Mothering
The issue of abortion is one in which a dissonance is portrayed between those in favor of life and those in favor of women's rights. An accurate consideration of the issue rounds the circle, satisfying the good things on both sides of the issue: abortion is like murder, but it's all the woman's choice, and you have to like/accept that even if--especially if--you're moral.
Easy and Cheap
A woman can give herself a miscarriage quite late in the pregnancy ("partial birth abortion") by doing lots of easy, completely inexpensive things. For example, she can do certain jumps for certain durations, take certain icky herbal supplements that tend to be in black markets about which markets you probably don't know, play drumming games on her tummy, and so forth. Whammo, her body decides to cancel the pregnancy, chunks of an icky mess come out for a while, and zero surgeons were involved. The potential, actual, or in-progress baby can be just a clump of stuff no one notices or eerily humanoid, but the relationship between (maybe) mother and (maybe) child goes way beyond that.
Like the way Jesusian Christianity doth protests too much about how angry Jahweh gets about homoerotic physical friction, its presumed concern for safeguarding life is really a cover--in the abortion case, a cover not for being secretly homo but for claiming to have done that (like the Bible does with the pyramids, claiming the nice things were built differently--here, the nice thing is life itself. The false story that the Black Sea flood was caused by S.R. is more of the same: saying that a real thing you can see very easily was caused by S.R. being so important). You can never treat a man like a woman. If you think a man humping another man's butthole is the same as a man humping a woman's self-lubricating, non-feces-ever passage made expressly for birthing code acquisition and expellation of baby, that is as "gay" as replacing all the paintings/statues of families and hotties with statues of a single male masochist. Think of the way that the Christian texts replace "umbilical" with "biblical," and how mother's milk was replaced by Father's manna. If you are a man who thinks it is good to eat what comes from a man, that is your private business. That kind of desire ([man]na) matches grossly with preferring looking at figurines of a naked or underclad male masochist instead of some female hottie.
The supposed veneration of the unborn life promoted by Jesusians is a tell that it actually doesn't respect life. Islam is a religion of peace, therefore kill the infidels, and Jesus is the Prince of Peace, therefore we'll show those Protestants/Catholics. Similarly, a woman and a man make a zygote (conceive a baby), a woman nourishes that future baby for months, and it is not the place of a rabbi to prod at the woman's mysteries, try to seduce the male, or anything of the sort. The proudly proclaimed "pro-life" label is really an attempt by Jesusians (who don't know that, of course) to make "life" not something created by a couple and fostered by a woman, but something that happens just because of a man--Father God v. Mother Nature.
There's the umbilical cord and the womb, without which the baby couldn't survive, yes. However, the baby could be six months old and the mother could just get in a weird fender bender during its nap, and then feel too weird to walk right and be passed out for a while, so the baby starves. Does society punish the mother for that murder (the drunk man who hit her car hopes so)? Or she quietly smothers it with a pillow, it would've cost us too much anyway, and then it gets written up as just another SIDS--how sad; here's some money--and she goes on with life. Should a cop be assigned to every room where a mother is putting a baby to sleep to make sure she behaves?
There's No Way To Tell
It's like murder, but even if anyone could have one, do you want a society so invasive you save every life? When A.I. robots become cheap enough, should every pregnant woman get assigned a different one so government agents can review the ocular footage of all her actions 24/7? Should men in black watch the woman sleep for a few years until the baby becomes able to talk? Is it illegal to take certain things, to do certain repetitive falls, etc., because some people are just so pro-life? Those men in black would really have to spend time at it--watching the woman sleep isn't an exaggeration.
The Divide
That's the divide over abortion: that it really is the taking of a life, but it's a potential mother doing it to her own potential baby so dependent on that potential mother that you just have to accept it. Nature has made it her choice, so abundantly just hers, that you'd need extremely expensive authoritarian measures to intrude, harming through extraction mothers/babies where the mother'd chosen otherwise.
Talk to medieval healers if you want: there are certain things women can drink to flush out the potential baby. Like not looking through the telescope to not see Satan's planets that make people stop thinking about S.R.'s favorite book being right, making potential mothers dealing with potential babies opens its own can of worms. I.e., when a woman just drank that bad-tasting thing in a certain way and then spent a few weeks dealing with gross stuff occasionally coming out her you-know, that was monumentally better (and way cheaper) than a surgical team cutting her open. The way that heartless profiteers have über-capitalized things is exemplified in how people see a woman ending a pregnancy involving this expensive thing with complications instead of this cheap thing with some ick.
When was the last time the police stopped a pregnant woman from having a pretend-sip of champagne at some office party to save lives (because maybe then an alcoholic madness overtakes her and she guzzles so much scotch she and the baby-to-be expire)? When a team of vigilant gunmen watched every diaper change and nap-time to make sure SIDS wouldn't happen? Uh-huh. Because it would be an insane surveillance 1984 if Big Brother were looking in every mother's bag when she takes that trip to make chili with those things about which she's heard.
Breeding Sows
The only way to limit the mother's choice in the matter is some kind of eerie dystopia where she's lashed to a bed for about 9 months.
"Ooh, Johnny, I'm pregnant!"
(knocks are heard)
(couple gives each other frightened looks. Johnny drops his mug.)
SWAT Dude 1: "She's going out the back!"
SWAT Dude 2: "Set tasers to LOW intensity."
(after confrontation is over)
Staff Team 17 Leader: "This one should wake up just in time for dinner."
Staff Team 17 Worker: "Can I not do the spooning even though she's new? That article says the 'bots do it better, anyway."
Staff Team 17 Leader: "Fine, OK. But you gotta clear away any useless things to make her life better. You know, we do this to help these breeders."
Staff Team 17 Worker: "Yeah, yeah, I'll get the amputations done before the dinner. I do know we're doing the right thing."
Motherhood
Mother Nature is very nice and very harsh. Eat or die. A good meal is nice and starving is not nice. (Predators also have to deal with that requirement.) The attack on Mother Nature by Father Forgives Pedos and His traditional Christianity is always able to be presented as a good thing, because caring for some idiot who can't feed himself can be made to seem nice. However, when that idiot, his stomach full, goes and rapes some nine-year-old, it can be seen that Mother Nature's way was better. Lots better. (There is often found a troubling correlation between "Not able to provide for self" or "Willingness to extract survival from others" and "Willingness to achieve pleasurable physical friction from a woman who doesn't want to participate in that with you" or "from a child." That correlation is ignored by modern Christians eager to equalize things.)
One of the facts of female/male existence that is extremely difficult for many to understand is that the thing that would probably get born and become a baby relies so much on the mother that she gets the right to kill it if she damn well wants. Again, seems mean, but the alternative--the dystopian state where human women have to be restrained breeding sows from maturity to menopause--is far worse. Saying that anyone other than the mother possesses that right is Christian to the core: a direct contradiction to material existence. Mother Nature has made people so that the mother of the offspring--not anyone else of any level of morality whatsoever, including her mother, her friends, some moral figure, etc.--has that choice. Some of the passion exhibited by people defending Roe v. Wade type situations originates from this.
(It seems complicated now because the argument can be made, "My body my choice!" However, what happens when every expectant mother gets installed a fibroplast™ cord connected to an H14 Nutriplast™pack? Teams of hundreds of thousands of microbots would install those by the mother just waiting in a room for a while, and that law was passed because everyone knows it keeps the unborn alive for days longer if the would-be mother dies accidentally, so everyone knows those technophobic freaks who didn't want the H14™ sets required were basically monsters who hated babies. So, the same essential arguments can change a little.)
It is a tough role to be a man. Mother Nature clearly designed them differently (brains, bones, muscles, and all that) so that if there was a question of if cave bears or humans would get the cave, men had to deal with it. By the same token, though, it is a tough role to be a woman. Mother Nature clearly designed them differently (brains, breasts, wombs, and all that) so that if offspring had to be created, women had to deal with it. The Christian assault on these differences is apparent in the way it exemplifies life v. antilife. "Don't do it; don't get married," "men only," "mutilate baby genitals," etc. is a direct attack. So is the modern trains no eye advocacy. It seems to make no sense, but in the sense of damaging human societies, Christianity as a function of decay is evident.
The abortion issue is that also. Couples conceive a baby, women house and nurture it for about nine months, and while it is in the mother it is at some point a living thing (conception or quickening, seven months or eight, whatever), yet the mother, not a fictional rabbi who mascots for a sicko man-focus homo religion, gets to end or nourish the baby. Its existence is owed to the mother's constant sheltering, not to laws conceived by men (or even laws conceived of by mixed-sex groups).
Every single person on this planet, of course, had a mother, and the battle with that is effected in this life v. antilife struggle of Christianity. Christianity, the world-rejecting religion named after a savior from matter, font of over a thousand years of the (unanesthetized!) cosmetic genital mutilation of infants, is another disgusting indication of the nature of the bastion of homoerotic child-orgasmic-abusers in disguise, farparent of the trains no eye nonsense seen now, and beacon of false hope for freedom of people who think they can find European history by loving the thought of its Middle Eastern philosophical conqueror after the continent named after Europa had been developing tens of thousands of years (sick sic). People who call themselves Christians now tend to ironically say they are opposed to trains know eye stuff, unknowing that they themselves support the beginnings of such ridiculous, hurtful philosophies. Being against matter is exactly what believing that you can change your sex (now called gender) expresses, and that is how effective are Christian false dichotomies.
(Consider also the battle between Russian Communists and Russian Christians. Leadership ascribed to the brilliance of some rabbi versus leadership ascribed to the brilliance of some faraway genius is effected, and any dead clergymen are just frosting--good for the movement's prime movers. Like a mouse sure that he has picked the best way by running up Ramp B instead of Ramp A [because that mouse has seen, as definite evidence, that bad things happen to people who run up Ramp A], the capitalist has won the right to fund skimanaged welfare programs to give money to those who do not work. The House always wins.)
It does take a couple--female and male--to make human life. Humans are meiotic, not mitosic. However, females have complete binding to the process of offspring-creation in a way males never can, which jealousy is generally unspoken but seen in images of men becoming pregnant or substituting less-healthy formula for mother's milk.
(See the carefully planned way they added facial hair to the FTM trains no eye on the picture above? They forgot to do a plane for Building 7, but they sometimes cover a lot more of the details. Take note also of the way that they capitalized the words "Transgender" and "Dad" on the cover, but not the other words. Like capitalizing "He" for God, they are using capitalization to indicate importance, rather than following the rules of capitalization. I.e., it is not correct to capitalize those words, but they do it anyway to indicate importance.)
The attempt to subject that to male ideals of justice is the horrid muck of the abortion debate. Though it is scary, mothers produce human life only by maintaining the vessel used by that life, and by making the tough choices that entails, such as doing beautiful and pleasant as well as ugly and unpleasant things about which no one needs to know in polite society. Everyone sort of feel-knows that although they don't ever say the ugly parts, which is why motherhood is so revered. Seeing a picture of a mother bear standing nearby while a baby bear eats some berries is nice, public, and polite. However, it politely does not show everything that must be decided/done in order to have that baby. Just like the maintenance of a single human life involves killing a lot of unwanted germs during breathing but it is rude to mention that so you never do, mothering that baby means lots of things about which it is impolite to talk.
Think of having two choices for the holiday picture that year. One of those choices shows the two loving parents holding the baby in front of the fire. The second one of those choices shows the burglar all ugly and beaten up breathing his last on the floor. Which picture is appropriate to send to everyone?
Exactly. You do not show the ugly parts. What the mother or father do to maintain the family shouldn't be fully spoken, and maybe the doers themselves don't know it. Often it does not even have to happen at all, but if you maintain a family, you can probably feel the natural provisions of actions necessary to ensure success for that family (i.e. you know what you would try if someone did XYZ, and hopefully no one ever does). The person using the ugly little details of maintaining that structure to prove s/he is bettering things isn't really as nice as they pretend. Think of the universalism promoted by traditional Christianity, versus the necessity of maintaining borders. More viscerally, think of a woman insisting refugees come into her country, and those refugees including men who there rape other women. The manifestation of goodness is not real. Bangists telling the sad story of some poor mother being separated from her beloved infant while trying to violate that border are doing that same thing.
The restriction on meiotic female behavior which would have to be imposed to take away the potential mother's right is far beyond Orwellian. It is macabre--horrible beyond thought--to imagine a world where human breeding restraints strip from women the ability to freely do that. Much of the progression of Christianity has been about destroying very basic, foundational tenets of life, and the rabbi-worship philosophy of no borders, everyone is the same, etc., shows the way that globalism is an expression of Christian universalism, even though followers of Torah 2.0 think that they are definitely, for sure, completely against that. (After all, everyone knows those goldurn followers of Torah 3.0 are so stinky!)
Again, the sad irony of the false dichotomy can be seen as modern Jesusians can believe they are completely against totally ridiculous things while having their belief in a completely ridiculous thing supported by that struggle. A story of "this really nice man who saves you from matter" is naturally going to lead to anti-matter things like trains no eye advocacy, but a person choosing one or the other anti-material route can use the obvious ridiculousness of the other side to believe that s/he has definitely chosen the right ramp up which to run. Meanwhile, the scientist wins regardless of which side you choose to ascend!
The Scary Part
By the same token, the power of fertile humans to end the life of unwanted infants makes not for a pleasant thought. If the maître d' never drops his pin at that moment and bends to pick it up, Bob never sees Sally, falls in love, and begins an extended course of action leading to their consummation of six children. Should all maître d's be prevented by law from working unless always attended by a valet whose honor depends upon picking up dropped items? No; that's ridiculous. Yet life has been prevented!
Okay, okay, the magic begins at conception but not at love at first sight. So should Sally be monitored every second of every day to make sure she never has THAT kind of weird foreign tea you can find if you--what if the monitoring team has a jerk who always takes a bite of your brownie when no one's looking? As we said, horrid possibilities if we try to "protect life" by preventing females from doing as they do. It is absolutely fundamental to humanity that mothers--potential and actual--perform the function they perform. Like decay, there are some very unpleasant aspects to it, and yet you do not want to change it.
Comments
Post a Comment