In all respect for thaaa piiiiiiggg... this would lead to too much genetic trash. Not useful for the human race. Only because two people show some "responsibility", that doesn't mean they're genetically fit and genetically fit together. Their child would be weaker than an average "naturally fought out" child - dna quality would decrease from generation to generation. No racism or eugenetics intended - that's just the reality.

I didn't say the only requisite to have children was "to show some responsibility".

I said they should first prove they have enough maturity and intelligence to produce and rise a healthy child

A couple who is successful in life has a high percent of producing and educating similarly successful children. The system would be not perfect... but at least it is better than the currently used system, which is to let every retard and social parasite spawn a bunch of little ones.

I say that all spawns of retards and social parasites fight it out to the death on an island, ala Battle Royale!

That way we could make some entertainment from them AND they could win some fabulous prizes in the process!

Who doesn't love fabulous prizes?

My body does not respond correctly with birth control. The hormones in birth control make me a ragging bitch, and I always feel on edge. Birth control also gives me horrible cramps and usually makes my cycle worse. I've tried many different types of birth control and all have had the same effect.

Since I am only 18 I highly doubt that I would be able to get sterilization or an copper IUD. I have some other problems with my female parts that makes it next to impossible for me to get pregnant. (which is one of the reasons why I was put on birth control in the first place)

My view on this varies. I think every women who is sexually active should at least use some kind of protection. If you are responsible chances are you will not end up in this situation. I support abortion but I do not think it should be used as a form of birth control. It is up to the woman to decide if she is ready and able to have a kid.

I mainly put that forward because I feel that information needs to be understood. Some assume that any women going into an abortion clinic wasn't being responsible or careful, "she should have tried hard" "done more". Maybe she did all she could and her birth control failed. Not all forms of birth control are 100% (even a sterilization can fail) and the none hormonal ones are less effective than the hormonal ones.

And then you have teenagers who were taught abstinence only in school and got dragged into the clinic by their moms...

That's awesome! The thought that cells are just a regeneration from many ages ago never occurred to me.
This is an interesting thread.
What is funny is that Abortion really shouldn't be the answer, it should be only letting certain people breed.
We don't start fires in the city then say-well which buildings should we save?

How is that any different, really, from what we have now? Aren't we all fighting it out here on this island Earth? Aren't there fabulous prizes for those who come out on top?

-Chess

My own thoughts are as follows: Do not take the general perspective of the Church of Satan as the oppinion of every satanist. Just like any where else there will be conflicting views.

I myself am agnostic in most of my beliefs, the reason I chose satanism is because it made the most sense to me.

In turn to answer your question, I personally believe that abortion is a matter of circomstance.

I do not agree that it is okay for a young woman to get pregnant every week and then go have an abortion just because. Satan stands for responsability as it says.

However, if the circomstances call for it, such as a medical defect that could kill the mother in child birth, of for some reason mental or emotional health are not stable, I think that abortion is just like any other situation, and if it must be done then it must be done.

It is amusing how seldom anyone considers that a mother could be, say, twenty five years old, but her newborn baby is always about nine months old.

Young cells from old.

Young multi-celled organisms from old multi-celled organisms.

While bioscience has not unraveled the details regarding how the damages of aging are actually created, Aubrey De Grey has only been able to find exactly seven kinds of damages that result in what we call aging.

In his recent book, Ending Aging, he demystifies what those seven forms of damage are and offers multiple research avenues for repairing all of them.

Furthermore, MIT Technical Review which first panned his SENS program to actually repair the damages and reverse aging, held a scientific contest to determine if the claims that this was a pipe dream could stand up to rigorous review by a panel of impartial judges.

Not a single opponent of the SENS program was found to have a solid scientific objection, as was reported by MIT Technical Review.

Today we live in a culture dominated by the Baby Boomers who are now approaching retirement age. The effort to appear young is a multi-billion dollar industry.

It amuses me to realize that since when De Grey is proposing is possible, that it will eventually grow to the point where the multi-billion dollar industry to merely look young will turn to supporting a very real way to actually grow young.

It is amusing to think what will happen to all of the institutions and traditions of a world which has always assumed that as you aged you would have to grow old and die.

If De Grey is as right as it seems he is, there are people alive today who will actually grow younger as the cell-level damages we wrongly call "aging" are repaired.

The old will grow young until there will no longer be any old people at all.

Perhaps this will not happen in ten years or thirty years or even fifty years.

However there is absolutely nothing magical or mystical about aging.

It is the result of seven types of molecular damage.

We already have plans to reverse that damage.

I see this as inevitable.

This is probably the last generation of people doomed to die in less than a century of life.

We live in amazing times.

So what you're saying is you want about about 3.5 billion candles on your next birthday cake?

I too am a fan of Aubrey's work. Here is a link to a documentry about him I ran across a little over a month ago:

It is long, but good.

http://jwbats.blogspot.com/2007/08/do-you-want-to-live-forever.html

I can't wait to see what science has in store for us in the future!

This I think is really the kicker for the whole discussion. As a woman, I honestly would never want to put my body through either. They tell you to put it up for adoption as though pregnacy was easy! It destroys a womans body, and I only plan on doing that when I want to keep the little bugger.

And as far as abortion is concerned, I have been Pro-choice my whole life, but I never ever ever wanted to get an abortion. The women I have know that have had a really hard time healing afterwards, physically, but mostly emotionally.

In a perfect world, people would only have children when they actually wanted them.

Although, that might not be the solution, we are Overpopulated

You said: “Probably the most Satanic approach to this issue is not to put yourself (or your partner) in that position in the first place.” I agree with that.

You asked: “So would this mean that it's up to the individual Satanist to decide where they stand on abortion and what's right for them?” I would say, “yes”. As with any other issue, we are each responsible for what we do; so, it seems to make sense that we have our own reasons for the decisions we make.

You asked: “Once you decide where you stand on this issue, is it really one of those issues (right up there with gun control) that would dictate the way you vote?” That depends on how important a politician makes the issue to his or her platform. If they gave their opinion, I have no problem if I disagree with them. That would not influence me…much. If they were talking legislation, that would be a different thing entirely. Frankly, I would not vote for someone, even if I agreed with him or her on an issue they were talking legislation about. My opinion is not everyone’s; and, no one should be expected to run their life based on my opinions. I will admit that a religious fundamentalist, even if they claimed it would not influence their governance, would not get my vote. I always assume a fundamentalist will lie.

You asked: “Is it really THAT important?” Not in the grand scheme of things. Not in my opinion, at least. Now, if I were a pregnant woman who did not want to be pregnant, it would be more important. Personal perspective comes into play. That is why I have no view concerning legalizing certain substances.

You asked: “Furthermore, wouldn't voting on a topic relating to someone else's life and body be interjecting your opinion when not asked?” There are many issues relating to someone else’s bodies that are voted on. I can think of seat belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws, underage drinking and smoking laws…to name only a few. We could talk all day about different forms of government that take varying views on personal responsibility versus legislation geared toward protecting not only others from our actions; but, ourselves also. Libertarianism, for instance, is heavy on the personal responsibility side. Liberals tend to fall heavily on legislating the actions of the populace.

You asked: “Any thoughts?” Yes. The very fact that you are aware of the complexity of this issue speaks highly of your ability to think. It is all too easy to grasp for easy answers. It takes a broad mind to accept that there are multiple answers.

Dr. LaVey touches very lightly on this subject in "Satan Speaks" while discussing the "Third Side Perspective". And through the "Third Side Perspective" is precisely how a Satanist should approach such a topic - just as Magister Nemo does below in this thread.

~Storm

Male birth control was mentioned earlier, and, to my knowledge, vasectomies are reversible and both them and the reversing procedures are safer than the combined effects of hormonal birth control on the female body.

SO we don't need to find a way to make females temporarily infertile. We have a way to do it to males.

I am personally of the opinion that seeing as the male is the one doing the transmitting, and the females receiving, it's a lot easier to turn off the transmitter than to block the signal to the receiver.