The logic or the fairness don’t concern me - I get it and I like it.
But (ideally) women, men, and children should have equal secular protection for their rights irregardless of religious belief.
I just think it would be nicer if we could use a tactic to empower women that didn’t risk positive legislation, court precedents, or a general empowering in favor of people who believe in sky-fairies.
So do I, but that’s simply no longer an option. The supreme court has ruled that your rights and responsibilities are only mandatory if you’re honest enough to not pretend you know things you can’t possibly know.
Crazy days.
Don’t think for a second I’d be beyond hiding under the guise of religious freedom to enjoy some agency either but The Handmaidens Tale is still fresh in my mind…
How is this the first time this has been argued?
It’s such an obvious counter-punch I can’t believe it hasn’t been used before.
It almost seems like every secular issue should always be fought on a parallel,
religious-freedom track. There’s just no downside.
Any limitation that is imposed on the religious track will potentially be a precedent
that could be used to hinder the religious right.
It takes a lot of time for things to get through the courts.
I remember hearing about a case like this at least a year ago. It could even be this case, or it might have been dismissed.
Uterine wall, not vaginal wall. Vaginal wall would not be a good place for an embryo to adhere.
No brain, no baby. It’s as simple as that. When I run for President, that’ll be my official position.
Now define “brain”. Be aware that this is a disputed question amongst neuroscientists.
No involuntary births, no exceptions.
Yep. They are doing the Lord’s work.
I believe the Vatican retreated from the idea that the soul enters at the time of fertilisation some while ago. The dividing cells can still split into identical twins or triplets for the first few days, so the number of souls in the mass of cells is not countable by earthly means.
That’s bonkers logic, but fun bonkers logic. This isn’t.
I see it as a [-1 + 1 = 0] kind of thing.
In other words, ReligionA thinks abortion=bad. Ok, fine; let’s go with that. But wait, ReligionB thinks abortion=good (or, at least, !bad. I don’t believe any woman decides on an abortion just for shits and giggles, or the lulz.). Ok, fine; let’s go with … oooooooh. Stupid belief is canceled by other belief. Or “belief” - it doesn’t matter. So, the final ruling can be said to be based on religious beliefs, but because those beliefs cancel each other, the net effect is no ruling. Which in turn implies that the decision will either be negated, or will be forced to be based on some other - non-religious - grounds.
Unless Missouri doubles down and just comes out and says they’re a xtian theocracy … but a move like that might have some blowback.
Rolling forward I don’t see a downside; if the same religious-based reasoning is applied to any other ruling (firearms control? Cannabis? Child abuse? Home schooling … but I repeat myself 
) then the same [-1 + 1 = 0] logic applies, effectively taking religion off the table as the basis for legal rulings. This is a Good Thing™.
This is the blowback. The religious right has held sway over public policy since the first white man set foot on this continent. Thankfully, some of them saw fit to include equal protection which means gay marriage and religious recognition and protection for Satanists.
I don’t agree that the Satanic Church’s argument for religious rights is actually going to reinforce “based on religious grounds” laws in the future. The Satanist’s legal arguments actively undermine the value of these laws to the religious rights groups that push them. Future conservative lawmakers will need to read their laws from a “What would Satan do?” perspective.
Insert Monty Pythons ‘Every Sperm is Sacred’ song
I infer that you must be a Trump opponent, seeing as:
a) he has no brain
b) he is a baby
and thus he clearly contravenes your rule.
I would like to see a pregnant woman sue her own fetus for control of her own body in one of these “personhood” jurisdictions. Let the fetus’ crack team of Liberty U lawyers attempt to argue in court that it has the right to force a woman to carry it to term. I believe that would settle this once and for all.
I’m just waiting for some Dominionist legislator try to pass a bill in Missouri not recognizing Satanism as a religion. Remember, this is the same state that hounded a guy that was pro-religious freedom (he was one of John Ashcroft’s staff from when he was the state’s AG) because he decided to defend the religious rights of Muslims in the state.
Knowing Dominionists they would probably go full on into the whole theocracy thing where women are just chattel slaves to their husbands or fathers. I use to be in that crowd in the 90s (oh my teenage years were weird) and they really wanted to do that back then (and what I’ve read they still want to do it now).
Huh. Didn’t think of that. Must ponder…
