*************
Abortion Versus Right to Life
"An abortion is morally, and ethically justifiable only in one situation; to save an expectant mother's life."
For all the hue and cry raised in the name of ‘a woman’s body, a woman’s choice’, the truth of the matter is; abortion is about a child’s body. A foetus growing inside a mother’s body is not a tumour, for it is not made up of cells that make up the mother’s body. It is thus not a part of that mother’s body. A foetus is not a child that may be born, but rather a child which is already in the process of being born. No doubt every woman has more than one right; a right to choose to not have sex, a right to choose to have pregnancy preventative sex, a right to choose to have afterthought pills. But a woman does not have a right to murder someone because they don’t want to see them in the world, else murder would be legal in human society, and we would still be barely more than animals. In human society, the only time a person is pardoned a murder is when that murder is committed in self-defence, or defence of other ‘people’.
The problem today with western societies in general and western academia in particular is; they are suffering from two very serious ailments, namely, ‘micropia’, and ‘feminopia’. While ‘micropia’ drags critical thinking so close to a very fine piece of subject matter that one is overwhelmed by the flaws of what is being observed, ‘feminopia’ reduces every other subject matter, other than ‘women’s interests’, to the level of the so called ‘the others’ (using a term often deployed by feminist theorists). The situation has become so bad, especially driven by the mad rush to be ‘political correct’, to ‘please all’, to ‘silence the others who refuse to yield to the new logic’, that western societies have become completely oblivious to the doom they have selected for their own societies. Now by all means, I am more than happy to let the western societies falter and suffer on their own, for there is poetic justice in that. For all the death and destruction western superpowers have brought about the world over, making innocent people suffer, the only way god, if there were any, can really answer the prayers of those who have prayed to some god to punish the west, it would be by making the western societies destroy themselves. But alas, I suffer from morality!
To explain what I mean by ‘doom they have selected’, along with explaining my perspective about the ‘Abortion versus Right to Life’ debate, I need to first elaborate a little about the impact ‘micropia’, and ‘feminopia’ are actually capable of.
Let us for example consider the penalties different societies impose upon cold blooded murderers; especially that of a life behind bars, for much has already been written about death penalties, and how much more injustice ends up getting done by imposing it. Now if one were to employ a ‘micropic’ approach to understanding the impact of such harsh penalties on the murderer, they would inevitably come to the conclusion that as much as such a sentence drives home the point that what the murderer did was wrong, it also ends up making the murderer and, even more so those related to the murderer (like their kids, spouses, parents, and friends), suffer a lot more than what would ever be appreciated by the society. In fact, one might end up making a whole heap of arguments that such sentences are inherently excessive and unjust, for they punish even those who did no wrong. But what is the flaw with that line of thinking, one might ask? The flaw lies in how such reasoning fits with the bigger picture; as to why a society sanctions murder so excessively. If murderers were to walk away free with sentences that were barely more than a slap on the wrist, just because of some misplaced sense of moral righteousness of the ‘new world society’, then how safe that society would really end up to be?
Yet, this flawed ‘micropic’ approach is being applied daily to various nagging issues bugging our societies, be it by the academics trying to fix social issues, more so by the academically inexperienced (and biased) media, and even more so by the modern day ‘enlightened’ social media vigilantes. In fact, there is a positive pressure amongst peers around the globe, to be seen as progressive people who openly voice their opinions about matters in global media circulation, even when they don’t really appreciate the consequences of their choices and actions upon those generation that are to come after them. How can they, when they don’t even appreciate that they have inherited a stable society from their forefathers because their forefathers had held a very different set of beliefs? All they see is that everything else is good about their society, except for a tiny miniscule problem that has never been fixed. May be it was already fixed!
Now quickly coming to ‘feminopia’; let me first say that I have already written and said enough to make ‘feminism’ an obsolete line of thinking, but it is going to take some time before my words will actually percolate down to the lowest of academic levels, to start a grassroots movement towards the future, ‘the familism’, and putting ‘feminism’ in history books, where it already belongs, for good. But until such time, I will have to keep exposing its biggest flaws to the world. ‘Feminopia’ is the worst effect that this line of philosophical thinking has caused to ‘jurisprudence’, ‘legislation’, ‘public opinion’, and ‘critical thought’.
The biggest problem with ‘Feminism’, as I’ve already explained in my earlier articles and videos is; it only considers one part of humanity in all its discussions about the entire humanity’s future. ‘The others’ are never important, for ‘the others’ have no more rights to claim. This has been their approach in all the matters involving men and women as sexual partners, and this is the approach now they are employing to the rights of the ‘unborn child’. The ‘unborn child’ is ‘the other’ who has no right to be here in the world, simply because it is inside a female’s body. After all, it’s only the female who has a right to her body. The feministic blindness is so obvious that feminists don’t even see that the body they are trying to destroy does not belong to that woman.
The woman has a right to decide not to have sex. The woman has a right to decide to only have pregnancy safe sex. But that is where her rights actually end. Now I am ready to, and very reluctantly so, give women a right to use after-thought medication to stop a pregnancy from proceeding anything beyond a week or so, but honestly, the moment an egg inside a woman’s body gets fertilized, and divides for the very first time, to become an embryo, the body you are talking about is the body of a child who is in the process of being born, and not that woman’s body. A womb is the safest place in the entire universe, for a child to mature into a viable human. That child had no say in whether the woman had sex, or protected sex, or not. But that child does have a legitimate right to the expectation that it won’t be killed simply because someone doesn’t want to see them in their world. Now for those of you who want to jump at the above assertions, and throw words like ‘rape’, and ‘incest’ into the discussion, I have two even more basic questions for them. How many of you would blame a woman for her rape or incestuous relationship, and how many of you would tell that woman to kill herself? And if the woman can’t be blamed for those acts, and made to suffer, how many of you can actually reasonably argue that the unborn child should be blamed and made to suffer for those acts?
The problem with ‘feminopic’ approach is; you don’t realize that the ‘Right to Life’ and the ‘Right to Choose’ that you are talking about are actually linked to the body that does not belong to the female. The only time a woman can actually get a pregnancy terminated ethically and morally is when the birth would kill her in the process, for then that act is an act of self-defence, and then, as much as the woman otherwise had no right to kill the unborn baby, even the unborn baby has no right to kill the very mother whose womb it is growing in. For every other birth, including those expected to suffer serious deformities and genetic aberrations, the only person who has a right to terminate their life, is the child itself, when it is mature enough to make such a call. In the meantime if a woman doesn’t want a child, then her only choice is to give it up for adoption, or perhaps in our modern societies, the only one with a right to take a child away in such circumstances is the state. The best part of this approach is; if in an unknown future the mother has a guilty conscience and she wants to make it up to the child that she didn’t want, that child would still be here in this world, to make it up to.
Yesterday the ‘feminists’ made you believe that ‘men’ and ‘women’ don’t need each other. There was a problem; there were wife-beaters, and I am inclined to guess, as many as there were nagging wives. But the solution to fix this problem that ‘feminists’ proposed wasn’t about teaching men how to be better husbands, but rather teaching women how to terminate relationships, and further providing them legal means to do so. The end result today is; broken homes. Another example that can be listed here is the universally acknowledged problem of alcoholism. While drunkard men were considered a menace and male drunkenness a problem, feminists never really put up a solution to solve that problem. Instead all we now have are drunkard problematic women. Every solution that feminists have ever put out, has never solved a problem, but rather multiplied many others, and contrary to what you might hope, not multiplied by two, but rather by a cumulative exponential function. You don’t have a bad woman for every bad man now. Instead you have almost all men and women bad in all the ways that the society once associated with problematic men only. While industrialization gave western societies (and developing societies following their pattern) nuclear homes, thus leaving elderly suffering, lonely, and uncared for, while kids ended up un-fended, without proper family support structure; ‘feminism’ has given you lonely, self in-sufficient individuals. While so far ‘feminist’ work has destroyed the relationship between ‘a man and a woman’ and the natural connection between them, their current work is designed to destroy the natural connection that exists between ‘a child and its mother’.
Psychology is a very powerful tool. It was psychology that enabled humans to form extensive well developed societies. Men don’t kill to grab land, claim territory, and the resources (including mating rights to women) that come with the territory, like other mammalian males, for we have trained our psychology to distinguish between proper socially acceptable conduct, and conduct that society condemns and incarcerates as criminal. We have trained ourselves to determine as to what would be proper sexual behaviour, and what would be improper. In fact we are continuously developing more and more boundaries around what is sexually acceptable conduct, even to the extent that we have actually crossed a line that we shouldn’t have crossed (more on this some other time). This is how powerful psychology is! Problem however is; now ‘feminist’ reasoning, and ‘feminopia’ afflicted thinking will train the women to feel detached from their own unborn children, overlooking a natural connection governed by hormones female bodies produce, much like how we can control our sexual urges according to the social situation we find ourselves in. What do you think this would do to the societies?
Western societies are already dealing with the problems of an ageing population that is getting more and more isolated every day. Marriage has become a joke in western societies, and the path that western societies are embarking upon now, will make sure that they won’t even have a proper posterity to carry their societies and their social legacies forward. Today women don’t need men, tomorrow they won’t need kids! Do you see this current madness ending up any other way? Do you not realize what personal investment, commitment, and discipline raising a child demands? Do you not understand how the mad rush to have a career, or even something as vain as a responsibility free life, will drive more and more women from skipping child-birth altogether? Do you think what I am saying is far-fetched? How far-fetched do you think ‘sexually loose character women’ were for your forefathers, who condemned and incarcerated even ‘sexually loose character men’?
Everything that we see and experience in our societies today was at some point of time, plainly inconceivable. Yet all of it has percolated into the societies that we live in today, because it was the natural consequence of the choices made by our ancestors, and thereupon, the actions taken by them. One of the many other major problems of ‘micropia’ is that one is so close to the enlarged view of a tiny aspect of the complete picture that they simply fail to see how their actions at that one spot are impacting the real world reality of the entire picture otherwise. One fails to foresee the actual real world reality that would be born out of their quest. This is what the current day madness about the so called ‘Right to Murder Unborn Child’ is going to bring about to pass.
At threat is not just the future of posterity today, but at threat is the very future posterity itself. Your actions today might not impact you because you have inherited a better world from your forefathers. But your actions are certainly going to leave it a much worse place for whatever posterity manages to come, if it does eventually.
Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss,
Amanpreet Singh Rai
*************
