Satanic Temple seeks Hobby Lobby-style exemption from anti-abortion laws

[kut2k2]

It would appear that "the Satanic Temple added that all women who share their belief that the "body is inviolable subject to one's own will alone" — and not merely temple members — should be free to claim the exemption" include women who are not members of any religion at all.

There was another report of an Islamic business that wanted to require all its female employees to wear the head covering. Why not? I'd love to see the SC hoisted on this issue.

You and me both. What a bunch of sanctimonious pricks.

 

[dbphoenix]

I didn't know that the right to life was a religious matter. I thought that all babies independent to their faith or lack of (as if we could know), were entitled to a chance to be born.

Depends on whether or not one characterizes jelly as a baby. If so, one can carry the argument further to claim that women are guilty of abortion by menstruating, or that men are equally guilty by jacking off into their handkerchiefs.

If right-to-lifers want to do something useful with their religious beliefs, what about protesting the killing of real children, every day, in these endless wars? Now that might be useful.

 

[Wallet]

Depends on whether or not one characterizes jelly as a baby. If so, one can carry the argument further to claim that women are guilty of abortion by menstruating, or that men are equally guilty by jacking off into their handkerchiefs.

If right-to-lifers want to do something useful with their religious beliefs, what about protesting the killing of real children, every day, in these endless wars? Now that might be useful.

By weeks 9-10 (during the first trimester, when most consider it ok to abort) that fetus has developed arms, legs, unique finger prints, a brain, reflexes, etc... wouldn't necessarily call that jelly....... your argument is one of degree, not kind.

I don't know of any right to life advocate that isn't appalled by any act of violence to any child. However they see unborn babies in the same light as those born, with the exception they (unborn children) have no way to argue in their defense.

Obviously you don't share their compassion, but again, why does that make the right-to-life crowd bad?

 

[dbphoenix]

By weeks 9-10 (during the first trimester, when most consider it ok to abort) that fetus has developed arms, legs, unique finger prints, a brain, reflexes, etc... wouldn't necessarily call that jelly....... your argument is one of degree, not kind.

I don't know of any right to life advocate that isn't appalled by any act of violence to any child. However they see unborn babies in the same light as those born, with the exception they (unborn children) have no way to argue in their defense.

Obviously you don't share their compassion, but again, why does that make the right-to-life crowd bad?

"Bad" doesn't enter into it. Just hypocritical. If R2Ls are so compassionate, why aren't they lining up at adoption centers?

At bottom, none of these endless arguments have anything to do with R2L; they have to do with controlling women, which has been high on the agenda since Adam smacked Eve for tempting him to eat that apple.

 

[Wallet]

"Bad" doesn't enter into it. Just hypocritical. If R2Ls are so compassionate, why aren't they lining up at adoption centers?

At bottom, none of these endless arguments have anything to do with R2L; they have to do with controlling women, which has been high on the agenda since Adam smacked Eve for tempting him to eat that apple.

Hypocritical? Maybe in your eyes, and evident in your opinion by your sexist remarks.

Adoption? Many do, even more who are actively involved in pro-life centers help assist in adoption placement services. When a person or group, narrows their field of service to effectively help a select other group in need, are they hypocritical if they are unable or don't help everyone? It doesn't mean they are not concerned, at least they are actively involved.

Controlling women has absolutely nothing to do with RTL, that's laughable. It's exactly as it is worded, a baby has a fundamental "RIGHT to LIFE" .

 

[dbphoenix]

Hypocritical? Maybe in your eyes, and evident in your opinion by your sexist remarks.

Adoption? Many do, even more who are actively involved in pro-life centers help assist in adoption placement services. When a person or group, narrows their field of service to effectively help a select other group in need, are they hypocritical if they are unable or don't help everyone? It doesn't mean they are not concerned, at least they are actively involved.

Controlling women has absolutely nothing to do with RTL, that's laughable. It's exactly as it is worded, a baby has a fundamental "RIGHT to LIFE" .

It has everything to do with it. Why else is it okay to throw a woman in jail for having a miscarriage but it's so difficult to charge, try, and convict the man who raped her and put her in that position? Where's the R2L of those who sit on Death Row? And why is this R2L limited only to humans? Because we have dominion over the earth?

The moral howdoyoudo of the R2Ls does not impress me.

 

[Ricter]

Depends on whether or not one characterizes jelly as a baby. If so, one can carry the argument further to claim that women are guilty of abortion by menstruating, or that men are equally guilty by jacking off into their handkerchiefs.

If right-to-lifers want to do something useful with their religious beliefs, what about protesting the killing of real children, every day, in these endless wars? Now that might be useful.

"Every sperm is sacred." - Monty Python.

 

[futurecurrents]

"When a sperm is wasted God gets quite irate."

It makes sense. God is Nature and Nature wants us to make as many of us as possible.

God must be pissed at me.....

 

[dbphoenix]

"When a sperm is wasted God gets quite irate."

It makes sense. God is Nature and Nature wants us to make as many of us as possible.

God must be pissed at me.....

Nature must like to play Gotcha!, which is why I enjoyed Life After People so much.