Abortion, Freedom, and the Sanctity of Life

Written and produced by Corey deVos

Watch as Cindy Wigglesworth, Mark Fischler, and Corey deVos take a careful look at the Supreme Court’s deeply controversial decision to overrule Roe vs. Wade, and the subsequent banning of abortion access in dozens of states across the country.

When Mark and I decided to have this conversation, we immediately knew that we wanted to invite Cindy Wigglesworth to join us. Cindy is a well-known integralist and celebrated author of SQ21: The Twenty-One Skills of Spiritual Intelligence. She is also a practicing Christian who has been part of a number of traditional and progressive communities, and happens to live in the state of Texas, which has become one of the primary front lines for this particular culture war.

At its core, the abortion issue may be one of the greatest and final metaphysical battles in American society, where the kinds of views, values, and moral reasonings we bring to the issue flow downstream from our (often unexamined) metaphysical assumptions and presuppositions. The question of where “personhood” begins, for example, is not a merely legal or semantic question, but is at its heart a metaphysical question. Religious fundamentalists possesses one set of metaphysical assumptions, scientific materialists possesses another set, and postmodern relativists possess yet another set — and as a result, each of these groups enacts the ethics and politics of abortion very differently.

So when it comes to something like “the sanctity of life”, how does it change from one developmental stage to another?

For Amber, “sanctity of life” is often seen as absolute, such as the idea that “personhood” begins at conception, typically based on any number of traditional ethics, religious beliefs, and metaphysical assumptions. In fact, the Amber stage is often where ideas of sanctity come online for the first time, an astonishing evolutionary emergence that in many ways creates the very foundation of civilization itself. However, this sanctity is often only extended to members of a particular group, limited by the ethnocentrism that comes naturally to this stage (such as laws that force rape victims to bring their fetus to term, or eliminating access to abortion for medical emergencies, both of which privilege the rights of the fetus to the exclusion of the rights of the mother).

For Orange, notions of “sanctity” are often plugged into a larger humanitarian context, stemming from universal notions of freedom, justice, and the dignity of the individual. At its extreme, Orange views of sanctity can often appear profane to the Amber stage, especially when the metaphysics of scientific materialism result in a fetus being regarded merely as a “clump of cells”.

For Green, “sanctity” is primarily focused upon expanding and protecting rights for the oppressed and marginalized, emphasizing things like reproductive and bodily autonomy, while also insisting that our perception of sanctity is itself a cultural construct that tends to vary greatly from one group to another. Pushed to its extreme, Green can often lapse into Amber ethnocentric methods of enforcing this kind of postmodern sanctity — such as only emphasizing the rights of women to the exclusion of the rights of the unborn, sometimes even going so far as to regard a fetus as a “parasite” until it’s been born.

For Teal and Turquoise, “sanctity of life” is a far more complex moral calculus, a “metaphysics of wholeness” that factors in things like the depth of the interior (we more easily extend sanctity to human beings than we do to slugs), the span of the exterior (we prioritize endangered species over non-endangered species, even if that species possesses a significantly lower level of interior depth), and all the various intentional, behavioral, cultural, and systemic factors that contribute to these kinds of wicked problems. And unlike prior stages of development, the Teal and Turquoise stages do not seek to impose their views and values on everyone else, but rather to create systems that allow all stages to be themselves and pursue their own ends, while also governing our society from the highest stages possible. Our notions of sanctity at these stages are plugged directly into the Ground of Being itself — an effortless recognition that all things emerge from and return to this Ground; that everything is equally sacred (including the profane); that everything is always already perfect (including the broken). As such, these integral stages deliver our sense of “sanctity” from the ethnocentric, through the worldcentric (expanding and extending outward to embrace things like trees, rivers, frogs, and whole ecosystems), and into the kosmocentric, where all manifest reality is seen as the radiant play of Spirit.

So where does that leave us? As we can see, each of these stages has very different — and often conflicting — methods of enacting and enforcing their own metaphysics of sanctity, which continues to fuel our already furious culture wars. What is an integralist to do? How do we thread so many different needles at once?

The integral moral imperative is simple: we seek to reduce the most suffering for the most beings possible, as appropriate for the gradients of interiority those beings possess (e.g. their capacity to feel suffering in the first place). Which is why the three of us agree that the 6-3 decision to abandon the Roe precedent marks a very dangerous social regression — one that prioritizes traditional Amber values, while closing the door on post-conventional altitudes and attitudes, and therefore threatens to send the entire spiral of development into violent disarray. Our judgment here does not come from a wholesale rejection of Amber, but rather from Amber’s rejection of these later post-conventional stages, and the suffering that will emerge (and has already emerged) from that rejection.

This brings us back to something I mentioned a few paragraphs back — the goal, always, is to find a way to allow all of these healthy stages to be themselves, while also governing from the highest stages available in order to create systems that allow everyone to maintain their own convictions without imposing them on everyone else.

Which, as Ken Wilber pointed out in a previous episode of The Ken Show, is exactly what the original Roe vs. Wade decision allowed. It was the most skillful compromise possible for our particular society, with the overall center-of-gravity it currently has. It was a compromise that allowed Amber to be Amber and follow its own virtues. It allowed Orange to be Orange, to make appropriate medical decisions and to use things like education and contraception to reduce the total number of unwanted pregnancies in our society. And it allowed Green to be Green, to reinforce women’s agency and autonomy over their own bodies and roles and reproductive freedoms. It was an imperfect decision, tenuously maintained by judicial precedence — but likely the best we could hope for at that current moment in history.

So while we are deeply dismayed by the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn federally protected access to abortion, we nonetheless remain ever hopeful, even in the face of this disruption. You could even say we are hopeful because of this disruption — more often than not, disruption clears a path for new solutions, new social inertias, new paths of emergence that can bend the moral arc of history further into the future. It’s easy to take for granted the hard-won freedoms that many of us inherited, and it’s only when those freedoms are threatened that we begin to comprehend just how fragile progress can be (and how easily social entropy can send us backward when we become complacent and distracted by frivolous things).

We hope that conversations like these can help point the way toward a new and still-nascent vision of justice, one based on principles of inclusion, wisdom, empathy, and discernment.

A vision that can actually be selected and celebrated by the fullest possible spectrum of humanity, from traditional to modern to postmodern and beyond.

A vision that actively expands our reverence for the sanctity of all life, everywhere we find it, reducing suffering for the greatest number of sentient beings — not only the born and unborn, but also the countless future beings who have yet to be conceived.

We hope that you can help us bring that vision to life.

1 Like

Don’t see much discussion on the topic so I’ll bump with Dr. King’s article. Seems her Granddad talked her mom out of aborting her.

12M since RvW, 175,000/year, 500/day, 1 every 3 minutes women killed through abortion. (edit) Black women “only” represent 38% of these abortions.


This is a wonderfully elevated summary-essay on the abortion question, written with such a light touch and chock full of integral intelligence and values. Thank you Corey, and thank you Mark and Cindy; the podcast was wonderful too, one of the best I’ve viewed recently.

Cindy’s thinking around the “root” issues and “ideal” situations relevant to abortion resonated with me, as did her remarks about the “messy inconsistencies” in society and human nature around the overall question of sanctity of life. Unraveling this complex and confused ball of yarn is pertinent not only to abortion but other societal matters as well, but alas, in these days of “everything happens so much,” straightening out the individual strands and wrapping it all together again seems so time-and-mind laborious as to be considered perhaps a luxury.

“Sanctity of life” is generally synonymous with the “holiness” or “sacredness” of life, or with its “inviolability” or its “preciousness.” In Western culture, it has generally been applied only to human life, whereas there are Eastern traditions that have long applied it to animals and even insects (e.g. Ahimsa practices, Jainism), and some indigenous shamanic cultures have applied it to the elements as well. This primary Western orientation is more and more being called into question, primarily by green and integral stages, and Mark in this podcast speaks to a democratic and legal theory of inclusion that would indeed take account of life-forms other than human, a matter close to my own heart for sure.

My sense is that the notion of the sanctity of life (by whatever name, and however differently understood through the ages/stages) is a deep, deep intuitive part of humanity’s 300,000 year experience. The emergence of the amber stage correlates with the advent of writing 5200 years ago (and printing a few thousand years later), which made recording, exchanging, spreading, and preserving thoughts, feelings, and ideas, including metaphysical views, much easier and more effective than the oral means of transmission used by the prior pre-literate societies and stages. This is evolution of course, in both the right and left-hand quadrants, and these stunning written texts are often relied upon as a general jumping-off place for a history of religion.

But archaeologists, anthropologists, and religion scholars tell us there is evidence of religious thought at least 40-50 thousand years ago (magical stage), and perhaps even prior to that. The primary marker for evidence of religious thought, they say, is the ritual treatment of the dead, and we have sure evidence of ritual burial during the late Paleolithic period (and “uncertain” evidence of ritual burial by Neanderthals 100,000 years ago in some parts of the world). “Grave goods” found deposited with bodily remains lead some researchers to propose that there was belief in an ‘afterlife’ in some magical-stage cultures, with this knowledge transmitted orally to the community via the shaman, the community’s “religious leader.” (And if there’s an ‘afterlife,’ physical death indeed is not the end, another notion that I sometimes wonder that large parts of humanity might have an unconscious intuition of.) Our own integral maps tell us the magical stage had available to it some of the necessary ingredients for religious thought.

My point is that the sanctity of life is perhaps an influence within us that is older and deeper than we might realize, predating even the amber stage in culture, which makes the abortion issue touch some very deep (and very unconscious) places in some. Appreciating these deep intuitions and the feelings they arouse in some people while attending to the pragmatics of decision-making around the situation, and doing so within a relatively shallow and divided society, is no easy task. I think the integral vision presented here and in the podcast addresses it all superbly.

1 Like

It hasn’t even been two months, and we’re already seeing so many of these kinds of worst case scenarios in red states. Which is only reinforcing my overall perception that “the cruelty is the point”.

And then there’s the Florida case, which unfolded exactly as I feared it would — she’s too young to make her own decision about her abortion, but apparently old enough to raise a child. This stuff really hurts to read, and hurts even more that these GOP lawmakers simply do not seem to care.

You could open 2 GoFundMe’s and solve both issues before end of the day Corey.
On the Louisiana Arcania case, you could write a recommendation to the Louisiana Legislature to amend the Accepted Conditions clause to include Acrania.
On Florida, you could petition to have all State influence within families and guardianship’s removed, leaving all decisions for minors to the parents/guardians.

You could even post here for signatures and donations. Just a thought…

Or would you rather have “Existential Threats to Birthing Persons’ Bodily Autonomy Constitutional Rights and Collapse of Civilization” as another patch to sew onto your GOP/Christian/Qanon strawman doll?

Ah, so it’s not up to the GOP lawmakers themselves to address the suffering their ideology is inflicting on these these girls. It’s up to me personally — an out-of-state resident who has zero political influence in those states — to come to their rescue. It’s up to someone else to clean the mess the GOP created, why should we ever expect them to do it themselves? Legislate the cruelty, crowdsource the compassion!

Maybe you should be petitioning states like North Carolina to put abortion on the ballot, so the people can actually decide the issue for themselves, like in Kansas. I wonder why they refuse to do so?

But I get it, the only real “existential threats” worth discussing are the Marxists, LGBTQ, and pronouns.

By the way, it’s not a “straw man” when it’s something that is objectively happening in the real world.

And I’m not sure how your solution for the Florida case helps, when the girl apparently has no parents or legal guardians.

“You’re too young to make a decision about abortion, but you’re old enough to be forced to bear and raise a child.” —GOP, 2022

I ran across some interesting data I hadn’t seen before, by Lifeway Research, which bills itself as “Enlightening Today’s Church with Relevant Insights.” researchlifewy.com/2021/12/03/7-in-10-women-who-have-an-abortion-identify-as-a-christian. The study is from 2015.

As the link says, 70% of women surveyed who had had an abortion identified as Christian, with the following breakdown:
Catholic 27%
Protestant 26%
Non-denominational Christian 15%
Orthodox Christian 2%

23% of this entire group identified as evangelical Christian.

More than half (52%) reported attending church once a month or more, which included:
More than once per week 8%
Once per week 27%
1-2 times per month 17%

The top three most influential factors for their deciding to terminate were:
the father of the baby 38%
medical professional 26%
their mother 14%

There was other interesting data on their perceptions of the church in regard to their pregnancy (particularly single women) and abortion, and whether or not they had spoken with anyone at their church about abortion, etc. which if interested, you can read in the study. Basically, a sense of being gossiped about and judged, but not entirely.

Pew Research’s data on religious affiliation in the US at the time of this study was that about 70% of the population identified as Christian, so abortion by Christian women was in proportion to their representation in the population.

Current Pew data says 63% of Americans identify as Christian. CDC’s current data shows that 58% of girls/women having abortions identify as Christian, but CDC’s data is incomplete, given not all states mandate reporting from all of their health facilities and not all states report their data to CDC.

And just for review, Pew Research data found in June 2022 that 65% of all Americans believe abortion should be legal in “all or most cases.” The breakdown of this belief by religious affiliation:
White Evangelical Protestants 28%
White Mainline Protestants 69%
Black Protestants 75%
White Catholics 64%
Hispanic Catholics 75%
Non-Christian religions 82%
Unaffiliated 84%

That’s quite a Victim Mentality approach. YOU DO HAVE AGENCY COREY. Gather the troops, circle the wagons, click the links. IT’S ALL PART OF THE PROCESS! I know you want some simplistic “read Corey’s mind” magical happenings, but you are simply ONE SINGLE PERSON OUT OF 320MILLION. Get your voice heard!

See - THAT’S the spirit. No more Victim to the Cruelty of the Minority Party. But take some action to get things on the NC ballot. FYI - Kansas is usually fiscally conservative and socially liberal. See - that’s the way it’s supposed to work.

Article said she has a legal guardian - am I wrong on this? WHY are the courts in the middle of this when her parents/guardians say to cut out the fetus? But be very careful though - an apparatchik “expert” won’t be able to get into a families child rearing…

We can fine tune this to simply say Identity Marxists. That’s a good catch all for identity mandates.

That’s quite a Victim Mentality approach

Are all observations that, yes, these ideologically-driven laws are genuinely victimizing young women all across the country, by their very nature “victim mentality”?

The woman who is being forced by the GOP to deliver a headless fetus is a victim. She will endure psychological trauma from being forced to carry this pregnancy to term, as well as astronomical medical costs when that child is born and inevitably sent to NICU to support. If your beliefs, and the policies that emerge from those beliefs, are actually victimizing people and generating suffering, you don’t get to hide behind claims of “victim mentality”. The real victim mentality is among those who are creating victims in the first place.

You might note the full 2-hour episode and writeup I produced above, none of which you have actually responded to here. I’m getting my voice heard, wouldn’t you say? You are commenting on a thread I started, which is literally an example of me voicing my point of view. Pointing out the specific cases of suffering and anguish that these short-sighted laws are producing — as well as the overall ambivalence from the lawmakers themselves about the suffering they are directly responsible for inflicting – is an intrinsic part of “getting my voice heard”.

Creating Legislation through Democratic processes is MESSY. So get off your butt and influence it, change it. The process might be messy, but it’s amazingly transparent IF YOU WORK AT IT.

That is true. But it’s not heard by very many people. If you targeted, as an example, the Louisiana GOP legislators you might be the Arcrania exception added very quickly. These people obviously NO ambivalent or they wouldn’t have passed the legislation.

Try giving the GOP the benefit of the doubt you might give the DNC, and REACH OUT.

My overall sense is, if we cannot find concern for things like sexual agency and bodily autonomy, if we cannot extend empathy to the people who are being genuinely victimized by laws such as these, if we can’t help but to flippantly pave over genuine human suffering when we are confronted with it, if we cannot find these things within our own interiors, then we probably never moved through the green stage of development in the first place. Which means that the integral stage is still at least two stages away from our current center of gravity.

That is true. But it’s not heard by very many people. If you targeted, as an example, the Louisiana GOP legislators you might be the Arcrania exception added very quickly.

I mean, it’s probably being heard by more people than the average citizen who doesn’t have a platform such as this, no? I have a particular sphere of influence that I’ve cultivated over the last twenty years, and I operate within that sphere, as I am doing in this very thread. Getting my voice heard — predominantly by competing in the reputation economy (depth over span) instead of focusing on the attention economy (span over depth).

These people obviously NO ambivalent or they wouldn’t have passed the legislation.

They are not ambivalent about their beliefs. They are demonstrably ambivalent about the suffering their beliefs are inflicting on others.

The Louisiana GOP is already facing criticism from MILLIONS of people across the country about this, but even that doesn’t push them to fix their own laws, what will adding my drop to that ocean accomplish? If the GOP is aware that these things are happening at this very moment, but don’t take it upon themselves to fix their own laws to prevent it from happening, then yes, they ARE ambivalent to this suffering, or else they would amend the legislation themselves. And unless their voters and supporters are also demanding these changes, those supporters are just as ambivalent. Until it happens to them or someone they care about, presumably.

Creating Legislation through Democratic processes is MESSY.

Agreed. Gotta crack a few eggs — or in this case force a few women to give birth to headless babies, or force a few women to bring their rapist’s fetus to term — in order to make an omelette.

Very melodramatic and quite absurd, but outrage and indignation noted. It will likely draw $M’s in GoFundMe for “activist” organization as corrupt as BLM or PPH. Meanwhile it’s a short drive from Louisiana to DeSatin’s Florida to have dinner and an abortion. I think there has been enough “attention” created to enable the horrific obstacles to be overcome. LOL

I’m not sure that horrific or other obstacles are going to be overcome until our government and our churches have better representation by women. Women are underrepresented at all levels of government in the US, and even more so in religious leadership.

From the Center for American Women and Politics cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/current-numbers, here are the numbers/percentages of women in elective office for 2022, unless otherwise noted:

Congress 27.3% (146 of 535 seats; 106 Ds, 40Rs)
***Senate 24% (24 of 100 seats; 16 Ds, 8Rs)
***House 28% (122 of 435 seats; 90 Ds, 32Rs)

Statewide Elective Executive Offices
Governor 18% (9 of 50; 6Ds, 3Rs)
Lt. Gov. 44.2% (19 of 43; 11Ds, 8Rs)

State Legislatures
Total 31.1% (2294 of 7383 seats; 1514 Ds, 759Rs, 14NP, 5Ind., 2Prg.)
***State Senates 28.5% (562 of 1972 seats; 362 Ds, 186Rs, 14NP)
***State House/Assembly 32% (1732 of 5411 seats; 1152 Ds, 573Rs, 5Ind., 2Prg.)

Mayors of Cities over 30,000 population: 25.1% (407 of 1621) 2021 stats
Mayors of the 100 Most Populous Cities : 31% (31 of 100 seats)
Municipal Office Holders in cities over 10,000 population: 30.5%

The Association of Religion Data Archives thearda.com/us-religion/statistics/beliefs?qsid=6 reports in its National Congregations Study Cumulative Data the following figures for 2018-2019:

Religion Leadership by Gender in US:
Male 86.5% (1030 positions)
Female 13.5% (161 positions)

Gender leadership by religion:
White Conservative, Evangelical, or Fundamentalist: 97.2% male, 2.8% female
Roman Catholic: 96.9% male, 3.1% female
Black Protestant: 84.3% male, 15.7% female
Non-Christian: 78.8% male, 21.2% female
White liberal or moderate congregations: 78.1% male; 21.9% female

These are sad figures; one might suspect we’re living in at least a partial patriarchy.

College student enrollments are now majority birthing capables people, with continued decline in testicular enrollments.

Do you think Feminists (used for those focused on supporting birthing capable persons) would better be served to support ALL women striving for leadership positions? Or is it really a totem used by the Leftists to support overall Leftist ideologies?

Should Feminists be “choosier” about whom they support, supporting perhaps the most qualified and experienced as well as their high profile “activist/saviors”?

If birthing capables are concerned about promotion of birthing capables specifically, should they not support ALL birthing capables striving for leadership roles?

What is your understanding as to why more impregnating-capable people aren’t attending college? (And by the way, I like that you used the term “birthing capables,” even if it is in mockery, because it shows that you are aware that females that transgender to male are capable of becoming pregnant and giving birth. Just how many people in the world do you think know that? You are a rarity.)

As for the rest of your comments, let me begin by saying that feminism today, in my opinion, gets a bad rap, some of it deserved, but not all of it. And let’s do remember that either a woman or a man can be a feminist. In fact, 2400 years ago, Plato himself was arguing for the “total political and sexual equality of women.” And a fellow by the name of John Neal was highly instrumental during the 19th century, both pre and post the Civil War, in forwarding feminist causes; he was downright prolific in his advocacy for women’s equality in all arenas. They are not the only ones, and there are men today who feel related to the feminist movement, although women of course have and continue to do most of the heavy lifting.

And it has been a movement. Although some scholars and pundits suggest only 20th century movements should be considered feminism (and refer to other historical women’s rights movements as “protofeminism”), others believe that all historic work to obtain women’s rights should legitimately be called ‘feminism.’ I’m in this latter camp, noting that a European woman who lived between 1364 and 1430 wrote about and denounced misogyny in her writings; noting that the first female poet published in the US in the 1600s wrote (slyly, sometimes) about “the worth of women;” and noting that a 17th century female writer made scripture-based arguments for women in leadership roles in religion.

Some people tend to think of feminism’s accomplishments only in terms of attaining the right to vote or the right to contraception or abortion, but it is so much more than that–everything from women’s right to not be excluded from education, to the right to own property and sign contracts, to the right to work, to the right to form labor unions, to the right to participate in sports, to the legal right to not be subjected to rape or physical abuse by a husband, to the right to equality with men when it comes to sexual moral codes. All of this and more, women/feminists have fought for.

And of course, I haven’t even touched upon the second-class status of women and girls in other parts of the world, but you know that scene.

I view feminism’s long history as a work-in-progress. Just as with evolution itself, there are progressions and regressions. The objections today focus on those feminists who are part of a larger group we derisively call “woke.” They are the ones who want not just equal opportunity but equal outcomes. We know that story, but it is not the main story of feminism, in my opinion.

We also know there is a men’s movement of sorts, and certainly individual men committed to understanding the inequalities of the sexes through several lenses, the inequalities women have experienced, as well as the inequalities and hardships men have experienced. We also know there are numerous schools of feminism, one of them being based upon the theory of, not patriarchy, but the natural division of labor resulting from newly emerged technologies, and later, the 19th century Victorian idea of public (men) and private (women-at home) “spheres.” While I can see and resonate with these perspectives, they’re not entirely, wholly, totally satisfying to me.

All that said, to turn to your comments and to this thread’s topic, I don’t think abortion is a “leftist ideology,” nor do the stats regarding support for abortion in “all or most cases” bear that out.

I think people, both men and women, feminist or not, should vote for and support whomever they choose. I posted all this data in order to give an informational picture of the status of women in elective office and in positions of religious leadership; I myself was not previously aware of just how imbalanced it is, If either women or men want to see greater balance, then both women and men have to work for that. Would it make a difference to have greater balance in governance, in religion? I don’t really know, but I tend to think so.

You ask if perhaps feminists should support the “most qualified” people. This would seem to be an easy question, but it’s not, for what qualifies as the “most qualified and experienced” means different things to different people at different stages. For many Republicans these days, the “most qualified” can simply be a 2020 election denier, a Trump follower, right? You ask should women support ALL other women in leadership roles. No, I don’t think so, of course not. I could never support, for instance, a MTG, and I’m really dubious about Sinema.

Question for you, Fermented Agave. Can you find a feminist inside yourself, a part of you that might advocate for the rights of women on the basis of the political, economic, personal, social, and spiritual equality of the sexes? Can you find a female sensibility within yourself? Can you find the feminine? the Divine Feminine within yourself? Just curious, and if too personal, ignore me,.

In my opinion it’s three primary factors. First is that the public awareness campaigns - aka the Feminist Movement - has changed birthing capables internal thinking. They think about becoming business leaders or politicians or engineers more than in the past. Second is mandated hiring and promotions based on gender. This does create a “pipeline” of opportunities, as well as supporting role models. Third is the Universities have created courses and degree program more taylored to birthing capables - women’s studies, gender oppression, etc.

Which sadly is the predominate approach of most “feminists”. We haven’t seen the Feminists and their Allies say much publically about the plight of the Afghani women, Myanmar chattel/wives, Mexican prostitution,… Mums the word so it seems.

I think at least in Western societies we can chalk up a big win for Progressives (post WWII) on the men for public and birthing-capables for at-home private “occupations” being almost entirely eradicated. One last frontier would be to eradicate the oppressive burden of the classic birthing person / infant care through most likely universal and complete State child rearing. Many would point out some clear positives having State experts raising all children with many pointing out negatives. We could make an argument that birth-capables by default caring for infants as an archaic social concoction blocking Integral enlightenment.

There are multitudes of examples of this socially concocted oppression of birthing capables. Let’s play out why aren’t more birthing capables CEO’s of masonry companies? We can posit that the lack of equal outcomes - 50% women CEO’s of masonry companies - as a by product of the misogynistic oppressive patriarchy conspiring to block birthing capables from enjoying equal outcomes. Since this is most likely attributable to systemic oppression, we can simply mandate that 50% of masonry companies must have birthing capable CEO’s. Issue resolved through government mandates. We can even mandate that 50% of all bricklayer apprentices, those promoted to bricklayers, then those promoted to forepersons, then those promoted to management. Issue resolved. No all you have to do is find enough birthing capables that will start at the beginning of the pipeline and utopia springs froth in less than a generation.

Back on topic - I agree completely that gross topic of Abortion is not definitively Left or Right. It’s when you get into the subtle topic of Abortion, availability, restrictions, parental permission that the broad brush characterizations take on much more resolution.

Actually I was referring to all the conservative women that will never be in the running for “woman of the year” regardless of her accomplishments.
But I also see your point on assessing from Integral stages. As you can see from my masonry CEO equity example, is it in leadership positions enough to “have the appropriate intent” or “they mean well”. Is ability to understand, execute, and synthesize new strategies and partnerships of any value? And if of little or no value, how long will the masonry company be providing jobs to employees and services to their community?

If you have a problem with a Leftist bi-sexual birthing capable person that votes virtually 100% of the time with the Leftists, is there any conservative woman that you might respect or honor?

You mention Green specifically. She’s attained a political level that roughly 1 in 500,000 Americans have achieved in their lifetimes. Is that not progress for feminists? Or does orthodoxy to your politics completely close you to honoring MTG’s amazing accomplishments?
Another shining example for feminists might be the Congresswoman from Colorado. She was raised working poor, suffered sexual abuse and domestic violence yet also was able to achieve something roughly 1 out of half a million Americans never achieve.

You’re introducing here at the end “the feminine” and “Divine Feminine” into a discussion on feminism, feminist movement, and abortion. They may all contain a similar word root, but are clearly not synonymous nor apply to similar domains. But the short answers are yes, yes, yes, and yes.

I appreciate your comments here, but my question was why do you think more men (“impregnating-capables”) aren’t attending college?

There is major international connecting/networking among people working on behalf of women’s rights. The UN has sponsored/hosted four international conferences on the topic, each one attended by tens of thousands of people from all over the world, including of course feminists. A fifth conference may be held soon. The head of the UN has stated that “empowering girls and women is the greatest human rights challenge in our world.” Of course, it was Hillary Clinton at one of these conferences that stated and popularized the phrase “women’s rights are human rights.” She has a long history of working on behalf of women and children. The UN maintains a Commission on the Status of Women, in addition to sponsoring the conferences. Other international conferences separate from those hosted by the UN also occur, where participants share information and knowledge and strategies and skills. However, your average feminist tends to work within her/his own sphere of influence: their own country, state, or city unless invited by another locale as cultural issues, and where cultures are in their timeline around women’s rights, vary considerably. But don’t think there isn’t attunement to issues throughout the world on the part of many feminists.

Or at least eradicate the high cost of child-rearing and child care, like through tax credits, as Dems proposed and Republicans nixed.



Well yes, Liz Cheney :slightly_smiling_face: But I’d add the caveat that most others do: “while I don’t agree with many of her policies, I certainly respect and honor her for what she has done in trying to uphold democracy and hold accountable you-know-who and allies.”

Just because one is female does not make one supportive of basic feminine or feminist values, and again, men too can hold these values. Having more women in elective office, more balance of the sexes, for instance, is one issue, and it’s worthy of noticing the imbalance we have, strictly in terms of numbers, and asking why. And there is also the less-reductionist issue of feminine values being represented in our elective offices: things like valuing relationships/relationality, cooperation, collective/communitarian concerns. And again, both men and women can hold these values, and as Integralists, hopefully many of us do (along with the traditional masculine values, i.e. hopefully many of us are integrated).

When it comes to MTG, I prefer political leaders, whether male, female, or otherwise, be reality-based, not given to far-out conspiracies and lying, and certainly not to be advocating for “Christian nationalism” which she does. You do know that some Christians are speaking out on some of these issues, and on MTG specifically? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/churches-called-out-for-staying-silent-about-their-abusive-maga-members-and-their-violent-antics/ar-AA10SBH1?cvid=d4fdec32c25140eb9fabb72c798c0350

Feminist, female, feminine (including divine) all derive etymologically from the Latin word “femina,” which means ‘woman.’ I thought it was all somehow related.

good, good, good, and good

Reduced opportunities giev preferential hiring, promotions, pay raises, professional advancement or birthing capables.

Great to here that the roughly 5B women not in advanced western societies are getting some attention. I haven’t heard Hillary taking action on the Afghani women that we were doing so well for. Nor the UN for that matter.

Strawman? I would hazard to guess that stonemason CEOs have about the lowest birthing capables represention of all professions, excepting of course actual stone masons themselves. Shouldn’t we start with the most grotesquely under represented professions first?

Come on LaWanna. We all know the Daughter of NeoCon Satan is merely a politically expedite enemy of my enemy ally. The Cheneys are too NeoCon for 99% of the population.

What about the dearth of conservative women and even women of color that are quickly infecting the misogynistic GOP kabal?

Are all politically active Leftist women by very definition exhibiting/inhabiting the Divine Feminine?
While I enjoy our conversations and your deeply insightful and well thought positions, sometimes sneaking from demographics, statistics, and political positions to somewhat religiously Divinity could almost be seen as debate in bad faith.

But I rejoice with and in the Divine Feminine. Perhaps if we do reflect upon the Divine Feminine it might bring us all closer. A few images to reflect upon…


You have evidence of that?

(Just two examples among others of both HC and the UN action)

Well yes. I was talking about public elective offices, you’re talking private enterprise. I was talking about imbalances in representation, you talked about 50% “equal outcomes.”

[quote=“FermentedAgave, post:18, topic:29879”]
What about the dearth of conservative women and even women of color that are quickly infecting the misogynistic GOP kabal?

Have no idea what you’re talking about here.

I think all people are inhabited by the Divine Feminine; most just don’t know it.

This thread’s topic includes the phrase “Sanctity of Life.”

I agree with you on this. And thanks for sharing those very vibrant images. They are all potent. I particularly like the 5th one, dark woman with spear in stork pose with a heart for a shield–very Kali-esque!

First and Second had that matches exactly the narratives. LOL…

That’s great to here that Hillary is “standing with” the birthing capables in Afghanistan. How’s that working out?

Africa has had UN Peacekeeping presence for 30 years. How’s that working out for the ladies (anyone really) in Africa? Speaking of Ms. Clinton, how’s it going for the the birthing capables in Libya?

So it’s a strawman if we want to look at something universal like 50% birthing capable representation across EVERY profession? Yes, including the professions that “distort” the pay gaps for women. How many women drive plumbing trucks knocking down $100,000/year? Why not?

Just know that when you’re conveniently arbitrary on when/where you want “equality of outcomes”, your platform starts coming across as a wee bit privileged.

But I chuckle. We call it “woman’s prerogative”. My wife, daughters, and sisters uses this daily on me to get “best of both worlds” if you will. :slight_smile:

I think they know it, it’s just not something they talk much about. Could you see it if they do inhabit the Divine Feminine in others?

A woman giving birth to someone else’s son, yet her fiance still marries her and raises the bastard child who then grows into the Savior doesn’t get highlighted as “Divine Feminine”.

Hey, it’s all good, but you might want to consider that YOUR view might have you be a bit dismissive of many peoples vision, in-habitation, and instantiation of the Divine Feminine.

There’s nothing wrong with it, but you did resonate with the most masculine image of the Divine Feminine.