how do we survive our soul crushing world?

[Peter Kropotkin]

Mr. Harris would like to have a word with you, Maia.

(it's audio only) https://youtu.be/jk44Hk3waRA

Abortion does not address what causes the need for abortion. It's merely a way to keep being stupid, over and over again.

Prosecuting women for having an abortion is just the type of thing that Leftists would encourage, oh yes. Martyrs for the cause, don't you know. Martyrs for the cause of Death.

It's a death cult.

K: wow, what a way to lie... it is the radical right wing that is
trying to prosecute woman for abortions... we on the left are attempting
to save a woman right to choose.. who has push laws into effect banishing
abortions? Th GOP/MAGA Party... there isn't a single blue state trying to
ban abortions.. the states banning abortions are red states.. now given these
facts, how can you say its "leftists" who are "persecuting" women?


Kropotkin

[Walker]

How is denying women the right to kill, to slaughter innocence, persecuting women?

[Maia]

Mr. Harris would like to have a word with you, Maia.

(it's audio only) https://youtu.be/jk44Hk3waRA

The problem is that arguments like this are the thin end of the wedge, because any cut off point is purely arbitrary. He also presented no evidence that legal abortions benefit a society, he just asserted it.

[Maia]

Abortions on demand are the very definition of de-humanisation, since they promote the idea that a baby isn't human. I can't really think of anything much worse for the moral and cultural wellbeing of a society, since it cheapens human life. When life is cheap, any act of cruelty is ok.

K: Your post has problems and in no particular order,

Your usage of language is problematic, for example a "baby" is already born,
before birth it is called a fetus and a fetus is not human...it isn't born..
an example of this is an acorn.. ACORN: acorns contain seeds that can
grow new oak trees...and if you were to crush an acorn, would you say,
I have killed a tree? Of course not... you would say, I stepped on an acorn..
not, I have stepped on a tree...a fetus as an acorn, is but a possibility,
nothing more..

as for abortions being dehumanizing, you want dehumanizing, try our current
political and economic ism's... capitalism is the single most dehumanizing
political/economic system ever created....and I don't hold as you do, that
abortions are dehumanizing... in fact, I hold the opposite..
I am a parent, a girl, well now a woman, and I know that a basic
necessities of a baby, already born, not of a fetus, not yet born,
is love... babies need love as much as they need food and water and
shelter and the other human necessities...babies without love die just
as surely as they will die without food and water
and a baby that is not loved is as doomed as a child with cancer...
if you don't have love, you may as will not have been born...
life without love is pointless and meaningless, for a baby and for
an adult...

without love, it is better not be born..

Kropotkine

No one says fetus in normal speech, it's an invented term, invented to de-humanise what everyone calls unborn babies, that is, babies.

I agree that capitalism is a bad system but can't really understand how this is linked to abortions.

Many people who can't have children would surely love to adopt an unwanted baby. But to say that without love, it is better not to be born, you're not actually consulting the babies. They might grow up to disagree. After all, it's similar to another question. Without eyes, is it better not to be born?

[iambiguous]

Mr. Harris would like to have a word with you, Maia.

(it's audio only) https://youtu.be/jk44Hk3waRA

The problem is that arguments like this are the thin end of the wedge, because any cut off point is purely arbitrary. He also presented no evidence that legal abortions benefit a society, he just asserted it.

Actually, from my frame of mind, the quandary I encounter with Maia's argument here is that she will admit that had her life been different, she might well be here arguing for the right of women to have abortions.

Instead, she possesses this intrinsic "spiritual Self" that is "somehow" connected to the Goddess that is "somehow" connected to her own individual understanding of and relationship to Nature.

From my perspective, she seems to "just know" intuitively that abortion is immoral.

And since we are not her, we can never really grasp how this all unfolds in her head and heart. In her...soul?

Also, this particular political prejudice...

"Abortions on demand are the very definition of de-humanisation..."

...can easily be turned around by the other side:

"Forcing women to give birth against their will is the very definition of de-humanization."

After all, how, politically, can women ever really acquire equal rights with men in a world they can be forced to give birth? In a world where only women get pregnant?

In other words, given the political prejudices of those on both sides of this moral conflagration, the world is soul crushing when the other side is politically able to prevail.

[Walker]

"Forcing women to give birth against their will is the very definition of de-humanization."

Nature forces women to give birth in the taxi, in the car, in the elevator, in the subway, on the sidewalk, in the bathtub, or under medical supervision. Wherever. Nature brings the issue to a head, not man, not woman. In the quest to imitate nature, doctors can now induce labor and with drugs make it rather painless to give birth. Not like the old days. Not like our first. No need to die anymore from the complications caused by pain and exhaustion and blood loss while in labour. This is the advantage of intelligence. Childbirth is relatively easy for women, a break from the grind of scrubbing floors and doing the wash by hand, down at the river, 7 days a week with a break on Sunday to drop another kid. With such an advantage and intelligence and civilization, not to mention a lot of trained medical folks, why slaughter the innocent who are the most vulnerable among us? Why indeed, you selfish ... we'll leave it at that, no need for name calling. History will look back and say, my God, what Monsters they were. How, un-evolved they were back in those centuries. When was it that they said, "Never again?" and actually made it stick? Of course, this truth is obvious to The Time Lords pre-Dr. Who, with their broad perspective, and they share these truths with us in the way Time Lords do. If we would but listen civilization would finally advance, again.

[promethean75]

"If Jack stopped ripping and proceeded to love his neighbors, then he would be a role model for Christianity."

But then he'd be known as Jack the Lover and that just sounds lame.

[promethean75]

Don't be silly Maia Mr. Harris explicitly said that some young women's lives would be a living hell if they were forced to conceive... and those women are part of society... hence, abortions can be good for society.

But he's only talking about terminating pregnancies that are ten weeks or less.

I don't even think you listened to the whole podcast bro. He totally explained all that.

[Walker]

Don't be silly Maia Mr. Harris explicitly said that some young women's lives would be a living hell if they were forced to conceive... and those women are part of society... hence, abortions can be good for society.

But he's only talking about terminating pregnancies that are ten weeks or less.

I don't even think you listened to the whole podcast bro. He totally explained all that.

That's an interesting justification for literally, not figuratively, doing what they do to formed humans in that particular stage of their development. The limb from limb thing, that Jake did up there, in your reference.

I do understand the argument for abortion. You must understand, it's sweeping a deeper something right under the rug.

[Maia]

Don't be silly Maia Mr. Harris explicitly said that some young women's lives would be a living hell if they were forced to conceive... and those women are part of society... hence, abortions can be good for society.

But he's only talking about terminating pregnancies that are ten weeks or less.

I don't even think you listened to the whole podcast bro. He totally explained all that.

I listened to it all but it was nothing new. For those few months of disruption, a women should receive all the support she needs. It is not a living hell.

And they are not being forced to conceive, if that's what you actually meant to say.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Don't be silly Maia Mr. Harris explicitly said that some young women's lives would be a living hell if they were forced to conceive... and those women are part of society... hence, abortions can be good for society.

But he's only talking about terminating pregnancies that are ten weeks or less.

I don't even think you listened to the whole podcast bro. He totally explained all that.

For those few months of disruption, a women should receive all the support she needs. It is not a living hell.

You really are a silly little naive, self-centred woman.

[Gary Childress]

Does that make the implications more understandable for you or do you need brail?

Why would I need brail, Gary?

Because you don't seem to be thinking very clearly without it.

[promethean75]

stand down vegitariantaxi.

"For those few months of disruption, a women should receive all the support she needs. It is not a living hell."

in most countries biological parents are by default the legal guardians for eighteen years, maia, so hardly 'a few months' as you say.

plus if you make abortion illegal as a result cities and states suffer a spike in the number of adoption kids and have to spend more on state foster care and stuff. I'm telling you it's a bad idea. watch what happens. the exact opposite of what the right thinks will be the lesson learned. instead of greater responsibility, kids will be getting pregnant more often cuz they know eventually the state will take up the burden, etc. this is the way of the future, Maia. a MAPA future. make america pregnant again.

[Peter Kropotkin]

and after all that, I shall return to the topic at hand...
how do we survive our soul crushing world?

and it has to do with something that conservatives absolutely hate which is
aesthetics...

Aesthetics: concern with beauty or the appreciation of beauty..
a set of principals concern with the nature and appreciation of beauty..
especially in art...

seeking beauty is totally against a conservative value unless it has something
to do with making money or to show off their social standing..

"Hay, look at what I can afford'' school of thought..

beauty is used as a means of ego.. I can get any beautiful woman I want,
because I am rich.. ego...and I can fund museums and buy ART because I am rich ego...
not because ART has aesthetic value or is beautiful...nope...
ART value lies in stoking the Wealthy ego

in schools, classes in ART are devalued/reduced to nothing...
music classes and drama classes are also reduced and why?

Because the upper class only wants enough schooling, enough
education for people to become workers in factories..
or other factory lit jobs like the one I have in a grocery store
where I spend my days, standing in my check stand and scan items..
if they can ever train monkeys to hand out change, I am out of work...
and therein lies the soul crushing aspect of our modern existence...

to work, to make money, to earn a living is the highest praise for
people in our modern world... and that is exactly what is wrong with the
world... the modern corporate world uses people to make money..
people are sacrificed to make money for the corporate world...
and if you die, oh well, now we can hire someone who we can
pay less than you... your death helps us make money..
people are worked to death and the corporate world only care
is to make money...

and we return to how we might survive our soul crushing world?

Engage with things other than making money or working, producing
or consuming... for that is the modern mantra..

work, produce or consume

and the aesthetics, the search for beauty, the beauty of a sunset or
the sheer beauty of the mountains... and the beauty of love...
it don't cost a thing to be in love...

we have other possibilities besides working ourselves to death for the
benefit of others, like our corporate masters...

Kropotkin

[Walker]

Does that make the implications more understandable for you or do you need brail?

Why would I need brail, Gary?

Because you don't seem to be thinking very clearly without it.

As you know, that's no answer. How does braille cause one to think more clearly?