Abortion: A Satanic Perspective

With recent news both good and bad, abortion has been on the minds of many, myself included. In Missouri, the abortion restrictions are being challenged in a case being heard by the state Supreme Court. In bad news on the national level, a twenty week ban has been proposed.

I’m going to explain here why I have come to a few conclusions. First, that while abortion affects women far more, it is an issue for everyone, even gay and asexual men. Second, that it seeks to enforce a religious opinion upon women. Third, that it violates the first amendment rights of everyone. Finally, that it amounts to the state telling people what they must think. This means that there can be no wavering on this issue.

Frequently in debates people want to conflate what “life” means. Life in general, as in just being alive is conflated with sentient life. Everything with human DNA is human, and sex cells are alive long before they ever join, and all the ones that never join are alive at some point. Despite the conflation, we only mean sentience.

There are no facts as to when human life reaches the point of sentience. In science, there is no point where sentience “happens”. We can be nearly certain that it is sentient when it is viable, and it being a separate life dependent on no other for a life support system, makes it a moot point at that stage anyway. However, prior to that point, there are not any actual facts about when it becomes a person.

The beginning of life is a religious opinion. Various religions have all sorts of different opinions on when life begins. Some religions believe in a soul, and think it joins with the body at one stage or another. Other religions don’t believe in souls, and look to brain development.

While the total lack of a religion is not a religion, it is an opinion that religion is unnecessary. So even people like that have a religious opinion of sorts, that being that the views of organized groups have no bearing on their opinions.

With the beginning of life being a matter of opinion, there can be no mandate on non-viable fetuses, or human tissue of earlier stages. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and the opinion of all must be respected.

If one is opposed to abortion, then it is their right to not even consider abortion during their pregnancy. If someone feels abortion is acceptable up to a certain point, then they should be able to do that. If someone feels it is all right at any point, that should be fine as well.

This is simplified to choice. As life is a religious opinion, and everyone has freedom of religion and a right to their opinion, each given person should be able to decide what to do about a pregnancy. Any restriction on abortion is a denial of religious opinion, in favor of a state-mandated religious opinion.

Abortion, like birth control, is part of family planning. When people are going to have children, decisions about when to have them, and how to plan a family, are deeply personal opinions. Sometimes these views may be religious or cultural, but they are always personal. Any abortion restriction amounts to the state enforcing a family planning opinion. They are saying that your family planning must have a chance of random children in the event of unintended conception.

The decision of whether or not to have children at all, is a personal decision, and a matter of opinion. Abortion restrictions are telling you that you must accept a chance of having children, regardless of your opinion on that matter. One should be entitled to their own opinion, as we are in all other personal matters, whether or not one ever has any children.

The meaning and significance of sex and sexuality are usually the most personal opinions one has. They are sometimes cultural and/or religious as well. Some people may see it as sacred, only for couples to have kids, and that it involves the approval of a deity, some see it as nothing but a biological function, and a multitude of opinions lie in between.

Abortion restrictions are always predicated on one accepting a chance of children when engaging in sexual activity. It is frequently stated that people should not have sex at all if they do not want children. This not only dictates sexual behavior, but also the significance and meaning one must place on sex and sexuality.

We cannot allow any restrictions at all on abortion because of the bodily autonomy of women and trans men. Even if one does not care about others, it is still important, even for gay and asexual men.

When abortion is restricted in any way, the state is mandating a few different opinions. It is saying that life begins at conception or other point they have determined, that family planning must allow for children from unintended pregnancies, that any sexual activity must have some chance of children, that abstaining from sex is the only way not to have children, that sex carries a minimum level of significance and meaning.

Abortion restrictions are ultimately a state-mandate on what we think regarding our most personal opinions. While it isn’t possible to directly mandate thought, abortion restrictions are predicated on beliefs, which are all opinions, all deeply personal in nature, and the effects of which are identical to that of people who share those state-mandated beliefs.

By being forced to act in accordance with a set of state-mandated beliefs, our beliefs on those points are being overridden. Usually laws are not entirely devoid of all objective fact, whether right or wrong, and based entirely on opinions. In no other case are laws based on nothing but opinions, when all the opinions are religious, cultural, and personal, and ones that are so deeply held.

With choice everyone has a right to their opinion, their own beliefs about the most personal elements of one’s life. Any restriction to that is the state dictating what the beliefs of everyone must be. Lawmakers and lobbyists are legislating their religious beliefs, forcing them off on all of us.

Women and trans men bear the greatest burden, as it is an assault on their bodily autonomy. It is also an assault on our most personal beliefs about the beginning of life, and the significance and meaning of sex and sexuality.

Even if you just consider people who favor some sort of abortion restriction, what they are saying is that their opinion should override the opinions of other people. They are for the state forcing other people to live as if they share those opinions, regardless of the opinions held by everyone else.

I’m not going to “respect” the opinion of someone, when that opinion, is that their opinions on the most deeply personal matters must override the opinions of everyone else, via a state mandate. They are saying they think everyone else must be forced to live as if they share opinions contrary to the ones they actually have.

If someone has no respect for the most personal beliefs of others, and thinks the state should force them to live in accordance with different beliefs, on matters that are entirely subjective, with no objective component at all, then I have no reason to respect any of their opinions at all. I also refuse to accept a view that some group of people doesn’t get the same level of bodily autonomy.

Any views favoring any abortion restrictions are an opinion against the most fundamental human rights of others. It is a view that some get less bodily autonomy than others, and that everyone must live as if they accept a set of fundamental beliefs about life, sexuality, and the very essence of what it is to be human, that contradict the beliefs they actually hold.

Additional Thoughts:

The abortion issue being so contentious, has nothing to do with aborting fetuses. It is about the fundamental beliefs we have about what it is to be human, and the meaning of life. One group of people feels that everyone has a set of beliefs and their own understanding of what it means to be human, and what the meaning of life is. Another group of people feels that the existence of opinions outside a particular range, regarding what it means to be human and the meaning of life, are intolerable, as such beliefs are an offense to their concept of life and to their deity, who allegedly shares that view. They feel the remedy is to force all others into behaviors consistent with their acceptable range of beliefs on the aforementioned things.

For Completeness:

For the sake of completeness, it is worth circling back to another point I did not work into the essay. This is more typically where I go when arguing on this topic, but I wanted to get right into the points I planned on digging into.

In no other circumstance, can the body of one person be used to keep another person alive. Without consent, you cannot take organs or even blood from someone, even if it saves the life of another.

Without consent you cannot even take blood or organs from a corpse, even to save a living person. So by that standard, you do not even need to get into points about religious opinion. The only reason I did was because people who want to override the opinions of others, always demand respect for their opinion that other people do not get an opinion.

Baphomet: The Altered Narrative

I am quite happy with The Narrative of Baphomet, and will not be revising it. However, the later part of the narrative can be explained just as well in a different way. This new way of stating it, will now be the way the UAoS states it, going forward. It goes along very nicely with the Purpose And Core Values and The Baphomet Principle. With these things in place, no endorsements are required. If you go to The Narrative of Baphomet in The Satanic Narratives, you will notice a paragraph that starts the same as the first paragraph below. That is when you switch from the published Narrative of Baphomet to this.

This brings us to an understanding, where we can have certain moral truths. These truths can be expressed in a code of ethics. You can also express them with greater precision, by simply going over the fundamental concepts that are the pillars of modern secular ethics.

Arguably the most important thing is a pair of concepts that go together. These important ethical concepts are consent and bodily autonomy. Consent, permission, or willingness are subtly different ways of expressing desire and intention.

These concepts are critical in regard to a number of things, but happen to go well with bodily autonomy. One’s body and making decisions about that body are fundamental and prerequisite to many other things. One may be unable to provide consent due to illness, being unconscious, age, or cognitive disability. Most of the time people are able to make such a decision and having that choice is fundamental to all ethical concerns.

Being able to decide for yourself varies in importance depending on what it is, with one’s body being the most critical. You cannot really have any other freedom without a right to your body and your life. No one can ever violate the body of another without violating an ethical foundation central to the legal code of any modern, civilized society.

This brings us to personal freedom. Maximizing one’s personal freedoms should be the goal, and in conjunction with that, one must respect the personal freedoms of another. Taken in conjunction with the first pair, that means no one gets to tell you what to do with your body. It also means you must respect the body of another, and listen to their wishes.

Personal freedoms are not limited to something as basic as people themselves. It also covers speech, religion, and more. One has a right to one’s freedoms and an obligation to respect the freedoms of others.

Admitting and correcting mistakes is another basic concept. No one is perfect. Apologies and forgiveness will always be needed. Not every situation where there is conflict is going to call for it, but some of them will. This is a situation where there must be mutual consent.

The final idea is that these basic concepts here, regardless the form or forms they may come in, are always superior to any written code. No legal system of any kind can take precedence over these fundamental concepts.

The raw moral feelings and reason combine to give us these concepts. One can also consider these concepts in the context of one’s raw moral feelings, and then apply reason again. In this way, one shapes their ethics and morality.

Associations and Terminology


So the “non-theist” thing is going on again. It has an ebb and flow. It’s the same as “atheist”, meaning everyone outside the criteria of theist (I say everyone as the ist suffix is the personal form of the word). They are just taking a Greek root word with the Greek prefix meaning ‘everything other than the root word’, and changing it to the Latin prefix meaning the exact same thing. It’s the same thing as referring to plants that use reproductive methods other than sexual, as non-sexual instead of asexual.

While some people try to say there is a difference in meaning, usually people admit that it is just because “atheist” has certain associations and a cultural identity, and non-theist doesn’t as it was a fairly recently coined term.

One group that has been using this is American Humanists. I can kind of see their point. It’s still pandering because they are saying they are non-theist, while at the same time including people who identify as atheists in that, just because some take issue with the associations of the word “atheist”.

I find it silly, but if I was in charge of American Humanists, I’d be on the fence. They can use “non-theist” so as to avoid having to discuss the distinction from certain kinds of atheists. When identifying as atheist, one has to contend with associations of the fedora-wearing neckbeard who spews hate at any and all religious people. So I can see their point.

With The Satanic Temple, who is the other prominent group using the term “non-theist”, I don’t get it at all. It’s a very different situation than with the American Humanists, although the reasoning is the same. A few might try act like the meaning is different, but generally it’s about the cultural identity and not contending with those associations.

TST spends a lot of time on the term “Satanist” though. They do identify with that, as a Satanic organization, and defend the use of the term. So they have articles at length addressing the associations of “Satanist” from various sources. There are the really nasty Satanic Panic associations about child/animal sacrifice, and that conspiracy theory stuff. Then there are associations with theistic Satanism, including actual theistic organizations. Then there is the Church of Satan, and all those associations. These are deeply ingrained, and many people have quite a reaction to any word with “Satan” as part of it.

They can do all of that stuff, with Herculean effort, countering the most awful associations. But then they don’t want to address the associations of “atheist”, and demonstrate the difference between them and fedora-wearing neckbeards who troll people on the internet and write xenophobic rants about Muslims. Honestly, the entire argument of “we aren’t the neckbeard atheists” is contained within the “we aren’t LaVeyan Satanists” argument. Highlight the appropriate section, CTRL-C, go to new post, CTRL-V, done.

For the way I run things, I just stick to the proper terminology. No fucks given about associations, and no desire to pander to those whose entire issue with a word, is things they read into it, which have nothing to do with the meaning. This is 10x as true for an organization with “Satan” in the title, such as mine, for example.

I’m an atheist, meaning that I am not a theist. Theist is a person with a belief in some sort of deity. I don’t have that. “Atheist” means I’m outside of that. It doesn’t say how far outside of that though. Just like “non-apple” applies as well to orange as to aardvark, so it is with “atheist”. I’m also an agnostic, meaning that I don’t think most concepts of gods are even knowable or falsifiable. I also find so many different, major philosophical problems with these concepts, that I consider them to be nothing but meaningless fabrications.

It also says nothing of my wider views of materialism and skepticism. So gods are a silly idea, with no meaning beyond the actions of the large number of people who live under such false assumptions. Every philosophical proposition is treated in the same way, as is every empirical claim. So I end up an atheist because of a rational position on the issue of belief regarding one little idea, due to handling it the same as the seemingly countless other ideas with any sort of objective component.

The “Ba’alean Satanism” of the United Aspect of Satan is a massive collection of various philosophies, which is typical of Satanism. The differences are how you combine things together. I don’t run from labels or the associations of others. I’m interested in associating only with people who critically examine any given thing, and I have no desire to convince those who presuppose associations for which they have no basis. Ignorance maintained in spite of collecting knowledge is antithetical to everything I do. I also don’t tell anyone what to think. Individuals must decide if my ideas resonate with them or not, and more importantly, know what they think and why.