Saturday, December 3, 2011

What Does Being Anti-Abortion Mean?

In the scheme of life there are issues that we see thrown around in public and in places of worship, from podiums, sidewalks, and any place people are - there are issues that we must talk about and have a dialogue over even if we have an opposing opinion. To those of you who have no opinion, I wish to challenge you to decide if I am wrong. There is always the argument that everyone is entitled to their opinion. That is correct, but the saying should be, "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you can't have your own reality." That opinionated thinking allows for some people to ignore something I have come to know as independent origination. That means that whatever you create - any action, object, or cause there is an opposite action, object, or cause that is created at the same time. That means that if for everything there is one exact opposite then when it comes to good or evil, there are only two ways to slice that. I am a firm believer in the concept and beauty of life. I am going to define what I mean.

Life begins at 60? No, just in commercials for retirement villages. Let's ask ourselves our own definition and for the purposes of clarity and non-ambiguity, let's say that we use the dictionary as our defining reference. What does birth mean? Why does there have to be a different definition of birth and conception? There is a valid reason and I will explain. Life is something sacred and an independent cause for cherishing for each of us individually. That is something everyone will agree on.

What does birth mean in the dictionary?

From at < >

1. an act or instance of being born: the day of his birth.

2. the act or process of bearing or bringing forth offspring; childbirth; parturition: a difficult birth.

3. lineage; extraction; descent: of Grecian birth.

4. high or noble lineage: to be foolishly vain about one's birth.

5. natural heritage: a musician by birth.

And so clearly we have a good idea at which point we are considered "born". That life begins at birth is a constant in the universe. Even the people who talk about being "born again" do so so they can start a new life. Scientifically and Literally we aren't truly living until we are breathing independently and experiencing life. Life, which is defined as being an organic mass that is self perpetually dividing cells and creating itself through the experience of moving around in the environment.

Life; Again from at: < >

1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

2. the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms,especially metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptationto environment.

3. the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one.

4. a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul: eternal life.

5. the general or universal condition of human existence: Too bad, but life is like that.

Again we are faced with certain facts. Facts that make ignoring some things impossible. When we look at the fact that life is, as in the first definition "...the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally."

And if that meant that when we are lying, 'brain dead' despite a soul or internal energy of a sentient being (which is present in objects that aren't considered living), without the abiliity to breathe, grow through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to the environment through changes originating internally, but through the supposed "life support" machines in a hospital that can sustain the tissue of a dead body through animation so that it "appears" to be alive, then, we aren't really alive.

That would 
also mean that while being dependent of an umbilical chord that is our only chance of living in this world without the body of the host (mother) that there would be no sustaining, growth, or cell devision and there is NOT a chance of reproducing. In other words, we aren't yet alive at that point.

When someone says to me that they are pro-life, that means to me that they are pro-fetus. That is like saying that we should stop eating eggs since they are already created and were independently growing inside their mother. But we realize that those are NOT living chickens until they hatch. Today I wish to introduce the Pro-Fetus movement. I want everyone who calls themselves Pro-Life and anyone who describes them, writes about them, or even mentions them - to step up; and start calling the people who call themselves Pro-Life what they really are. Pro-Fetus. What does this mean? This means you are putting the responsibility for the Fetus ahead of the mother. And what does that mean?

My friend Denice has pointed out on several occasions (but it didn't sink in to me until recently) that some men in our government who really shouldn't have a decision in women's lives and what they should do with their own lives in the future, treat them as if they are worthless.

What do I mean by that? 

Let me explain to you through asking you this simple question:
"When a woman becomes pregnant what does she become?" Is she suddenly this worthless human being that has no right to decide her life, a cocoon that is nothing more than a vessel meant for males to procreate in and through? Does someone think she deserves less respect for her opinion and that she - through a lack of being able to control her own life at that point without altering her pregnancy is deserving of no opinion or voice on her own life because she is carrying an embryo that is NOT living yet? Please comment below.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Anti Union Legislation is Anti-Humanistic Legislation

The unions support the working class humans. Anyone who votes against unions is therefore voting against intelligently organized human beings who want more for their families than what they had and want to work to provide that for them. Every time the owner class corporate masters start seeing the working class enjoying themselves, they have to step on that. NOW, they finally did it. I knew when we threw this out of the legislatures on a state level when Scott Walker tried to do this state by state there was going to be a fight, so they now found a foothold in the U.S. Congress. They are suppressing state election results from the popular vote by creating this aristocratic corporation favored unfairness that will eventually lead to the destruction of the working class family.

Back in 2001, when I predicted things like this were happening and going to change the face of the working class in the U.S., people scoffed and said it could never happen here. We also were lulled into believing no one else would attack us on our soil ever again until that year. When the Bush-ites said 9-11 changed the game plan globally, no one realized they meant this. They quit thinking of the United States as their safe haven once they realized they could partner with foreign nations that could take control with a couple planes and a well planned execution.

This movement to return us to yesteryear's wages is an old song. Here is the problem. When slavery was legal, all the slave owners had to give them was enough shelter, food, medicinal care, and clothing to keep them healthy enough to work. If you can hardly afford that now, what is the difference?

This is the Republican Jobs Plan. To create another third world country where people have to beg for government handouts to keep their families fed. Everyone will work for slave wages and OWE THEM like in Pakistan where people are sold into indentured servitude at birth through a family owed debt.

It is like what happened to the people of India under the British. In Pakistan, there are children, born into indenture-ship, working at four years old until they die. When I heard Newt Gingrich talking about firing "unionized janitors" and replacing them with the nine year old children of the poor it was then I realized where we were headed. We are being conquered from within. This is the kind of Imperialist government action that has causes revolutions in other countries. The elite are taking over and something will eventually snap back or else we are going to be living in poverty as a nation. The part I don't get is how the working class poor, trailer park or tenement slum dwellers can vote for people like this and not realize they are screwing themselves.

I have one question for everyone that deserves a reaction: Did you ever think that you would live to see this happening in America?

If you want to see how your own local politicians voted for this per state, the list is at

I noticed that Ron Paul abstained from voting during this election campaigning when his supporters would probably have like to see him vote against this, as a supposed champion of individual rights and freedoms, but so as not to piss his Republican friends off, he hid out.

Oh, and while we are at it, these are 5 worker's rights that the unions created that the elite have shown that they don't want us to have any more by voting against unionization: