstrate the folly of their arguments.

Very true, sadly as the goal posts are relentlessly shifted here, a lot of anti-choicers tend to lose sight of the fact that what I and others are defending is bodily autonomy, and the right not to be enslaved by having it removed.

 

[Sheldon]

“Emotive sophistry” intended to motivate people to examine all the facts

Facts don't involve sophistry. You seriously need to use a dictionary occasionally.

I don’t know what “superstition” you are referring to

Oh I find that claim highly dubious.

How is not allowing women to murder their children “enslaving” them?

I give up, how?

Women can do whatever they want with their bodies - until they start infringing upon the rights of others or causing serious bodily harm or death to them.

I agree, I have never suggested otherwise, and since a blastocyst or zygote, and developing foetus is part of a woman's body, I wonder what all your histrionics has been about?

You cannot claim “bodily autonomy” when you are using your body to murder other people.

Actually you probably could, I'd be surprised if the law in the US didn't allow people to defend themselves, it certainly does in the UK, but since I never said so I am wondering why you're presenting yet another irrelevant straw man?

Bodily autonomy only goes as far as your own body - and it is a scientific fact that the not-yet-born child's body is separate and distinct from their mother’s body.

No it isn't separate, and no it isn't a child, sigh. Scientific facts indeed, that's pretty funny fair play.

Just as many people have pointed out in this thread that the Constitution does not mention anyone having a “right to life” - (even though I never made such a claim) - I would like to point out that the Constitution does not mention anyone having a “right to bodily autonomy”.

Cool story, and you're telling me because???

Yet when it comes to a woman choosing “abortion” - all of a sudden - this choice is inviolate and invulnerable to any and all criticism.

Just to be clear are you now so desperate for arguments, that you're resorting to the absurd notion that all choices are equivalent? So the choice to get drunk, and then drive your car down the road at 100mph firing your semi automatic indiscriminately then, is as essential a freedom to you as deciding how your body is used?

WOW!!

 

[Sheldon]

This is just not true - and kudos for actually using the term “clump of cells” - I was waiting for that.

Oh I believe it has been demonstrated to be the case, and you're welcome, I'm glad to see accurate terminology is finally making its way into your rationale.

I have claimed multiple times that an “abortion” may be warranted if the life of the mother is in jeopardy - even though that is statistically nonexistent.

Statistically non existent? Tell me again about not ignoring facts or using inaccurate rhetoric. According to the WHO lack of access to safe, timely, affordable and respectful abortion care is a critical public health and human rights issue. It goes on to say that when people with unintended pregnancies face barriers to attaining safe, timely, affordable, geographically reachable, respectful and non-discriminatory abortion, they often resort to unsafe abortion. That is what you're advocating the US now do.

In the vast majority of “abortion” cases - over 99% - the life of the mother is not in danger.

I love the hilarity of stats made up on the spot. I also don't care, as this has nothing to do with the arguments for safe legal abortions.

So - I don’t understand how you can claim that I and others do not care about the life of the woman.

Read what the WHO organisation says above then, it's pretty definitive.

What we do claim is that the temporary inconvenience and discomfort of the woman is not equitable to the life of another human being.

I don't think you have a very good grasp of what childbirth entails, to put it mildly, and abortions involve terminating a zygote blastocyst or developing foetus, not a human being.

 

[Sheldon]

The only thing that distinguishes “abortions” from other murders is the arbitrary decision made by lawmakers to simply not classify it as such.

So it is not murder then, as I said. That is merely what anti-choicers want it to be.

 

[Sheldon]

And as history has proven - that can be changed - so there is no reason to act like it is an absolute.

No one has claimed it is an absolute, I fear religious bigotry might well win the day in some states of the US, but I am a little more confident any such laws will be overturned by federal courts and judges, especially since the majority of American, 6/10 believe legal abortions should be freely available.

 

[Sheldon]

I already covered your claims about the terms - your attempts to dehumanize the not-yet-born.

If by covered you mean doubling down on your inaccurate misrepresentation of abortions as involving babies or children, and being murder, then yes you did do that. However a blastocyst zygote or developing foetus are not a child or baby, and legal abortions are not murder, that's just what you'd like it to be.

And I just want to give you props again for using the term “clump of cells” - the balls you got to use such an outdated and asinine argument.

Thanks, here is an up to date picture for anyone who find words problematic, or confusing.

They're so cute at that age...

A toothbrush is not a complete living organism - it is not a human being - and no human being in the womb is guilty of any crime or offense.

Therefore he/she is innocent.

So what? All insentient things are innocent, that is axiomatic, they cannot be otherwise. So not only is this trivially true, it is utterly irrelevant.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
These arguments are so inaccurate they are woefully weak.

You just don’t like them.

Thanks for noticing that I dislike inaccurate and woefully weak arguments. You are correct on this at least.

 

[Sheldon]

Now you're trying to compare blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses (yes, those are the actual terms for them!) with slaves? Gimme a break.

Ah yes, his false equivalence fallacy, the logical fallacies were being used so quickly at one point I was getting dizzy. You have to admit it was pretty funny mind.

I don't think an insentient blastocyst should have rights that we don't give fully sentient human beings.

What??? You want to murder slaves???



There's a knack to using reductio ad absurdum, keep it light, levity is your friend, but above all leave the hyperbole and histrionics out.

 

[Sheldon]

First off - I have never advocated that any woman should be prosecuted for murder - let only jailed or executed.

One wonders what penalty you had in mind for having an illegal abortion? Cessation of all chocolate rations maybe, or a stern talking to?

 

[Sheldon]

My wife and I lost a child. It was horrible. It was an accident. There was nothing we could do. I will never recover from it. I expect to see his little face every morning. He would be twelve if he were alive today.

Please accept my unconditional condolences. We may disagree vehemently on this issue but that is a tragic loss.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I don't attribute malice to the common practice, I attribute malice when an emotional terminology is consistently, not only casually, used in a debate that should be sober.

OK - but what does that have to do with me?

You claimed that I was guilty of “emotionalizing the discussion by insisting on these false and imprecise terms”.

Yet - as I have proven - I did not “consistently” - or even “casually” use the term “baby” in reference to the not-yet-born child.

I did so one time and I recanted and corrected immediately after it was pointed out to me - explaining that it was a term I often use for my children - as well as my adorable wife.

However - why do you describe the term “baby” as “emotional” and claim that this debate should be “sober”?

Aren’t these just your personal feelings and preferences?

Like this one? Do you really think this should have rights you aren't even willing to grant to adult humans?

Hah! Look at that little thing! Looks like a baby rat. Cute!

I never claimed that the not-yet-born should have any rights - only that no one has the right to murder them.

I also maintain that no one has the right to murder any other innocent human being.

So - what “rights” am I somehow “granting” the not-yet-born that I am not also “willing to grant” to adult humans?

I don’t understand.

And as long as abortion is lawful, it isn't murder.

The fact that you worded your response like this is indicative that you understand that the list of what constitutes “lawful killings” is subject to change.

“As long as abortion is lawful, it isn’t murder.” (Bold and italics added)

Even though you ignored what I said about it being legal for slaveholders to kill their recaptured runaway slaves - you understand that what is or is not considered murder can change.

What if a law were passed today that stated that it was “open season” on anyone named “Chad” - killing all the Chads wouldn’t be murder?

What about all those killed by despots and dictators? The genocides and Holocaust - none of that was murder because those in power signed off on it?

You claim they are not worthy of being considered victims of murder based solely on the fact that "the powers that be" wanted them dead?

It's like you're trying to argue that an assassination isn't a murder if it's approved by some governing body - which makes no sense.

If the only criteria that separates a “lawful killing” from a murder is the “stamp of approval” from someone in power then I will maintain my position.

The killing of an already-born innocent human being is murder - therefore - the killing of a not-yet-born innocent human being is also murder.

It is the only logical conclusion.

I cannot claim that “abortions” should be considered “unlawful killings” without also claiming that they should be considered murder - since a murder is an “unlawful killing”.

My argument is not wrong just because those in power may disagree with it.

Don’t try to paint what is a “lawful killing” as some sort of absolute when you know that it is subject to change.

By using the word you are living a world of make-belief. Who is ignoring reality now?

Yikes.

Don’t say stuff like this around Sheldon and Skeptical Thinker - or any of those “gender activists” either - they believe that a man can be a woman and vice versa.

Only to keep it readable and on the point.

Or to avoid what you are unable to accept or argue against.

As I offered previously, we can go back to the tangents when we have solved the main issues.

There is really only one “main issue” here and it is that -

• It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
  
  
• Elective “abortion” intentionally kills innocent human beings.
  
  
• Therefore, elective “abortion” is wrong.

You and others maintain that the not-yet-born are innocent human beings - but that that fact does not matter for arbitrary “reasons”.

I'm glad we can agree on that at least.

We may actually disagree somewhat on this - I believe that I answered in haste without considering the words you used.

You used the word “abortion” and I interpreted that as “removal of the not-yet-born child” - and that is not accurate.

An “abortion” is a failure if the child survives the procedure because the desired outcome is the death of the child.

What I meant to say is that I agree that if the not-yet-born child possesses a clear and present risk to the life of the mother - then the best thing to do is remove the child - but I contend that any and all efforts should be made to save the child.

If the child were to die during this procedure - I would not consider it an “abortion” - because that was not the desired outcome of the procedure.

And there goes the consistency.

How so?

When have I advocated that those guilty of heinous crimes are not worthy of death?

As @SkepticThinker pointed out, you want special rights for the unborn you are not willing to grant to the born.

No.

Not-yet-born children are incapable of committing any heinous crimes worthy of death.

Any human being who has been convicted of committing heinous crimes beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law may be worthy of death.

There are no “special rights” being granted here.

You aren't pro life, you are anti abortion.

I never claimed to be “pro-life”.

You never noticed how I always put quotes around the term “pro-life” and always attributed “pro-life” stances and arguments to “”pro-life advocates”?

I also claimed multiple times that no one had a “right to life”.

And since when did “pro-life” mean “every single human being has a right to life regardless of what they do”?

Weren’t you the one who told me that the Constitution did not claim that anyone had a “right to life”?

Why are you now acting as though it does?

And even if it did - I would argue that the moment a person commits a heinous crime worthy of death - their “right to life” is forfeit.

I'm more pro life than you are.

Well - if by “pro life” you mean you want all people to remain alive regardless of what they do or who they hurt - then maybe you are - but that is a naive and unsustainable position.

I believe that innocent human beings should remain unmolested, free and alive.

I believe that those human beings guilty of committing heinous crimes worthy of death should be put to death.

I care about human life and well-being - therefore - those who have proven through their actions to be a threat to the life and well-being of others should either be separated from those they could hurt or executed.

Last time the US military was involved with protecting its citizens was over 70 years ago. Since then it has only been used to "murder" (using your diction) people all over the world.

I agree - but that is irrelevant to a nation’s need for a military.

I am against what the military has been used for recently - but I still support our need for a military.

Just like I am against what some people do with guns - but I still support the Second Amendment.

The US military spending could be cut to 1/10 and still be the biggest on the planet.

I do not believe this is accurate - and even if it were - size doesn’t matter as much today as it used to.

Imagine what you could do to incentivise women to not abort with that money.

It is a common belief among those on the Left that throwing money at a problem can magically solve it.

I don’t hold that belief.

I don’t think paying women to not murder their children is a good route to go.

Are you going to pay everyone that decides not to murder someone?

Ignoring the facts.

No - the data is clear - the cities with the strictest gun regulations are those with the highest gun violence.

And why do you believe mass shootings tend to happen only in “gun free” zones?

Crime has surged in areas where the police were defunded - so much so that local and State leaders were forced to fund them again.

COVID-19 didn't kill many children and most of them - if not all - had a pre-existing condition.

If you'd read studies by experts, not political talking points, you could become a consistent supporter of life.

If you have read those studies and have them available then providing them to me would make this an “easy win” for you - wouldn’t it?

My argument has always been that no one has the right to murder innocent human beings.

I never claimed that all people have a “right to life”.

You are erecting a strawman about me and my motivations and burning it.

It's not a good look.

 

[Heyo]

And there goes the consistency.

How so?

Killing people/human beings is wrong. That we do agree upon.

Killing is a necessary (or at least allowable) evil in actual self defence because it prevents killing of others. That we do agree upon.

Killing people because they have done bad things is OK. That is an exception you are willing to make but I am not. The people who have done bad things are not currently threatening the life of anyone (which is the criterion for self defence).
So you are willing to make exceptions. Thus you aren't consistent in your position that killing people is wrong.

Do we agree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never claimed that the not-yet-born should have any rights - only that no one has the right to murder them.

Well since they are not "people" they can't be murdered in the first place. Second no one is murdering them. They are merely being evicted. If you try to claim that they can't be evicted then you are giving them special rights.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Killing people/human beings is wrong. That we do agree upon.

Killing is a necessary (or at least allowable) evil in actual self defence because it prevents killing of others. That we do agree upon.

Killing people because they have done bad things is OK. That is an exception you are willing to make but I am not. The people who have done bad things are not currently threatening the life of anyone (which is the criterion for self defence).
So you are willing to make exceptions. Thus you aren't consistent in your position that killing people is wrong.

Do we agree?

No - we do not agree - because you are using another strawman.

I never said that killing people is wrong - that would be akin to an "everyone has a 'right to life'" argument - which I do not subscribe to.

I said that killing innocent people or human beings is wrong.

Considering that those who commit heinous crimes are no longer innocent - my position remains consistent - no exception was made.

Since the not-yet-born are always innocent - to intentionally kill them is always murder.

There are many people who commit heinous crimes - serve their time - and continue to commit heinous crimes upon their release.

There are many people who commit heinous crimes who hurt or kill other inmates while they serve their time.

I never said that the only criteria for a person to be lawfully killed was in self-defense.

I never said that a judge or jury could not judge an offender and find them worthy of death.

I really don't see how I have been inconsistent at all.

It seems like you had an image of me and what I have said in your mind that doesn't sync-up with reality.

I addressed many other things you said. Are you going to talk about any of those?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No - we do not agree - because you are using another strawman.

I never said that killing people is wrong - that would be akin to an "everyone has a 'right to life'" argument - which I do not subscribe to.

I said that killing innocent people or human beings is wrong.

Considering that those who commit heinous crimes are no longer innocent - my position remains consistent - no exception was made.

Since the not-yet-born are always innocent - to intentionally kill them is always murder.

There are many people who commit heinous crimes - serve their time - and continue to commit heinous crimes upon their release.

There are many people who commit heinous crimes who hurt or kill other inmates while they serve their time.

I never said that the only criteria for a person to be lawfully killed was in self-defense.

I never said that a judge or jury could not judge an offender and find them worthy of death.

I really don't see how I have been inconsistent at all.

It seems like you had an image of me and what I have said in your mind that doesn't sync-up with reality.

I addressed many other things you said. Are you going to talk about any of those?

Where did you get that the "yet unborn" are people?

 

[Heyo]

No - we do not agree - because you are using another strawman.

I never said that killing people is wrong - that would be akin to an "everyone has a 'right to life'" argument - which I do not subscribe to.

I said that killing innocent people or human beings is wrong.

Yep. That is the point of contention. You create a (very arbitrary) division of people and for one group killing them is OK and for the other it isn't. That is what I call inconsistent.

Considering that those who commit heinous crimes are no longer innocent - my position remains consistent - no exception was made.

Semantics. You make "innocent" more important than "person". It isn't, it's just an adjective. With the same logic I could easily argue that "not yet born" has the same condemning quality as "no longer innocent".

Since the not-yet-born are always innocent - to intentionally kill them is always murder.

The not-yet-born are actively engaging in leaching off nutrients from their host. They make them morning-sick. Innocent?

I never said that the only criteria for a person to be lawfully killed was in self-defense.

I never said that a judge or jury could not judge an offender and find them worthy of death.

I really don't see how I have been inconsistent at all.

It seems like you had an image of me and what I have said in your mind that doesn't sync-up with reality.

Yes, that may come from the fact that I never have met a person with such a screwed up logic. That's why I went back to the basics. Our primary differences are not over abortion but over how to argue.

I addressed many other things you said. Are you going to talk about any of those?

When we have agreed about how to talk.

 

[Sheldon]

Since the not-yet-born are always innocent - to intentionally kill them is always murder.

An insentient blastocyst cannot be otherwise, since the same would be true of anything that had never been sentient, your nail clippings for instance, or the cells you shed constantly. Legal abortions are not murder, by definition. So in fact you are being very inconsistent.

 

[Sheldon]

I really don't see how I have been inconsistent at all.

You keep calling legal abortions murder, even after the erroneous nature of the claim has been explained. You keep claiming a foetus or blastocyst is innocent, even though you must know that something that has never been sentient cannot be otherwise, so it's a meaningless and disingenuous attempt to appeal to emotion.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

A new human life is created at the moment of conception?

Yes - that's what conception means -

"the action of conceiving a child or of a child being conceived"

what is conception? - Search (bing.com)

"the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both"

Conception Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

"Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization."

"The entity formed by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; an embryo or zygote."

Conception | definition of conception by Medical dictionary (thefreedictionary.com)

You may find this website helpful - Conception: Timeline, Process, Signs, and Preparation (verywellhealth.com)

I will quote a couple of key points from it -

"Conception is the joining of a sperm and egg, also known as fertilization."

"Conception marks the first step toward pregnancy—the sperm and egg have joined together, creating what is known as a zygote."

"Immediately after fertilization, the egg and sperm have joined to make a single-cell embryo that is called a zygote. During this time, it divides to form a ball of cells called a blastocyst. A blastocyst is made up of an inner group of cells with an outer shell."

It is literally when human life begins - the moment of conception.

Hmm, well without implantation in the uterine wall, you haven't got anything.

What do you mean?

As I already explained above conception is when the ovum is fertilized by a sperm - creating a zygote - a child.

It is true that if the fertilized egg does not attach to the uterine wall it will not develop - but that doesn't make it "nothing".

I'm going to go back to that website I cited above - Conception: Timeline, Process, Signs, and Preparation (verywellhealth.com) to better explain this -

"After an egg is fertilized, it must implant in the lining of the uterus in order to lead to pregnancy."

A woman may not become pregnant until the fertilized egg implants in her uterine wall - debatable - but the child was already created at the moment of conception.

None of this matter to you anyway - because even if it were "something" you'd still argue that a woman can decide to murder it.

Again, you don't appear to know enough about pregnancy to get any say what other people do with their bodies.

It's clear that you don't know enough about the process.

But you seem to be a member of the "bodily autonomy" camp that believes the not-yet-born child is somehow absorbed by the mother - that they are not separate and distinct.

Is this correct?

And on top of that, you don't appear to have thought out your arguments to their logical conclusions.

How so?

Now you're trying to compare blastocysts/zygotes/fetuses (yes, those are the actual terms for them!) with slaves? Gimme a break.

I don't recall making that comparison.

I remember making a point about what constitutes a "lawful killing" has been known to change.

Today - we recognize that the killing of recaptured slaves was murder.

And I believe that sometime soon we will recognize that the killing of the not-yet-born was also murder.

You know - when you consider that the fate of not-yet-born is in the hands of someone else - they have no freedom or choice - how are the not-yet-born not like slaves?