Abortion, Life, Meaning, and Freedom. An Individualist’s Perspective.
This world and how people have sought to define the hierarchy of life, and whose rules matter most, has always thrilled me when the arguments come about on the subject of abortion. The controversy has always settled around the points of “pro-life” and “pro-choice,” both of which are usually centered around the main themes of morality and what God’s plan truly is. When does life begin, how the abortion can be performed, who is involved in the decision, who is not involved in the decision (the baby?), and how this issue can be resolved, are all questions asked within the assumed presumptuous framework that the Human Life, just getting the human here, is all that matters in the discussion. Why is it that all abortion arguments are only attached to a strict human-o-centric perspective. Life to them is only about “human” life. They are blinded to all the other life that surrounds them, to all the other life that is in harmonious contract with all the other life. But even if they were only concerned with the life of humans, their definition of said life is so limiting and filled with the emptiness of potential, that one really ever wonders why someone would want to be born into that “life” in the first place. If you read here often, you will know that defining words, ideas, and relationships is the key to understanding, the key to meaning, as well as a giant key to the evolution of each of our selfs. There is so much more that goes into the argument of abortion; so much that has not been asked about life; so much that is omitted when we should look at meaning; and as always, no one ever begins to understand the dynamics involved when the words freedom of choice are uttered. Not only are the wrong questions being asked, which equates to the wrong answers being given, but as long as the people who are doing the arguing lack the grasp of the real issue at stake, there never will be any resolution as the value of the human, how it must be found, and why it must link up to all the other valuable lives that exist here on earth.
First, as in all discourse, the terms in question must be broadly defined. As we move forward we can narrow our focus even further in order to look more closely at the various scope of our inquiry. Life stretches as far as we can see, and there is not just this life vs that life, but here upon this planet, there is a harmonious ecosystem of life, all dependent upon one another for their existence. Expanding upon the idea of a variety of life, lives, we must look at how many lives has each creature come to be dependent upon for its survival? How many deaths of other creatures does each creature depend upon in order to survive? We will look at a tree, an alligator, a deer, and a human. The tree kills nothing along its life, but rather provides for the many other creatures that live here. It it a key source in the synthesis of oxygen, which all life needs. It provides shade from the sunshine, a place to perch for the birds, seeds in order for there to be other trees, an absorbable surface for carbon dioxide, the fruits of its branches for other creatures, and even a home amongst its insides. An alligator though is a killer. It eats other creatures, and although it has its preferences, will eat pretty much anything that comes its way. But other than the things it kills itself, does anything else die in order for it to survive? No. It eases into the cycle of life and death, and tragedy and harmony. What about the deer? It isn’t even a carnivore, but rather is born, eats some grasses, some leaves, berries, and prances around with its deer buddies. Sure, it may piss of some suburbanite home-owners, but fuck them anyways. As for their life-footprint, well, how many other species must die in order for the deer population to live? And finally, for this discussion’s purposes, what about the human being? Simply looking at the average omnivore human being, how many other species are involved, negated, eliminated just so this being can “complete” his “right” at a full life? In order to live he needs shelter, food, clothing. Maybe when there was at a maximum of 1 billion people there was not as many species involved in his survival, so we will eliminate ancient man. What we are concerned with is modern man. And modern man’s survival needs are a house of some sort. And this man is not a singular man, but rather he is the 7.5 billionth man to now live on this planet. So the space he needs, the things he needs, take precedence over the needs of some “lesser” being. Meaning, if for him to live, more space must be created by cutting down trees, clearing land where multiple species live and thrive, then so be it. But that is just the beginning, as he will need a bed to lay on, a table to sit at, a way to move about, and that requires oil, which requires drilling beneath the earth or destruction to mountains and land, and he needs to eat, which requires more areas to grow food, which also requires there to be more space given to the cultivation of either more feed animals or crops. But that is not all, because man is not just a being of needs, he has come to be a being filled with wants, and his wants can only be fulfilled at the expense of all other creatures. His trash fills a great portion of the land of the earth, and those toxic trash areas do not support the existence of life-giving species. Man’s mission, if looked at over time, has been to multiply and subject the rest of the planet to his domination. And his life, which is deemed and defined as the “most important” life, is the one which does the most killing of other lives (even though his all important mantra is “Thou shalt not kill,” although it would seem he has no idea what this means, because he kills all sorts of things, creatures, even his fellow man. Governments and their brainwashed armies kill other government’s peoples, kill other people not even involved in the wars. The Police kill without remorse or retribution. It would seem as though the only ones who “shalt not kill,” are the weak, the masses, because that is what they are told. Maybe the argument of abortion is really about needing some fresh blood to kill or use?).
Thus, in order to move forward, the facts appear to be leading us toward needing to know what meaning the actions of these humans has created? Are there any solid facts we can use that will give us a concrete overall meaning, or must there be much speculation as we take an overview of the basic actions that occur in human society? Looking at what was said before, there is fairly good evidence that man finds his meaning in killing. Sure, there are many levels of humans that are involved in this killing, such as those at the bottom–the ones only involved in reproduction of their species, spreading out, using resources, and killing whatever species are required to support their meager lives. On the next level, would be those of the middle class, those who make more money, who have smaller families, but are larger consumers, and thus kill more species on this planet in order to entertain their meager minds. Finally, there is those who have much money, who have more power, and they spend their money in the games of domination, and they get others to kill not only humans for them, but they also have way more wants, and their wants kill the most species of all. And yet, this entire game lies beneath the surface, way way beneath a cloak of “morality,” hidden within the programmed consciousnesses of the masses, who have become what they have become by being taught what to think in behavioral centers of instruction since their earliest days. Under the guise of education, people have been instructed that success on a human level is what they should strive for the most; that a line of work is where their thoughts should lay; and that love, equality, having a family, and being a “good” obedient member of society is what life is all about. Surely this has been simplified, but when looked at in its simplest parts, when life is so superficial, without any depth, how is one supposed to find an enriching multi-dimensional aspect to being alive? If one cannot see he is a one, rather than a many, if his life is without so few real decisions, a life that is bound on all sides with rules and regulations, how would he be able to know all the destruction he causes? If man does not think for his self, but rather is at the mercy of a group think mentality, believes his self to be moral, even though at its deepest depths he lives in a morally-bankrupt world, and has followed the instruction of others his whole life rather than his own experiences, then how thoroughly could he really define his self? If there are 7.5 billion men, a number that far surpasses the next species, and many more men are on the way, with or without abortions, should there not be an ethical line of reasoning that honestly says that less is better for once.
It is then imperative, from how society is constructed now, not its ideal construction, to look at what really would be the value of bringing more alive humans onto this planet? If society is not built as independent units filled with each person’s individual meaning of what life is, but has rather been made to envelop a mass meaning, then the value of people lies only in the value of continuing to add more people. If there are already 7.5 billion people here, can adding more people on a continuous level really be just for the propagation of our species? How many more people must there be? How much space is left? Why would people want to bring more people here!!! Could it be that their minds, how they have been programmed from the time they were young, are unaware of the consequences of their reproductive actions? Could it also be that because of how they have been programmed, that their mind allows them only to think of the immediate, rather than the full scope of their actions? If man was able to look around him at this point, was able to see what society considers as his value, he would see that there is no difference between him and a feed cow. Since man does not fight back against the governments and corporations of suppression, it means that he accepts his lot, accepts the ways and rules of the world (he is an accepting machine), and that his only point is to be educated (programmed), get a job (in order to pay taxes), reproduce (in order to create more feed cows), and to die (all the while killing off other species so that mankind can rush towards its rapidly increasing destruction). But unless man is able to break the chains of this repeating pattern, and is able to realize his own self-value, self-worth, then he cannot get emotional over the fact of being nothing but a cash cow.
So what then are the arguments for or against abortion if we look at the scenario under this light? Choice? What choice can man really have if he is not an individual, but is a mass? The only ones who “choose” to have an abortion would be the ones who have some sort of understanding of ACTUAL CHOICE? The person who decides to not bring a child into this world, on some level, realizes bringing a child now, whether to raise as her own, or to give up for adoption, is not in her or the world’s best interest. Would this individual be able to see all of the angles we have spoken about here? Probably not. But it is still fascinating none-the-less to see that the only decision, that of actually having an abortion, is the ONLY decision that comes closest to that of AFFIRMING the individual. It is only by having this choice, the person who would negate the baby, to see the long-term as well as short-term consequences of negating a baby, that man is able to see that he is not some cog in a machine, but that he lies at the center everyday of all sorts of actions, thoughts, and judgments—If he will only see it. It isn’t fair to label this action–“Pro-Choice”–because every action the individual makes should be based upon that one fact–His/her Choice. It is only labelled as such by society, as to give the illusion of choice, in only this matter, to the cash cow.
“Pro-life?” This would be the other faction. Many say that God says Killing is wrong, and that in some instances, the government says that abortions are wrong. Well, it sounds like those arguments all come from an authoritative perspective? From the God argument, it would be a reasonable conclusion to draw that God probably did not imagine the world becoming as populated as it has become, and that the world has become a war of man vs machines, a landscape of concrete, heat and death, and that man has been killing all his other creatures at an accelerated rate now for some time. So that argument is shot-down. The other argument, the government based one is a rule an edict, and would best be analyzed by understanding what the government had to gain from such an edict? Because the government does not DO ANYTHING UNLESS IT AND ITS MANY MINIONS GAINS FROM IT. So that argument is only successful from the perspective that man was meant to be a cash cow (which I am sure God did not envision), meant to feed the pockets of humanity, not from an individual one. “Pro-Life.” Again, the only life this favors is the humans, because it does not favor the lives of any other species here on earth. By adding more people, the lives of those who are already here is also not enriched.
The baby does not have a choice? Exactly. The baby is not yet born yet. So it cannot have a choice. Which leads us to the all-encompassing question, the 100,000$ question:
When is it that life really begins?
The arguments that arise from the programming of a human-o-centric education, are all null and void. Those educations are given not to develop the individual person, but to constrict the being to act and react within the system of society. As has been written on rathbonez before, the only way to truly teach, is to teach each person according to his individual talents, and in a society of massive proportions, that is just not possible nowadays. So, the argument that “life begins at fertilization,” is only an argument that is based upon feeling, one not analyzed for the full scope of how interdependent all creatures here are on earth, and bases it on the supposition that more humans must be born, not on the components that make us individuals meant to understand meaning. The other argument, that “life begins at birth,” follows along the same lines, in that just because a baby is born, that his heart beats, he screams, and has opened eyes, and fingers that wiggle, means he is ALIVE? He is surely alive to the state, in that he is given all the rights of the other mass cash cows, and that the state now sees at its disposal another potential taxable member, another soul it can use up and dispose of when it sees fit. But how does that make that individual alive?
In order to be alive, one must reach an awakening, a personal explosion that causes him to understand his OWN existence. To reject all the other authoritative forces that he is bombarded with on a daily basis, and persist to hear only his own voice. To individual man there is no god, well no god other than his self. For he is the creator, he is the destructor, he is the fulfiller of his own path. He questions even when instructed not to question. He kills constantly, whether it is the ideas that are forced upon his mind, or the suppressors that seek to kill his self. He knows that life here on earth has become a transformation of turning the definitions of words against themselves, of a world of contradictions, and that he must make it his number one priority to know for his self, or he would get swept up in the current of mass waves of ignorant insolence, and find his mind emptied of any self-preserving consciousness and replaced by an existence of routine behavior. Being alive is the ceasing to be afraid anymore. It is the end of feeling empathy for the creatures who all look the same, who laugh like you, cry like you, talk like you, but who have no idea what it is that they really are. It is being able to see the potential of a world filled with only individuals.
Killing. All the creatures on this earth that kill, do it because for them it is integral to their life. They must kill in order to eat, or they kill in order to defend themselves. Those that do not kill are able to survive in other ways. But man, as we looked at earlier, is an entirely different story. There are a great many times that people kill, and they have absolutely no idea the blood that is on their hands. They do not reproduce in order to propagate their species, because of some survival instinct, but rather they do it because either: 1. they have nothing else to do. 2. they were guilted in to having the baby. 3. the government pays them the more babies they have through the EIC, foodstamps and other payola. 4. they think it is the next step in their lives. 5. they have nothing else to do. Which brings us back to killing. It is only in the act of death that life can be felt to be important. Is having an abortion killing? Sure. It is murdering some tiny creature that has the potential to be some new mindless zombie walking the face of the earth, sinking its teeth into some other alive creature, and ending its life by sucking the life out of it through coercion, taxes, and regulations. Sex is something everyone can do. It is like eating or drinking. Every man’s penis at some point has gotten hard, as has every woman’s vagina at some point gotten wet, probably to the point that the hard penis could slip into that wet vagina. Its the same thing as sticking a finger into a hole in the wall. Any idiot can do it. Monkeys can do it. Black people do it. Asian people do it. Donkeys do it. Woopty-doo. But women also can eat, and women also can drink. So if there is a chance a baby could appear, eat a pill and drink some water afterwards. Or have a dr. handily perform a very easy surgery. $300 now is a hell of a lot easier to deal with than time constraints, money problems, health issues, and trying to learn how to tell someone else what to do when you have had such a hell of a time knowing how to live your own life. Pregnancy is one of the consequences of sex. There is no reason that such a simple act should result in such high penalties for those who gave in to their wants and desires. People give in to many other wants and desires multiple times everyday and they are faced with only limited consequences. And there are plenty of people who are born every second of every day to parents and a world which they probably wish they had never come into. So why is the consequential result looked upon with such amazement?Wouldn’t it be something though that if to get pregnant, one had to climb to the top of a mountain; or hike really far into the hidden depths of a deep dark forest; Or dive from a high cliff into a cave beneath the sea; or kill 50 of one’s adversaries in order to win just the mere chance to even bed a woman? If people had to do that to get pregnant, then I might understand what all the fuss was about when it came to abortion. But alas that does not happen.
This world is already ruined. The sun set a long time on this amazing ball of life. Everyone feels it is their right to have a child, and the way the political machines moves nowadays, no one does anything to dispel that illusion. Having a child should have been a blessed gift to this earth, rather than all the other things having a child has meant today. Never will we know of the harmony that existed, once upon a time, when all the creatures were wide-eyed awake with action, survival, and enlightenment written upon their countenances. Since those days are long gone, let the axe swing. Kill Kill Kill. In today’s day and age its not really up to you anymore if you kill, but you can at least make a few choices about what you kill and why you do it.