New York Signs Abortion Bill Allowing Abortions Until 'Last Day of Pregnancy'

Last Tuesday, January 22nd and the 47th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion, the state government of New York announced the Reproductive Health Act

Scientist and original  Cosmos  host Carl Sagan once wrote in regards to evolution: “It is not what we look like that specifies our humanity, but what we are.” ( Dragons of Eden , 1977)

Scientist and original Cosmos host Carl Sagan once wrote in regards to evolution: “It is not what we look like that specifies our humanity, but what we are.” (Dragons of Eden, 1977)

1/28/19, 6:20 pm EST

By John Corry, photo from StatisticsBrain

–Parental Discretion Advised–

In a move sure to turn some–*heads*–New York governor Anthony Cuomo in reaction to the announcement of the Reproductive Health Act said: “I am directing that New York’s landmarks be lit in pink to celebrate this achievement and shine a bright light forward for the rest of the nation to follow,” to which many haters pointed out the irony: they should be lit red (dirty, demonic, amoral, fascist, sinful, anti-American, anti-’science’, baby-killing–)

The condemnations from conservatives have been swift (*SoSwift), with some calling for the governor’s head, others for him to lose some of his rights in the Catholic church–of which he is a member–and most (definitely ‘the most’) arguing for his ousting as a member altogether. Pundits of ‘the left’ have of course FREAKED OUT! over such reactions, and praises on all sides have forced everyone to take a side: on Wednesday of last week, Ohio governor Mike DeWine said that he will sign a controversial ‘heartbeat bill’ originally vetoed by former Ohio Governor John Kasich (R) which makes all abortions performed before a fetal heartbeat can be detected illegal.

Fetal heartbeats appear within 3-4 weeks following conception, before many women know they’re pregnant (oh, shit).

This is an important issue, and one in which people refuse to shake in any way whatsoever. This is about a question asking ‘when does life start?’, though (and this is my ‘main’ thing here #MeMeMeItsMeAndOnlyMeWhoMattersOnTopicsLikeThese) with a presupposition inclined toward some acclamation to an either strictly spiritual philosophy, or a political one. Conservatives claim the former–their assumption that a ‘man’ can morally Absolutely make the call over when life starts (because he totally can physically give birth) ignores the fact that a ‘woman’ must (make that call)–and the liberals with the latter doing the same old Marxist thing they always do when shit gets too emotionally heavy: blaming the fact that, if thought about in a certain way and through a certain lens, everything comes down to politics.

As everything comes down to anything /> nor does everything come down Absolutely to spirituality, as the conservatives argue on this topic, and in just as vehement terms as the militant ‘leftists’ (and I use ‘vehement’ here to mean: inherently unwilling to even debate, as if the other ‘side’ could have any point at all) do...


While the frequency of women getting abortions with the same attitudes they get check-ups may be going up (a phenomenon I blame on the heightened tensions begot from the rising heat level in the political realm exploited as a angel masquerading as some fake, ‘idealized’ version of Freud’s id), the reality is that the Lena Dunhams out there are far in between (sorry, Lena, but proclaiming a desire to have an abortion to performed isn’t helping anybody /> we can talk about it)). Most women–as far as I can tell–would not be very stoked to have to have an abortion procedure performed (passive verb there intentional). On the flip side, the idea that men simply want the right to control women’s bodies is equally ludicrous: as the majority of women realize that that’s a fucking kid that’s coming out at the end of all this, so does the man, however: obviously with a different point of view. No man has the right to tell a woman what it’s like to be a woman, but neither can a woman tell a man what it’s like to be a man, no matter how volatile the power politics may be at play here (or anywhere), or how equally emotionally involved both parties may be (if you think men aren’t equally emotionally involved after they find out that they may be a father, you’re hanging out with the wrong men (sorry)).

Which renders this entire controversy, 50+ years in the making, not one about religion, science, or even freedom (or: freedom for classically marginalized groups (like women)), but one deeper and more applicable to the human condition as a whole than to any individual opinion or belief anyone involved or not involved may have (hence the controversy). While those elements are certainly elements at play here, they cannot be considered the entire argument any more than any person can know exactly what it’s like to be any other person–

Which you can’t (dick)–

The question regarding ‘abortion’ is the question of the ‘meaning of life’ (‘meaning’ being the potentially political part) within the context of the as-yet far-from-completely-understood power politics at play between sexually attached men and women, or vice versa (because if you’re not the one who had the sex with the (now pregnant) woman, you don’t have much of a say (this is to get at the nature of the argument– obviously, rhetorically you have a say (and therefore politically), yet the search for the ‘meaning of life within the context of power politics’ is an individual search before it is a societal one because the search for truth is individual; the possibility ‘search for truth’ being impossible without the conscious (as opposed to: subconscious) recognition of it (Descartes/Jung))). Because we don’t have the capability to see life Absolutely objectively (as we are in it (and just as we cannot see life Absolutely subjectively either: because we have the capability to fathom some Absolute objectivity (or: understand facts)) (and, to the topic at hand: because no person can know firsthand what it’s like growing up as both a man and a woman)), science can only go so far here in any way connected to the question of the meaning of life, however small, or even indirectly. Yes, a seeded embryo following sex will become a human if not infringed upon, but so will the same situation in a rabbit (what is: life). That poor rabbit embryo can’t see, it can’t feel (so far as we know), and a full-grown rabbit can do those things, yet we’re all fine with a rabbit as roadkill on the side of the street?

What’s the difference?

The rabbit is a rabbit, not a human.

If the argument is ‘the human embryo is going to turn into a human’, then the argument is now about what it means to be human, and not just the fact that some things are and some things aren’t human (what-is: the difference between man and animals (see: further)), rendering the ‘pro-life’ argument that all life is worth something as contradictive at best /> there is some kind of value structure going on there. Yet, ‘something is going to turn into a human’, while admitting the reality of the hierarchy inherent in any value structure (including politics or b-spiritual individuality (the individuality assumed by the state constitutionally which may allow any group to voice its opinions in a public ‘forum’ (change ‘state’ to company and we’re talking about sheer professionalism)), still ignores the fact that at one point in the (very) distant past, every chemical in the universe was in the same cloud, before the ‘big bang’. Everything in the universe has the ‘capability’ to turn into a human at some point, assuming time and space to be ‘inherently-infinite’, or as far as human consciousness can perceive it at this time (the concept ‘infinity’ there to be inseparable (or: impossibly understood apart) from ‘space’ and ‘time’, and vice versa)– though not without certain focused ‘points’ where the singularity makes itself ‘apparent’ (or: ‘known’ for consciousness).

Combined with the fact that in quantum theory, regarding how particles interact on the smallest levels (‘depending on where you’re looking from: any particle can be in two places at once’), the argument that ‘human life starts at conception’ is an argument over the ‘meaning of time’–

And good luck with that one.

So we’re back to the fact that there is a difference between human beings and other beings, and where the ‘meaning of life’ can start to be twisted to terms of natural hierarchies or power politics (power politics: that ‘singularity’ simplified for primal survivalist tendencies and instincts (in this case)).

To render the capacities of man as nothing more than a tweak in her biological system (which may very well be true, from a hierarchical, physical-values-based POV (so: void of morals or psychological ontology (‘openness’)) is to however ignore potential human capability for emotion/spirituality subjectively within, but objectively outside, of that biological system (depending on which avenue we’re thinking about it, or which perspective we’re taking), and to therefore render the ‘meaning of life’ conversation (which inherently includes some type of objective/subjective dichotomy, as the ‘true’ nature of life is not yet ’fully’ ‘known’ (and it’s ‘possible’ that it can’t be)) null in the face of biological or technological fact (maybe a better way to put it would be, for that POV: ‘where does consciousness come from?’?). The assertion that, ‘it’s all science, and science says the heartbeat starts at 3-4 weeks in’, even outside of verbatim natural laws, still violates the basic mandate (of any argument) that you can’t just assume that everyone is on the same page as to what that means regarding the question (the ‘meaning of life’), as not everyone agrees (in this case) with the assertion that it’s the heartbeat which differentiates man from animal–

In the view of Carl Sagan (which is where I got this from #IsTakingIdeasToFurtherFigureOutIdeasPlagarism?): it’s far more ‘obvious’:

The difference is consciousness.

“Cogito ergo sum.” –Rene Descartes (‘I think, therefore I am’.)

No other animal is ‘conscious’, as far as we can tell or have currently defined the term. Finding time continuous, no other being we know of on Earth has built cities, written symphonies or tried to escape police in a Ford Bronco–for murder–at 35mph down a highway during L.A. rush hour. If there is any measurable point of difference between man and beast– that’s it (is it?). ‘The beast’ can’t ‘think’ (or at least it doesn’t realize it’s doing it with any tangible proof), it can’t debate, but the human does, and she does because she is ‘conscious’ and can write down the recognition of herself as herself in the mirror (Descartes).

Consciousness is what differentiates humans from other beasts, but it’s ‘content’ (what it ‘is’ (if it is ‘something’)), as well as the way it’s evolved biologically, is a question going back to the dawn of the phenomenon, and its understanding–or ‘our’ understanding of ‘it’–is still seemingly no where near coming to fruition.

Though the field of neuroscience–and especially regarding the development of the brain in the womb–is not completely unified, as best as I can find, there are some generally accepted notions regarding the source of consciousness in the brain:

-The neocortex is the newest addition to the reptilian and mammalian brains, developing over the past 200 million years, starting in the Cretaceous period of the dinosaurs.

-The neocortex is associated with language, spatial reasoning, motor commands, and thought in general.

-Without a functioning neocortex, a human loses all capability to think, reason, or do any of the things which we associate with ‘conscious humanity’. All the other parts of the brain may be working fine–and as such the person can ‘live’ perfectly well (though ‘live’ there is used vaguely)–but without the neocortex, the ‘human’ parts of the ‘human’ are gone (check out this, this, this, this, this, and this).

-While all mammals have a neocortex, it fills about 76% of the human brain’s volume, which is more than other mammals, and a lot more considering how much physically bigger humans’ brains are compared to other mammals, as well as the brain’s relation to the rest of the body shared with the brain.

-The fetal brain does not begin to develop until 3-4 weeks in, with nerve cells connecting different areas of the brain (a must for any living creature outside of plants) not developing until the end of the first trimester (12 weeks) (check out this, this and this).

-Neuroscience is a rapidly growing field, and more information is needed.

BUT! />

Neither side is concerned with any of that (I am Jack’s devil’s advocate (Palaniuk)).

While ‘conservatives’ get their PANTIES all in a bunch over their ‘god-given right’ to tell the rest of the world when life ABSOLUTELY begins (and ends? #FuckingMurderersShouldInvestInFord), ‘liberals’ are trying to flaunt their GIGANTIC cock-and-balls as much as they possibly can /> The liberal substantiative to the conservative ‘meaning’ is ‘power’, because the ‘liberal’ discovery that all humans are different implies a more complicated in-time application of the concept ‘power’, regarding each one of those individual’s specific ‘places’, in ‘the world’; it made ‘power’ as natural to human experience as pain, morality, and virtue, and as such elevated ‘power politics’ (the ‘rhetorical’ part of ‘politics’ (so: most of it (apparently)) as natural to society as everyday communication (which doesn’t render ‘power politics’ any more ‘important’, or whatever, than ‘everyday communication’– from a certain point of view).

in other words: meaning is to power what spirituality is to politics.

Which makes sense through a subjective point of view (compared to the ‘conservative’ objective (in this case)), but which is just the thing here, and it’s the reason why all of this needs to be heated the fuck down for a goddamned hot minute: human perception is equal parts objective and subjective, or, more specifically: it cannot understand reality Absolutely (or: ‘fully’) through only one of either of those lens, as its perception of that reality is equally dependent on both different/opposing perspectives (think of it as something like the Chinese Yin/Yang). To forget that is to forget what makes consciousness ‘conscious’ (balance/educated-faith), and render this entire controversy as ridiculous (one-sided), let alone pretty much any other argument ever possibly conceived if taken under the illusion that reality could ever be completely understood by any single (perspective-wise) in-time consciousness.

All this law does is serve as yet another SWING! and DESTROOOOOOYED! to the–*heads*–of anyone who disagrees with the most strident and most totalitarian of those pretending to ‘argue’ for the ‘liberal’ side of this debate. You lost the mocker ‘liberal’ when you decided that everyone else is Absolutely terrible and has no plight to redemption. To say that it’s okay to kill a baby up to the moment of birth–with the recognition that the debate itself here is only existent under such complex ontological circumstances (the dichotomy between power-politics and ‘based’ spirituality (most simply: ‘power-politics’ is a complex concept (many moving, or as-yet not fully understood) parts), and ‘spirituality’ is one of the most basic concepts there is (alongside things like: ‘life’, ‘math’, ‘science’, ‘art’, etc. (also: politics is obviously less complex than ‘power-politics’)))–is no more based in reality than the argument of a man masturbating is killing a baby. Both are ridiculous (one-sided), but in light of the extremes which either one portends to represent: it’s only logical.

With one side arguing politics, and the other spirituality, the only option is compromise, and it’s a compromise inherently dependent on listening to the other side, or at least assuming good faith over time, as these two ways of thinking are so diametrically opposed. The reason the constitution ‘separates church and state’ isn’t just because the founding fathers ‘hated’ religion (or: religious doctrine??), but because they understood that they simply cannot go hand in hand together without some sort of arbiter, given how different they operate in-action (in our case, here^: psychology??).

‘Women’s rights’? ‘Religious rights’? The ‘rights of the unborn’???

If the only ‘right’ I care to ‘consciously’ care about is DESTROYING! the other side and forcing people to either pay for what they believe to be murder or be brainwashed into thinking that there’s only ever one way to think about any topic, what can any of that possibly ‘mean’ anyway?

Certainly not any more than what any sense of ‘power’ can tell ‘me’ about ‘my’ ‘personal state of humanity’-is-the-entire-world/sole-possibility-of-capability for ‘perception’.