Satan Goes To The Supreme Court

PUBLISHED: 1:21 AM 25 Jan 2018

Satanic Temple Member Sues Missouri Over Abortion Pamphlet Requirement

The pamphlet deeply offended her Satanic beliefs.

A member of the Satanic Temple was offended by what she received when she went to Planned Parenthood for her abortion.

A lawsuit has been filed in the state of Missouri by a member of the Satanic Temple. The anonymous plaintiff has brought her case before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Mary Doe has successfully completed an abortion service provided by Planned Parenthood, where the state’s Department of Health and Senior Services provides a pamphlet that informs individuals that life begins at conception.

Doe claims that the pamphlet somehow violates her religious beliefs as a Satanist. It is widely known that lower level enlistments to the Church of Satan believe that Satanism is actually a group of atheists or those who do not believe in God. Can someone who claims no belief in any deity still be considered part of a religion?

Still, it is unclear how an opposing view violates someone’s belief system. It may be found to oppose one’s belief or offend someone. If she indeed executed the abortion procedure, where is the violation of beliefs? She was not required to agree and was obviously not inhibited in her actions or beliefs. The state attorney general’s office argued that religious freedom laws do not apply in this case. One could make scientific arguments for life at conception, after all.

The Church of Satan is the same organization that planned to install a statue of Baphomet, the half-goat hermaphroditic idol, near the Oklahoma capitol monument of the Ten Commandments. Similarly, in Minnesota, the Satanic Temple installed their own religious veteran’s memorial after the town approved a memorial with a cross on it.

Abortion advocates continue to push the issue of conception and murder, with gross arguments for infanticide. Liberal activists propose the practice of ‘after-birth’ abortion up to age two, for various unscientific reasons. These are claims that can rebut with simple human contact with a one or two-year-old child, who can respond to stimuli and react to pain.

A Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University first suggested that a baby is not considered a person until after 30 days. In Singer’s 1979, Practical Ethics, he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

Additional arguments centered on concepts of self-awareness or self-understanding also seem to inform this movement. Contemporary philosophies in ontology and even some thinkers within the neurosciences attempt to discredit self or subject centered knowledge in itself. Indeed, some religions consider the self to be an illusion.

The Journal of Medical Ethics published an article entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?” which claimed newborns are not real people and have not “moral right to life.” The article called babies “potential persons.” This sort of dehumanization is what has caused many to turn away from propaganda designed to blur the line between conception and person-hood.

Planned Parenthood is reported to have performed 321,384 abortions last year. The agency continues to find its numbers dropping, and have had its federal funds reduced. Additionally, bills have been introduced to block all funding from the federal government. The nation’s largest provider of abortions continues to see the number of patients decrease annually.

Last year, Planned Parenthood also found itself the subject of several James O’Keefe and Project Veritas’ undercover investigations. Hidden camera videos showed officials high in the organization selling baby parts and discussing harvesting techniques that would preserve the fetus, thereby making it more valuable.

It is well-known that your local fire station has a ‘baby box,’ where anyone can drop off a baby without any questions or paperwork. The idea is that it releases the pressure one might feel momentarily and reduces the number of babies that are found abandoned in dumpsters and other places. For some, it seems adoption services or responsible action is just too much to ask.

There really is no need to murder a newborn, and there certainly is no justification by arguing to abstractions such as the self or time consciousness. These sorts of rationalizations are just the kind of ambiguous ethical arguments that the Church of Satan uses to fool their followers into believing in hedonistic philosophies. The thing is, no one knows for certain if God does or does not exist. There is no ultimate proof either way. Similarly, the moment of life or the imbuement of self is just as ephemeral. Maybe that is not a coincidence.