When you find yourself standing for group-privilege over logical thought, you have officially refused to mature psychologically.
At birth, humans deal with everything they discover but are not positively engaged with, in a group/class abstraction. Inherently, we are wired to categorize what we perceive. This allows us to continue to seek out new knowledge without getting too far into the weeds, because we dump data into boxes.
At a certain age, this needs to be addressed and made known to us via some form of education, so they can make educated decisions regarding the illusion of groups and begin dialing into the individual details reguarding each item in the groups we created.
In reality, groups and categories don't exist. Individual entities do, and groups/classes are a product of the human mind in attempting to sort through notable/identifiable distinctions.
The choice to supplant an individual's right to life under the guise of women's rights shows just how far down the rabbit hole the last few generations have fallen, taking logical, mature rationality and masking it with an ad hominem that has no real correlation with the former. This is a textbook case of groupthink.
My 3-year-old is willing to break any rule to make sure her perspective of moralism is upheld. She is mentally immature and can only see the violation she perceives against herself, and thus is oblivious to any choice she makes that violates the liberty, honor, and individuality of her sisters.
Let's frame the abortion argument. Women don't want their rights taken away. They don't want to be oppressed. They want to protect the world from over population because they are conservative at heart. They don't want unhealthy children. They want the freedom to alleviate unjust consequences of rape. They want a safe and healthy society.
Everyone, all across America, unless they are Muslim, supports these ideas — and you'll be hard pressed to find someone who has a rational reason why any of these are a less than moral thing.
For many, this flows right into — we want abortion rights. But it can't. Not that it shouldn't, but it doesn't work. Abortion is marketed as an acheivement of modern women to take control of their bodies and healths. No matter how you logically look at abortion, though, it's not.
To understand this, we need to look at simple science.
- Pregnancy is this: There are two intyrisically human entities, one a host the other a dependent. The latter cannot exist without the former, but the majority of the time is a viable entity that is built to grow into itself a host.
- Abortion is this: The elimination of the dependant human entity to where its ceases to exist to be a vaiable entity.
Abortion the eradication of a dependant human entity from a human host. The relationship between the humans, as host and dependant, does not change their state of being — both as viable humans.
Obviously, this falls into a issue of individual rights. Disagree? Then there needs to be a scientific standard at which a pre-birth human is proven to be not human. Without that standard, it would be impossible to write a law that trumps individual human rights.
According to our constitution, the federal government doesn't have the authority to declare one development stage of human life human and another not. The states actually do. And, tongue-in-cheek, vaginal positioning (inside or out) isn't a thing you can write a law against, even though you may want it done that way.
This reminds us that Roe vs. Wade was a judicial precidence and not a law, so technically governmental law hasn't been involved until Georgia's new law, where a state actually defined the rights of all stages of human life, making abortion a crime.
With humans properly identified as humans, the abortion argument is week and focuses solely on the choice a women wants to be able to make as to whether or not to be involved in the involuntary imprenation process that sometimes happens when you engage is sex. Basically, she believes she has the moral right to be free from her biology: to control what it does and when it does it.
This is why people want abortions. This is why people send death threats. This is why they get mad when you frame the issue in context with logical rationality. People want their moralism not only acknowledged, but they want anything they perceive as a threat to that moralism to be marginalized or disposed of.
In reality, women's rights cover every part of a woman and her liberty, just as a man's rights cover every part of a man and his liberty. We all have the right to life, liberty and the opportunity to pursue happiness in this life.
Despite my rights, the government actually has the authority to stop me from striking, assaulting, and even killing another man, woman, or child/infant. Yes, I can do it anyway, but I then violate that standard of control they have provisioned and will either run from the consequences or become subject to them.
Thus the real question emerges...
Does the government have the authority to stop a woman from submitting her child to be murdered?
That is the real question, and it is the question that will incur more and more death threats from those who's maturity is comparable to that of my 3-year-old.
— Micah