New Abortion Bill in Alabama Again Heats Up Abortion 'Debate' (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)


5/20/19, 7:32 pm EST

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

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

A ‘debate’ is a conversation (with another person) (‘conversation’ the noun for ‘converse’; it’s a simple action) with an ear towards figuring out some conclusion, however: a conclusion predicated on the simple fact that no single person knows everything, nor ever possibly could so long as that person is ‘alive’ (and so living in time and therefore inherently incapable of looking at all of time Absolutely objectively). It is an external form of dialectic concerning the duality of knowledge (the process to gaining it; different from ‘thinking’ as thinking is internal). It is not a competition to see who is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or whose sources are more cited; 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, and ‘debate’ must consider this in its drive towards conclusion or else risk absurdity. Everyone is different, and all people have room to grow /> even 2Pac, and Einstein #ThatCantBe.


Last week, Alabama passed a law aimed at taking Roe v. Wade back to the supreme court. For details of the bill, that link does a good job. It’s fairly controversial, and for more on the current state of the abortion debate in America, see this and this. By specifically excluding exceptions for abortions in the case of rape or incest, Alabama has ensured that the assertion made by the Roe v. Wade decision that, essentially, life cannot be objectively defined until the child has been born (note: I am not a legal expert; that is a WILD simplification made primarily for stylistic reasons, though also for current argumentative ones #ThisShitIsComplicatedSoReadMoreAboutIt; here’s a better write-up), will be challenged. A number of other states have joined, including Ohio, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Utah, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Missouri, all of which have passed bills which at the very least limit abortion to before the detection of a fetal heartbeat (about six weeks in).

This five months after New York and Virginia passed bills going the complete other direction: allowing abortion up to, and possibly even in the moments after, birth (and kudos to Kathleen Parker for that article just linked). Prior to that, while many considered the 2016 election to be an election ‘about the abortion debate’, there’d been no real escalation for over twenty-five years, since 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey which concluded, among reaffirming much of Roe v. Wade and making several other new points, that a mother does not have to inform the father that she’s getting an abortion. Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973, and before that, abortion was largely unregulated and left to individual states.


Upon Roe v. Wade, ‘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’ FREAKED OUT by assuming their right to force upon everyone else their beliefs regarding the nature and meaning of life. The argument that the ‘pro-choicers’ may have been guilty at that time of the same crime will soon be addressed (spoiler alert: they are). The ‘abortion debate’ used to be a spiritual one–so long as the rhetoric regarding its politics was kept civil–until the religious-indoctrinated said, ‘it’s my way or the highway sugah, and I am in touch with God; you are not.’ As a result: spirituality (different than ‘religion’ as belief differs from faith (belief being more personal, faith open-minded) became synonymous with power politics (because the argument was that ‘my’ ‘spiritual understanding’ is ‘better’ than ‘yours’, thereby putting a value on what was originally a personal state of becoming, and so turning that state into a mere value-hierarchy (and so not a personal state of becoming))), and the debate has devolved into primacy and tribalism ever since.

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 (that was supposed to sting #DontStandSoCloseToMe), 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’ (because of course). Both sides have fault for 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: the meaning of life.

This article has to do with the impact of politics/value-hierarchies and religion/spirituality, directly, on that concept.


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, which is not wrong (or: Absolutely out-of-line with truth) /> 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, which is not wrong either (for the duality of existence).

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 (varietal) 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. People are complicated because their Ways of Thinking are always changing and adapting in order to incorporate new information and experiences, and to sort them into new beliefs and values appropriate for future thought and action. As these new beliefs and values form subconsciously, their processes of becoming remain elusive and only possibly intelligible through a dialectical with another consciousness /> like conversation or ‘debate’.

But when the ‘debate’ comes so clearly down to those Ways of Thinking (in the case of abortion: political thinking and spiritual thinking), to assert that they can define the entire Way of Thinking is to miss the entire process, and so any potential for new beliefs or values /> or, in the case of abortion: compromise. Both ‘sides’ of this ‘debate’ (abortion) (I would have said ‘extremes’ of this ‘debate’, but I frankly think we’re 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) /> but on a deeper level because these two Ways of Thinking have evolved in this context (in this ‘debate’) (anything with a ‘process’ has a context) to dehumanize the other side out of a need to simplify Ways of Thinking into mere fodder for competition. In other words: the ‘abortion debate’, anymore, has nothing to do with ‘the meaning of life’ or the ‘rights of women’ any more than the Game of Thrones finale didn’t have anything to do with humanizing evil.

And yes, that was also supposed to sting #EveryBreathYouTake–


The ‘debate’ can only then devolve into primacy, and so must the direct intellectual instruments involved in it. Even the words used to describe these ‘sides’ have underlying implications: ‘life’ and ‘choice’ are fairly unrelated concepts (directly; or at least until we get into the debate regarding the nature of free-will and its place in the consciousness’ potential to understand a potentially Absolutely predetermined world). 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 debate as a dialectical tool rather than a potential end-game, and it concerns the potential for action in the world, opposed to immediate meaning (which is the ‘pro-life’ argument).

These Ways of Thinking are inherent in every debate 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, is essential to any healthy society /> and especially to any specific ‘debate’ which has been around as long as the ‘abortion’ one has, or which involves such a clear-cut clash in intellect so easily mistaken for primacy.

Good luck aborting that one.

Hint: she’s screaming at YOU!!!!!!!!!

Hint: she’s screaming at YOU!!!!!!!!!