Unbirthing a Nation?

Strange how some people claim to represent others. Don’t we have enough trouble electing people to represent us? Yet there are people with the audacity just to step into the limelight and claim to be the one, true representative of this or that identity group. As insanitybytes22 explains, such usually just end up bitterly dividing even those in the identity group they claim to represent.

See, there's this thing called biology...

A chant I heard more than a few times from the woman’s march yesterday was, “we gave birth to this nation and we can unbirth it.” That saying was not just entwined with reproductive rights, but also with climate change, transgender rights, Black Lives Matter, and opposition to President Trump. It reminds me a bit of the old-fashioned saying, “I brought you into this world and I can take you out.” That’s a somewhat comical saying on the surface if it is never acted on, but in its literal context, “to take someone out” means to murder them, in this case, our own children. That is called speaking death over someone, rather than speaking life.

“We gave birth to this nation and we can unbirth it.”

Unrestrained, unrooted, female power is actually kind of scary. It has no limitations, no boundaries. All in good humor here, but read my about…

View original post 397 more words

3 thoughts on “Unbirthing a Nation?

  1. I take it you haven’t studied much intersectionality. Apart from being the most pathetic–and I mean it in the classical sense because I really do pity them–bit of identity politics to come out so far, it is probably the best case against individualism. I will explain.

    Intersectionality operates on the principle that you need to understand what discriminated groups you belong to in order to understand how you relate to power hierarchies–basically whatever institutions exist that allegedly oppress people–and to other people.

    For example, as a middle class, white, cisgender, heterosexual male in a monogamous relationship, I am the most privileged person possible as the power hierarchies tend to favor me over others. I must, therefore, be conscious of this and use it to promote equality.

    Now, intersectionality admits that one may be part of several discriminated groups at once and therefore the liberation of one group must come with the liberation of all. This means that the struggle of blacks is connected to the struggle of the LGBTs.

    This sort of thinking is only possible if you believe the individual has the absolute right to self-determine everything about himself. While some circumstances such as class are due to external circumstance and my heterosexuality and race are primarily due to a hormonal balance in my brain, the rest are entirely determined by me.


    1. @Stephen

      Your definition of individualism is a straw man argument. Simply defining a concept as bad does not make it bad.

      Individualism is a social theory advocating the liberty, rights, or independent action of the individual (=> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/individualism). The problem with the term is that everyone grabs it and does what you are doing. They try to apply a slant that suits their own agenda.

      Some individuals will do mostly good things. Others will do otherwise. In a society that insists the individual is responsible for his or her choices and must bear the consequences, people tend to learn to respect the value of good relationships and voluntarily work to maintain them.


      1. “Your definition of individualism is a straw man argument.” Well, you can certainly say what you like if you just grab a random online dictionary.

        What you are talking about is a quaint rallying call of Facebook memes; I am talking about the complicated and intricate metaphysical philosophy expressed by Locke, Mill, Kant, and others. I am discussing a massive shift in social ontology while you are pulling definitions from a second rate online dictionary.

        Basically, I assumed you had read things like Locke’s treatises on government, Mill’s work on liberty, and other Liberal philosophers such that I could say something like “the metaphysical notions of individualism are incongruent with human nature” and you could respond with something more substantive than “quit being nominalist.”

        So I guess I will have to outline everything. We will begin with Locke. In “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” Locke argues that there are no innate principles or no ideas hard wired into human brains or nature. Locke believed we were all blank slates. This is not only wrong scientifically, but it is also wrong theologically. The basic premise the Gospels is that man has a desire for God. C.S. Lewis actually uses that desire as an argument for God. To prove this, Locke argues that there is no truth to which all people attest. Locke errs by believing that whatever attestation there is by a given person, that attestation is valid i.e. the sense experience of the individual is not only totally accurate but totally valid. For example, he argues against identity being an innate principle because children and idiots are ignorant of it. But just as you may traverse a dark room covered in Legos and not step on a single one, the the Legos are there whether you perceived them or not. Likewise, one’s identity is innate as you must argue unless you want to denounce Genesis 1:26 and the whole notion of humanity. Here we see Locke making the same mistake as the other empiricists i.e. granting to the individual almost complete autocracy over how the world is based solely on their perception. Since there is no innate principle of, say, male-ness, how are you able to say that a certain male is not female if that male perceives he is female? It creates an epistemic and ontological dissonance when each individual is running around with differing views on what is real and not. This is related to Locke’s idea that man can define God and be orthodox, so long as he keeps it to himself.

        Locke mainly tried to constrain his freeing of the individual from a universal, objective reality with some minor barriers. His philosophic descendants vaulted over them. Kant, in order to justify the further degradation of any sort of objective metaphysics, argued that no study of metaphysics could be possible without inductive, empirical thinking. This barely allows for arguing the existence of God. To compensate for what Neitszche would later call the death of God, he created a categorical imperative: you can do anything so long as it would not be harmful if everyone did it. John Stuart Mill goes further and creates the harm principle. Both of these principles argue that it is the individual’s absolute right to do whatever he likes, provided it doesn’t damage someone else. Mill would even argue that you could commit suicide if it didn’t harm anyone.

        This is how the intersectionality folks can argue that they belong to these groups and that these groups are oppressed. Starting with Locke and going down the centuries to include people like Sartre and Russell, we have a philosophical culture that argues that their mode of life harms no one and therefore the government should, like other accepted modes of life, protect it. Now, you would disagree naturally, claiming that they are trampling on your freedoms. But unless you are going to say they cannot decide for themselves that they are this way, you cannot argue that they have right to have their mode of life protected. After all, Locke argues in the Two Treatises that the government has no right to regulate people’s lives, right? So if the government does not have such a right, then it equally has no right to treat them any differently than any other group. Viola! Locke’s philosophy, and your’s from what I’ve seen, supports gay marriage.

        What you, and Locke, and really the rest of the Enlightenment get wrong is that no individual can do something and it NOT effect society. It doesn’t matter if the society is the family, the district, the county, the state, the nation, or the world. The action of one is felt by many. The Old Testament authors demonstrated this time and time again. The ancients believed that the actions of one affected all and therefore made them responsible to each other. Aristotle argues this. Cicero argues this. Augustine argues this. It was the testimony of the West for centuries.

        Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑


Isaiah 43:13

Not For Itching Ears

Calling the Church Back to The Cross


Philosophy is all about being curious, asking basic questions. And it can be fun!

Talk With Bette

Thoughts, ideas, opinions or information.


Pontificated Opinion

Artaxes' brainbench

Truth in an age of deception


Wandering Towards Faith Am I

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

Faithful Steward Ministries and FSM Women's Outreach

Christian Outreach Ministry to those Incarcerated, with Addictions and our Military

Jesus Quotes and God Thoughts

“God’s wisdom is something mysterious that goes deep into the interior of his purposes.” ~Apostle Paul

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.”


Life through the eyes of "cookie"

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. We are the masters of our own disasters.


Supplying the Light of Love

The Recovering Legalist

Living a Life of Grace

Write Side of the Road

writing my way through motherhood

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.


Author Alexander Hellene - Pulp with Style

John Branyan

the funny thing about the truth

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine


Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren


“The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few" Luke 10:2

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.


"Let Us Live Lives Extraordinarily"


Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.


The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

quotes and notes and opinions

from a Biblical perspective




The view from the Anglosphere

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.


My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: