Integral Interpretation of Abortion, Abortion Bans


@steljarkos Thanks for the very insightful response and reference to Quantum Semiotics - I will read today :slight_smile: You have up leveled our conversation. Thank you.

There is only one “quantum” event in the creation of a human being. When a woman’s egg accepts a man’s sperm and they join, a unique living being is created.


Thanks for sharing, but I don’t know that anyone is much concerned with your sexuality but appreciate the background/context. I would hazard a guess that we all have LGBTQ+ and their “allies” as friends. Likewise we all likely now some or perhaps many LGBTQ+ that we “don’t want to party with” for multitudes of reasons.

I think a more fundamental question is if you make sexuality an explicitly obvious part of your hour by hour minute by minute existence. Would the family or work group think permissible for a heterosexual male to say have posters or desk accessories in the office that overtly promote a heterosexual life style. A man in wearing a Hedonism logoed speedo being very affectionate with bikini clad women and a sing saying “Swinging - It’s easier than you think. Ask me how.” Or say cousin Sally shows up at the family gathering wearing a “Are you as horny as I am? :wink:” tshirt?

Would it be ok for me to not hire or promote to people manager “Harry”? Would it be acceptable for me to not invite “Sally” to my next friends and family BBQ? Is this “persecution”?

I read @steljarkos posting as Meta LGBTQ+. I also agree that we are actually much closer to the vast majority of the population (in the US anyway) as accepting and truly believe “You do you, even if it’s not for me.” with regards to anyone’s personal choices. We don’t live in Communist China. This is the US which is fundamentally a society of “Individuals”.

@Andrew_Baines I read your posting as thinking tolerance and freedom from persecution is insufficient. Would simple respect for others be sufficient?

If we already have this basic respect for each other at the individual level, then what really is missing?


I think it’s clear from Corey’s posts that he feels the Texas Law is harmful from several points of view. While that might not be everyone’s integral view, I haven’t seen any posts that actually address Corey’s concerns or anyone else who is critical of the law. Mostly what we see is the common ignore, deflect redirect when valid points are addressed.

Bringing LGBTQ into this discussion is yet another redirect, imo. I’m not sure - but I infer from your post that you are against contraceptives? But I can’t follow the logic why. Just like I can’t figure out what the introduction of contraceptives have to do with LGBTQ issues. You understand that two men having sex can’t get pregnant right? I don’t follow how there were “natural consequences” to homosexual behavior that the contraceptive pill ended?
The unravelling is inevitable - it’s cyclical. It’s well described in the book “The Fourth Turning” published in 1997, so this isn’t a new concept. Our societal unravelling isn’t because of pronouns. You actually say you’d prefer a gender neutral pronoun as with “hen” - but in the same paragraph feel that asking for a gender neutral pronoun in English has led to all of societies problems and will lead to it’s downfall?
Again, this whole gender pronoun thing is a complete straw man. I can ask you for whatever I want - I can request or demand you call me “Sir” when you address me. It doesn’t mean you have to or you are some kind of victim just because I requested or demanded you use a particular form of address for me. But this is what the knee-jerk reaction of a certain type of person is: “Oh, they asked me to speak differently and I don’t have enough self-awareness to know why that angers me - so I’ll just go into victim mode.”


Close but not quite.
This issue comes from legislating with threat of fine or imprisonment if someone refuses to call you herm or sir. At least in the US that nasty old Bill of Rights explicitly states that the" government shall not infringe" speech.
You can always claim harrassment.


Which state has this legislation passed and is currently law?

Unless there actually is a state where this is passed and is state law - it is a straw man argument. The big scary hairy monster that doesn’t actually exist. This is what the media you listen to has reduced you to - creating imaginary big hairy scary monsters.

The truth is that it will be 20 years to never before we can even conceive such legislation being law. There is no indication that the Supreme Court will ever uphold such legislation as constitutional and there is no indication that the balance of the Supreme Court will tip dramatically to be fanatically woke.

So again, more straw man arguments from the man who is fragilely sensitive to them.


Think Integral. Look for the big picture. See the connections. Cultural narratives plant seeds that sprout and spread. That fake hippy thing of the 60s, “make love not war”, becomes a thing and it spreads into multiple forms. The fake spreads. The hypocrisy spreads. I know first hand, because I was a part of it (mercifully, we change when we see the error of our ways).

… in dysfunctional cultures that don’t have their act together. With our warped, neo-Darwinian paradigm masquerading as our life science, our cultures certainly do not have their act together. So, indeed, we should expect cycles of unraveling long into the future while a culture continues to entertain broken paradigms. No mystery there. So on this at least, we agree. But I’m taking it to the next stage, the bigger picture… I’m putting my finger on the cause. Unravellings don’t “just happen.” They happen for a reason.

Huh? A strawman created by he who accuses others of creating strawmen. And an invisible strawman at that.

Whether in law or in the formation of cultural expectations, this gender pronoun thing is a means of trying to shame those who do not accept the woke narrative, and people have right to push back against bigots masquerading as anti-bigots. So no, it’s no strawman. You are the one creating a strawman by suggesting that it’s only when it’s passed into law that it counts. I’m going to call a hypocrite a hypocrite, and I don’t need the law to define what a hypocrite is.

In your reply to FermentedAgave, you suggest that nobody has yet passed woke legislation into law. I thought it was, within some spheres. For example, signs in public, such as public lavatories. And what about transgender inmates, like this story? Woke has real consequences. Either way, the mere fact that this nonsense is taken seriously at all is symptomatic of how far our cultures have sunk. “I do me and you do you” works for me. And I object to bigots masquerading as anti-bigots scolding those who resist their desired amendments to the english language. I like my english language the way it is, despite its imperfect pronouns.

My choices, my sexuality, my spirituality, is my private business. This rainbow movement, taking LGBTQ into the public domain and requiring the rest of society to celebrate with them, is a level of entitlement, hypocrisy and imposition that we’ve not seen before. Are you going to call that argument a strawman, too? Of course you are. But it’s not a strawman, because culture is reality, and haters** trying to direct the cultural narrative against the democratic interests of others deserves pushback.

Your trying to write off comments that you disagree with as strawman arguments is its own strawman… a form of sophistry that attempts to diminish the rights of others to push back against the scolds that are feverishly working to take away their democratic freedoms.

** haters is not a strawman. Bigots masquerading as anti-bigots (Antifa are fascists, in case you haven’t noticed), racists masquerading as anti-racists (anti-white racism is still racism), sexists masquerading as anti-sexists (anti-male sexism is still sexism), frauds masquerading as woke, all of them are united under one theme… they hate those who do not accept their woke agenda.


Why has the law been drafted in the way that it has and what are the consequences?
In every other state than Texas people could sue state officials for enforcing an unconstitutional law - which in this case would be laws that directly challenge the federal protection under the Roe and Wade ruling. S8 8 was written to avoid such a legal challenge. So Texas citizens not State officials are charged with enforcement and allowed under the law to sue anyone “aiding and abetting” someone who is seeking an abortion once cardiac activity is detectable.
There is plenty of structure and experience in place amongst State officials in how to enforce laws, with their checks and balances. There is no such provision with this law.
Without those checks and balances be prepared to be sued:
If it can be shown that following reading this thread and considering its contents, some-one chooses to have an abortion in contravention of the law, then it is possible that those who have contributed to this thread can be sued for aiding and abetting an illegal abortion.
Free Speech anyone?


steljarkos = fermentedagave


Show me a state or federal law where you can go to prison for not using proper pronouns or this is all just the ravings of a delusional fear-filled paranoid brainwashed individuals.


Hi Ray an honest question for you. If such woke-ness were passed into law would that change your input on the topic?


That’s what I am asking for, yes - someone to show me a law that is actually passed and then yes, we could actually have a legitimate discussion on reality. If I am in a fantasy world and if I can be put in jail for not using Ze on request - yes I would want to be informed of where this happens because that’s something I always slip on accidentally and it would inform any future travel plans.


I’m lost- is wokeness good or bad at this moment in time?


It’s the boogey man living under our beds.


@raybennett I believe this was actually proposed and implemented in Canada which led to the Jordon Peterson movement. Since some members here are concerned this is the direction we’re headed, are you okay with this type of authoritarianism in general?

This also ties into vaccine mandates. The US is now mandating that American Citizens get vaccinated with a vaccine that was pushed through by an Executive order from Donald Trump? A win for Big Pharma to fight a virus that has over 99.9% survival rate and now has shown not to stop the spread of the virus?

This is quite controversial here in the USA with many people. And frankly I don’t know where to even find trustworthy information anymore. I do get some clarity from the dialogs here and I welcome the input from everyone.


The concept is not new, though it was previously understood under another term. Political correctness has been around for awhile.


I agree the Covid thing is difficult to know who is saying the truth and who is spouting nonsense.
With the gender law issue - I’ll check out the Canadian law and report back. Do expect a slight frying, though if it’s been misrepresented. :grin:

On the topic of authoritarianism - when push comes to shove I’m either Libertarian or Anarchist.
The anti-abortion laws being discussed in this section are authoritarian - implementing religious law and hypocritical in claiming they are “pro life” when the very same organizations are very pro-war.

I don’t think you are doing it intentionally, but turning a discussion about an abortion law in the United States instead about a pronoun law in a completely different country is deflecting the issue.
But to be clear - no - I do not support laws that would mandate pronouns. Nor would I support a “conservative” law that requires me to limit my pronoun usage - or even that requires me to use English instead of Spanish or Chinese or Arabic or whatever in the workplace, schools or government offices.


Speaking personally, there is a spirit of wokeness that I try to include, and a particular expression/execution of wokeness that I try to transcend :wink:

Insofar as the “woke” are pointing out challenging Zone 4 and Zone 7 realities that are very difficult to discern from a pre-green altitude, then I am 100% here for it, even if they have a hard time finding appropriate interventions for those challenges.

But to the extent that it is being calcified into yet another ethnocentric tribal identity, and sliding from “I have a responsibility to try not to offend you” to “I have the right to never be offended by you”, I start pumping the breaks. There is a stubborn moral righteousness that often comes through, which is often indistinguishable from any other form of amber zealotry.

Reminds me a bit of some of J.R.R. Tolkien’s letters about what would have happened if Gandalf got a hold of the ring of power. Tolkien says Gandalf would have been “good and wise” even with the ring, but he would have “made good detestable" to the people. I find that a fascinating concept, also echoed by Galadriel’s “All shall love me and despair” while she was in Hulk mode.

“Gandalf as Ring-Lord would have been far worse than Sauron. He would have remained ‘righteous’, but self-righteous. Thus while Sauron multiplied evil, he left ‘good’ clearly distinguishable from it. Gandalf would have made good detestable and seem evil.” —JRR Tolkien


It takes effort to get the clearest picture available at this present time. You need to get a clear handle on the virus, a clear handle on the derivation of the vaccine, the use of the vaccine. Because : the vaccine is not 100% effective; it does have potentially life changing side effects for a vanishingly small but real number of people; it’s main benefits help society whilst helping the individual (hospitals not overrun) because of all of these issues, there can be no simple yes or no to its use. It’s on a continuum of risk benefits.
But it takes effort to get up to speed on the issue. For what it’s worth, which may be nothing, I applaud you if you do make the effort to go to source material rather than self-serving commentary.
Try “The New Scientist” magazine, though you will need 64 back issues. It has covered the science from the beginning.


ok, look @excecutive, @FermentedAgave, @steljarkos
A simple 5 minute Google search on that Canadian Law Straw man brought up the following:

Does the bill legislate the use of certain language? And could someone go to jail for using the wrong pronoun?

In the Criminal Code, which does not reference pronouns, Cossman says misusing pronouns alone would not constitute a criminal act.

“The misuse of gender pronouns, without more, cannot rise to the level of a crime,” she says. “It cannot rise to the level of advocating genocide, inciting hatred, hate speech or hate crimes … (it) simply cannot meet the threshold.

I really do find it annoying that some of you (who also just happen to be anti-“left”) do not do your own due diligence on an issue and do even a perfunctory check on talking points before presenting them as discussion points.
This is pre-high school level here. I’d give you a D grade, tbh. Please do your own intellectual due diligence before presenting an idea.


Thank you, That clarifies my confusion. Perhaps we need to make clear what wokeness we are referring to when it is a central part of our message.