The Satanist woman has won the right to have her case transferred to the Missouri SSC and claims that her religious (and a number of others') beliefs are being violated by the Missouri law and: "argued that her religion does not adhere to the idea that life begins at conception, and, because of that, the prerequisites for an abortion in Missouri are unconstitutionally violating her freedom of religion protected by the First Amendment." Also, because the law requires women to read from a booklet which claims: “[t]he life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.” ........which is the very point in contention, her position is that: “Because the law does not recognize or include other beliefs, that it establishes an official religion and makes clear that the state disapproves of her beliefs.” So basically, she's saying that laws like this are an attempt to establish religious supremecy. I think she's going to win this case and it's up to her opponents if they want to risk taking this beyond the Missouri SSC and up through the District, Appeals and USSC path? http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article177663856.html
Hope she wins her case.......the idiots in Missouri who passed that asinine law should be brought to heel....
Good. It exposes the law for what it truly is, and potentially removes another weapon from the forced-birth fetishists legislative arsenal.
Regardless of where you stand on the issue, I find her argument very interesting if not compelling. I would have thought that lawmakers would consult their attorneys before drafting these laws, if only to reign in the costs of defending them when challenged. Especially since it's taxpayer money they are spending on cases that have, realistically, already been adjudicated by the USSC.
that's what I said: "".......the idiots in Missouri who passed that asinine law should be brought to heel....""
It's a good argument to say the least. Chances are it won't work but it's still a pretty good argument. Still the booklet might actually be a violation of the constitution.
I'm failing to see how this is a religious issue. Science has determined that a single cell organism is "life", so using that logic it kind of dictates when life starts. There is no religious bent on this issue. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/intro-to-biology/what-is-biology/a/what-is-life
Well you could say that if a virus causes a wart to grow on a woman's hand it's "life" but you wouldn't stop her going to a dermatologist to have it removed?
True, and you could say that if you don't want the burden of caring for it and it making your life or anyone else life hell you should remove it from existence. Of course I'm referring to a major criminal, and I would be called a murder in turn. Funny how excuses work.
You are correct, for some reason "science" hasn't determined when "life" (pertaining to an unborn child) starts, but they sure know life when they see it. Many single celled organisms are considered life in the scientific community though. Now why "science" can define and has defined a single celled organism as life for decades, but has issues with a cluster of cells I don't understand. You want to dispute that science doesn't consider many single celled organisms life, I suggest you look it up. Then look up the definition of "science denier".
Something may have "life" but that doesn't make it A "life" as in A human being or A person. Simply being alive doesn't grant rights, one has to be born to have rights. You want the fetus to have MORE rights than anyone else.
I am very much pro death penalty for murderers, rapists, child molesters and people who torture other people or animals.
A new human (or non human animal) life begins at fertilization. That doesn't mean it can't be killed before it's born.
That's not the issue, the issue is life beginning at conception. That's a religious argument, and if so qualifies as an infringement of rights.
Kranes56 said: ↑ It's a good argument to say the least. Chances are it won't work but it's still a pretty good argument. Still the booklet might actually be a violation of the constitution.""""""""" FoxHastings:Yes, FORCING someone to read about their LEGAL surgery when NO ONE ELSE has to is unconstitutional. You brought up the booklet, I commented on it...
I read a while back about a group of Satanists that intentionally got one of their members pregnant so they could have a ritual sacrifice (abortion). I wonder if that would violate their religious rights to tell them they're not allowed to do that.
Thats interesting... pro-lifers as 'fetishists'. fet·ish ˈfediSH/ noun 1. a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc. "Victorian men developed fetishes focusing on feet, shoes, and boots" synonyms: fixation, obsession, compulsion, mania; More 2. an inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit. synonyms: juju, talisman, charm, amulet Would you say that all the religious/spiritual folk that believe humans have a metaphysical or supernatural energy, commonly called a spirit or a soul, are 'fetishists'?
Ya, I can see where wanting to force women to give birth as a punishment for having sex can be called a fetish, I think Anti-Choicers get off on forcing women to do anything period, like rapists.
Hypothetical for the forced birth fetishists to ponder: You're trapped in a burning fertility clinic with an infant. You can either rescue the infant, or the 1,000 FERTILIZED VIABLE embryos the clinic houses. Which do you choose to save and why?
I don't think abortion has anything to do with religion and I don't agree with the severe restrictions some of these backwards states try to uphold, but I did read about this case with some interest because of it's use of religion as a "get out of something I don't like" card in a way that differs from it's normal usage. Public reaction to her attempt will reveal quite a bit about the true nature of feelings on religious freedom in this country. I'm sure that there are plenty of folks who stood up for people like Kim Davis who are seething at the use of religion in this particular case, missing the irony entirely of being against a use of religion to circumvent laws.
