With Alabama, America's Abortion Debate Heats Up, and Doesn't Look to Cool Off Anytime Soon (Ways of Thinking)

History has not proven frugal the ignorance of human nature

-A scene from the FX sitcom It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, episode: ‘Charlie Wants an Abortion’ (2005)  -BUT WHICH SIDE IS SHE SCREAMING AT!?!?!?!?

-A scene from the FX sitcom It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, episode: ‘Charlie Wants an Abortion’ (2005)

-BUT WHICH SIDE IS SHE SCREAMING AT!?!?!?!?

5/20/19, 7:32 pm EST

By John Corry, photos from Ottawa Citizen and Fanpop/FX

For more directly relevant (I wrote it) reference on this topic (‘abortion’), see this and this.

For over fifty years a storm has been brewing: how can people have debates when they were never taught what a ‘debate’ is?

It’s not a hard question: a ‘debate’ is a conversation with an ear towards figuring out some conclusion, a conclusion predicated on the simple fact that no one knows everything. It is not a competition to see who is Absolutely ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, it is not an ‘exorcise’ in DESTROYING the other person. While evidence from any angle gears everyone towards better understanding, no conversation ever really ends. Everyone is different, and all people have room to grow, even 2Pac, and Einstein.

But after fifty years demonizing of other people embraced as the only way to make grounds in any ‘debate’ or even ‘conversation’, increasingly manipulative/emotionally degenerate advertising, and declining grade-school subjects (civics? economics? certainly not dialectics or metaphysics (*Joke) people have forgotten that primary pillar of intellectual evolution, the most basic stone upon which all thought is derived:

Well, that, once again, you’re not the only person in the world (‘liberal’ my ass (dumbass (to get offended by a word is to delegitimize any argument pertaining to your, or anyone’s, interpretation of that word, because it simplifies that argument to a mere word; words represent concepts–not the other way round–and concepts can be complicated, words can be manipulated))).

Last week, Alabama passed a law aimed at taking Roe v. Wade back to the supreme court. By specifically excluding exceptions for abortions in the case of rape or incest, the state has ensured that the assertion made by the Roe v. Wade decision that life cannot be defined Absolutely until the child has been born (essentially; I am not a legal expert, so that very well may not be a very good paraphrase, but it’s the best I have), will be challenged, and a number of other states have joined suit. As of today, Ohio, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Utah, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Missouri have all passed bills which at the very least limit abortion to before the detection of a fetal heartbeat.

This comes five months after bills going the complete other direction (like allowing abortion up to, and possible even in the moments after, birth) (and kudos to Kathleen Parker for that article just linked) escalated the conflict. Prior to that, while many considered the 2016 election to be an election ‘about the abortion debate’, there’d been no escalation since 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey which concluded that a mother does not have to inform the father she’s getting an abortion, in any capacity. Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973, and before that, abortion was largely unregulated.

Upon that decision, ‘pro-choicers’ lauded the court for essentially guaranteeing a lower rate of ‘black market’ abortions–and so much safer circumstances for the women getting them–as ‘pro-lifers’ originally FREAKED OUT by assuming their right to force upon everyone else their beliefs regarding the nature and meaning of life. The ‘abortion debate’ used to be a spiritual one–so long as the rhetoric regarding its politics was kept civil–and it was until conservatives and religious people said, ‘it’s my way or the highway sugah, and I am in touch with God; you are not.’ Spirituality became synonymous with power politics, and the debate has devolved into primacy and tribalism ever since (which is what happens when you combine two such opposing concepts for political purposes; the nature of the action of imposing your will upon others does not change with your reasoning for doing so)).

While that’s not to blame all this tension on conservatives (see the fact that people change over time /> and those abortion laws^ passed in January), it is to say that this ‘debate’ going on now–or ever since last week when the rhetoric once again saw an increase in temperature–is not so easy as ‘well, I’m right and they’re wrong’, if that’s not obvious. Both sides have their faults in the situation getting to this level, and both will have to sacrifice something in order to bring it down–

And if it doesn’t come down, this debate will play a major impact in coming disasters.

The reason has to do with the true nature of the subject matter (so true).

The question ‘what is the meaning of life’ is one of the most essential and basic components of consciousness. However, it is not a question easily answered, if it can be answered at all. Case in point, specifically concerning the nature of abortion as an in-action procedure with moral implications: ‘pro-lifers’ consider the meaning of life to be elusive, Absolutely unanswerable by objective consciousness, and therefore spiritual /> and pro-choicers consider it a subjective process having more to do with the inherent divisibility of consciousness between all infinitely differing individuals living together underneath it–and under laws–and as such is therefore political.

So these two ‘sides’ are not really ‘sides’ the way MSNBC and FOX are going to frame them because they can’t buy anybody smart enough to make this point apparent (APPARENTLY); they’re ways of thinking. Beliefs and values are focus-points within ways of thinking which make these infinitely varying ‘ways of thinking’ intelligible and useful to/for consciousness, they are not Absolute in the sense that they can define the entire way of thinking itself. When the argument comes down so clearly to those ways of thinking (in this case: political thinking and spiritual thinking), to assert that they is to miss the entire thing (or: the entire ‘debate’). Both ‘sides’ of this ‘debate’ (I would have said ‘extremes’ of this debate, but I think we’re a little beyond that at this point), currently, are ignoring any inherent humanity in the other side, if for any other reason, because that’s what the other side has forced them to do (and that indeed goes for both sides there, guys). This has nothing to do with ‘the meaning of life’ or the ‘rights of women’ any more than Game of Thrones finale didn’t have anything to do with humanizing evil–

Because we’re all evil–

Accept it, get over it, and never stop challenging it–

Dumbass–

Even the words used to describe these ‘sides’ have underlying implications. ‘Life’ and ‘choice’ are fairly unrelated concepts (until we get into the dialectical debate regarding the nature of free-will and its place in the consciousness’ potential to understand the world (all propositions come down to a contention for either Absolute free-will (the assertion that all human interactions with the world are dependent and made possible by that human interaction), or Absolute determinism (the opposite of that< (that humans have nothing to do with anything)))). They can’t be compared simply, even in themselves as their own concepts, outside of any potential ways of thinking which they may affect. ‘Life’ is spiritual, it’s more general, it concerns the nature of the world, and man’s place in it; ‘choice’ is political, it recognizes argument as a dialectical tool rather than a potential end-game, and it concerns the potential for action in the world, opposed to any kind of meaning (which is the ‘pro-life’ argument). These two ways of thinking will never collide unless through a power vacuum, because power is the only thing inherent to both action and thought (it potentially both affects them, and makes them up), and all ways of thinking, given that dialectical ‘debate’ (Hegel is pretentious) regarding the nature of how man possibly perceives her world, come down to one of the two propositions Absolute free-will or Absolute determinism, not simultaneously both, if for any other reason that man cannot Absolutely objectify time, given that she is in it in the same way a cat cannot objectively see its own tail.

These ways of thinking are inherent in every argument because everyone has them, and argues from them. They may change from ‘debate’ to ‘debate’ (congratulations! that’s the point of having a debate), but the knowledge that they’re there, undermining your ‘opponent’s’ every move, and placing a sense of vulnerability upon all of yours so impossible to remove that two world wars were fought over it (arguably), is essential to any healthy society, and especially any specific ‘debate’ which has been around as long as the ‘abortion’ one has, or which involves such a clear-cut clash of them (ways of thinking).

Good luck aborting that one.

Hint: she’s screaming at YOU!!!!!!!!!

Hint: she’s screaming at YOU!!!!!!!!!