Pro-Life? More like Anti-Life.

In lieu of recent weeks regarding the approval of the H.R. 36, Pain-Capable Unborn Child Act, which makes killing fetus’ after 20 weeks illegal – due to the fetus feeling pain. I would like to defend the right for women to have abortions on fundamental objective terms.

But before I start, I would like to say, if we are going to start passing bills because things “feel pain” then why not allow women to have abortions because they feel slight discomfort?

It’s ridiculous to push any law under those terms. . .

The problem here is that the religious-right has seized the phrases “pro-life” and “the right to life”. However, I don’t see anything “pro-life” about this view. The “potentiality” of human life for a fetus, in the womb, does not grant it the title of a living child. The fetus is after all, unborn and its potentiallity for life does not designate it as a “living being” until it becomes born by achieving the process of birth.

The unborn does not have rights nor does it have precedents over the already born – or living.

If the religious-right were really “pro-life’ then they would consider the choice of the – living – woman, over the unborn child, who does have this fundamental right, the right over her own body.

“Rights”, to use Ayn Rand’s words, “do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born.” – this is why women have the choice in the matter and no one else can dictate what she wants to do with her body.

In matters of a women who has a whimsical urge to kill the fetus in her body: this should be considered immoral and she should, probably, be condemned, but the state should have no say to prevent such actions.

I’m sure the decision to abort a fetus ought to be very difficult for women and I doubt they are impetuous in their choice to execute it. There is always the looming possibility of enduring regrets, consequences, and uncertainties – and I am sure women are fully aware of this.

Most of all, what is sadder than a fetus being aborted is the life of a child that grows up with a woman who is mentally and financially incapable of accepting the task. To be a parent is a weighty responsibility and it is a tragedy for a child to grow up under these circumstances.


To force a human into the world without a proper caregiver[s] is the opposite of “pro-life”, and, statistically, it has a higher percent of promoting a miserable life (for both the mother and child). According to the 2016 U.S. Consensus Bureau, out of 12 million single parent families with children under the age of 18, more than 80% were headed by single mothers. In the 2013 U.S. Census, 1 in 4 children were being raised without a father – of this group nearly 50 percent of them live below the poverty line.

In her book, For Better or For Worse, psychologist E. Mavis Hetherington states that although 75 percent of children of divorce suffered no major pathologies, divorces tend to double a child’s risk of a serious negative outcome and states that “twenty-five percent of youths from divorced families in comparison to 10 percent from non-divorced families did have serious social, emotional, or psychological problems.”

Your child has a higher chance of having a shitty life without a second parent and most of the time single parents are not mentally or financially prepared. Although there is nothing, necessarily, wrong with a single parent, what these statistics do show is that most of the time single mothers are not prepared; therefore, we shouldn’t prevent them from making the choices they believe would be best for the fetus – and themselves. After all no one wants to grow up in unfortunate conditions. . . or be forced into accepting unfortunate conditions.

To wrap things up, unplanned pregnancies suck, and are, by definition, the opposite of “pro life” they didn’t actively choose or intend on making life… it seems to me people who are against the womens choice over her own body are as anti-life as you can get.

As Leonard Peikoff so eloquently puts it in his essay, Abortion Rights are Pro-Life:

“The anti-abortionists’ claim to being “pro-life” is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue. Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life — lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings.”














The Difference Between Men and Women.

The question of gender is a controversial subject and frequently shows up in debate, questions such as: Are women and men paid the same? Are women in public office? Are women and men doing the same amount of housework? Is each gender chasing the same areas of study?

Many conclusions have been drawn by third-wave feminist and social justice warriors and their answer for these questions is:


Shockingly they are right. Whether you want to believe it or not women do earn, on average, less than men do. Men choose to follow studies in STEM related fields. Whereas, women tend to gather in more social and flexible jobs, like nursing, teaching, social work, gender studies and sociology. Although the latter is slightly ridiculous and impractical. What is common between these areas of study is that they tend to be lower paying jobs in comparison to engineering, science, and information technology.

Why is this the case?

It is the inescapable proof that women and men are fundamentally different.

“Um, no? You funny little bigot, it is the patriarchy and the oppression of women that discourages women to join these jobs!” – SJW.

Well regardless if you want to believe it, evidence shows that individual choice and biology are the culprit – contrary to the notion of “the patriarchy.” While there were some injustices that the original feminist chose to rightly and successfully take down in the workplace and in society during the late 19th to mid 20th century, it is well-defined that there is a difference between men and women.

Nowadays, women make up most of the college graduates, over men. The Bureau of Labor Statistics study suggests that, “women are more likely than men to have earned a bachelor’s degree by age 29”.

Women even make more than men in the start of their career, the Guardian states in an article “Women in their 20s earn more than men of same age”.

Although this is great and all, women have a low representation in Fortune 500 companies – representing only 6.4% – accounting for only 32 women CEOs. In addition, as of 2017, only 17% of startups have a female founder.

Now let’s have a look at the least attractive side of the workplace. In the waste disposal industry, women only make up 1 percent of the workforce. In the UK taxi driving industry, men make up 98 percent of drivers, and as of 2015 women comprise just under 6 percent of the U.S. truck driver population.

But wait this isn’t a result of sexism, these jobs suck, so let’s focus diversity and equality to more desirable jobs!

Surely, this isn’t because feminism is trying to provide women a legally backed advantage over men. . .

James Damore, the recent google engineer who critiqued googles diversity policies took issue with how google alienated conservative political view points and placed diversity over skills. Rather than being caused by institutionalized sexism, Demore’s memo stated that the average difference between male and women employees were due to their biology – which he backed up with scientific studies – you can find this elsewhere.

Before jumping into conclusions, let’s just take a deep breath and try not to be offended for just a moment.


College majors, generally, presuppose the career choices of students after they leave school and enter the workforce. The programs dominated by women tend to be social and compassionate – resulting in lower paying jobs; whereas, men tend to follow majors that are more objective and analytical – resulting in higher paying jobs.


Surely this graph reflects the student’s choice in their major, rather than a forced world view of the patriarchy. . . The wage gap is there because women choose to pursue careers that relate to their maternal caregiving nature. These fields are in no way less important, nor are they less valuable.

Third-wave feminist would vouch that it is a product of society more specifically – “social conditioning.”

“Women are choosing these careers because that is how they are taught, and men, well men, they just choose masculine jobs because their masculinity is fragile!” – SJW.

What if our biology is different?

That actually happens to be the case… our brains are wired differently.

Brain connections

As an article from puts it, “The research, which involved imaging the brains of nearly 1,000 adolescents, found that male brains had more connections within hemispheres, whereas female brains were more connected between hemispheres. The results, which apply to the population as a whole and not individuals, suggest that male brains may be optimized for motor skills, and female brains may be optimized for combining analytical and intuitive thinking.”

Ragini Verma, an associate professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania medical school, who is featured in this article said, “On average, men connect front to back [parts of the brain] more strongly than women,” whereas “women have stronger connections left to right.”

The article continues to say, “Previous studies have found behavioral differences between men and women. For example, women may have better verbal memory and social cognition, whereas men may have better motor and spatial skills, on average. Brain imaging studies have shown that women have a higher percentage of gray matter, the computational tissue of the brain, while men have a higher percentage of white matter, the connective cables of the brain.”

Finally, it provides a study that concludes “sex differences in favor of boys are present on spatial tasks by age 4 ½. . . The writing scores of female 8th graders were comparable with those of 11th grade males”

This post shouldn’t be taken to suggest that women and men are superior or more intelligent than the other; rather, it just shows that women and men are, generally, predisposed and attracted to certain fields of study. Studies are inductive and shouldn’t be used to lump an individual person to a generalized view of a group, yes, we should judge each person individually; yet, we shouldn’t be surprised of the difference between men and women after totaling up the choices that they choose.

The micro view is as important as the macro. The individual shows the unique characteristics, the group as a whole shows general trends and characteristics; turning the cheek does not erase the fact that there are differences and it would be intellectually dishonest to ignore them.















On Bigotry.

Bigotry as defined by Oxford dictionary is:

“one who stubbornly or intolerantly adheres to his or her own opinions and prejudices.”

Today’s usage of the term goes far beyond that.

Currently it is a (poor) linguistic trick that guilt’s people into submission and, therefore, it is wrong and dangerous. Wrong, because it is not based on any objective principle that (usually) clings onto emotionally subjective premises; dangerous, because the only thing it does is de-platform any rational (or irrational) debate and prevent free speech from continuing.

Bigotry, as used today, is the verbal axe that chops off the legs of reason.

I don’t blame people for opposing “bigots”, after all who doesn’t like someone who has not entertained a new thought in years?

It is a very attractive political term.

And I’m sure most people think it is self-evidently honest, honorable, and just to oppose it.

But that is not the case.

Ironically, this term is used mostly (maybe even exclusively) by leftist progressives who, in many cases violently, hate anyone who disagrees with their political views. Bigotry has become an invalid concept that holds no meaning, but is used to serve whatever whims the anti-principled and subjective group-think of the left have.

Therefore, to be a bigot is to be someone who has a different view than the left because they deem it hate; hate, because they hate it.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The net result is that anyone who opposes them on any issue, in their mind, is guilty of hate, or, equivalently, guilty of bigotry and irrationality.

Step back and put yourself into the shoes of a so-called “bigot”, it would be rather hard for people to take you seriously and frustrating because you are now labeled as someone who is “hateful” and “intolerant”.

So why should people even listen to what you have to say?

After all, you’re a bigot.

You have no say here.

Linguistic labels such as homophobe, racist, fascist, or bigot does nothing to foster any true progress.

And preventing people from uttering “hate speech” does not destroy homophobia, racism, fascism, or bigotry. The only thing it does prevent, is people from being genuine. It is idealistic to think you can erase hate from a culture and foolish to think you can force people to not be hateful.

Censorship of “hate speech” breeds aggression and dishonesty in people.

Aggression, because people who are irrational are being suppressed – this builds animosity; dishonesty, because it forces people to act a way they would not, or do not want to act – this builds a counterfit culture.

In the end, the left regard their opponents as not just wrong or mistaken, but as morally evil monsters, beyond rational argument, that must be stopped by any means necessary.

Censorship is their way of not using debate to debunk views, but a confession of weak arguments.









Modern Day Sophist: The Social Justice Warrior and the New Left.

I find it truly remarkable that today’s culture gave birth to a new species of Mammalia.

Transcending the primitive human subspecies and gaining a higher form and new level of enlightenment:

The Social Justice Warrior was born.

21845548_1676629655715806_350043395_oWho knew we’d be able to experience – in our time – a proper knight of the people, a true robin hood for the unfortunate, the new superhero that our children will grow to admire and love.

These gods of morality discovered the tree of knowledge and brought back true morality –  their absolute omniscient in the fields of ethics and politics is without question.

These heroes, that gain power from the looming incorporeal injustices and hate that haunt society; hyperventilate that hate into their orifices, and in hyper-emotional, autistic shrieks, and cries, conjure bolts of justice with a barrage of attacks to anything they deem inappropriate, offensive, and triggering.

The Social Justice Warrior, singlehandedly, spearheaded a new generation – the Snowflake Generation – to the frontlines of politics.

And within’ a span of several years, achieved new feats of butt-hurt and gained worldwide support from the media, “scientists”, and politicians; furthering the “progress” of society and granting them the honorary duty to be proud defenders of social justice.

These virtue seekers are in no way homogenous.

They are “independent” and “different”.

SJWgroupPicJust as they are flamboyant with their aesthetic, their ideology has become the new fashion statement. . .


They are champions of diversity.

In everything, but thought.


Any person with any sort of disagreement to any specific issue they hold, should be ready to be branded a racist, fascist, or xenophobe – cutting off rational debate before it even begins – a clever sophistic trick.

“No tolerance of intolerance”, a proud slogan among these virtue signalers.


Almost three thousand years ago, before there was any philosophy there were the Sophists.

What they were taught was how to win friends and flatter the multitude of people around them, to gain political and moral influence. They have used all the debating tricks, all the fallacies, and all the confusing gimmicks that they could think of so aspiring politicians and cultural influencers could bamboozle their opponents – guilting them into submission.

Is there any difference from the New Left?

I’ll end this post by quoting Ayn Rand:

Intellectually, the activists of the New Left are the most docile conformists. They have accepted as dogma all the philosophical beliefs of their elders for generations: the notions that faith and feeling are superior to reason, that material concerns are evil, that love is the solution to all problems, that the merging of one’s self with a tribe or a community is the noblest way to live. There is not a single basic principle of today’s Establishment which they do not share. Far from being rebels, they embody the philosophic trend of the past 200 years (or longer): the mysticism-altruism-collectivism axis, which has dominated Western philosophy from Kant to Hegel to James and on down.

– Ayn Rand, “From a Symposium,”
Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 174