| abstract
| - by A Libertarian this is V1.0 patch out soon Well, i know that a lot of you are against me since i like attacking Jaxhawk. The thing that i want to talk aboot today is one of those annoying issues that just plain pisses me off. The issue is abortion and it is an issue guided by morons. Many people like to blindly support it as though it is some sort of natural human right or, in the case of the dissenters, something that is naturally wrong. The problem is that most of the supporters are blind followers of the rhetoric and don't really comprehend the issue at hand. Such phrases as “right to choose” and “a woman's right...” are nothing more than emotion based wordings used to inspire a form of liberation. And i will back this up. Edward Bernays, the man who lit the fuse of the psychological advertising bomb did an experiment, one that transformed society as we know it, back in the 1920s. Helping our mediumish-smallish-not-not-to-bigish tobacco at that time, Bernays used this emotion-based psychology to get woman to smoke. The thing about all causes is that the people will blindly support anything that exults their group. They even do it if the result of doing it destroys themselves, the constituent parts, or others in other groups. The good example back in the 1920s was the tobacco incident. In the city of New York, there are a bunch of parades and Edward went to one of them. He found a small group of woman and gave them the some cigarettes and told them to light up at a certain time. When that time came, he found a reporter with a camera (or multiple reporters) and told the guy that woman were smoking “torches of freedom”. Because it was something that gave the collective, the woman of the suffrage movement, something to associate with freedom, many members of the movement took up smoking and the result can be seen every time you see a woman indulge in the pleasures of a common coffin nail. The reasoning behind the aversion to smoking, as it did exist on the psychological level too, was that woman saw it as too masculine and refused. So, what the hell does cigarette have to do with this issue at hand? Everything! Psychology can make people, if it connects evil with a good feeling, a heroic feeling, turn into the most evil, stupid, reckless, and ignorant beings on the planet. Even a dog wouldn't start smoking even if smoking was a symbol of animal liberation (sorry if it looks as though i am just picking on woman). people fear ambiguity. Let me repeat that: PEOPLE FEER AMBIGUITY. It is not just dictators, it is all people. People will ruin their lives if it can be don't in a way that makes life seem predictable, simple, easy, and carefree. People don't want freedom. People hate freedom. This can be seen by looking at how people react to capitalism, libertarianism, and even just new directions in the world. This is why Jaxhawk doesn't want you to vote Ron Paul (Rpal) and he never wants you to vote for a third or minor party (except maybe the prohibition party, they love war). It is this fear of ambiguity that leads to the most irrational atrocities of the world. It was this fear that keeps American politics deadlocked in major party conflicts. It is this feeling that keeps people buying SUVs since, as we all know, they could just get into an accident with anything and survive. It is this attempt to eliminate ambiguity that we show our most ignorant and weakest selves. It is through the rejection of this fear that people can get rich, happy, famous, and, above all else, it is though the rejection of this fear that people can make a positive difference for those that most need it. The worst atrocity, the one that claims more lives that adolfs death cambers, mao's famine, pol pots genocide, and all the genocides in Africa combined is non other than the atrocity many of our comrades blindly yell out support for. It is the atrocity that claims the most, thats right the MOST, innocent lives. It is the atrocity that is justified, in many circles, by the fear of ambiguity. It is abortion. the myth of rape justifying abortion. I like to take this myth on first because it, unlike all the other reasons, is the one that gets even rational loving people to rip children apart. It, unlike the others, is also the least common. And lastly it, like almost all the others, is completely avoidable. Thats right (damn i love repeating myself), it IS avoidable. Now how might someone like me, a person who isn't a woman, have the audacity to say that something that only affects woman, and rape, something that is almost as bad as murder itself, can be eliminated by personal choice? Simple: we are all different and we all have our downfalls. WE ARE NOT @#$%ing men, woman, blacks, whites, reds, blues, yellows, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. We are all unique and have our own downfalls based on a decisions that was out of our hands. But, since the downfalls of many individuals are the same (people of African decent have a higher chance of stickle cell disease, people of more northern decent (Scandinavia) probably can't coexist as well with equatorial-lie cliamates) and it is these similarities among individuals that leads to necessity and necessity is the Mother Of Invention. We have invented, in the case of the individuals that can be more affected by rape, tools to combat the problem. Just like how we didn't just say “good luck” sarcastically to people with stickle cell disease, we also didn't say the same to fifty percent of the population of the world (maybe less that fifty percent because of the People's republic of China). We have invented devices that people can put within their bodies to prevent a rape from occurring (i won't go into detail but i will give this hint as to what they are: they have razorblades). We have invented devices that accelerate materials, thought the use of a controlled exothermic chemical reaction, at velocities which can injure or even kill a rapist (a gun). We have even invented devices that can short circuit human nerves and muscles through the use of ultra high voltage (taser). There are many more inventions that i haven't even mentioned. The best thing that ever came around was common sense: don't be in the area where people can get you. And the most important piece common sense, one that communists don't believe in because of the assumptions they made in order to support positive liberty: when you take risks, prepare to face the consequences (when you go to a party in the middle of the @#$%ing night to get drunk of your @$$, don't expect that you will get home safely and don't you dare blame those that aren't responsible, your potential children, for your intolerable ignorance). I am not attacking woman, i am attacking individuals who don't use common sense. The individuals that just plain don't understand risk and/or are apathetic to the consequences. We are humans, not dogs. We can think and we are in control of our destiny in as much as we wish. I know there are instances where there is no control on the part of the victim. But a one in a million situation doesn't justify a system built for a mass extermination. (its like justifying the holicost because you found one greedy Jew). I don't have the time to write more on this but i know that, if more people than general Grevice an Jaxhawk read this, there will be angry letters typed for the preceding few paragraphs! now for the next issue: this is the one that is used to kill millions. It, like the holicost thing i just said, is kind of like using a hydrogen bomb on a small groups of soldiers. You may get rid of the soldiers but you also blew up the nearby metropolis, radiated the entire world, and probably ruined a piece of land for all eternity. Good work, moron. This is the issue of trying to justify the act based on the idea that it is necessary to save a mother's life. This is a tricky subject because people try to forget that there are other things at work here. The first is our technology. We have all heard the stories of people dieing because of a pregnancy but how bad is this problem? In our modern world we have, or soon will have, eliminated this problem altogether. It is our assumption that this is an incurable problem, one that threatens all woman to a high degree (that #$%^ing ambiguity $%!^ again), which makes this a horrible argument. First of all, you never hear those people at pp trying to stop this problem in any way other than killing. You never hear really anyone try to solve this problem in a good way. This is just another one of those things that the so-called victims need in order to justify their evil deeds. First of all, these instances are rare. Second of all: they can probably be cured if we just give it some time. Woman are too stupid to use ethical birth control. No i didn't just contradict myself because that is not what i believe but instead that is what these so-called womans' groups say. It is no different that that racist jessy jackson trying to say that blacks are too stupid to become entrepreneurs and workers. We have saran rap, we have aluminium foil, we have quantum physics, and we can, if we are so inclined, have a birth control system that actually works. We can because we have the technology. Kind of stupid that we gladly spend money trying to kill humans but you never seem to hear these advocates saying that we should instead spend that money on trying to prevent the whole $%^&ing problem from starting in the first place. You never hear that, ever. From a heartless-as-all-hell economics perspective, we are taking a constant loss where, if we use that money for R&D, we could cut our losses( the R&D could come from the private sector where things usually don't screw up as quickly as in the public sector). Look at it this way, this is a problem facing individuals with a similar challenge in life. Should the farmer have just given up and starved the town since he (usually he back then) feels it is his choice since it is his body and his property making the grain? Is it the driver's right to run over a group of protesters since it is his/her car, his/her body and his/her idea? Is it the justified choice of the suicide bomber to do the deed since it is, in fact, his body that will defiantly be blown to shreds? My body my choice. A phrase that has been used by those that close their minds and eyes. It is that phrase that, through ignorance, has led to atrocities never before seen in the human species. It is an elegant phrase but also a myth. In the theory of negative liberty, the only good liberty, the idea is that liberty occurs when there is no coercion against others and none from others to thy self, justifies the one thing that is nothing but coercion. Negative liberty that gives us the most potential liability (our ignorance) but also the most freedom. An elegant phrase like the one above is flawed. The flaw is the assumption that is made by the speaker and the listener that the phrase is a negative liberty phrase. The phrase tries to tie the person who has no dependent on them to the person who does. It is my body and my choice when my body is not the only rope holding another human from certain doom. It may be the body of the truck driver who drives the 18 wheeler but it is not in his power to DO anything with it since it is his body that controls something that can kill anyone. It is generally accepted that the driver should have little control over his/her body since the driver can destroy human life just be using his/her body in a manner that he/she wishes. Trying to tie the person with dependents to the stoner in the corner is both a fallacy of logic and also just plain wrong. A pregnant person has no right to kill since they, like the driver, allowed themselves to be in their situation, whether through action or inaction. It was them that are now in a position where there is a dependent and it is them that have now had their liberty abridged for the same reason that a truck driver can't take a shower will going 80MPH down interstate 27! this is a womans issue! No it isn't. This is not a woman's issue since it is, more importantly, a human issue. Humans are not a group but the aggregate of all groups. Because of this, they can think more clearly than a single group that may be relying on feelings or causes to make moral judgments. It is human life that is destroyed. Even if all abortions were done to kill females, it would still be a human issue since woman don't own woman in the same way that men don't own, and have the right to dispose of, other men. It is also a human issue because we live together. If only woman could vote, then it would be, by default, a womans' issue but it isn't. We are all independent entities that may share characteristics but that shouldn't make us try to have those characteristics be the final arbiter in who can say and do what. I hope you are pissed off at me right now. I hope you are calling me a hypocrite, an asshole a scumbag. I hope you are not through dissent about my view on life but on my contradiction. I made a contradiction that you should scar me for in your mind. I said woman and men. I defined groups by their similar characteristics which is something i shouldn't have done. It was that action made by people in the past, people like hitler, naral, mao, lenin, and a whole bunch of others that made the phrase “history tells us that human life is the least valuable commodity” true. Here is the last problem: what are humans. I have heard people say that you are killing a fetus, not a human. You are killing an unconscious thing and not a little child (arguable in partial birth issues). They say that there is nothing there and therefor nothing of value, other than potential, is destroyed. There is a flaw. The flaw is the understanding of humans in a three dimensional manner. Humans life in four dimensions (the fourth being time). Time is what makes us who we are. An unborn child is just as important as a twenty year old, a fifty year old and a hundred year old. The lack of consciousness is irrelevant for the simple fact that no one is conscious for their entire lives. To say that consciousness is all that matters would justify killing people in their sleep (their only valuable as living beings if they wake). It is the fourth dimension that makes the argument of value by consciousness wrong. It is potential. Potential of consciousness is the same for the fetus as it is for the elderly man or woman taking a nap. It is the same for the fetus as for you and me when we sleep or pass out. Potential is the governor, not the three timeless dimensions. Abortion is morally wrong, economically wrong, and it is wrong even when seen through the lens of liberty. We are not animals but conscious beings. I will respond to comments because there is much i didn't say. I apologize for the lack of stuff but i will respond (sooner or later). __NOEDITSECTION__ From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki. From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)