Who Lives in Your Home?

Given all the noise lately about abortion, as a moral litmus test, I might as well further clarify my own views.

Inspired by: Camille Paglia: Feminists have abortion wrong, Trump and Hillary miscues highlight a frozen national debate

I like to start with the question, “Who owns a woman’s uterus?”

In some places, the “owner” is “The King”.

Given that I believe in the right to contract oneself to another, and the right of like-minded persons to develop fraternal associations, etc., such as to share responsibility for contracts, then there are nuances in terms of the various ways that I believe that “ownership” can be negotiated, or ought to be legal to negotiate. To say that only State-approved religions or the Atheist State itself has the right to dictate how such a negotiation may go is narrow-minded, in my view.

I believe that a human being ought to have the right to contract him or herself to another, such as what used to be known as “marriage” or indentured servitude.

However, in the absence of such a contract, a non-contracted uterus is private property, such that just because one might invite a friend over for dinner doesn’t mean that he or she is entitled to leave behind an agent to reside in one’s home for 18 years. To me, the anti-abortion crowd is saying that ‘if you don’t want a new entitled resident in your home then don’t ever invite a friend over for dinner.’

Who pays for the abortion or the maintenance of the child? Also highly politicized. I believe that at the least a society ought to be consistent. If one’s uterus belongs to “The King,” then “The King” ought to be in charge of feeding whatever issue or removing it perhaps prior to significant royal burden applying.

I do not hold that a parasitic life is “innocent” regardless of its “humanity” or lack thereof. When it comes to unconscious and amygdala activity, including that induced by hypnosis or brainwashing, then “human” hardly applies.

Moreover, any religious or other “morally” justified population policy that does not recognize that there may be a limit to the number of persons who can be sustained by a given environment, or to justify the invasion and taking over of resources or lands from “heathens” when those bounds are exceeded, is not a sustainable policy.

While most environments can manage a limited number of foreigners, imbeciles, and slaves, there is no environment that can manage an unlimited number of them. The same would apply to an excess of “leaders”.

One method of controlling reproduction was developed by the infamous Kellogg brothers. To summarize, the ingestion of plenty of fiber and otherwise inducing “regularity” by means of laxatives or enemas was supposed to reduce male masturbation; however, what it accomplishes instead is prostate stimulation through intestinal inflammation, particularly aggravated by the immune-suppressing qualities of the grain “flake” extrusion process.

I believe that a chronically inflamed prostate may well inspire male homosexuality in susceptible populations. Since that is not reproductive, then, sure, eating a lot of cornflakes may indeed slow population growth.

Another method of controlling reproduction is calorie and nutrient restriction such as promoted by vegetarianism and other supposedly longevity-enhancing regimens which operate under the principle that undereating produces fewer free radicals (whereas healthy food contains antioxidants which counteract them).  Longevity obsession, like narcissism, also tends to produce homosexuality, which, is non-reproductive, and further, vegetarianism may also result in intestinal and thereby prostate inflammation in those not equipped with either a rumen or a robustly diverse intestinal ecosystem. Or for that matter, with a severely nutritionally deficit diet one can eliminate ovulation, reduce sperm count, and eliminate the desire for sex altogether.

Vaccines themselves may also reduce fertility through excessive conditioned inflammation brought about by a premature onslaught of foreign proteins into the bloodstream of an insufficiently developed child. Where is the “moral outrage” here?

The development of the human self includes a stage commonly known as “The Terrible Twos” whereby the young human develops a sense of being distinct from the caregivers, most particularly, the mother. Prior to that point, that human is not all that human except in potential and appearance, not even having a distinct identity other than mere facial manerisms. The human infant is particularly helpless among animals such as to be parasitic. When such a parasite is a welcome addition to a family having plenty in the way of resources and potential for a fulfilling life, that is a different story than being born under torturous overcrowding, danger, and lack of hope.

Thus, vigorous pro-life rhetoric is a signal of privilege such that deficit of basic needs does not even consider in the adherent’s life view. In other cases it is a sense of entitlement to the labor and resources of others, which is a rationalization also adopted by otherwise pro-choice feminists desirous of enslaving sperm donors to their lifestyle maintenance, and that of their issue, as almost as an afterthought.

Degradation of masculinity is also a population control mechanism, ultimately, unless counteracted by forced reproduction and then slavery to that process such as by means of the welfare state.

Placing God in the sole position of demographic monitor denies the capacity for mathematics, sociology, and economics He engendered within us. Lacking that capacity however does not make us more human just like relying on it does not make us more reptilian, even if the former deficit more likely will result in devolution to reptilianism such that refusal to acknowledge these realities will result in either our extinction or lack of humanity.

Similarly the death penalty and assisted suicide address uncomfortable demographic realities. Whereas an undesirable, like a “scapegoat” can be driven out to the wilderness to suffer and die under the elements or by dehydration, if there is no more in the way of depopulated, unobservable “wilderness” in our surveillance society then we are either going to have to figure out how to manage it, or to Balkanize into our own theocratic nation-states.

Perhaps one day our own surveillance technology can be put into individual service such as to be able to detect whether our homes, uteruses, intestines, and bloodstreams contain unwanted strangers. However, pessimistically, I presume that instead that “The King” will profess a greater interest in terms of invasion, occupation, and eviction within our own bodies.

9 thoughts on “Who Lives in Your Home?

      • Its banter love, don’t take it personally.

        I just had a laugh at the Kellogg section, since it was all different individual things I knew in passing, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone relate the grand unified theory of inflamed prostates, homos, and grain intolerance all together in one place.

        I’ve never met a crazy theory I didn’t like to entertain at least in an academic way though. I’m something of a food nut myself; I love geeking out about the pharmacodynamics of lectins, flavones, and zearalenones. I feel like there could be something of a relationship there in some way.

        But yeah, its just funny to me. I mean, *of course*, where else would be the first place I read about inflamed prostates, but from a chick blog, sequestered in the labrynthine corners of the intertubes? I can practically feel the tingles myself! Men love (the idea of) women love, and women love (the idea of) man love, s’way it goes (if one is good, then two is like double good right? Logic!).

        Which reminds me I’ve got a backlog of trap hentai I need to work though. Lots of inflamed prostates there needing to be pounded flat, surely.

      • I don’t really need to watch. Thanks. I’d rather not. No problem but I prefer men who never get to the point that their inflamed prostate needs to be pounded. We can talk girl talk and all and I could always use a little help with my fashion sense, but, if someone is going to be pounded, I’d rather it be me. Just how it goes.

      • Hah, I only mentioned it to signal my refined taste in the effete pleasures of our modern world. Much like how the gnostics of late antiquity would like to show how they are ‘above’ or ‘transcend’ the degeneracy of the waning roman age, by wallowing in it. A most convenient excuse!

        There is one great difference we have now though, and that is highly developed and reified 2d and 1d fantasy realms. No need is there to disrupt good society by trying to engage in petty vices through 3dpd noumena, that’s what hyper-reality is for!

        Just imagine how much better the world would be if people like john locke or karl marx used chinese cartoons as an outlet for their nervous mania instead of treating reality itself as a play pen for their mental masturbation.

        Bread and circuses, but less bread, and more circuses. That’s utopia in a nutshell!

        >but, if someone is going to be pounded, I’d rather it be me.

        Certainly by your duly ordained husband of course, insha’allah.

  1. Pingback: The Acid Reflux Earring Collector | caprizchka

  2. Pingback: Decadence and Islam | caprizchka

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s