I believe reactions in humans are derived from at least two thought processes. They are profoundly seen in the most elevated arguments surrounding the evolution of our society. Those elevated arguments have produced the most shocking retaliations and escalations derived from opposing views and an individual sense of helplessness in the matter. The thought process's are seen through the words etched into the signs held by demonstrators. They are heard through those in the media and those speaking at gatherings of likeminded. While difficult to clearly summarize, the protagonist of opposing reaction is emotional and logical thought process.
It is the logical thinker that derives understanding from analysis and internal debate. Deciding for themselves what is right and what is wrong. A debate that is not easy when considering the greater good of society. It is the emotional thinker, in contrast, that lacks thought, reflection, and internal debate. I often view them more-so as a follower. Someone that is logically irrational, weak, and naïve.
I was raised in a Pro-Life family. My parents often gathered with other's to protest the murder of un-born babies. Those protests could've been focused on either a Federal or State level. At the age of self-identification (Becoming a Man) I began to question my parents actions on the matter. I was surrounded by a lot of influences that shaped my thoughts and logic. I still maintain the same thoughts and reasoning today. I realize other's did not have the same influences in their lives. My logic and rationale was truly shaped by outside influences and reasoning. They are what is, "right," for the greater good of our society.
After loosely realizing what my parents were often protesting, I learned something from a discussion with my Aunt. She was the Director of Nursing at Boston University Hospital. A strong-willed, strong minded, successful Woman. I could point out many qualities in her but a couple really standout. She was always calm. If she didn't know, she wouldn't comment or offer advice on a matter. She would, on the latter, calmly explain that she really didn't know or have enough information to share an opinion on the matter. Which speaks volumes on matters she did share her outlook or opinion.
I looked up to my Aunt. Along the journey of achieving her goals in Healthcare she encountered some obstructions that temporarily derailed her. One such obstacle was witnessing and participating in Abortions. She stepped away from Nursing. What she saw literally led her to stumble, briefly, with Alcoholism too. She walked away from her career because she was forced to participate in something she felt was heinous. At the time of learning this, I was gathering thoughts on addiction that led me to question her for insights. I wanted to know what caused her brief addiction. I recall seeing her intoxicated twice in my life. She was still afflicted by what she witnessed and participated-in. With little detail she explained that during an abortion the Doctor would tear a baby apart, piece-by-piece, with surgical instruments. She could see the shape of a human. Sometimes having arms, hands, feet, and facial features forming. She realized what she was doing was wrong. It was wrong to that human, that baby. It violated that baby.
Later in life, the topic of abortion was greatly analyzed and debated in College. We studied Margret Sanger, an advocate for Woman's Contraception and adversary of the ignorant proletariat. Her foundation evolved into Planned Parenthood (I doubt that is the direction she sought). We scratched the surface of Religious logic with Mother Theresa's outcry or plea of humane logic, "Please give me the Child. I am willing to accept any child that would be aborted and give that child to a Married couple that would love the child". We learned about the aborted baby discovered alive in the trash at the hospital (Where Abortions once occurred). A passing nurse heard her movements and crying. We read the views of Pro-Abortion workers, clinic bombings, Roe v. Wade. And, now I see the new chapter in the evolution of our society.
A helpless baby in it's most fragile stage of life is not directly exposed to harmful factors of the world. Early in life we were all protected by a buffer. We are alive and growing but completely reliant on that buffer for protection and early development. It is our natural way of growing. We grow slowly relying on our parents then our society. Eventually, we become the providers and through the process of selection we either live on or cease to exist.
For the most part, the preceding is the foundation of logical thought on the subject. I believe the opposition is the emotional thinker. The naïve individual that simply reacts on emotion. They often seem to lack thought process at any level or be dismissive because it's not very relevant to themselves or where they are in life. It is, as I see it, the difference between thinking objectively and subjectively. Do we think of ourselves or others? Does the person seek what's good for them or good for the whole?
Humans seem to have an ability to assess outcomes. It differentiates us from most other living beings. What will, or will likely, happen, if I make choice a, b, or c...? Our ability to reason this way can go deeper to second, third, fourth, etc... level outcomes. Those outcomes are guesses and they can be wrong. This is the difficult part for humans that lack logical analysis or this process in decisions. Desire's over-shadow forward outcomes. Broadly, alcohol and other contributing factor's could play in this mix and are likely. It could be the desire for an expensive Car that made one forget about saving for retirement. Sex, similarly, is a desirable action from pleasure. That is by nature, needed for our survival.
Clearly, "pro-choice" proponents are not thinking about which person or body is being eliminated. A choice was already made, in the pursuit of desire, that led to this secondary outcome. That is the formation and creation of another body within. The one that cannot yet choose, speak, hide, run from, or defend itself. Pro-Choice proponents lack the understanding that the lens of the babies defender is on the babies body not the Mother's. The defenseless reliant child that is developing within. What of the Child's rights, choice, and desire? The hypocrisy of those words are overwhelming. Shouldn't they then be aborted? It's their body their choice, they're choosing abortion.
It seems this country is greatly divided again. When is it okay to kill someone or something? I was given a clear and logical understanding that you don't kill something unless you're going to eat it. I'm glad that was told to me at a young age. It really made me reflect on killing something while realizing the importance of life. There is never a reason to eliminate one life unless it is to sustain another. That argument holds true in sustenance and self-defense. These debates promote a lot of disappointment in humans. My disappointment is towards the emotionally afflicted humans.
