Satanists Claim Abortion a Religious Ritual

[Clara Tea]

​

SATANISTS CLAIM ABORTION A RELIGIOUS ISSUE:

The Satanic abortion ritual provides spiritual comfort and affirms bodily autonomy, self-worth, and freedom from coercive forces with the affirmation of TST's Seven Tenets. The ritual is not intended to convince a person to have an abortion. Instead, it sanctifies the abortion process by instilling confidence and protecting bodily rights when undergoing the safe and scientific procedure.
https://announcement.thesatanictemple.com/rrr-campaign41280784

I find the music from the video a bit disturbing.

Do you think abortion should be protected as a religious right?

Satanist, President W. Bush, was against abortion. He was a Satanist at Yale's Skull and Bones. They had a Satanist bible, and practiced Satanic rituals, including stirring a cauldron of unspeakable filth, including toes of frogs, eyes of newts (not Gingrich), etc. They would say cantations calling the dark Lord, using the Latin language. President W. Bush's father (George) and grandfather (Prescott) were also members of Skull and Bones. Prescott stole the bones of Geronimo, the famous Native American, to do Black Magic and Voodoo on it.

So, not all Satanists are for abortion.

W. Bush's mom (Barbara, assuming that his mom was not George's sex fling, Jennifer Fitzgerald) was for abortion. But I assumed that he was too big to stuff him back in, then abort him.

W. Bush's brother was the false prophet, who claimed that God had told him that hurricanes wouldn't hit Florida while he was governor (hurricanes did hit, so he said that they destroyed trailer trash people).

W. Bush claimed to "fight evil." God, on the other hand said "thou shalt not kill."

I got the feeling that W. Bush didn't value human life. He had a look-alike dummy land a look alike helicopter before he landed, in order to assassinate another human being, rather than himself. He mocked death row inmates, and rejected DNA proof of innocence.

 

[Clara Tea]

They're not implying it's sacrifice. You are.

Firstly and most importantly, it's a right. Context over content.

How can rejoining God be considered a sacrifice. You get to spend eternity with the Guy who doesn't mind sending souls to the fires of hell for all eternity for the sin of not believing in Him while He hides.

 

[Clara Tea]

I don't think that's always true. I know for a lot of folks who take that option, it is an agonizing decision, but is far less traumatic than going through with the pregnancy.

Men (and women) vote against abortion, then women are stuck with the decision. Armchair generals (couch potatos) vote to save fetuses, but kill teen soldiers ("fightin' evil") who are too young to vote.

Are rights of a fetus at stake? When does life begin? Conception? Birth? Somewhere in between at first brain activity? Should we save the lives of sperm and unfertilized eggs? Millions of sperm exist.

Many claim Christians moral, yet, many fail to practice Christianity.

 

[Clara Tea]

Really? So Nakosis completely misrepresented people as per you by saying "one", not both.

Strange.

Homeland Security's Government Misinformation Board was just given power to remove or alter forum posts that "might" compromise national security (defined by them, of course). Republicans have already taken away internet gambling (said to be sinful and against Christian values, though they want to lower taxes because people should decide how to spend their own money), and prevented redress of grievances to sue an HMO (Constitution says that suing is an unalienable right).

I assume that this new censorship board could remove unproven religious posts that are not proven. God can't be proven to exist, so I assume that one must not discuss religion (contrary to the First Amendment's freedom of Religion).

If we lose free speech and free press, we automatically lose freedom of religion.

 

[Clara Tea]

It's not essential that you kill anyone.

Many want to meet God. Some wish to speed the encounter.

 

[firedragon]

Homeland Security's Government Misinformation Board was just given power to remove or alter forum posts that "might" compromise national security (defined by them, of course). Republicans have already taken away internet gambling (said to be sinful and against Christian values, though they want to lower taxes because people should decide how to spend their own money), and prevented redress of grievances to sue an HMO (Constitution says that suing is an unalienable right).

I assume that this new censorship board could remove unproven religious posts that are not proven. God can't be proven to exist, so I assume that one must not discuss religion (contrary to the First Amendment's freedom of Religion).

If we lose free speech and free press, we automatically lose freedom of religion.

Irrelevant.

 

[Clara Tea]

Oh he likes to pluck stats out of thin air sometimes, it's pretty funny tbh.

Everyone knows that 99.79% of stats are made up on the spot...

50% use stats correctly, and 75% use them incorrectly.

 

[Clara Tea]

Irrelevant.

Silencing religion (using the power of the government) is not irrelevant to any discussion of religion.

 

[Clara Tea]

Ironically one of the pictures I saw was an ad featuring "Christina Model". She had a short career in erotica. Mostly when she was underaged but did no nudity.

EDIT: A safe example of her early work:

That was probably the image I saw. Another that would be pushing the line has her in a T shirt with the caption " Admit it. You would go to jail for this ".

Having just won to end her conservatorship (so she could make her own decisions), she posed nude. Is that any different that the many other famous women who recently posed nude? Is she crazy for doing it? Even the actress playing Captain Marvel (Brie Larsen) posed nude in hard core porn positions.

Is nudity less moral that war (thou shalt not kill, God says).

 

[firedragon]

Silencing religion (using the power of the government) is not irrelevant to any discussion of religion.

Irrelevant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Having just won to end her conservatorship (so she could make her own decisions), she posed nude. Is that any different that the many other famous women who recently posed nude? Is she crazy for doing it? Even the actress playing Captain Marvel (Brie Larsen) posed nude in hard core porn positions.

Is nudity less moral that war (thou shalt not kill, God says).

I think that you are conflating Christina Model with Britney Spears. I was not talking about Britney at all.

EDIT: As for Brie Larson (note spelling) I have my doubts about your claim. There are tons of celebrity fakes out there. Name me any famous female and I would have a very good chance of finding pictures claimed to be of her. Some of the fakes are better than others. Even weirder there is the ability to do "Deep Fakes" of almost any one. I am unsure of the details but almost anyone can get the software that allows one to do this with anyone. Have some pictures of an old girlfriend? You can make a porn movie starring her using some other porn actress.

 

[Sheldon]

Ignoring the obvious doesn't help your cause.

Glad to see you've finally realised this.

Now do you accept that victims of rape who become pregnant have done nothing at all to cause it, and that your claim below was appallingly wrong?

Wildswanderer said: ↑
If a baby is occupying your body, you did something to cause that situation.

Only you lecturing others on ignoring facts, is pretty ironic given you made this claim, and have since failed to recant it, instead resorting to falsely accusing others of aiding rapists, and brandishing fake stats that have no relevance to your claim.

 

[Sheldon]

How is she the victim in the other 99 percent? The baby is then the victim. Why do you focus on the tiny percentage instead of the vast majority of abortions that are simply for convenience?

Your handily made up stat is of course hilarious, but it's not what you claimed is it.

Wildswanderer said: ↑
If a baby is occupying your body, you did something to cause that situation.

See, it's an absolute claim, no mention of rape, or abortion there. Not only that but several posters asked you specifically about rape. and you resorted to dishonestly attacking them. I'm afraid people will have to draw a pretty obvious inference.

 

[Sheldon]

Your blatant words and inability to answer for them. The percentage is irrelevant.

It's also made up, and obviously wrong, since his claim was an absolute one.

 

[Sheldon]

No, it's about taking the life of another human being. That's not her body.
Killing isn't a right.

The other "life" is part of her body, that's axiomatic, but we have seem you claim women who become pregnant through rape have "done something to cause it", so it's pretty clear you value a clump of insentient cells above a woman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You know that abortion empowers rapists and molesters, right? Get her pregnant, send her to the clinic or get a pill, and you are free to rape again. Why are you arguing for helping rapists cover their tracks?

Your line of thought is extremely disturbing.

Do you even see women as humans?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How is she the victim in the other 99 percent? The baby is then the victim. Why do you focus on the tiny percentage instead of the vast majority of abortions that are simply for convenience?

We are just looking to see if we can at least find some common ground in the case of rape victims - no matter what percentage they account for.

In truth, for me at least, the reason / motivation for why a woman might want an abortion is not important nor relevant.

Human rights are unconditional.
When you require a kidney and I am a match and you ask me to donate a kidney, I get to say "no" without having to explain myself. My body, my choice.

Let's go further with less invasive procedures.
If you are in need of blood, a question of life or death, and I for some reason am the only one with the correct blood type and you ask me to donate blood - I also get to say "no" without having to explain myself. My body, my choice.

Why would a uterus be any different?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Glad to see you've finally realised this.

Now do you accept that victims of rape who become pregnant have done nothing at all to cause it, and that your claim below was appallingly wrong?



Only you lecturing others on ignoring facts, is pretty ironic given you made this claim, and have since failed to recant it, instead resorting to falsely accusing others of aiding rapists.

The problem with some fundamentalist Christians is that the Bible blames the victim, at least in the city, if they do not yell out when attacked. Which is unforgivable.

 

[Heyo]

How is she the victim in the other 99 percent? The baby is then the victim. Why do you focus on the tiny percentage instead of the vast majority of abortions that are simply for convenience?

Do I need to join the crowd in bashing you? Well, yes, because I see it as a public service to teach people on debate channels how to debate. If you have been caught in a false statement, admit it and let the debate carry on.

But that has been said and isn't my main point. The point I want to make is the fallacy in your 99% argument.
Suppose there is a paternity test with 99% accuracy and since it's cheap, courts have to use it by law. Suppose further that a woman claims you are the father of her child and test result is positive. Would you rather a) pay child support for the next 18 years or b) require the law to be changed?
You are only a 1% statistic after all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Human rights are unconditional.
...

What do you mean by unconditional?