The Right Take on Abortion
I'm surprised so many people agree on this issue --actually, not really, it's not an intellectual issue, it's a 'debate bro' issue which is really only held because of the social credit, the stubbornness to atheistic principles, or to please and chase women. Firstly, killing a child means that --in their worldview-- the child's life doesn't matter. A person isn't just the total sum of their memories --as some people like to believe--, that's ridiculous because then a person with dementia or a person who has forgotten all their memories would no longer be a person --same can be said about three-year-old--, a person begins when the fetus is formed --or begins to form, although the specifics are ultimately irrelevant to the debate because abortion results in the mangled body of a fetus who is observably human, which should be enough because it indicates the dispersal and existence of DNA. It must be concluded, a pro-abortionist believes there to be nothing sacred or special to human life and believes that it is meaningless; why, then, does a pro-abortionist, defend their position with a statement of liberty --bodily autonomy? The dilemma is simply this: the argument for the liberty of one denies the liberty --and all possible actions of liberty-- of another. They argue that the child isn't alive, yet we see its rotting carcass; they may be right in saying that it's wholly dependent on the mother, but that doesn't justify it to no longer be human --the logic would follow that a man on an iron lung isn't human and babies who are capable of movement are still wholly dependent on society, in fact, many people today are completely dependent on society to live. The key delimiter of the child and the fetus is the womb --they would also include the state of maturity within the womb, but this is arbitrary, undefined, and shares characteristics with the baby--, the womb is a place, and it would be ridiculous to suggest that a place in space makes a human not; so, we say it's not the place but the use of the mother for the sustaining of the offspring's life, so is that the delimiter? No, because that circles back to the original point. The argument to ignore the liberty of the underdeveloped child is predicated on the seemingly sacred liberty of the mother.
We have become Cronus, we devour our children in the fear that they will devour us. We have become destruction and death, the murder of our seeds of life is symbolic of such actions, we waste our chi, our vril, our essence --in the act of 'waste' we do not 'waste,' we give; we give to the Demiurge, to Baal, to Lucifer. The sacrificing of children has been a ritual from the dawn of time, many believe it's still practised to this day, basing their beliefs off of first and second-hand accounts, rituals of secret orders like the gnostics, kabbalists, templars, monads --all are really the same secret order and are recently known as the masons, astronauts, and celebrities who wear the mason ring are suspected masons themselves as well as those who openly admit to practising within the order. The sacrifice of the innocent youth is the ultimate gift, and it's said within their blood holds the ultimate power. Blood is the life-essence, every ancient text, mystic, biblical cannon agrees, it is the ruby colour of the philosopher's stone, of life eternal. To drink the life essence is forbidden within Christian tradition but not to the mystics of today who see it as the ultimate power, to consume it makes them into 'God.' They are the Skeksis who, to achieve immortality, drain the life essence of the creatures of the natural world, they are the witches who must drink the blood of man to become more powerful. It is not a coincidence that blood contains adrenochrome, which is 16 times more powerful than DMT --especially potent when the subject is in a state of paralysing fear.
"But what if the child comes from rape?" It doesn't matter if you were raped, the nature of the world is transcendent of your wants; in other words, the circumstances for the birth don't matter, what matters is life. What people don't seem to understand is that pointing fingers won't fix the problem --especially if the fingers are being pointed back in time at something that can't be changed. It doesn't matter if the woman consented to the birth or not --do you think people consent to being crashed into in an intersection? Do you think people consent to be born with cerebral palsy or autism? That's too bad you were raped, but two wrongs don't make a right.
"B-b-but what if the baby is born into poverty?" This argument is more of an appeal to emotion --like basically all the arguments used for the position-- the analogy is this: some thug from the streets mugs you, after the fact, you could go and kill him, or you could recognise that it would be immoral and not.
"Bodily autonomy, man." Okay then, let's legalise suicide and let teens cut their wrists because to break this precedent would be so dangerous as to allow mothers to kill their children.
Simply: morality is fixed, murder can never be justified because it implies that the framework which we apply is inferior to another of the utilitarian type; if this is so, than emotions, free will, all separate from the id become completely unimportant --but that's no what's observed, we have functions beyond the animalistic type because we are ultimately beyond animals.
The modern man is controlled by atheism, scientism, Freudianism, Einsteinsianism, Feynmanism, Darwinianism, and nihilism, all demonstrably wrong yet the creature of order --man-- finds his occupation within this framework, he finds his meaning, and this too is where he fights his battles; order is the foundation for society and when order is built on lies, we get incompatibilities with the truth which has been misinterpreted so that morality can be inverted, we know it's wrong yet the shallow structure of order in which we trust denies our instincts.
P.S.
Politics is generalisation; politics is a means through which order is achieved and maintained on the state-wide level, it is in principle a scheme for control --if you don't agree or think we should all be free to do whatever we want and the only law is that which we choose it to be than you really shouldn't be political, considering your entire worldview is based off of the subjective whims of the masses; the masses whom you likely believe to be just another animal produced through extreme randomness as a virtue of infinity (which is logically impossible, by the way) so it really doesn't matter if you kill people or not because you think morality is subjective.