On the future

Ultimately the world keeps turning. Despite the bloodshed, crime, injustice, bombing, hate, disaster, hypocrisy, brainwashing, misinformation, it all comes to a front at odds with overwhelming joy, justice, balance--there is always balance--we ought to remind ourselves at all times why a fight is worth continuing, even after devastating loss, and moreover ever important is it to frame our struggle in purview of the world's. The further right we sway, the stronger the resolve of the left. We ought always to seek balance, but that struck from some literal dichotomy is no true balance, it is a division, a split, a world at odds with itself as much as it seeks survival. Where is the common ground to be found when there's been so much bloodshed? Where is the common ground when we are fighting over autonomy, self expression, over such basic rights ripe for repeal at the hands of an opposition? What steps do we take, what path do we trot, when every fibre of the system we inhabit seems to be working against us? What then when the circumstances lay bare that we are indeed the minority, that we are indeed outnumbered, not by a unified majority, but by an equally scared, polarized, and outspoken bunch, a mosaic of citizens fighting for their own rights, values, and beliefs, in a system as fair to them as to us? Surely we may unify in our vision for a peaceful future, but even that view differs insofar as we envision peace in our own distinct, but certainly overlapping ways. Surely a world without war is one preferable indeed, but one in which individuals assigned female at birth (AFAB) have no autonomy over their body, and indeed are persecuted by the state for pursuing a right to healthcare is a future which peace cannot operate. When we grant special privileges to few, make decisions for others while superseding their voices, this is no democracy nor a world where peace can truly be established nor flourish. So long as we chose to villainize our opposition and seed further divide, we choose to reap the less than civil civil war certain to ensue. And so faced with ever increasing conflict over values, rights, and freedoms, we are faced with the question of how to move forward, not against an opposition, but with our people in a unified voice.

Certainly disagreement yields discourse yields better, more refined views and laws, but this has limits, and requires insightful individuals open to discussion on both sides of the argument. All this is fine and a truism. But what then, when the outcome of such discourse can cause severe harm for individuals or whole nations? When this isn't fiscal policy anymore, but deals instead directly with someone's bodily autonomy? Regardless, both topics do affect someone's quality of life and sometimes their entire livelihood, but certainly we can agree that throughout the course of history ever increasing rights have been granted to the people, and this has been unquestionably good. No longer do the majority live in straw houses serving generational elites housed in their castles on their respective hills--now the majority live in unknowing servitude, in their housing projects, while the generational elite recline in their penthouses. To a degree, in spite of the brainwashing and misinformation that is widespread, information is accessible and class movement is far more fluid in the recent hundred-odd years compared to the last two thousand. But indeed we live in vastly different technological age now, and so the comparison is somewhat moot. What is certain is that we have less outward racial conflict and sex-based discrimination. These points do certainly persist, which is a movement to commit oneself to. And it is laid bare in the ever ongoing topic of abortion, the separation of church and state, and the pillaging of AFABs bodies for all their rights and autonomy is worth. That topic could consist of an entire other post, and I probably will make it at some point, but I will briefly make my position well known below.

The topic of pro-life vs. pro-choice, as I see it, has little to do with biology and far more to do with the intersection of religion, in particular the prevailing western religions that had a stranglehold on North America's government practically since before the establishment of our nations, when the church was busy spreading a close-minded version of the holy text far too focused on guilt and punishment, when they sought to use said book to reinforce the rights and freedoms of men, forever posing them as a superior, powerful sex, subjugating women to a place of an object and not a noun.

Even if examining the choice through the lens of biology, there are some common arguments brought up by the pro-life bunch. The most common of which being the potential of a fertilized egg to form a fetus given proper time to develop. And hence, because this fertilized egg can become a human, it is identified as such, from inception onwards. This is incredibly flawed for many reasons, as to use a current state to predict a future and justify continuation based on that uncertainty does not justify its continuation. We have few ways of actually predicting the course of a pregnancy, and even then we only rely on statistical models for cases that are very much individual, and this all considered not having even mentioned the autonomy, very present being, years of life already established, person already developed, who so happens to hold said ball of cells comprising the fetus, or pre-fetal structure. Surely new life is magical, or as some may call it sacred, but how can this non-tangible point supersede the very tangible human life experiencing the pregnancy? Can we seriously justify overriding someone's right to choose whether to bring life into this world, someone fully developed already with their own set of connections and life experiences, rich in its complications, to say "well, what about the potential of the being living in there, who, in fact, relies entirely on her biological support? This growth of this being, having not experienced anything but a fleshy inner womb, bearing no connections to the outer world?" And if we continue appealing to biology, someone with a womb has the power to bring life into this world countless times over, at whatever point they should chose in their life. Without their participation, such a feat is impossible, and as such their consent is tantamount.

The question of choice is additionally a continual questioning of how or if a woman has a right to their own body and can make their own choices. Back when the church and state were so intimately connected, women could not even vote--and this slowly with time became an outdated law that no longer was so closely connected to the church, but instead a fossil of that age baked into law, rotted with time. While I'd like to say abortion is somewhat similar, in that it has been secularized, the common arguments for the sanctity of life and the miracle of birth is very much steeped in religious value. As we hold autonomy over our right to choose our religious identification, it follows we should hold that same autonomy over our body, and not ascribe limited rights to those which ultimately does not concern our own choice. I write this as a man, someone who does not have a womb, and hence I cannot conceive with the same strength the continual struggle to establish rights governing my own choice for my own body. But alas, religion holds its place, and that place should not be as a justification for law ruling a far more diverse class(s) of individuals, and far lesser should it be used to dictate what is right or wrong, or permissible in a country that has established its own moral and judicial system separate from religion, nor used as a judgmental tool for condemning and determining how others should act, but instead applied only to those who practice its values and chose to participate in its community. Your religion is and should be an island held close to your heart, and should not be used as a sublime justification for telling others how to live and act. Really this boils down to the very human need desire for power, as religion often has virality coded into its values: spread the truth to the unknowing people, for that is noble and favourful in the eyes of your God. Oh, this also happens to bring us more untaxed income, helpful in building more of our institutions and hiding more of our injustices (of course I know this isn't black and white, and hopefully I've drawn clear delineations there, in that religion has it's benefits and drawbacks--this discussion is far from exhaustive). Certainly we need not rely on religion to dictate moral action when we can and indeed have developed our own equally valid system of ethics and morals.

I digress, but hopefully that point has been made clear despite its brevity.

To return to my point: Where is the common ground to be found when there's been so much bloodshed? The common goals, values, all diluted in vicious crimson flowed from wounds in spite, out of a tribalistic belief of superiority, and we are left to question the purpose of the fight in the first place. A desperate people will go to great lengths to justify their morals and defend their convictions--so how far will a war of millions go? Left in the wake of such a conflict, will we truly be able to reflect and justify our actions, even in spite of loss? I stand by the fact that a nation divided, engaged in conflict is not bad per se, as it is not stagnant, but I do wonder the point at which stagnation outweighs regression in law and beliefs and the harm inherent to those consequences. Progress at the expense of others is not truly pure progress--which can only be achieved through unified effort, something current leaders show no interest in--and that is our death sentence. Perhaps that idea is a pipe dream, but it stands that we ought not need to step on toes to get to the front of the line. And so now the question remains of how we may actively reduce harm and prevent a self-destructive autophagy. Now more than ever we need unity, patience, empathy, and progress. I nonetheless fear for the souls yet to be harmed by the powers that be.

It is important that we too do not forget scope, and placement of ourselves with the world at large; thousands die still daily, in Gaza, central Africa, Ukraine, and countless other countries engaged in conflict. And yet the world turns.

I find it highly unlikely for a violent physical war to be fought at large in a place so globally and nationally connected as the USA, which is instead far more likely to be cursed with a war of information and the opposite. The challenge will be distinguishing truth from otherwise, taking the pulse of the true, unpolarized situation both from within and outside America. In so being blessed with connectivity we are cursed with the consequences. The future is muddy, but it too will come to pass, and we can only hope to improve upon what has been lost and unwritten.

Now more than ever we ought to focus on establishing a common understanding, arming ourselves with truth and the discourse necessary to constructively build connections and dismiss the lack thereof.

We are all ultimately subject to our own echo chamber, as little as we would like to admit it.