If you don’t want to get pregnant don’t have sexual intercourse. Life, reality, and existence is about consequences of actions. Requires deep contemplation before committing to any actions. One might call this the nature of reality, actions and consequences. For every action there is an opposite reaction and so on.
1 Like
Also, if society doesn’t work towards the good of all people you’re just left with a zero sum game of individuals trying to overpower one another and overtime that game will destroy the whole of society especially once the majority of people are expended in the process. This is something of the likes that your Max Stirner was terrible at understanding with his egoism. Ayn Rand also made this same mistake years later.
1 Like
^ THIS
Omg, this.
1 Like
Yes, the whole libertarian hyperindividualism, “radical egoism” thing is just narcissism and incredible ignorance. It understandably appeals to a certain type of angsty emo teenager mentality, in which mentalities it can have some short-term use value. Beyond that it’s just embarrassing.
1 Like
It also appeals to capitalists because they believe the nature of reality is for them to have the ability to exploit others. They believe it is their right to do so.
1 Like
Notwithstanding the fact that many, most, have sex for the sheer pleasure of it, who said the woman who makes an abortion doesn’t act responsibly? She may be acting responsibly, not bringing to the world an undesired child who will most probably resent being born from a family where he/she was not wanted.
The key words here are “the good of all people”. It’s obvious that it’s not “the good of all people” that is intended here. I am the one who is the judge of my own good. As I said elsewhere: anything that took, actually, into account “the good of all people” should consult all interested people about it. But it’s never so, morality is something imposed “from above”. From God or from “society”.
And when she submits to this moral code “from above”, a woman fails to realize her body is her own private property. To do with it whatever she wants. If she wants to have an abortion, she must have her reasons for doing so, which have nothing to do with whatever was going through the mind of whoever established abortion was wrong.
2 Likes
You neolibs are so crazy. I bet you actually believe those things you just typed.
“Her own body”, oh yes the woman OWNS another human being with its own body and DNA, yeah no. The baby does not = her body, sorry. The baby is INSIDE her body. That is what it means to be pregnant. To have another human being growing inside of you. You may have skipped 5th grade human sexuality lessons or something.
1 Like
I love this. And aren’t we all always in development (especially HumAnize)?
Marxism is nihilistic in that it wants to socially engineer human uniformity, erasing all biological identifiers, and replacing them with ideological alternatives.
All lefties are fearful of being excluded. This is their underlying anxiety.
Anything that discriminates and excludes is distressing to them, because they fear being excluded, and are comforted by large uniform groups.
They feel safe there.
All must be reduced to a form they can ‘correct’. They want to “heal nature”.
Inspired by Tikun olam.
1 Like
So the thesis / antithesis I’m gleaning from y’all is A) capitalistic individualist (state exists to protect MY WHATEVER from groups) versus B) communist/socialist collectivist (state exists to protect OUR WHATEVER from individuals)…did I get that right?
How about “It’s not yours, or ours, if you, or we, kill it (or use it as a tomb instead of a womb) instead of steward, nurture, mentor, grow, encourage, etc, every life impacted by the choice”?
First, do no harm. It’s okay to lie to save a life. You are obligated to the greater absolute in play in any given context.
I would call my fake abortion center “Sweet Nothings” based on Proverbs 11:24, Mark 4:25, Matthew 13:12, 25:29, Luke 8:18, 19:26 (etc etc etc) — saving them for adoption instead.
Okay what about when Union’s block the entrance to prevent scabs from entering in? (Scab’s are low wage workers that ignore strikes.)
" When union members physically block entrances to prevent replacement or non-union workers from entering a workplace, this is commonly referred to as a “blockade” or “workplace blockade.” While peaceful picketing is legal, physically obstructing access goes beyond lawful picketing and is considered illegal in both the United States and many other jurisdictions42.
Such blockades are not protected by labor laws. Courts have repeatedly found that unions are not permitted to obstruct the entry and exit to employers’ places of business. In these cases, courts may issue injunctions to stop the blockade, and unions or individuals who continue to block access after a court order can face additional legal sanctions, including possible fines or imprisonment4.
Whether this rises to the level of a felony depends on the specific actions taken and the laws of the jurisdiction. In most cases, illegal blockades are treated as civil contempt or misdemeanor offenses, but if violence, threats, or repeated defiance of court orders are involved, felony charges could potentially apply4. The key distinction is that peaceful persuasion at a picket line is legal, but physically preventing access is not."
I agree and I think that’s the main reason why Marxism generally ends up in failure. It tries to impose a kind of uniformity that’s simply not there, and totally opposed to nature. It simply replaces traditional Christian dogma with historical materialism.
Uniformity in thinking, uniformity in acting= dictatorship. The whole of society must go through a severely radical dictatorship in order for it, for “everyone” to actually “progress”, to actually achieve real humanity.
But just to remain on topic, I fail to see whence, leaving God and “His” immutable commandments aside, Marxism would derive a way to completely condemn abortion. Whence comes the idea that anyone who is completely conscious of what he/she does can’t make a crucial decision regarding their own body, their own health, their own future, and must necessarily heed to society’s conventions, just become “the good of all people” so demands.
I think that Abrahamism’s distaste for abortions is based on its abstraction of masculinity.
It is implied in the story about Christ’s immaculate conception, making Joseph a spiritual cuck.
The message is clear.
Males are representations of god’s platonic ideal male.
Platonism permeates Abrahamism.
Women are not the male’s mate, they belong to god, which is a way of saying ‘the collective.’
This is also true for Marxism, where god is replaced by the State.
Males are emasculated, converted into proxies - symbolically castrated, i.e., circumcised.
It is not about revenge it is that most women are poor, 97% of bitcoin investors are male because women are risk-averse since they are lower testosterone than males (except for Ann Coulter, I find her very attractive btw.)
Because a rapist violates consent, it is forcing a responsibility on a woman they didn’t ask for. They must now work a 2nd job as a slave to raise a kid they didn’t ask for, and they don’t want to do that unless they first consented to slavery by having consentual, condomless, reproductive sex with somebody.
On the other hand, if a rich woman is raped and she has a robot maid to help raise the kids, then abortion should be more difficult to obtain, that is simply the humanitarian option
I assure you that my stance on abortion is not influenced by “Abrahamism” or some “immaculate conception” or some sort of celibate marriage.
I view abortion as merely some manifestation of a society of deranged psychopaths and hypermasculinized females who want to legalize the killing of infants. It is not the path to a moral or humanitarian society. It is in all probability a slippery slope to complete lawlessness and/or legalization of after-birth abortions. Already some of these nutters want to legalize after-birth abortions already.
The main problem of idealistic thinking. Never taking into account the real life scenario, always dealing with shoulds and oughts. The real reason why idealism fails.
Someone here mentioned rape. Imagine a traumatized woman who has been brutally raped having to “grow” and “nurture” the offspring of her raper. And that because, you know, it’s not “her” body, “her” body is a vessel of God…
It’s always mystified me how the vast majority of “Humanity” either does not know, or simply ignores, the consequence of their sexual impulses: Procreation.
The Leftist Movement (beginning of Cultural Marxism) was intended to spread “free sex!” throughout the US in the 1960s and 70s… sex was converted (perverted) away from Traditional, Conservative, WASP-centered culture, to California, Jewish, Hippy Liberal “free love” promoted, crafted, and created by Hollywood. Procreation → Recreation.
Recreational sex leads to Pregnancy, “Accidents”. Then the “Feminist” Movement in the United States began funding and pushing very hard acceptance and ‘tolerance’ of the practice of Infanticide. This coincided with the Eugenics movement, that had to go underground, because of how the Nazis stigmatized the field. However, their work continued in secret (in the US), while Feminist ‘Abortions’ was the open and public side of the matter.
This is just an over the top and over dramatic way of putting it.
Many women who even go to the point of having an abortion are “against” it. They simply feel they have no other option. The main flaw of this line of reasoning is “it’s good for me, it must be good for you too”, ie, uniformity, not taking into account real situations and the differences between people and their circumstances.
Abrahamism underlies modernity, as Americanism has expressed it.
As I’ve noted, all value-judgments refer to an objective. Modern objectives are to erase all biological, or genetic, diversities, and create an idealized uniformity.
One such biological disparity is sexual.
Males/Females differ and Moderns cannot bear it.
They need to create parity, equity.
Contraceptives and abortions are how they use technologies - ironically invented by males - to reduce the injustices of nature, burdening females.
Technologies that all but erase nature’s limits on her sexual power by reducing the costs and risks associated with sexual intercourse.
Their objective is a socially engineered uniformity. this is why they must make all human differences into socially constructed ideas…including races.
Their enemy is nature, and all those who remind them of her indifference, are considered fascists, Nazis…authoritarians.
They hate nature…as it is, and love nature as they idealize her.
Americanism is anti-diversity, as are all three of the Abrahamic variants.
Saving a baby’s life is not about society’s demands, especially in a culture of death. It’s against their demands.
And it’s also not about an individual’s demands. That baby, that individual, can demand nothing.
valuer=valuer… we ignore this on pain of rationality. When we violate what we know about the experience of all selves/others…we reap dissonance. If we cognitively distort reality to deaden the dissonance, we die before we’re even dead.