Fight Fire with Fire

[MRT144]

Continuing their streak of being the best, smartest, and most compassionate trolls in America, the Satanic Temple is arguing that a Missouri law requiring a 72-hour waiting period before a woman can have an abortion violates their religious faith. They’re callling on Missouri to waive the waiting period for one of their members, given that a core Satanic religious tenet is control over one’s own body.

In a fundraising video posted to GoFundMe, which we saw via ThinkProgress and the Friendly Atheist, “Damien Ba’al,” the president of the Temple’s St. Louis chapter, says that one of their members, a Missouri woman they’re calling Mary, needs to have an abortion.

“Missouri law has placed many roadblocks in her path, that threaten to deny her right to bodily autonomy,” Ba’al says. “The roadblocks that I speak of are regulations that forced the closure of abortion-providing clinics in Missouri. Planned Parenthood of St. Louis is currently the only abortion provider in the state. Not only does Mary live hundreds of miles away, but there is also a dehumanizing 72-hour waiting period between her initial appointment and the procedure itself. This means that Mary must either find lodging or make the trip twice. She does not have the means to do this.”

And she shouldn’t have to, Ba’al says; Missouri has a longstanding Religious Freedom Restoration law, similar to the ones passed this year in other states. And since Mary’s faith means complete bodily autonomy, well, Ba’al says, “I wasn’t going to stand by and let Mary’s rights be denied by the state. Myself and the rest of the St. Louis chapter of the Satanic Temple will be helping her circumvent these obstacles so that she’s able to make her own deicision about her body and her medical well-being.” They’re also protecting her “sincerely-held religious beliefs,” he adds (a key aspect of the RFRA).

The Temple is raising money on GoFundMe for transportation, lodging, meals, and care for Mary’s child while she’s away. The Friendly Atheist reports that they’ve also drawn up this letterthat Mary will present to her physician, which explains her beliefs and reminds him or her that they take precedence over the waiting period requirement.
Lucien Greaves, the Satanic Temple’s chief spokesperson, also told the Friendly Atheist that waiting periods are “insulting” to women, adding, “We created an exemption form for the waiting period that we expect Mary will deliver upon her arrival. We will seek to pursue legal action if that waiver is not respected.”

Besides the special fund for Mary, the Satanic Temple has created a Religious Reproductive Rights Legal Aid Fund, which you can donate to right here.

How soon till Christians who wanted "religious freedom" cry about how others exercise it?

[giblets]

Everyone who votes to ban abortion should be forced to adopt a foster kid

[rah]

No, they'll argue back that the waiting period doesn't deny her the right to control her body just like similar statutes that provide a waiting period before issuing a marriage license does not deny you the right to get married.

[loinburger]

I suppose you could fight fire with fire if the first fire (the "adversarial" fire) has all of its oxygen consumed by the second fire (the "benign" fire); however you'll have to make sure that the benign fire also consumes its own oxygen such that it puts itself out or at least leaves behind a smaller remnant that is easier to put out than that of the original adversarial fire, because otherwise the benign fire won't be quite so benign. For example, maybe you could put out a fire using a thermobaric bomb, but that doesn't sound like such a good idea unless you're trying to destroy everything in the vicinity of the fire, and in that case why not just let the fire take care of it for you. Or maybe you could spray a bunch of powdered lithium (or something else that reacts readily with oxygen) all over the fire - the lithium consumes the oxygen and dusts the area with inflammable lithium oxide. Dammit, we need a chemist here.

[MRT144]

No, they'll argue back that the waiting period doesn't deny her the right to control her body just like similar statutes that provide a waiting period before issuing a marriage license does not deny you the right to get married.

But there's a contender in the ring now who has the religious basis for forcing the question of "Why does your religious belief trump my religious belief?" That's a good start.

[Lorizael]

I suppose you could fight fire with fire if the first fire (the "adversarial" fire) has all of its oxygen consumed by the second fire (the "benign" fire); however you'll have to make sure that the benign fire also consumes its own oxygen such that it puts itself out or at least leaves behind a smaller remnant that is easier to put out than that of the original adversarial fire, because otherwise the benign fire won't be quite so benign. For example, maybe you could put out a fire using a thermobaric bomb, but that doesn't sound like such a good idea unless you're trying to destroy everything in the vicinity of the fire, and in that case why not just let the fire take care of it for you. Or maybe you could spray a bunch of powdered lithium (or something else that reacts readily with oxygen) all over the fire - the lithium consumes the oxygen and dusts the area with inflammable lithium oxide. Dammit, we need a chemist here.

Fighting fire with fire is quite simple, loinburger. You see, time is like a fuse, short and burning fast. Armageddon's here, like said in the past.

[rah]

But there's a contender in the ring now who has the religious basis for forcing the question of "Why does your religious belief trump my religious belief?" That's a good start.

But they'll argue that the waiting period isn't actually because of a religious belief so there isn't a question.

But yeah, I like the attitude on this one.

[loinburger]

Regarding the article, a more interesting challenge would be to say that they have a first amendment right to engage in prostitution

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, they'll argue back that the waiting period doesn't deny her the right to control her body just like similar statutes that provide a waiting period before issuing a marriage license does not deny you the right to get married.

Quite. I'm not entirely sure how one can argue a waiting period denies a person "the right to control her body".

[giblets]

Quite. I'm not entirely sure how one can argue a waiting period denies a person "the right to control her body".

You could probably say the same thing about all the other tiny obstacles they set up in their endless quest to stop people from getting abortions.

[MRT144]

But they'll argue that the waiting period isn't actually because of a religious belief so there isn't a question.

But yeah, I like the attitude on this one.

The attitude is the only thing that matters really. Secular participants in society have to compete against "firmly held religious beliefs" having inherent legal standing.

[Jon Miller]

But yeah, I like the attitude on this one.

I don't, obviously stupid stuff like this wastes everyones time.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Regarding the article, a more interesting challenge would be to say that they have a first amendment right to engage in prostitution

That would be more interesting and not such a clear waste of time.

JM

[Jon Miller]

The attitude is the only thing that matters really. Secular participants in society have to compete against "firmly held religious beliefs" having inherent legal standing.

And you have the 'firmly held religious beliefs' of atheists/etc in cases of Christmas displays/public prayer/etc.

Face it, there has been similar stuff on both sides of Christian and atheist/etc for a long time now.

We don't need either side to be doing stupid stuff like this.

JM

[MRT144]

And you have the 'firmly held religious beliefs' of atheists/etc in cases of Christmas displays/public prayer/etc.

Face it, there has been similar stuff on both sides of Christian and atheist/etc for a long time now.

We don't need either side to be doing stupid stuff like this.

JM

The atheists argument is more from the standpoint of religious establishment by the state, not favoritism of specific religious viewpoints within the law.