It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Pinnacle of Human Tragedy

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:39 PM
This is an essay that I have written. Stars and sincerest thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to read it and share their thoughts, criticisms, objections, or suggestions! I have attempted a succinct yet comprehensive discourse:

The Pinnacle of Modern Human Tragedy
by M.F. Alexander aka mrphilosophias aka discerningscholar
originally published at

The 1973 ruling of Roe v. Wade in the United States Supreme Court is the pinnacle of tragedy in the course of contemporary Human events. Over the years many attempts have been made by opponents of abortion to appeal or weaken this landmark case, but sadly to no avail. By the end of this discourse it is hoped that this unfortunate truth will resonate in the hearts and minds of you the reader. Undoubtedly some have already begun feeling aversion, intense disagreement, and even anger. Perhaps some will consider throwing this aside, and reading no further, as they think in their mind how ignorant, intolerant, and closed minded this author must be. 'Republican' some will mutter under their breaths. Nothing can disrupt meaningful discussion and debate more effectively than feelings, as well as undisclosed premises and unfounded preconceptions invoked in argument. The fierce controversy which surrounds the issue of abortion is but one of many contentious intellectual debates, which are undermined in pursuing truth and impartiality, by a total breakdown of communication between the persons involved.

Before attempting to tackle this issue which is among the most fiercely debated of our times, it is important first to prepare our minds for the task. First it is necessary to take some time to reflect on how the issue in question makes one feel, and then to look within and discover what one believes, and lastly to know why this belief is acceptable. With these three things in mind it is possible to delve into any issue, firm in belief, and yet still able to see beyond personal belief to other perspectives and arguments. Furthermore it is also important to draw attention to other obstacles which may obstruct and obscure any possible journey of self-discovery. In many ways the Human Being is influenced by their environments. Additionally sociological forces have a powerful effect on opinion and identity formation. These factors include, but are not limited to: personal perception of peers, social pressure, family, culture & socialization, news & media, advertising, marketing, etc...

Who are your peers? What does your status among them depend upon? What newspapers, journals, and books do you read? What kind of music do you enjoy? Do you watch TV, or read the newspaper? What TV shows do you watch? What kind of advertising are you exposed to? What kind of clothes do you wear? Why? What was it like growing up? Do you vote? Are you a Republican, a Democrat, or are you aware of the false two-party paradigm? What stories are these authors, musicians, politicians, and journalists telling you about the world? Answering these questions is helpful to get a deeper sense and awareness of the powerful influences which are constantly bombarding us. Many of these influences may be false (wrong) in their premises and/or conclusions; these ideas and messages are like echoing whispers. These implicit notions are like seductive sorcery, and sophisticated spells subtly spoken between the lines. Have you ever dared to perceive the world from another perspective? Are you going to let others think for you? Have you ever thought outside of the box?

Are you pro-choice, or pro-life, and are you sure? Now a different question: do you believe abortion is ethically sound and acceptable in principle? In his masterful book 1984 George Orwell describes a future society which is not so very different from the one that we witness and participate in today. In this dystopian society the government controlled media, propaganda, socialization, and education would undermine critical thinking and dissent by arbitrarily changing historical records, convenient omissions in the news stories, and by obscuring ideas with obfuscating verbiage in the vernacular of the citizens of Oceania. This led to confusion, compliance, and complacency, as words and concepts became less precise and more ambiguous, absurd, or contradictory. Saying one thing would convey a notion counterintuitive to the words etymology, only to mean another thing entirely at a later juncture. The means by which this obfuscation of communication accomplished this was with sophisticated psychological conditioning, and social learning tools of the 'IngSoc' English Socialists: doublespeak, euphemism, newspeak, tech-speak, legalese, old-speak, good-think, thought-crime, and any healthy imagination can identify others in their own sociopolitical culture and society.

The earlier question regarding abortion highlights the existence of euphemism and doublespeak mirrored in our own modern discussions! Furthermore, our emotional responses to the incestuous and incessant talking points of these heated debates are primed in subtle, subliminal, and subconscious ways. The label pro-life has been attached to opponents of abortion, and the proponents are called pro-choice, but these identifying words are misleading, as such they are confusing and counterproductive to communicating clearly, coherently, and concisely. What are implicit ideas, which are communicated in between the lines that come to mine to speak of 'pro-lifers,' or 'pro-choicers'? The words that we use are important, and yet oftentimes they are so imprecise. Why is that? Words are just arbitrary sounds and syllables which we associate to our ambiguous ideas about even more vague notions and concepts about things, which are in reality, similarly elusive and opaque. Language enables two different conscious observers to communicate ideas which exist in their minds as thoughts; this is an underappreciated and extraordinary capability which we possess; to be able to clearly convey, and communicate unique and intimate concepts with language is like telepathy with words, with the help of the mysterious mirror neurons!

What is abortion? Take time to yourself to describe abortion as accurately as possible, and without using any loaded words, or phrases. For example “abortion is a word to describe the action of a Mother intentionally taking/terminating/ending the life of the baby developing in her womb/during pregnancy.”
Now pause, and reflect; has discussion of this issue begun to evoke emotion? Have objections begun whirling through your mind? Be aware of these thoughts and feelings, take note of them, and then allow them to fade. New ideas cannot be grafted onto closed minds. Remember this is just an interpretation of a story.
What is murder? According to the dictionary, the noun murder means can be defined as “the crime of unlawfully killing another person, with malice aforethought”. Definitions of murder as a verb include: “to kill (a human being) unlawful, and with premeditated malice, and to wantonly slaughter.” Murder is a legal idea which pertains to the act of deliberately ending the life of another person. Killing an aggressor in self-defense is not considered murder even though the same ends are achieved; someone’s life has ended. A soldier who is killed in battle is not said to have been murdered. Killing someone by accident is not considered as serious as killing someone on purpose. Legally speaking there are varying degrees of murder, with the highest charge of first degree murder reserved for the willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of another person. If an expecting mother is killed by a robber, for example, it would be a double homicide charge, which implies by the legal definition of the courts that the baby within the mother’s womb is indeed a person, and that this person has interests and rights which were impeded upon, by the taking of its life. If an unborn baby developing inside a mother’s womb is a person protected with legal rights in this circumstance, then why is it that when it pertains to the mother taking the life of her own child it would not also be murder? (Colombo, 2005) Of course, it is only assumed that the judicial system in America is just and fair, prudent and veracious; right? This is tragically one from a myriad of contradictions, absurdities, and convenient loop holes which can be found with a critical gaze. Either there is some way to reconcile this seeming double standard of measure, or there is hypocrisy in the laws of the United States of America.

This particular topic has taken on a new gravity now that President Barack Obama has publically announced that it is a woman’s fundamental right to procure an abortion. If all three branches of Government are ok with it then it must be sound principle and just; right? So what is the difference between murder and abortion? Both murder and abortion refer to deliberately terminating the life and development of another human being. Perhaps the difference is that it is necessary to have been born already to be murdered; in this position the unborn child is not a person yet, and therefore is not extended rights. Or maybe abortion is not considered murder because the developing baby is dependent on the mother, and not at all autonomous, or self-sustaining. Maybe some social or exceptional considerations and reasons arise: insufficient resources, parental immaturity, tragic examples of rape and incest, for example. Others still believe that an unborn baby is not alive, that it is not conscious, or not sentient, at least not yet.

As to the question what is the difference between abortion and murder? Just because the law does not define all abortion as murder does not necessarily make it so. What is meant by this is that murder is really that idea of ‘unjustly taking, or ending, the life, or development, or being of another human.’ Note in this consideration that taking and ending a life is the same thing, and life is synonymous with development and being. Now consider that the definition of murder is to kill a human being unlawfully. The law dictates that ‘abortion is not murder’, the question then is why is it not murder? The answer seems to be that because murder means ‘to unlawfully kill’, and abortion is not unlawful. This is circular in its reasoning; what it all boils down to is that the law defines what is legal in society, and it has defined that abortion is lawful, thus it is not murder in the eyes of society.

Is there any objective, observational basis for abortion not to be unlawful? What would ‘abortion’ look like to an objective observer? Is the deliberate murder of unborn human beings lawful? Human conventions are inferior to physical laws. This can be shown by the fact that it would be unlawful for any government to require something which is against the fulfillment of natural laws. Biological imperatives are a subset of the physical laws which govern order, and existence, among living organisms. These physical laws have governed the universe, and life, long before we were here, and will continue to do so long after we are gone. For Human Beings the biological imperatives are things like survival, protection of kin, and reproduction. In the natural state apart from governance and society, it is most advantageous to have a large family to contribute to the clan, and to propagate selfish genes.

According to the biological imperatives, is abortion lawful? In most cases the answer is no, as abortion is counter to certain laws of the natural order which govern all life. Perhaps an exception would be the rare circumstance in modern medicine, where the development, and or birth and delivery of a child, endangers the life of the mother, an ectopic pregnancy for example. While it may be a heroic act of faith and love for a mother to risk her own life for the life of her baby, in the mortal circumstance of ectopic pregnancy the pregnancy could not fruitful, so this heroism would prove to be counter to the biological imperative of self-survival, and with nothing to gain. In any case just and impartial government cannot enact legislation to prevent such a medical procedure, wherein a mother acts to preserve her life by ending what would otherwise be a disastrous miscarriage.

Along with the aforementioned ectopic pregnancy, many will want to include victims of rape and incest in the category of justifying abortion as acceptable and warranted. If concession to these three particular situations, of imminent danger to the Mothers life, rape, and incest, would restrict the occurrence of abortion to strictly these three circumstances, as they are the only ones being conceded as warranted or acceptable, then this concession would be acceptable and imperative.
This is some of the more convincing of the rational, which have been presented as acceptable justification for permitting the practice of abortion; however while these particular situations support certain reasonable arguments which may be conceded as valid, but these specific justifications are not applicable to the majority of the 70 million abortions which have been performed in the United States since Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land in 1973. The remainder of abortions that are performed are the result of a myriad of 'personal reasons', which are considered acceptable enough to procure an abortion, and they include: immaturity, incompetence, prospects of poverty, inconvenience, incompatibility with lifestyle or goals, parental unwillingness or incompetence, paternal separation, 'accidents' & failures in birth control/contraceptives, which may justify invoking the deliberately vague and ambiguous medical exemption clause, which doesn't establish acceptable criteria that constitutes a 'warranted medical exemption', as abortions are undesirable and unjustifiable sparing the outlined concessions, for procuring abortions, and consequently encompasses mental disease/disorder like anxiety or depression, as they are cited in the majority of abortion procedures.

It may seem true that many of these reasons which primarily accompany the majority of abortion procedures, are good enough reasons not to have children, and this is rightly at the discretion and free choice of the autonomous, consenting adults, as they are the free moral agents that necessarily will engage and participate in the act, and the responsibility will be theirs to assume, but when is this choice acceptable, and when is it not? Does it ever become unacceptable to decide that one will not parent a child? Certainly it is acceptable, and even ideal, for a couple to decide that they want to wait until they are married to have a child, or until they are sure they are right for each other, that both people are committed, and of one purpose and mind, or at least general agreement; until they can be sure to provide for the child everything it requires and demands, or while they pursue personal goals. At the same time not one reasonable person with valid arguments could argue that any of these cited situations would ever be justified in the case of the child already being born.

There are some obstinate liberal professors and students whose blackened minds have been forged in the depths of Ivy League lecture halls and dungeons that will ignorantly retort that even this seemingly self-evident supposition may be 'less than ideal'; there are even arguments from the engineers of enthused eugenic equipped elitists which suggest that children born with unforeseeable birth defects or developmental deficiencies are expendable, and that ending what they deem, decide, and determine will surely be a misery of an existence, and de facto a life not worth living, is not only justifiable, but is somehow laudably humane, merciful, compassionate, and proper. Responding to the despicable arguments and the convoluted self-seeking logic of these exceptional, yet influential few, is unacceptable, so as not to concede them undeserved attention or recognition as viable propositions or arguments, as hopefully the reader understands, they are not!

So it definitely is not ok to take the life of a Human Being after it is born. However is the idea of being born really so clear? Is a child born when it is mature enough to survive outside the womb, or when it reaches the age of viability in other words, which is decreasing, or is a Human really born when it is conceived? It seems reasonable to suggest that there is not much difference between a Human Being recently conceived and implanted in the uterine wall and that same Human Being at the moment of passing through the vaginal canal. The differences that are observable essentially boil down to growth and development. However it is important to note that the only difference between any person between the time that they are born and right now is growth and development. To try to get around the fact that a unique Human Being is born at the moment of conception and subsequent successful implantation requires some arbitrary line to be drawn to decide something is not a person at some point in time, but somehow in the next moment it becomes a Person. Are we really adept to make such a grave distinction? Denying that a person is created at this moment of conception and successful implantation is to deny the continuity of every human person from conception to death.

The acceptable and ideal time to decide whether or not you are going to have a child is clearly before conception. Because sex is something that inevitably can lead to conception it follows that the time to decide whether or not you will have a child is before you have sex. It is accepted that it is not acceptable for a parent to abandon or 'undo' a child after it has been born, as this is negligence and murder; however, it is important to note that it is acceptable, albeit less ideal, for parents to decide to forfeit their rights as parents, and surrender the child to the care and custody of some other freely consenting autonomous moral agents who are willing, and able, to care for the needs of the child. If this is the case then it seems to reasonably follow that there must be some definite point between the time that it is definitely acceptable to reject the potential responsibilities of sexual intercourse, and procreation, and the moment when it is definitely not acceptable to reject the personal responsibilities of procreation which resulted from sexual intercourse. When does it become unacceptable to refuse the responsibilities of reproduction, and by what criterion is this (arbitrary) differentiating line to be drawn? Furthermore even if these distinctions can be sufficiently drawn, are they at all relevant to the matter at hand-when, if ever, is abortion justified as acceptable and warranted?

Having children is a personal choice, and ideally, it is not a choice which should be imposed upon by another against the free consent of either of the parties concerned, as both male and female adults are by nature autonomous moral agents. Furthermore the authority to decide whether or not procreation is permissible cannot ever be extended to fall within the legitimate authority of governance, so long as it is derived from the just consent of the governed. Any government which demands permission or defines limitations regarding matters of sexual intimacy and genetic procreation, of free and consenting autonomous moral agents, has –de facto- overextended its reach beyond its just sphere of influence, encroaching upon the inherent rights, and inalienable sphere of non-interference, which Human Persons are endowed with by their Creator, by impeding into the personal private matters which are at the liberty and discretion of the individuals participating. The practice of mandating abortions and limiting the number of children may have by law is abhorrent and despicable! At the same time, and in a similar manner, it is absolutely unethical and unacceptable for a person to rape another person, as this is a violation of the individual’s inherent rights and inalienable dignity.

It is clear then that the decision to reproduce is ideally a personal choice made by free consenting autonomous moral agents, which all adults of sound mind legally are, and it is not a choice which directly or primarily concerns Government, as its job has been relegated to protecting and preserving the fundamental rights of those free-persons who consensually agree to the social contract by which legitimate government has derived its authority. However, as it has also been shown to be the case, that the baby which has been delivered is legally protected by the full extent of the legitimate authority of law against violence and malice. This authority to step in under such circumstances has been vested by the consent of participants in the social agreement, to protect the innocent and defenseless against injustice and violence of deviants. It is on these grounds that charges can be brought against a mother who stifles the life and breath of their newborn child, or the heinous criminal who takes both of their lives. The authority of legitimate governance is not limited to these situations by any means, as it protects and avenges not only the newborn victim, but the elderly as well.
Recalling that legitimate government cannot limit or require procreation, and also that it is within the just authority of government to protect and avenge the life of all persons, with this in mind, is it within the scope and authority of legitimate government to extend a privilege which is does not have a right to restrict, regulate, or require? How can government extend protection to some matter which is fundamentally beyond the scope of its authority? Legitimate government can neither condone nor condemn matters pertaining to procreation among freely consenting autonomous moral agents, as it is a matter of personal privacy and liberty. By declaring it unconstitutional to restrict access to abortion, has the judicial branch established a positive value judgment condoning and encouraging the practice? If this is the case then has the government unwittingly encroached upon the sacred sphere of protection allotted to all by the Creator by, directly or indirectly, limiting procreation, and failing to protect the life of innocent persons?

It is not a startling statistic that nearly all cases of conception, impregnation, and reproduction are caused by sexual intercourse. 1 When the microscopic Human germ cell meets a receptive Egg Cell, 13 chromosomes donated from the Father and 13 chromosomes generously given by the Mother are fused together, and paired, in an intimate genetic “crap shot” of give-and-take, to create a totally new and unique set of 26 chromosomes, that will grow and develop continuously until death; as such this moment of conception is the beginning of the unfolding of a Human life. This new and unique life is autonomous and distinct, yet its fate is intimately dependent upon the fate of its Mother. Its uniqueness and distinctness cannot be reasonably brought into question, as a failure of the placental membrane to fully form would result in the Mother’s immune system attacking the unrecognized foreign body as it does with alien intruders like bacteria and viruses.

It is no secret that sexual intercourse causes pregnancy, and it should come as no surprise if life should be conceived as a result of this intimate act, in fact it cannot be denied that sexual reproduction, procreation, and conceiving are the primary, and sole, purpose for sexual intercourse. This is the purpose of life says the biologist and the evolutionist. Even the remarkable pleasure and bonding intimacy experienced during the act of sexual intercourse is biologically engineered by means of evolution to encourage and reinforce procreation, and to strengthen the bond between mates, but not primarily for bonding in and of itself, but rather to foster an environment most conducive to the well being of their progeny.

Undoubtedly this fragile developing baby is absolutely dependent upon the Mother, and her care for her body and well being. But dependence is certainly not sufficient justification to excuse or permit abortion, as a newborn is utterly dependent upon its mother, yet to take the life of an infant is infanticide, murder, and inexcusable.
Undoubtedly this unfolding human being is alive, as the growth, development and transformation of this tiny unborn baby is occurring at such a rapid pace, and in such a fashion, that is unparalleled at any other stage of human growth or development. This tiny life is fragile, utterly dependent, and so delicate in the earliest stages of development that it is a miracle of biology that this microscopic life form should even continue to exist, let alone thrive and flourish, and against all odds! This stubborn determinacy to survive and cling to life and existence is embedded in our very beings, and it is no more clearly illustrated then in these early stages of growth and development. Even from the first moment of conception this new creation exhibits characteristics which constitute acknowledgment that it is indeed alive. Among these characteristics, but not limited therein, are: cellular function, healthy cell division and meiosis/mitosis, self (bodily) determinacy as directed by ones genetic expression, growth, development, and the organization of organic matter in a coherent and purposeful manner.

Undoubtedly this unique and distinct creation has certain interests of survival and well-being which are certainly deserving of protection. The acknowledgement and protection of these interests are not contingent upon sentience, consciousness, or anything else for that matter, at least no more so than the life, self-interest and well-being of a newborn, which de facto, are deserving of protection, by the very fact that they are living Human Beings, as they are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, and consideration following from their inherent dignity, in regard to their life and liberty. A living, growing, and developing newborn baby has no more conception of these fundamental assumptions than the living, growing, and developing human life of a pre-born baby. It is an unspoken assumption that all Human Beings deserve to be treated with regard to self-interest, and our innate instinct to survive.

Undoubtedly this developing human life exists only as a result of recombinant genetic material donated from the mother and father freely, and the exchange and sharing of this genetic material is an intimate, personal, and free choice by both participants. Following from this fact that this new life is the result of the choice of the mother and father, it is naturally logical for these two participants in the Divine Creation of life to share in the duty of protecting, providing for, and parenting the baby which they helped bring into existence by consensual choice of sexual intercourse. There is no power on Earth like the power to create life, and with great power comes great responsibility. Freedom is choice, and with great freedom comes great responsibility.

Generally speaking the only way to guarantee that conception doesn’t occur is through abstinence, so if you don’t want children, for any reason whatsoever, well the logical thing is simple enough-don’t have sex. This is a proven method to eliminate risk of pregnancy; it is really tragic how common the sentiment is among the ambitious career-bound young adults, as if having kids is absolutely out of the question, that it is somehow repulsive, or an infectious plague to be avoided at all costs; where did this idea come from that has insidiously interpolated the zeitgeist of the generation? In any case children are definitely out of the question in the minds of many people, for whatever reason, yet at the same time many of these very same people have made up their minds that they like sex, they want sex, and so they are going to have sex. The actualization of this worldview is only possible because of the birth control industry, whose advents are lauded as heaven sent “technological miracles”, but they may instead prove to be from the pits of hell!

With all of this in mind please consider this very simple logical proof for the unacceptability of abortion:

1. Taking the life of an innocent Human Being is ethically unacceptable.
2. Abortion is taking the life of an innocent Human Being.

:. Abortion is ethically unacceptable

There are a few exceptional cases which have been conceded as acceptable, but these extraordinary exceptions hardly comprise a small percentage of all cases of abortion. So if abortion should be avoided, and rejected as ‘out of the question’, sparing the concession of a few particular exceptions, then why is it that the vast majority of abortions do not fall under one of these extraordinary cases, and why is it that these abortions for other reasons have not been ostracized and outlawed, but instead have been made more widely and freely available, and even promoted as a ‘good’? Investigating these questions leads to the realization that there are special interests which conceive unrestricted access to contraceptives and abortion as being desirable. It is critical not to overlook this aspect, as it may prove to be the instigating, and driving, force behind what could turn out to be, in hindsight, genocide of a generation of 70 million aborted babies in the United States alone.

These aforementioned ‘special interests’ can be summed up quite easily Central Bankers, Military-Industrial Complex, unprincipled international corporations lacking any domestic allegiances, Politicians who are bought, bribed, and coerced to take up their causes, and certain highly influential and connected academics, scientists, and think-tanks brimming with misguided ingenuity . The clearest demonstration of these international elitists in action can be seen in the international Nongovernmental Organizations like Bilderberg, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and many more, with the participation of prestigious, connected, and influential secret societies like Skull & Bones, the 33rd degree of the Scottish Rite of Accepted Freemasons, theosophists, and Rosicrucian’s. International constructs of control like free-trade zone agreements, the U.N., the International Monetary Fund, G20, G8, are bastard brainchildren of these very same special interests to solidify their perpetual reign over international affairs and mankind. Human beings are a resource for exploitation to these sinister soulless corporate bodies and persons who are bent on domination of all resources.

Many post-modern thinkers in ivory white tower academia who consider themselves privy to superior and enlightened world views, as if their lofty perspective promises some higher impartiality or truth, may trumpet the conclusions of Sir Julian Huxley’s report to the United Nations, which came in the form of an essay called 'The Coming Population Problem', that is heralded as a worthy banner to rally under, in typical utilitarianism pursuit of 'a better world'(conveniently omitting who stands to benefit of course), and using the overpopulation "problem", to justify abortion in the name of preventing the looming threat, and "root of all sorts of evil"-overpopulation. However, is the threat of overpopulation really an acceptable justification for an act which is hardly distinguishable from murder? Hardly, as is overpopulation acceptable justification to arbitrarily kill anyone? Why then would it be acceptable to kill the most innocent, powerless, defenseless developing baby, who is supposed to be entrusted under the intimately ordained protection of its life by the mother whose womb is home, but has instead been turned into a most vicious villain, an enemy to the delicate life which is persevering against all odds, whose life she is completely responsible for creating. The breadth of this premise of 'the population problem' is worthy of its own political discourse, but so that it is clear-the people who established it as an imminent danger and fundamental problem, are the people behind planned parenthood, and the financiers, and profiteers, of the ‘miracles’ of contraceptives, “family planning”, and the birth control movement.

These digressions and side notes are especially relevant, and even pertinent, to understanding the nature of the problem of abortion. As a matter of fact it is these aforementioned special interests working in collusion, which combine their powerful forces, to set up the four mechanisms which give rise to 21st century western culture. It is these constructs of Western Culture which propagates principles and practices like sexual promiscuity, birth-control, and abortion. This fascist globalization represents a sort of homogenization which leaves no remains of its contents in the global melting pot as it is stirred by the staff of humanistic alchemy. One of the more fundamental goals of the bourgeoisie is control, and that is precisely the purpose of these four mechanisms of 21st century culture. The constructs of modern Western Civilization appear more like bondage the more one looks at them relative to the natural state. It is possible to understand that certain manifestations of modern Western Culture are constructs of control by observing the effects achieved by these mechanisms, in light of the question ‘who stands to benefit?’

This critically inquiring perspective leads one to examine how the mainstream culture of Western Civilization has presented human sexuality to the unsuspecting victims from the time they were young. What exactly is the mainstream culture of Western Civilization? I will define it as an interlinking construct of control and manipulation set up by certain private, yet very powerful, interests. This interlinking construct of control consists of Liberal Public (Social) Education (also Liberal Higher Education), ‘free’ Press (mainstream), Mass Media, and the link that ties them together is pop-culture which benefits from years of research delving into certain self-perpetuating social reinforcement cues in peer groups, and social conformity.

The widespread abandonment of ‘traditional values’ is a steep slippery slope whose precipice this generation continues descending. Young adults today are not even a generation removed from integrable conviction and adherence to “traditional conservative ways”. The reasons for this abandonment, en masse, from traditional conservative values are many: first and foremost, there is an outright assault on the idea of God, an assault which takes many forms and devious methods, but it permeates every crevice of the mainstream culture waiting for unsuspecting pray to pounce upon like a predator. The tactic seems to be a multi pronged strategy which takes advantage of spreading ideas on the four stages of mainstream culture, so as to synergize, and to reinforce these subtle deceptions in the minds of the impressionable many on the broad road. In other words similar ideas are being separately propagated by the four vehicles of mainstream Western culture; the effect that is achieved happens when the ideas from the various routes and by-roads converge upon an impressionable, uncritical mind, which accomplishes the same idea being presented as truth from many different angles. Many of these sources which we are trained to accept as archetypal ‘experts’, scientists, and ‘authorities’, that they know better than us with their prestigious credentials, and corn starched lab coats, fitting only to those academics who command bleeding edge science, technology, knowledge, and a monopoly on modern ‘truths.’

The primary means by which this assault on the idea of God has taken place is through an idea called materialism, which is a fundamental perspective about the nature of the Universe that we live in, which fundamentally alters how we view ourselves and each other, and consequently influences our interactions and relationship to the world around us. This idea of materialism is the result of many things, but at the heart of it is Science and Industry, as they brought about these fundamental revolutions in Human perspective and way of life. Materialism has been delivered to you by the false Madonna and the lab coat wearing scientist, by way of Mass Media, Pop Culture, and the Liberal Public Education systems.

Materialism denotes that everything is just stuff and that there is nothing that is not stuff that we can observe. Public education, and in fact all four nodes of the inter-link reinforce this idea in the minds of the people participating in mainstream culture. The fundamental world view of materialism is atheism, and it is intimately connected to the next prong of this broad attack against God which will be moral and epistemic relativity. The reason for mentioning it is because materialism precludes the supranatural, and the immaterial, which in reality merely consists of those things beyond our ability to perceive or comprehend, and consequently also precludes things, or rather ‘not-things’ to be more precise, so ‘not-things’ like moral principles, metaphysical truths, ideals, or universal imperatives. Yet at the same time science and materialism believe in biological imperatives and physical laws which are nothing more than ideas manifest. Are the truths behind these effects any less real than the manifestation of their culmination? Are these more fundamental realities more like the material, or more like the immaterial?

Any understanding of the scientific explanation of the Universe leads us to believe that everything can be boiled down to the elements of the periodic table. Even a basic understanding of molecules and quantum mechanics leads to an understanding that nothing is solid or concrete, as materialism suggests, that there exists only what is solid and concrete, which can be observed. Materialism goes the way of the second law of thermodynamics because it is a closed system, and thus, it falls apart. Instead, the Universe is like a vast sea of endless energy potential which for some reason or another(hint: God) consists of order and coherence, but an understanding of this order and coherence is made possible only by sensory-perception, yet sensory-perception, or perspective in other words, is fundamentally finite and fixed, so that means that sensory-perception is skewed. Human Beings have a coherent understanding of only a small sliver of what exists and it real, and that understanding is flawed. What this all boil downs to is that there is more to this Universe than meets the eye.

Accompanying this assault on the idea of God is an attack on abstract and ideal notions of truth. In the ‘enlightened’ minds of the modernist it is blasphemy to even suggest certain principles of metaphysical veracity as being ‘truth’, or that some particular ideal can be said to be superior to another, or that there are degrees of metaphysical veracity and certitude. While conceding that the tolerance and acceptance of this archetypal crowd approaches saintly virtue, it is really the idea at the core of this world view that is baffling. The fundamental principle alluded to is none other than relativism, that there are no absolute truths, just relative perspectives, and that all relative perspectives somehow coexist in parallel in such a way that none of them can be said to be superior, or inferior, or lacking, or absurdly irrational. How can two different realities which are contradictory be true in the same sense, and at the same time? Isn’t this against Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction?

The clichés propagated in the mainstream culture help reinforce the palatability of relativism, as well as bolster the perceived prevalence of the acceptability of the idea due to its seeming widespread following: ‘different strokes for different folks,’ or ‘to each their own,’ these are the sort of mindless mantras which accompany this attack. It is really just another way to say that people will do what they will do, but it does not at all get at the question ‘what should we do?’ It is usually quite satisfying to apply elementary logic and watch their edifice quiver simply by asking them ‘so you are really trying to tell me that the only truth is that there is no truth?”

It is unfortunate that more minds have not been taught how to apply simple logic to some of these ideas in order to sort through those that are absurd or hold no merit, and those that stand up to some of the more rigorous tests of scrutiny. Relativism is a generalized concept which pertains to arbitrary, fixed, and finite perspectives, and frames of reference, in relationship to other perspectives, and frames of reference. Relativism as a principle ranges from the acceptable to the ludicrous, from general relativity and cultural relativism standing as reasonable, to notions like ethical, moral, epistemic, metaphysical, and theological relativism, which tip in heavily on the scales of mind numbing intellectual cop-out.

There is however a necessary disclaimer. When dealing with matters of guilt and innocence, which are related to questions of ethics and justice, it can be a complicated and detailed territory to navigate, as factors like foreknowledge/ignorance, free consent/coercion, and intention are all variables that must be taken into consideration when determining culpability. This is not a judgment from me upon individuals who hold tightly to relativism as a world view, rather a loving instigation to provoke others to challenge their ideas against some standards so as to be able discern that which is more true from that which is less true.

The unfortunate and inevitable pitfall of relativism as a world view is that it is incapable of challenging other standards, principles, or perspectives to raise the bar in pursuit of that which is pure and true. It is not difficult to understand how relativism is a cozy refuge for the complacent conformist, and the avoidant personality. Consequently how can it lead to progress, which is what their idea of tolerance is really regarded as?

Besides tolerance there is at least one other thing that the general relativist concedes to be acceptable as ‘truth’ and that is Science-especially the latest Science! This makes three things now that the relativist accepts as ‘truth’: that there is no truth, that tolerance is true, and that Science is true. But is Science tolerant? Last time I checked the latest and greatest science has been hijacked by the global elitists in the pursuit of capabilities like death and destruction, control, genetic engineering, stem cell research, cloning, bio-engineering, and other medical ‘miracles’ for those with access to the best health care; are these things tolerant?
With the premises of materialism and relativism firmly fixed in foundation the possibility of ‘not-things’ like metaphysical realities and ethical principles naturally are precluded. From the premises of materialism comes ethical relativism; combined, these modern ‘first principles’ naturally lead to the conclusion of hedonism, which is the pursuit of pure pleasure, for pleasures sake. It is precisely this notion of godless hedonism which leads to the modern story about the good life, and the “American dream,” which is painted as heaven on earth, but denies the God of heaven and earth!

The seeds of the cultural eroticism in western culture that bear fruit today were sown during the sexual revolutions of the 1920’s and 1960’s in the soil tilled by the work of public education, mass media, the press, and pop-culture. Through the perceived social acceptability of certain ideas and behaviors, which have been glamorized in the mainstream culture, are paraded and propagated as if acceptable, and taught in class rooms , it is no wonder that so many have fallen by these wayside. Make no mistake about it, this ‘new age’ that is coming about has only been made possible by the corruption of values and truth. 21st Century Western culture is steeped and saturated in all sorts of detrimental notions, but as a result of being bombarded with all sorts of emotion invoking stimuli throughout the routines of our daily lives, what would have once have elicited a reaction of outrage and outcry, is now hardly met with whimpers and whines. The reason for this is of course because the shift was introduced gradually over time, and we’ve become accustomed to how things are, it is an effect known as desensitization. Unfortunately because iniquity abounds the love of many has grown cold. How this has happened is a lot like how to boil a frog alive, which is slowly over time.

Western culture is saturated with sexuality. Assuredly the companies, who are trying to sell their product, are well aware of the influential power of this basic instinct, and they have spent a lot of money on marketing research, in hopes that they might one day be able to tickle it if the manipulators so fancied. Everywhere we look, we experience erotic images, sounds, and scents which are vying for our attention, and appealing to this most basic biological itch. A definition of manipulation is “to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage.” The question is obvious; are we being manipulated?

Making good on the promise to demonstrate how something as seemingly harmless as an idea can have deadly serious consequences, just consider the gravity of the unintended consequence of the idea that recreational sex, for pleasures sake alone, is acceptable, and even ‘good’. Consider the trends in marriage and divorce rates, number of single mothers, spread of STDs, teen pregnancy, unsustainably low population growth rates, public propagation and funding of contraceptives, 70 Million abortions, and many other far reaching implications all result from this ‘modern’ rejection of traditional values in mainstream culture, coupled with the popularization of promiscuity and recreational non monagamistic sexual relationships; do we not care, or is this love of unbridled sexuality that intoxicating? In fact infatuation or crippling obsession may prove to be more appropriate terms to describe this lusty affair. It is no secret that Human Beings long to love and be loved, but we have been sold a cheap replacement to true love which is deep, fulfilling, and resounding, confounded with the Hollywood conflation of a perverted self-seeking love that more closely embodies the Greek Eros, erotic love, or in its modern interpretations in lieu of lustful lullabies.

Western Civilization loves sex, physical beauty, and fleeting pleasure. If I didn’t know better I would be tempted to ask if this is some sort of reincarnation of the ancient heathen traditions-a post-modern godless hedonistic wasteland of darkness, confusion, and neo-paganism. How many lives sacrificed, how much more innocent blood will be spilt upon the altars of the theosophy temples-Capitol Dome, District of Columbia. Is this not all offered up in the name of the principles of 21st Century Western Civilization: security, liberty, modernity, and progress? What use have we with words, if they lose life and become cold like stoic stone? Or if they retain so little semblance of their sound, with syllables stripped, they start suggesting something dissimilar?

The problem is that we have been told a story about life, the Universe, Human Beings and their lofty domain over the diverse and complex lot of life here on Earth, it is a story about all of us and how we relate to each other, about the nature of the Universe, and about our own nature as Conscious Free Sentient Persons capable of creativity, imagination, abstraction, powerful means of communication, emotions, choices, and most importantly, of love! We have been told a story that we could make sense of the nonsensical world that we have manifested; we have forgotten who we are, and where we came from; there is so much noise in the world now that we have forgotten about the tiny voice in the silence of our hearts; it is a voice that alarmingly yells out to us that things are not as they appear, that something is not right, that there is more to the story; like what is going on behind the curtains that we aren’t being told?

This story placates us with a certain comforting charm, consoled with cathartic caresses, condoning compromised characters, condemning conviction, cunningly creating callous consciences, candidly concealing corroded cavities, chilling cavernous cold content less corpses, consumed by corruption, contemptuously communicating crimson covered concepts convincingly confident. Cautiously concede! Contemplate critically!

Simply stop-sit silently still, solemnly static, surrounded solely by solitude, sincerely searching, somberly seeking serendipitous surprises, like a salivating soul starving for satisfying sustenance.

The yearnings that we have for sexual conjugation is a longing, and desire, that is as deep seated, and at times seemingly even more powerful, than our impulses and drive to eat, or even sleep. Sexuality is a part of who we are, and it is a part of who we are called to be. This strong desire for sexual intimacy and fulfillment are neither evil, nor to be despised, but to be most thankful for, as the culmination and fulfillment of this desire, in mutual love, and freely self-giving, is to partake with Almighty God in the Creation of new life, and because the continuity of Mankind depends upon it!

Because we bought the grim fairy tale that we were sold we are currently in the process of forgetting who we are, what we have been called to-greatness-to be Children of the Living God through Christ Jesus, who is the Good Sheppard, and that we are the lost sheep. We have forgotten how to live, or where to go, or how to get back where we came from. We have forgotten how awesome and terrifying the Lord God of all Creation is, and disregarded His gifts with contempt, how much it is that He loves us, and how dependent we really are on Him.

It is no surprise that the first commandment from God recorded in the ancient Old Testament Scriptures of Judaism is to “be fruitful and multiply.” The metaphysical incompleteness of mankind is no better illustrated than in the intense longings for intimate communion with a mate, as Man longs for Woman, and Woman longs for child, it is a dim reflection of a much deeper and more fundamental longing that we all experience, which is a yearning for an intimate communion with our Creator who alone can fill our souls with His presence.

Sexuality is a physical expression of love, which is the selfless gift of self and our highest calling, this participation in sexual intimacy is intended to be complete, yet when you have sex with a hardened heart to the gift of love which is life, and you refuse the possibility of the mutual giving of self to give rise to new life, then you are denying the sanctity and solemnity of this sacred gift!

Pardoning this brief digression and returning again to the matter of the purpose of sexual intercourse, at least according to nature, it is clear that it is inextricably connected to reproduction, and continuation of species, and that pleasure and bonding are absolutely incredible processes which serve to reinforce that we will have sex to ensure procreation(propagation of genes), and to strengthen the intimate bond between mates to encourage the ideal environment for the developing Human Being: a stable loving environment with both parents to teach and learn male and female role models from, and siblings to play, learn, and grow with. Children provide parents with a unique opportunity to grow (mentally, emotionally, and spiritually) in many ways which would otherwise be difficult, and bring laughter and joy to the family. The more obvious reason that it benefits parents to reproduce and raise children is additional hands to help with the necessary daily chores.

If this is the case then why are people having sex when they are not interested in reproduction, or even open to the possibility of life? Why hasn’t anyone clued these dissonant people into the reality that sexual intercourse and reproduction are intimately entwined? This question strikes at the very heart of the topic of abortion, and it strongly suggests that it is not a question awaiting an explanation from biology, ethics, or politics, but implies that the prevailing ideas propagated by society and artificial culture are to blame, and that we have allowed ourselves to be deceived!

It could not be plainer to see: Western civilization loves sex, and wants to have sex, and wants to be free to have sex whenever, however, and with whomever we desire without any regard for this power and responsibility which has been entrusted to us. This is a fundamental perversion of what sexuality is: that the pleasure-reward and bonding of sexuality is an ends in and of itself, which it is, but to have the pleasure-reward and at the same time not be open even to the possibility that anything like a living, breathing Being may come from it is a selfish deviation from the primary purpose of sex, is is a perversion of love itself!

When entertaining this idea that sex is a recreational activity with no meaning other than a shallow intimacy and fulfillment of carnal desire, and fleshly impulses, it is not an animal that you are acting as, for the other creatures obey the natural laws and biological imperatives! The primary purpose of sexuality is procreation, and the secondary purpose, which is an ends in and of itself as well, but not without openness to life and love, is bonding or intimacy and naturally, it is profoundly rewarding, but the purpose for this reward is not for the pleasure itself, it’s to ensure that we engage in sex often to reproduce, and the bonding is good in and of itself so long as it is in love, which is necessarily complete and open to life, but it is primarily to reinforce the behavior and strengthen the bonds between mates so as to foster an environment conducive to the birth, growth, development and care giving of progeny. This perspective on sexuality is a perspective that the world is in dire need of, as something as intangible as this idea about sexuality that Western culture instills upon us is demonstrably unnatural, maladaptive, and in fact as will also be demonstrated, deadly serious.
The primary purpose of eating food is for sustenance, but it tastes good, and it is intimately rewarding. The pleasure and reward mechanisms of eating food is, if the story ‘they’ tell us is true, good in and of itself, but only because it encourages and reinforces consumption of healthy nutritional sustenance. That food tastes good is a hard-wired ‘fail-safe’ mechanism to ensure that Human Beings would take the time necessary to eat often, as this is what the body requires, and it tastes good and is rewarding. It should be apparent how this parallels the primary and corollary functions and experiences of human sexuality. The example of food may prove to be a near perfect analogy from this biological perspective, as reproduction is as much a biological imperative as eating.

When it comes to food what is it called when someone seeks the secondary/corollary function/experience from eating, but at the same time is not open to the primary purpose of eating; in other words, how does on describe a glutton who lusts for the flavors and tastes, pleasure and experience of eating different foods, but at the same time refuses to receive sustenance? I’ll give you a hint, it is a disorder; this sort of person is demonstrated well by the poor soul who suffers from Bulimia, which is a dis-order, it is maladaptive, harmful, and it is clearly unnatural, or contrary to biological imperative which evolution allegedly devised. Is it now clear how having sex for please, and at the same time obstinately refusing to partake in the creation of life, which is the primary purpose of sex, could be understood as being dis-ordered, maladaptive, unnatural, and harmful? Take some time to try to rationalize, justify, excuse or exclude yourself, your world view, and maybe past choices you have made, and take some more time to tear apart the logic, but it is quite clear, and as concise as possible: modern Western Civilization has led to the prevalence of hedonism & unbridled Human sexuality for purposes of pleasure alone, as a result of perceived acceptability of this idea there have been 70 million aborted babies, which is a genocide of the most innocent humans alive; this is the pinnacle of modern Human tragedy, and it is on us to do something about it.
1To keep the discourse as short and succinct as possible, it will not be delving into the ethical and practical implications of issues such as genetic engineering, or in vitro fertilization.

Copyright © 2011 Matthew F. Alexander
edit on 4-3-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:24 PM
Very interesting, an issue close to my heart.
A bit of a long read (it is late night as I am typing this), so I shall return at a more sensible hour to have another look.

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:28 PM
A well written, thought provoking treatise. I see only two of the questions you have posed that require my response. Thus:

Are you pro-choice, or pro-life, and are you sure? Now a different question: do you believe abortion is ethically sound and acceptable in principle?
No, abortion is murder.

If an expecting mother is killed by a robber, for example, it would be a double homicide charge, which implies by the legal definition of the courts that the baby within the mother’s womb is indeed a person, and that this person has interests and rights which were impeded upon, by the taking of its life

Perhaps the difference is that it is necessary to have been born already to be murdered; in this position the unborn child is not a person yet, and therefore is not extended rights. Or maybe abortion is not considered murder because the developing baby is dependent on the mother, and not at all autonomous, or self-sustaining.
Do the liberals not see the dichotomy here?

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:29 PM

posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:17 AM

top topics

log in