It’s not that we disagree, it’s what we want done about it. Let’s…

It's not that we disagree, it's what we want done about it. Let's take the example of an anti abortionist feminist and a freedom of choice feminist. What's the difference?

An anti-abortion feminist (one who believes in gender, after all aren't we all created equal in gods' eyes? (An equality of spirit at least). Maybe not, but why not? Those who believe we are god's creation, and i suppose those who want to believe we are gods creation yet continue to divide up what they mean by it so it will fit into their individual belief that we are god's creation. For example, the critical question of most agnostics and atheists or non-believers is, why is the life abroad or next door, somehow different, hanged in the tree or bombed in their home or forced to give up their life, different than the fetus in the womb? Innocence is the difference, the anti abortionist might say in their defense. But isn't innocence contained in the children of the hanged, the murdered, the bombed, the forsaken by war?

Religions have histories, don't they? Why else would those monks, priests, scholars, rabbis make sure their faith is set, sometimes literally, in stone and language. Where did some get the idea that we are all equal in gods eyes then reverse themselves with in order to be saved, one must be baptized, thus setting off down the excuse road for genocide?

At some point in religious history, humanity was divided up into believers and non-believers, and non-believers became the punching bag for what really ails us humans, a universal absurdity, once you define good and bad based on something as unexceptional as a universal human trait, such as skin, culture, tradition, class, or even another belief, you've taken the road whereby your faith, trust in your own belief and faith or hope, is completely baseless.

It's just another irreconcilable jumble of self-centered hocus pocus.

The divisions created by religious intolerance were later transferred to the secular with the intention of god and country being allies. For the passivity of god's cry for vengeance seems to slow for the impatient believer, kind of like climate change. Believers like action when it comes to sin, crime and punishment. Time is not quick enough, so an entire elaborate and somewhat diabolical system of sin and punishments was created.

But guess what? Once religion went down that rabbit hole, (the age of discovery Columbus sailed the ocean blue) began to realize the world was filled with non-believers, pantheists, and colors which, according to the swiftly theorizing religious and monarchical new diviners of sin and punishment, needed to be brought, by whatever means necessary, into gods domain.

How was this done? By force, mainly. How else do you communicate to someone that they need to bend their knee to your god you have made up for your convenience in order to suit your greed and need for sacrifice? Isn't it better to sacrifice the innocent in order for others to be saved? Make them kneel, show them the gold, show them the musket, make them, through your crazy pantomime, where is the rest of it? the conqueror asks to the kneeling supplicant.

 What kind of consciousness? Non language, dreamworld type of consciousness, consciousness rooted in evolution or possibly creation. The fact that because something doesn't have language, it still exists. I can accept that as a condition of mercy to the unborn. I think very few women aren't affected by an abortion. Life for women is far more personal than for men.

Giving the antiabortionist feminist credit is easy. Yet, their premise of a "living" fetus, goes further, becoming controlling because what difference does it make whether or not you, as an antiabortionist feminist, have a child and another has an abortion. If there are no societal penalties for either one choice or another, there is still equilibrium and only disagreement.

But, if you are an anti-abortionist because you believe that Life (human) is god's gift and it is a sin and your government should be the protector of that life in legal terms, then you have simply turned profundity to mundanity, 

Men have created through time many authoritarian systems. A few women have taken the opportunity to use these authoritarian systems to assume power and themselves maintaining power through authoritarianism. BUT, rarely, few women have invented an authoritarianism on their own, only what has been bequeathed from established paternal, patriarchal society.

Let me just say right out and I don't mean to be patronizing but I firmly believe in the equality of men and women, so, since I'm not a type of historian interested in the minutia of historical idiosyncroncies, that is where one can find some exception to the rule.

It looks like to me, men have controlled the religions, the nations, and, it's also certainly true that women, where possible have had a natural influence over communities where authority by men has little importance. Let men have their rituals and dances, women their connection to a lifestream is kept intact and uninfluenced by all the masculine authority always trying to be in control, present time being a good example.

Sent from my iPad