Virginia Reignites Abortion 'Debate' (If We Can Even Call It That Anymore) (Excerpt on Partisan Fatigue 5)

In an attempt to further divide Americans (there has been no real debate on the higher levels on this issue since the 80s at best), Democrats once again prove who they really are (insert Joker meme here)

Depiction of a fetus at 12 weeks, according to

Depiction of a fetus at 12 weeks, according to

2/5/19, 8:44 pm EST

By John Corry, photo from

I am not a Republican (WHHHHHOOOOOAAAAAAA).

In fact, and I realize how important this is because Sarah Abrams is giving the obviously necessary ‘rebuttal’ to President Trump’s State of the Union address tonight (because Franicis Fukayama is always *Always *Always wrong), I only call myself a ‘Democrat’ because other people seem to have a hard talking to me if I don’t bow down to at least one of their identitarian terms. I’m a ‘Democrat’ because I’m a ‘liberal’ and I’m a liberal because my mind simply tends to think more about the future, and the possibilities it holds, than about the past, and what’s gone into making those possibilities possible in the first place. As I’ve said before, neither is ‘better’ than the other, and both of these ways of thinking (processes) are equally necessary for man’s perception of the world, and therefore her active place in it (however different they may be); it’s really about who you are, and the way your mind works on a moment-to-moment basis.

Democrats, however, don’t seem to grasp this (see that link to the Stacey Abrams article above (identity politics is a simple misunderstanding of the way humans perceive the universe; Fukayama can be tough (the real point of End of History was the modern interpretation of Hegel’s ‘historical materialism’ (which Marx hijacked, and which I call the history of thought) which it (albeit accidentally, as far as I can tell) represents– anybody would be optimistic after the fall of the Soviet Union following 50 years of Cold War paranoia)). In fact, if this new bill from Virginia governor Ralph Northam, allowing abortion up to–and possibly moments after–birth so long as a doctor says it’s necessary for the mother’s ‘health’, physical or mental (I’ll get to it), has anything to say about it, Dems don’t seem to fundamentally grasp that two people can in any way be different or the same at all, as they’ve proven that, to them: life is politics, and that is all (‘identity politics’ is far more about the ‘politics’ that the ‘identity’– identities are infinitely varied (we all have different experiences), politics focuses that art, and as such serves not just as the arbiter, but the entire reason we’re able to understand that ‘focused identity’ (collectivism, which is for a different article) in the first place, as without it identity is merely a way to understand people). There is no such thing as existence, love, art, or happiness without the pretext that somebody has got to have the power pulling these levers, and making them irrelevant through that fact of FORCED oppression which is so obviously embodied by the obvious differences between all human beings. For all the talk against the capitalism, they sure are wont to inhabit one of its primary principles: it’s ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (or everything or nothing), and that is all human life is and can possible be. And the person with the most power gets to decide–


So when it comes to MY BODY, I have the power, because, as we’ve just seen, human life is nothing more than power politics, so the question ‘what is life’ has no actual meaning in reality (and nor, for that matter, does life itself) unless you’re the one wielding all the power (personally: I may not be a dictator, but I still find that life has meaning (this is a complicated subject, and a more detailed rundown of postmodernism and the influence of Marx on thinkers who claim that economics isn’t a real science (I hate money as much as the next commie (check out Part 3, Chapter 14 of my book/novel-thing Phi11y’s P-Hines{T} /> #Hardcore PHant-[O]m$ (or check out the full thing here, of the free PDF here)), but what humans produce–in itself–accumulates, regardless of the form we use to simplify it for further use (Arendt)), would obviously be beneficial, but we don’t have time for that here)).

To say that postmodernism is all that’s at fault here would be ridiculous, however (I’m actually not the biggest fan of demonizing postmodernism; it can be quite fascinating in the right context, and everything is wrong is certain ways, and has the potential to attract authoritarian thinking (it’s /> human nature (see /> the next sentence)). For all the problems of postmodernism and its father figure–the specific openness of Hegel–this new ‘debate’, a wish-wash of a fairly simple argument going back decades, is nothing more than, ironically here (given the ‘abortion part of this), a proclivity natural to human beings as long as they’ve been around, and we can call it however ‘reactionary’ we want (and certainly wouldn’t necessarily be wrong to):

Partisan authoritarianism (or: totalitarianism (Arendt))

If you’re triggered by my language here, it’s on purpose: I find the abortion debate to be saturated with a postmodern dogmatism (what is: antithetical to what postmodernism claims to be about) far more than necessary for this specific circumstance, and I think people need to, as with fucking everything anymore it would seem, calm the fuck down over it before they attempt to have a legitimate conversation regarding what comes down–at bottom–to a misunderstanding over the meaning of life (yes, that’s the same link (twice)). If Democrats think that these bills are being misrepresented in the media or by Republicans, then they need to do a better job at proving that– because Virginia bill sponsor Kathy Tram admitting that a baby would be killed as the mother is dilating so long the doctor ‘though the mother’s mental health was in jeopardy’ isn’t a very good look.

Especially if Democrats want to come off as ‘bipartisan’, but, then again…

What the hell am I thinking??


“In this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I could tell you exactly what would happen: the infant would be delivered; the infant would be kept comfortable; the infant would be resuscitated, if that's what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” Northam said in response to questioning regarding the bill, which many have taken to mean that if the mother and the doctor decide to kill the baby–even after it’s exited the birth canal–they have every right under this bill. Never mind the recent findings regarding Northam’s past–which I’m honestly not sure really has anything to do with any of this (outside of the normal partisan FUCK EVERYONE WHO’S NOT ME rhetoric which everyone knows politics has ALWAYS been about)or the fact that millions of couples are looking to adopt (again: I’ll get to it)– this bill is meant for one thing, and one thing only, just as last week’s New York bill was as well:

Throwing a big FUCK YOU to everyone who dares to have an opinion different than that of your most extreme ‘liberal’.

I am not ‘pro-life’. To ‘reiterate’: I believe that this debate has two sides too fundamentally opposed to have any conciliatory answer. To sum up: to the ‘pro-choicers’, this is a political discussion; to the ‘pro-lifers’, it is a spiritual one. Science can’t act as a simple mediator in such a dialectic, as neither argument claims to have any stake in ‘hard’ science, or at least not before taking any Absolute moral stance, but it can provide an important perspective (not so simple): what, as objectively as we can get with it, defines a ‘human being’? Is there anything which differentiates human beings form other animals?

As far as we can currently tell, it is the ability to think.

Or (what is): consciousness.

Consciousness finds its base somewhere in the human neocortex. The first brain cells begin to develop about 5 weeks after conception, with the full development of the neocortex not coming for at least 6 months. There is not a ton of information on this out there, as far as when the neocortex truly forms (it continues to grow well into adulthood), but that’s because scientists don’t seem to fully know. If anyone can help me out on that one, I’d greatly appreciate it, but it still seems to me that the answer ‘we need more information’ is at least a few steps up from ‘FUCK YOU!!!!!!’, objectively speaking.


The question of whether that neocortex ‘will develop’, as many ‘pro-lifers’ will claim is the case with a fetus-as-a-human even just hours after conception, is irrelevant in wake of the fact that, at some point in the past, everything in the universe had the potentiality to become ‘human’. Prior to the big bang, all particles in the universe were condensed to the size of a single atom (I like to think of it as an infinitely small space) (again: as far as we know right now (which is the best we have, and our goal here isn’t to find THE concrete answer, as any answer may change in the future (just ask Isaac Newton), but to find the best one that we can, and one that EVERYONE can conceded to, as heated rhetoric pertaining to politics or spirituality–or, worse, both (as is the case here)–never leads to peace)). And for all we know, everything we see right now may return to the same state at some point in the ‘future’. The ‘potentiality argument’ is one predicated on the assumption that humans necessarily understand the world through a lens concerned only with ‘the now’, and that the rest of time is irrelevant, when, in reality: humans perceive the world through a back-and-forth between subjective and objective learning. We equally understand the world through ‘the now’ as we do the understanding that ‘the now’ is one moment in a potentially infinite space of time stretching far beyond anything we could ever know in full– as ‘the now’ imbibes too much concentration in itself to allow for such Absolutely subjective understanding.

As for the physical/mental health: same story. I can’t possibly see it subjectively (or, therefore, from any angle involving specific identity, aside from my outside glance), as a dude (though, as a father, I think it gets a little murky, but, again: another article), but nor can a woman see it objectively. Of course: both of us can attempt to do so, and we’ll get quite close, if we’re honest about it, but that’s just the thing: be honest. If you think that the majority of men are simply arguing the way they argue when it comes to abortion–for/against either side–you’re assuming the majority of men to think of life as nothing more than power politics, including the way they love, in relation to any potential child, and let alone to you. Which sounds like quite the excuse to hate-on-a-motherfucker if you ask me (not to say that a man can’t give you any reason to hate on him: just don’t assume one). If freedom has any refuge from power politics, or any inherent separation, it’s in exactly that which liberals hold so dear, and which if they only calmed down about it would have a much bigger audience to hear it: what the difference is between individuals:

Personal identity (the only kind of identity there is, which, when hijacked for power-fused political agendas, loses its identity).

But that’s too much. It’s 2019, Trump is president; there is no refuge from power politics, only ignorance. When the western world built its values around the duality between morality and technicality (philosophy), it ignored the duality which that duality itself came from–the Chinese yin/yang (up and down may be opposed, but they are just as equally nothing without the conception of the other one (meaning: for such clearly opposing ideals, neither can exist on its own without the other one))–and so started a 2000+ year-long (and most probably longer) trend toward one-sided, Absolute (or Absolutely Relative for you postmodernists out there ;D), doom.


‘I’m an agent of chaos.’

Because chaos is one-sided.