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’ve hit this before, but I am hitting it again…

I am not a Republican (WHHHHHOOOOOAAAAAAA!!!!).

In fact–and I frankly only realize how important this is because Sarah Abrams is giving the obviously necessary ‘rebuttal’ to President Trump’s State of the Union address tonight (as Franicis Fukayama is always *Always *Always wrong) (omgomgomg)–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 ‘liberal’, and I’m liberal because my mind 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. I find neither nearly ‘better’ than the other, as both of these ways of thinking (processes) are equally necessary for man’s perception of the world, and for her active place in it (however different they may be); it’s about who you are, and the way your mind works on a moment-to-moment basis within the parameters of the context of any particular argument.

*Please remember the title of this article…

But Democrats (*RegisteredTrademark), don’t lately seem to grasp this (that link to the Stacey Abrams article above /> identity politics is a 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 called in-action ‘class struggle’, and which I call the history of thought) which it (albeit accidentally, as far as I can tell) represents as a whole /> anybody would be optimistic after the fall of the Soviet Union following 50 years of Cold War paranoia)), and 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–has anything to say about it: Dems don’t seem to fundamentally grasp that two people can in any way be different at all. They’ve assumed the debate over, however ‘emotional’ the other side may be /> their emotions are worthless in light of mine. They’ve proven that they’ve abandoned the main tenants of ‘liberalism’–like open-mindedness, an assumed humility, and individualism–for a more stronger type of philosophy, one which counters the militancy which conservatives have been trying to insert into every aspect of life since forever: 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), whereas politics focuses that art, and as such serves not just as the arbiter, but is the entire reason we’re able to understand that ‘focused identity’ (any ‘collective’, for lack of a better term) in the first place, as, without it identity is merely a way to understand people)).

Nowadays: there is no such thing as existence, love, art, or happiness without the Absolute pretext that somebody has got to have the power pulling these levers (because power is the only thing which contributes to that ‘pulling’?), and making them irrelevant through that fact of forced oppression which is so obviously embodied by the most simple differences between all human beings. For all the talk against capitalism, they sure are wont to adhere to one of its primary principles: life and human experience is all ‘yes’ or ‘no’ (or: everything or nothing) and that is all human life is and could possibly ever be…

And only 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–and as we’ve seen before (and I’m being purposefully malignant here because I AM THE ONLY SMART PERSON ALIVE)–all of human life and everything involved with it (including relationships?) is nothing more than power-politics, so the question ‘what is life’ here has no meaning in reality 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, or 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)).

To say that postmodernism is all that’s at fault would be ridiculous (one-sided), however, as it can certainly be cool in the right context (like when it’s self-contained?). For all the problems of postmodernism and its father figure (the specified openness-to-history of Hegel) this new ‘debate’ (regarding abortion) is nothing more than, ironically here (given the ‘abortion’ part of this? *Joke), 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, just: totalitarianism (Arendt))

YES: the abortion debate is saturated with a postmodern dogmatism (what-is: antithetical to what postmodernism claims to be about) far more than necessary, 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 (bitch))). 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 (because there’s no debating that the thing’s a thing once it’s come out of the womb, gurl #MansplainingForBasicDecencyForTheLIVING)–

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 I have (currently, because I’m upset right now #ItMustBeMyPeriod.(see: title)) 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 not sure has anything to do with any of thisor the fact that millions of couples are looking to adopt, 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 whose opinion differs from your most extreme ‘liberal’.

But what separates these ‘extreme liberals’ (or any extreme lackey doused in partisan foolery) from the rest of us?

The ability to think.

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’ anyway. 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/perspective. 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 (what-is: objectivity (or: Absolute objectivity, to get technical))– 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 nor can a woman see it completely 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 (given the context here, and the influence of the ‘meaning of life’ question on that context), 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 (as something ‘personal’; once hijacked for power-politics, it becomes nothing more than a nexus for a collective which has lost its center (of the ‘individual’) for an easier route towards more power which it assumes even higher than its own existence, collective identity necessarily built upon personal or individual identity given the infinitely varied nature of individual human experience).

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 ridiculousness, bruuuv (never-ending one-sidedness, for its own sake), or, in Absolutely Relative terms for you postmodernists out there (‘totalitarian fascists’ (;D)): Absolute doom.

Picture from  Warner Bros. The Dark Knight,  directed by Christopher Nolan and starring Health Ledger (pictured here) and Christian Bale

Picture from Warner Bros. The Dark Knight, directed by Christopher Nolan and starring Health Ledger (pictured here) and Christian Bale

‘I’m an agent of chaos.’

Because chaos is one-sided.