Today. I want to talk about life and death and freedom and ownership. Those are a fairly broad topics. I'm sure. You're thinking and wondering what areas of those I want to cover. The area that I want to focus on is actually the overlap of those topics. So as with any good counter station, I think it's important to define terms first and fourth. So let me do that before I dive into the actual meat of the matter as it were life I think is fairly self-explanatory. I'm sure all of these are to some people, but maybe not to others. Life, in my opinion is the thing that happens. You can think of it either as a biological process, as a physics process. As a chemical process, but whatever you want to call it, but life is essentially the thing that happens, which enables raw materials when combined in a certain particular pattern to create something greater than themselves and effectively interact with other material. In a way that they couldn't separately. So life is not simply a chemical reaction. Life is a particular combination of reactions that creates things that are not really readily possible without life things like mobility things like interaction and ultimately things like consciousness. We can certainly. Have a broader discussion on exactly what consciousness means, but in this context, all I referred to in terms of consciousness is in the ability to react to stimulus. Maybe let's add memory in there as well, at least some type of memory. So it's the ability to react. Then memorize a particular reaction to a particular stimulus. So an example of this would be something that that is alive with react to bright light in a certain way. By the way, you can look at it from bacteria standpoint, you can look at it from a human being standpoint, but when you shine a bright light, there is some type of. Reaction based on that light. You can also look at it from a plan standpoint. So that's another one. If you've ever seen sunflowers, you'll notice that they rotate the direction that the heads of the sunflowers point in relation to the sun. Of course, this is just a series of chemical processes, but it does look neat. But before we go down too far down the path of biology, let's just say that life is something for us that we experience, and it has a distinct beginning. It has a conclusion now at this point, I'm sure some people are thinking what about life after death? I'm going to define again for this particular conversation, life as something that ends of death and it begins at some distinct point. There is a distinct beginning of life and there's a distinct end of life. During the portion in between those two events, Is what we generally refer to as when life in normal conversation. So without getting into all this biology and chemistry crap when people are talking about life, that's generally what they're referring to is that, intermediate stage between the beginning and the end of life why am I going down this rabbit hole? I want to be very clear with the terminology because. Bring up some examples, some some thoughts here that may not be necessarily popular or that people may not agree with, or certainly I think plenty of people listening to this may have other ideas than the ones I'm going to express here. So in order to not get stuck in the definition, Of what did you actually mean when you say that's why I'm bringing up the definitions ahead of time. So the other two words that I mentioned were freedom and ownership. While freedom as a concept has been defined many different ways. I'd like to define it as simply the ownership of the control of decisions or actions made during the course of a life. That should be pretty simple. You may think. Of course, once you're dead, you're not really experiencing freedom. You're not making choices. You don't have the ability, but freedom to me is very closely tied to choice without freedom. You do not have choices. I don't just mean choices that are intellectual for humans, but in life an animal that does not have freedom because it's in a cage in that choose to be outside of the cage. You can not choose to go for a walk. You cannot choose to go hunting in a particular area. It has much more limited choices and therefore it has less freedom. Now it may have some level of freedom because if he can walk around and it's a cage then it's still able to make some choices. The smaller, the cage, the more restrictions, the less freedom we have. Generally that can be measured by the number of choices that are available to be made for non-conscious things like let's say plants and I'm sure some people think plants are conscious as well, but let's just say plants. Do they have choices? I would argue that in my definition of choice they really, don't not simply because they can't move, but because plants are more primitive and closer to to the microscopic organisms, really, and to things that are on the edge of what constitutes life. There are certainly plenty of. Other what are they called? I'm not even sure what the, other fauna that are flora and fauna that are even more preventive than plants. But in this context, if we define freedom as the ability to make choices, and we look at what choices as a a set. Possible things that could happen out of which one set of things that will happen is chosen. Then really plants do not have freedom. Plants live. They are alive, they grow, they reproduce, but they're not really making choices. Therefore they do not have. Then the last word is ownership and ownership is a concept that much like freedom much has been written about and can be probably defined in the multitude of different ways. Again, for my definition of ownership, when I want to focus on is the legitimate ability to make choices about a particular thing. So for example if you own yourself, then you're able to make choice. And Therefore you can gauge the level of freedom that you have. If you own your dog, then you are making some of those choices on behalf of your dog and you're removing your dog's ability to make choices. So by having an ownership of your pet, you are reducing its freedom. Now you may certainly think that this is a good thing. Dog's going to live a much better, healthier life as a result of your choices. That's probably true, but you do have to admit that a dog that is living out in the wild, the feral dog, or even let's say the ancestors of dogs they have much more freedom than dogs that live in the city and with their owners and the dogs could be perfectly happy living with their owners and that want to go anywhere else. You can certainly even argue that the dog is choosing to live with its owner, but even if we allow for that type of argument, you do have to admit the dog living. As a pet with somebody has less freedom than the same dog would have if they were not a pet, if they were living somewhere outside or in the forest. Again, I know the dog will probably get eaten by a coyote or, a large bird or something, or or a Cougar. There's plenty of situations where negative things could happen. It brings up an interesting point is that sometimes. The net result of having more freedom is a shorter life. This is certainly true in the animal kingdom. It is something that has a level of correlation. I think in it is that when there are fewer restrictions, when there's more freedom, when there are less bounds around the possibilities, many of the possibilities that exist in a situation like that. Will lead to negative consequences. They can lead to death, they can lead to injury, they can lead to food. They can also lead to pleasure and positive consequences. But the more freedom you have, the more possibility there is for negative consequences. All right. So now we've defined these four words. We can actually start using them and talking about the subject that I want to cover. I'll give you the rationale for it too, as this last week. I was in a party like a dinner party, birthday party. At that event there was a mix of political opinions and a very local school teacher in Texas here that was at the party was completely up in arms about the fact that. In these last few days of the Texas legislative session, there were three bills passed and she had the very strong opinions about these three bills. One was and incidentally, these had passed previously, but they actually had September 1st, as the official kickoff or start date one of these bills that she was very negative about was that Texas became a. I think the 14th, 15th state. I can't remember if that my head that no longer requires you as a citizen to obtain a permit in order to carry a firearm so effectively you can open carry. You can concealed carry. You can do all these things without having to ask the government for permission to do so without filling out paperwork. Now you still need to fill out plenty of paperwork from a federal level to purchase a fire. That certainly hasn't changed in Texas, but you no longer need to have the state's permission in order to be able to carry the firearm, which you purchased legally. So she was upset about that. She was also upset about legislation that I don't think as well, it may have passed. I'm not even sure, but nonetheless, she was upset about it and talking about legislation that essentially place some controls over critical race theory and the ability of teachers to be able to have the option of talking about certain subjects, like critical race theory at their own discretion. So effectively it is controlled. The curriculum. There are arguments that the curriculum, the control of the curriculum should be done by school boards and the state board of education and that by the legislature. In my opinion the state board of education was simply created by the legislature so that they wouldn't have to do this on the regular basis. They have transferred that responsibility does not mean, however that the board of education is Trump. The legislative authority that created it in the first place. I'm sure that some people will have varying opinions on it, but ultimately a state's legislature is responsible for all things relating to the control of that state, which are neither done by the federal government nor prohibited by the constitution. All other factors, all other laws and the establishment. Is done on that state level. If the state doesn't do it, then the counties can do it. The counties don't do it in the cities can do it so effectively. You've got a varying opportunities for legislation to come in. In this case, the legislature responded very strongly to this recent, somewhat surprising. A demonstration that critical race theory was in fact being taught in schools without parent's knowledge. It was something that the parents didn't want their children to be taught through the parameters of critical race theory. Essentially parents didn't want their children to be indoctrinated and brainwashed into a particular ideology, which they did not share. I think parents are perfectly okay. With brainwashing, their kids into ideologies, they do share. We see examples of that, both in places where the majority of the parents are liberal and they like these liberal policies in the school district. Even places where the parents are very conservative and religious, and they prefer that there be a less Darwinism taught and more religion taught in schools. So this goes both ways as most topics do. The final thing that she was upset about was the Texas anti-abortion bill, which essentially said that abortions can only be performed during the first six weeks. After the last menstruation that the woman had. So at six weeks after the last period, and she was absolutely up in arms about that and talking about such a horrible law. Now, I don't believe this woman was pregnant or looking to get an abortion by any means, but nonetheless, she was very disagreeable about the topic. Now, why do I bring that up? I don't need to talk about any specifics or doxing of this person. I bring it up as an example of somebody who has very illogical and confused feelings in their heads. Somebody that. Is not rational somebody perhaps who ought not be teaching classes to our students. That I think in itself as a separate topic, which is that American parents have absolutely thrown away any semblance of authority when it comes to their children, the people that are parents right now have grown up in houses where perhaps their parents themselves did not spend a whole lot of time with their children. The idea that strangers will spend more time educating your children about every facet of life seems to be a given. There are a lot of arguments of course saying how do you expect people that work full time, or maybe even multiple jobs to also be able to teach their kids? It's not really. I have talked about this in the past and it was realistic for the first 200 years of this country. It was realistic up until about the early 1980s. When the number of women who actually worked in the home had dropped below 50%. I think that was in the early 19. Or maybe even the mid late the mid 1980s that happened. It doesn't have to be women it's really doesn't matter who, but one person was in the home working and the other person was outside of the home working, bringing in dollars. The U S has gotten away from this and now using the excuse of I takes two. Full-time jobs to be able to support a household. Therefore it makes perfect sense that people would be trusting teachers and others and babysitters, frankly, with their children and seeing their children less than some of these other people. But by doing so many parents have abdicated their responsibilities as well. Ultimately perhaps even some of their rights to determine what their children learn right now. It is coming as a surprise and a shock to many parents to the level of socialist indoctrination that is happening within school systems. I'm not surprised whatsoever. I remember that even being the case 30 years ago, and it's only moved in a more socialist direction since then, there was a a strong movement towards. Socialist ideologies in education that has been around since probably the 1960s. Now you are entering a time where the third generation since then has entered the workforce within education. They don't understand how somebody may not want to have more socialist leanings or to explain the world through a socialist. They may not even call it socialism. They may call it something else. That is a less of a triggering word. They recognize that socialism may make some people nervous. So they just call it a progressive, they call it enlightened. They call it a more fair. They have a multitude of names for this thing, but effectively it is a worldview. It is a prism. Is applied to the children of people whose parents don't necessarily share that perspective. Again, plenty of parents do. We just have to look at the Biden election and say that a lot of people in the United States voted for socialism and they they're perfectly fine with it. Some people voted for Biden, not realizing that he was representing socialism and that's a whole other topic of people that vote based on factors. Really have little to do with how they're going to be governed or represented. Instead are essentially treating politics as a popularity contest. I've often said, and I've been reminded that I'm not the first person to say it fine. I'm not the first, but I say it a lot. Every country has the government that it deserves, including the United States, the government of a country. Even when it's a dictatorship represents the will of the people what the hell are you talking about? How can theater ship represent that? I can tell you the will of the people is to put up with the dictatorship and not overthrow it. Therefore that dictatorship does represent the wilderness. You can say people are afraid. Look at countries like Iran, where everybody would be afraid to stand up, speak out against the government, even in countries like Saudi Arabia, where people are routinely beheaded for speaking out against the government. Those are individual cases and absolutely there is a greater threat of violence from dictatorship than from perhaps not dictatorships, but a country doesn't have to be a dictator. To show violence towards the citizens. I live in Texas and I still remember Waco, Texas when the U S government came in and murdered women, children as well as men for what really was a petty crime, which the government in trapped a group of people in interacting with. Essentially getting them to sell weapons that were modified illegally and starting a siege that resulted in death of a multitude of people that were absolutely citizens and pose no threat to either their neighbors or the government. So dictatorships certainly do this on a more regular basis, but again, It is the tolerance for that type of government that enables it to continue in, in a lot of countries. The United States backed the rebels that wanted to change things that we had the rainbow revolutions where the United States supported groups that wanted to take over the politics of the county. Did it through financial means. Through other support through subversion of the initial party, United States did this and Nicaragua United States did this in the Ukraine. United States has done this in Egypt where it backfired and the. It the new government did not last very long. I would say what the United States did in Afghanistan and Iraq is a little different because there were actual troops on the ground in both of those places. But in quite a few countries, the United States simply backs the rebels and then provides them with financial means to overthrow the government. But they're also counter examples of that. For example, in Q. The socialists came in and over through a very friendly to the U S government that had existed in Cuba. The same thing in Nicaragua and the same thing in Iran where in 19, was it 78 or 79? Late seventies where the Iran revolution happened, which took out. At what the United States certainly viewed as a more moderate ruler and put in a religion based control of the country now in either direction, meaning direction of whether the United States likes it or not. The will of the people plays a huge part of this, just like it did with ISIS. Just like it did with the failed coup. In Syria where the United States was absolutely backing a coup by Milton terrorist groups against potentially not a very nice man, but nonetheless, a guy who was educated in the west and had a degree in dentistry and had inherited the country from his father. But Had the plenty of legitimate claims to running the country. In that case, the attempted crew, which was funded by the United States had actually backfired because there were enough countries supporting the existing government in place. Now why am I talking about this? I thought I was talking about life, death, freedom and ownership. It all ties in together. So the reason that I'm bringing these coups up. Is because every revolution that the United States has supported has been promoted as expanding the freedoms of a people and every revolution the United States has been against has been argued that it's being done by a bad evil, dictatorial type entity, whether it's a single person or a group of people. Naturally, as far as the United States is concerned, it's always on the side of the right and never on the side of the wrong and all of its actions are just, and freedom is so universally liked as a concept, as something to strive for, even in places like North Korea. The difference in North Korea and dictatorships is simply that not everybody gets freedom, but only certain people get freedom. Whereas in more democratic countries, the emphasis is on the general population's freedom, not a ruling classes, freedom same thing in China where you think the Chinese ruling class doesn't want more freedom for themselves. Of course they do. They want to be able to make more decisions, have more choices. Therefore have more freedom. They're just willing to give up other people's freedoms to get there. This is where I'm going to start tying things back together. So remember, freedom is defined in this conversation as a number of choices, a number of options, a number of possibilities that exist that can be chosen the greater than the number. Possibilities the higher, the level of freedom. So when you have countries which have laws to limit freedom and by definition, that's what laws do laws exist to curtail certain choices from being made. If you want to make a choice to drive a double, the speed limit, let's say in the state of Wisconsin, There are laws that exist that will prevent you from doing that, or if they can't prevent you, they will at least punish you for making that type of choice. Same thing. If you want to go shoot your neighbor or something else, there are laws that curtail those particular freedoms to go shoot your neighbor. To be able to Limit the exercise of things that the government for the good of society generally, it's how it's presented is going to limit that freedom. So let's get back to the school teacher. What was she complaining about and what did she want? She was complaining about the fact that the number of laws, the number of restrictions, I should say, relating to gun ownership. Gun possession. The carrying of guns was diminished that this latest legislation effectively wiped a lot of laws off the books that had restricted and defined how people are able to exercise their freedom within the context of guns. So she was unhappy that more freedom was now possible. At the same time she was unhappy. That the freedom to have an abortion, the freedom to make a choice, to terminate a pregnancy to remove the fetus, thereby ending its any possible existence. She was unhappy that was being now further restricted. So is this a consistent position and doesn't matter? If you are somebody that is pro-freedom. If you think that more choices for people is a good thing and limiting the number of choices that people have is a bad thing. Then it is a very inconsistent position. If you are somebody that doesn't care about freedom, but simply cares about society being built. To support the types of things that you agree with and to not support things that you don't agree with, regardless of whether there's hypocrisy involved. Then I guess it doesn't matter because you're really concerned about selfish outcomes here, which is I like everything to be the color blue, and I want everything to taste like chocolate. If it takes a law to make it happen, then I'm pro that law. I will vote for that law any day. I don't really care about all the other people that will lose their ability to make choices and reduce their freedom as a result of everything being blue and chocolate and America it's filled with people like this. America is filled with people that don't care about freedom. They only care about things that agree. With their personal stance and let's dive into the fun topic of abortions for this example. It can be argued that the slogan, my body, my choice is essential representation. It's an essential representation of freedom. It is effectively demonstrated. That I understand that I have ownership of my own body and I have the freedom to do with it as I want. I think that's a position that is hard to argue with. If you concede that you own your own body and everybody else owns their own bodies as well. It's hard to argue against this idea that if I want to cut off my finger and I own my body, therefore I own not just the full body, but also the finger that makes up a part of that body. So if I want to remove that finger from my body and to kill that finger, to prevent that finger from continuing its existence, I should be able to do so. I think that's a very good argument and it demonstrates a high level of acceptance of freedom and an understanding of personal ownership. As a counterexample, there has absolutely been a point in fact, there have been multiple points in history where somebody did not have the free. To own their own body. They did not have the freedom to cut off their own finger because their body, including their finger belonged to somebody else. Of course what I'm referring to is the institution of slavery, which was practiced, not just in Africa, but in many of other places as well, but predominantly in Africa it had a Very natural, strong cultural adherence there for about 3000 of the last years. Maybe even going back to 4,000 years ago. Certainly to the time of the building of the pyramids in Egypt. So this institution of slavery essentially involved the removal of personal ownership, the removal of somebody having the freedom to do with their own body in whatever means they want. And, Gave that ownership to somebody else. I say remove them gave, but it could just as easily be bought and sold or it could have been something where you're born into slavery. You have no choice about it. You are a slave from birth and somebody else gets the dictate. What is done with your body, not you. The idea of my body, my choice being a slogan for the the pro-abortion movement I think was a brilliant thing because it doesn't focus on the abortion aspect. It doesn't focus on the fact that you are really terminating a potential life. You're terminating it real life biologically, but a potential. In a in the context of human life. Why I say potential is because a life that cannot exist without the support of some exterior external force is a wild biologically absolutely life. I think an argument could be made that it is not like. In the same context. It is not life that has any degree of freedom or ownership. I know right now people are probably thinking about the fetus, but this could be applied to a fully grown person as well. For example, I've talked about previously on the podcast that my mom had us. Part of that stroke was while it, her physical abilities were not effected, she didn't become paralyzed or anything as a result of that. But a large portion of her mental capacity got wiped out. Her short-term memory was no longer functional a lot of things that we take for granted as people in reasonably good health. Can disappear instantly. While she was mostly self-sufficient, even after the the stroke, meaning, she could eat food, she could use the bathroom, she'd go lay down and take a nap. She could wake up while she could do these things. She could also turn on a gas stove and then forget that she turned it on 10 seconds later and walk out. Burn the house down. She could do, she could pick up a knife, too, thinking she's going to cut an apple and then a bird catches her attention and she just lets go of the knife and it lands on her foot, all these things that could end up harming her as a result of the choices that she could make effectively made it necessary to have her being environment where she is monitored 24 hours a day. Which in this case was the same kind of facilities that people with Alzheimer's go to. So it's like a retirement kind of home, but for people that have less ability to take care of them. Of course, for some people, the idea that, or not the idea, but their experience with having a stroke is vastly different in that they physically. Become paralyzed and they lose the ability to move certain parts of their body. In some cases they, they have to rely on medical intervention and techniques to keep their body alive. I'm referring to this as post-stroke things, but certainly plenty of other diseases do this as well. In fact, one example is with COVID. If somebody is incapable of breathing on their own, even breathing poorly, but breathing enough to get enough oxygen into their body to survive. They're put on a ventilator which effectively bypasses a lot of their natural lung and diaphragm movement and use of the lungs to breathe in and out. The air is just forced through a tube, into the lungs. To really keep the person alive where they probably or likely would be dead without the ventilator. Now, there are also plenty of cases of wrongful use of these ventilator machines. That's a whole separate topic, but let's say that somebody is on one of these ventilator machines. The reason they're on the machine is because they would die if they were not on the machine. Unable to survive without medical help, without being able to, just simply breathe in this case, I would argue that person is quite similar to the fetus inside of a woman's body, or I'm sorry, inside of a birthing person's body, as Adam likes to say. If the fetus cannot survive on its own outside of a human body, and this person on the ventilator cannot survive on their own outside of a medical intervention, I would say for both of those cases, there is a potential life. There is a potential for life and they may get better and the fetus may grow up and be born. In both cases, then they're able to survive on their own. We have a full life until that happens. They're relying on somebody else, whether it's the mother and her body, or whether it's the artificial machinery in a hospital or maybe at home. But there are effectively relying on other means without which their life would end in order to live. When you rely on other means for the ability to to not be dead, to to live you are giving up a lot of freedom and you're giving up even potential ownership. Now a person that is on a ventilator, but fully conscious, which I'm not sure is something that even exists, but let's say this, but maybe I just think that the only videos I've seen on people on ventilators are people that are there may or may not be in comas, but they're effectively out of it. They're not consciously awake. They're not making decisions on their own. Somebody else's doing that for them much. I would say that can be applied to the fetus as well. Is that the fetus isn't getting to choose, whether there's any nicotine or caffeine or a increased level of sugar coming into its body, the host, in this case, the birthing parents, mother, or whatever other term you would like to use for that person is making those decisions. So there is some level of responsibility that society places on the mother, just like there's some level of responsibility that society places on the family of the person, on the ventilator for making good decisions for that person that can not make those decisions themselves. To ensure that there's a good chance of surviving. Recovery in the case of the the person on the ventilator or birth in the case of the fetus. But you also have to see that when somebody else is responsible for maintaining the conditions that will allow you to be fully alive, Then there is a trade off between freedom, potentially even some degree of ownership of your body and your ability to be alive today, or to continue on with your potential life, with your potential for a future normal full life. If. Person makes a different decision or, the, I guess it could be the electricity could cut off in the hospital and the ventilator goes off. Or maybe you have a ventilator in your house. I don't know. Then the electricity goes off and then through a, something that was not your own decision, you will end up dying. You will get to a point where you can no longer have a potential future. You will simply not have any possibility of future life. Same thing with the fetus that is relying on the mother for S for its survival. If the mother gets into a car accident or is in some other way incapacitated, or the mother takes drugs that will have a very strong negative effect on the fetus. The. The fetus is powerless to do anything about it, just like the person on the ventilator. There is the control of their future. Very much depends on the actions of somebody else. Now there's one other topic that I brought in here that I probably should have defined from the beginning that I'd like to tie into this. That is, I mentioned slavery is a very old institutional concept. The idea of being that some slaves are made slaves because the they were, let's say captured by a different populace, a different tribe. They were put into slavery and then maybe they were sold to a, yet third tribe. Maybe they were kept in the second tribe that Congress. We're from that point on slaves, meaning they had no ownership of their own body. They had no freedom in regard to that to their movements. They were confined as to where they could do or what or where they could go by the people that actually had the ownership of their bodies. Then the third, which is probably the saddest of the lunchroom is being born into slavery to where your parents were slaves. You are simply growing up as a slave as well in order to either be used for work or to be sold for money at some later point for the owner of of your, and presumably your parents' bodies. But slavery as a transfer of ownership of the body of a person and the decisions that go along with owning them. Is something that is not I shouldn't say it's not universally bad, but what I want to, where I'm going with this is if you own your own body, if you are not a slave, you're still effectively a slave to your own brain. You are controlled by yourself. So there is somebody still making decisions on the behalf of the body. Somebody is still making a decision. Should I cut off my finger or should I not cut off my finger? Should I stand in this ice cold water and lower my temperature and potentially get a cold or flu or pneumonia or some other disease. Or should I stay nice and warm and away from the cold water and and hopefully stay alive and not get sick so that those decisions are still being made. You're the one making those decisions because you're in control of of your own body with a situation where there's slavery and somebody else's Somebody else is the owner of your body. They are making those decisions on your behalf. Those decisions may not be decisions that you would make on your own meaning. They may not be decisions that you would agree with either. Why drag slavery into this whole conversation about life? Freedom and ownership. What I'd like to bring up as an example, that is a fun little paradox. It's maybe not even technically a paradox, but it's still nonetheless a fine little, a fun little mind puzzle. And it ties into this concept of freedom and ownership and decision-making as well as life and death and ultimately, which is. If you own your own body, if you believe in and apply the slogan that the pro-abortion people use of my body, my choice. You say that I am the only one that can make decisions for my body. I'm the only one that will decide whether it can be used as an incubator for a fetus. I'm the only one that will decide. Any kind of drug gets put into this body. I'm the only one that will decide whether some genetically engineered vaccine will be put into this body as the full owner of this body. I'm the only one that will make these decisions and nobody else is allowed to make these decisions. For me, nobody is allowed to tell me I have to be an incubator. Nobody's allowed to tell me I have to get a vaccine. Nobody is allowed to tell me that. I can't get in the cold water if I really want to, nobody can tell me whether I can end my life if I choose to end my life, because that is also a decision that solely belongs to me as the owner of this body. If I choose to cut off my own finger, or if I choose to stop my heart, those are all decisions that somebody. With freedom and full ownership of their own body can make. This is where we get to the fun topic of slavery, because, and here's the bit that most people find hard to swallow. If I haven't already lost you on the fact that I think vaccines, abortion and suicide are all part of the same freedom. Let's just throw from slavery in there as well. If I own my own body, can I sell that body to somebody else and become a slave voluntarily? Now the presumption here is I'm not just somebody that's been conquered and forced into slavery, but I am somebody who is making a rational decision in treating something, presumably a value like. Probably not the U S dollar, maybe Bitcoin Hardy, Hardy, har. But I'm trading that for giving up my freedom. If I own my body and I have freedom, then there's no reason that I shouldn't contractually be able to sell that to somebody else. Somebody who wants it, somebody who is willing to trade for it and somebody. Who I'm willing to do a deal with to transfer that ownership in exchange for something that I want even more than the freedom I currently have. So currently you do not have the freedom to sell your own body. It is illegal to enter into a contract for slavery in the United States, as it is in most countries, because there's not a distinction. Between slavery of yourself, voluntarily young somebody and the slavery of somebody that was abducted in Asia and then shipped in the shipping container to work in a sweat shop. Those are both treated exactly the same way. All slavery is considered to be involved. But what does that actually mean? What it means is that the government actually owns that, right? Not you as an individual, you don't own the right to be able to sell your body at your discretion. The government is the only one that owns that. They own that. Because at least in the past, they've been able to conscript people. Certainly if the need presented itself, they would do it in a heartbeat overnight. There would be a bill passed that would enable conscription to go forward. It's just not been necessary now, but it had been in the past to where the government can take your body to use as they want to in their armed services, including potentially giving up your life. Now plenty of people volunteer, which is why we've not needed to have conscription. There are a lot of people willing to go and work in the military and to be to accept the risks that go along with doing so for financial and patriotic ideas. it's more than just money, right? There's other reasons to do it, but nonetheless, it's been on the voluntary basis, but the government has effectively taken the right of the populace to control. The ownership of their own bodies and said, we reserve this right for us. We're the only ones that are able to do this. You cannot sell your body into slavery or any amount of money. We're not going to let you, it's not illegal, but we will reserve the right to take your body using it as we care and potentially even do something with that body, that results in death. If you really want to measure the level of freedom that somebody has, you can't neglect things like the ownership of yourself, the ownership of your body, the ability to be able to sell the things that you own, including your body as you seek. Incidentally, if you look at the arguments either for, or against abortion, and you ignore the concept of this of what freedom entails is control over the things that you own. If you own your body, it includes the control over that body. So while I think that abortions are horribly. I really wish we didn't have to have a single abortion happening in the future. Ultimately if you prevent somebody from being able to have an abortion, you are as the government taking another freedom away from that person. That is the freedom to make choices about their own body. It is a slippery slope because I. Passing a law that prohibits abortions effectively opens up the road for mandated vaccines because when the government can tell you what to do with your body, then they are telling you that they are the ones who get to decide what you can do and what you can't do with your hands. Mandated vaccines. Hell if you're mandating those, why wouldn't you just simply mandate drugs? Why wouldn't you just have a prescription for Soma that is a requirement of basic human life in the country. Why doesn't the government just keep you pacified through drugs legally as a form of doing what's good for society. Is to not have a bunch of people arguing and disagreeing. That is probably good for the government. It's certainly good for the the leadership. We've seen that in China to have a pacified population, why wouldn't the government do something like that? It is a very slippery slope. Again I don't like the concept of prematurely ending a life before. It has a chance to really experience. Birth and everything that comes along after the birth, but you can't force somebody to be an incubator for someone else, unless you do it under the guise that they do not own their own body. In this case, I think people that don't want the government to force them. To take drugs to be required to have a vaccine. I'm just using vaccine because it's in the news, but it doesn't certainly have to be vaccine. It could simply be some some other cholesterol pills. There you go. It hasn't happened. But it certainly could that the report comes out from the CDC saying that, Hey, we beat COVID and we discovered as our really, truly our biggest threat. To the population based on mortality. This is a fact our heart disease or different versions of things that cause heart disease and the biggest ways to prevent heart disease, including for people that are greatest risk is to have them control cholesterol. So we're going to require everybody to have a cholesterol pass. If you are not getting your cholesterol, then you are breaking the law and the government will act like the government does. Every other situation they can find you, they can jail. You, they can do any other type of action to entice. You encourage you to take your cholesterol anti-cholesterol medicine. So when I, if I said, take your cholesterol, what I meant obviously were. Pills that fight high cholesterol in your body. This type of nanny state is what Americans have been arguing against for a very long time. It is very sad to see them moving in this direction. For people that, have a perspective to where. The fetus has a soul before it's born. It's so gets pushed into it at conception by God. That's all fine. Like nothing I've said really negates that type of belief, because even if you believe that the fetus has a soul, even if you believe the fetus is alive and as a individual person waiting to be born. You still have to understand that in order for that to happen in voluntarily, you're effectively taking a stance that the fetus has more rights than the mother, that the mother can be forced to be an incubator for nine months against her. The fetus takes precedence. You can certainly have that belief. You just have to agree with and admit that you are saying that the life of the mother, that the freedom of the mother that is worth less than that, of the fetus the mother gets to choose, or rather than the mother doesn't get to choose. Whether or not her body is used for a purpose that she doesn't want it to be used for. So I would say there is another way to help minimize abortions, and that is not by making abortions illegal. It is by simply making abortions, be expensive, making abortions. Not even necessarily monetarily but making abortions be something that is undesirable, but still admitting to the fact that the mother does have control over her body in this scenario, like she does throughout the rest of her life. Frankly, So when I say a high cost, it doesn't have to be monetary. It may be other costs. It could be simply that she will get shunned by people from her circle of friends or just generally people that she encounters in her life that disapproved of her getting an abortion that costs exists today. I think this is why most women that have abortions tend not to run around and tell everybody that they meet, that they just came back from abortion clinic. There is definitely a cost with making this decision that exists outside of a financial one. I think that's not a bad thing. I think there should be a moral cost to terminating a pregnancy. This should be a decision that is made by the mother, but it should not be a decision that is made lightly. This should be a difficult decision. There should be a decision that only results in the termination of the birth or a termination of the fetus's life. If you prefer only for certain circumstances. There's nothing wrong with that. So if you want to just make it blatantly obvious, you're not quite understanding what I'm talking about. I think there has to be shame in getting an abortion, which is not justifiable through medical or some other means, and that shame can be religious, but it doesn't have to be, it could just simply be societal. The needs to exist to discourage decisions that are not great for society as a whole. I think the killing of potential of children are well, again, I don't want to say children. I will say potential children. The killing of life that is in the incubator called mother. Prior to its birth is not good. For our society in general, it certainly should not be exercised as simply a way of doing birth control for casual sex. There are plenty of other means that work for that already. You have to understand as a, as humans are as with any animals, certainly all men. That the reason that sex feels good is because by design in the past, and you can take on design by design here as a designed by God, if you like, or by design of evolution, meaning everybody else who didn't do this got wiped out, but sex feels good because it ensures the propagation of the species and the from a. From an evolutionary standpoint, all those animals for whom sex didn't feel good, they stopped reproducing and died off. So in fact, all of us that are alive today are the end products of animals who chose to enjoy sex or for whom sex was already enjoying. Therefore they procreated enough that they survived, whereas species that did not enjoy sex sufficiently enough to procreate enough, ended up dying off. So using something that feels good for the purpose of procreation for non actual procreation, we as humans have obviously figured it out. I believe dolphins have figured this out as well. I think they have sex between the females are relation cycles purely as a form of entertainment. I think there's some monkeys that have done that as well, but they're genetically close enough to us, certainly. But the bottom line is you have to admit these things like you have to admit that the point of sex is procreation. That sex that doesn't result in procreation is essentially using a system within our bodies, within our brains that was designed for procreation and then tricking it to not procreate. I think that's okay. There's nothing wrong with that. As long as you understand, that's the case and that if the sex results in procreation, it results in a a fetus. That should not be a huge surprise or shock that if after having sex, something that was literally an activity to get pregnant, which feels good results in a pregnancy. It shouldn't be a surprise for the guy. It shouldn't be a surprise for the girl. There should be contingencies around what to do if that happened. You guys are effectively skydiving and you're skydiving with parachutes called condoms or the pill. You know what? Sometimes those safety measures, those preventative measures that you've got. Sometimes they fail. Skydiving is still a dangerous activity, even if you've done it a bunch of times. Even if your parachute worked every single time in the past, There is a potential for that parachute to not work and for your backup parachute to also not work in which case you're going to have the experience that you were not intending when you engaged in skydiving, but it is nonetheless an experience that skydiving ultimately is just trying to create fun. Falling through the sky without a parachute is exactly the same experience as falling through the sky with a parachute that hasn't been released yet, but is on your back sky diving. That's the part before you pull the parachute is exactly the same. That is the part that is fun. That's the thing that everybody loves is that feeling of free fall through the air. That happens exactly the same way. If there's no parachute, the only difference is with a parachute. You're getting to do that over and over and enjoy the fun aspect of it without the consequence, when you don't have a parachute or your parachute fails, you only get to do that once. You, while you may be enjoying it while it's happening, the end result may not be something that you anticipated or. Wanted to have happen. So in this analogy, pregnancy is that end result, that happens when the parachute does not open or fails. It is a very realistic possibility and terminating that pregnancy simply for convenience or inconvenience reasons should have consequences. Again, I'm not saying that it should be legal for a woman to do it. It should be legal because it is her body and the fetus is completely relying on her body. If in the future, we figure out some way to extract the fetus safely from the woman's body and then have the fetus be in a a different incubation device than the woman itself. Maybe then we can start discussing the idea. Having no more abortions, be legal. If there's an alternative that has the same end result for the woman, but a different end result for the fetus. It's a better end result for both. Absolutely. We need to look at that alternative. Carrying the fetus to term is not the same thing as taking it out early and putting it into a different incu. Carrying the fetus to term for the woman is something that is a choice for her because it is her body that has to do that for the duration. Again, I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences, but I think the consequences just shouldn't be a prevention of her ability to do it by the government. The quants is the consequences used to exist. There was very much a point in time, not just in American history, but history of the world where women that had abortions were desirable, they were shunned. They were treated differently. I think that in a lot of ways that has gone away, but I'm not sure that it should have been because as the consequences for getting an abortion should still exist, they just shouldn't be. Requirement by the government to just not have an abortion. So hopefully I've I've clarified my position on this topic sufficiently. It's a position that is drawn from what does that thunder outside. If you guys hear any kind of explosions happening in the background? I think it's the weather deciding to provide some background sound effects. Of thunder enlightening as I'm recording this very topical. So from a logical standpoint, if you understand what life and death are and you accept the concept, that freedom is the aggregate of the choices that you are in control of making. That ownership is something that is. Derived from the ability to make choices. When you own yourself, you are the one making choices. When you are a slave and somebody else owns you, they get to make choices. If you own yourself and you're the one making choices, then you ought to be able to make choices about how your body is used. What goes into your body? Nobody, neither the government, nor other people can circumvent your choice on those issues. If you choose to have a carry a baby to term great. That's what your body was designed for. If you choose to take a vaccine in order to avoid having. Bad symptoms of a disease, or even being able to pass the disease onto others. Great. That's your choice? That's your decision? If you make these choices, then everything is working logically and as it should be designed in my humble opinion, maybe not so humble opinion, but if somebody else's making these choices for you, That's not great, that effectively means that somebody else owns you, but at least for that aspect of you, somebody else is getting to make decisions about your body. Somebody else is getting to make decisions about what your future looks like. Somebody else can, in the case of a government during this in the past, certainly. Can actually decide to use your body to a means that ends up in death as well. So if you believe in freedom, if you understand the concept of ownership, then I think it's pretty hard to argue that Texas has a right to make a law that says abortions past six weeks are illegal. Any more than that. Texas has the right to make a law that says vaccines are mandatory. Both of those things are decisions that should be made by the rightful owner of the body and the rightful owner of the box. Is the person that, that body is attached to the person that is that body or is in full control of that body. However you want to phrase it. So this clarifies the position and you now see why I started off speaking about life, death, freedom and ownership, and then pulled slavery into it as well. It is ultimately to clarify these concepts and incidentally the The right to bear arms which has spelled out in our constitution is also a freedom. It is a right that everybody has. In some countries and in some states or in some cities like Shairaq these rights are restricted illegally if you ask me, but nonetheless, they are restricted, but ultimately. You have the right to defend yourself from anybody that you need to defend yourself, whether that's animals attacking you or other people attacking you or anything else that you feel you need a defense from maybe a little green men, maybe aliens are attacking you. So the right to self-defense is a very basic right, that stems from ownership. As part of the rights that you have when you are free and. A gun is simply a means of defense. It is a tool for defending yourself. It could also be a tool for providing food for yourself. You can certainly use a gun, not for defensive purposes, but for offensive purposes as well, like hunting. It can certainly be a tool that you can use to guarantee your freedom. By taking a corrupt government out as has happened in a number of countries. As much as we like to hate on the Cuban socialists or communists, they used to be known. The reality is that the government that they overthrew was a bad government for a lot of people in Cuba. This didn't happen in the vacuum. This happened because a majority of the Cuban people supported a regime change from the, was it the battista's? I can't recall, but the last government that they had prior to the Cuban revolution, without the support of the majority of the population, that revolution would not have survived, it would have been rolled back. Certainly the United States. Was against that resolution and wanted to roll it back. But but the majority of the people were actually in support of it. So if you have the money means for defense and offense that guns present, then you have more ability to control the type of government that you have. Because when you have a government that you don't want, there is the ultimate opportunity. I say ultimate because generally there's no going back. Whichever side wins will place the other side in jail, but you do have the ultimate, the ability to change your government from a bad government to a good government. If you have guns, It's certainly possible, but much, much more difficult to do that without the tools that guns are. Generally it doesn't even require an actual revolution. The mirror threat of a populace that has sufficient weapons is enough to keep governments in check. That's why you see in a lot of countries, governments doing everything they can. To take the tools of defense and offense out of the hands of the population, looking at countries like Australia, Canada, England, and what they've done to disarm their population and the disarming of the population has nothing to do with the use of these tools, except for one they don't want their population to be able to push back against them. In the same way as the American revolutionaries pushed back against the British government. So I've gone through a whole bunch of different topics. This is a longer episode, but I'm not putting out nearly as many episodes per week as I used to, or even per month. So hopefully you've enjoyed this one made you think a little bit, whichever side of the debate you're on. Whether you think vaccines are good or bad or mandatory, or shouldn't be. Whether or not, you think abortion is something that is a basic right, or whether it's a horrible choice that should not be allowed for people to have, hopefully my view of how I arrived at the decisions that I arrived, that shows you a little bit of the way that some people can think. If it's, for me, it has, I asked to be awry every well. Every belief that I have has to be derived legit. It has to start at definitions and then come through to a logical conclusion. Like I said, as much as I think abortion as a practice is horrible and as much as I would like no woman to ever have to go through an abortion. Again I have to admit that if I use logic, the place that I arrive is that you can not negate somebody's ownership of their own body. Without removing their freedom and their freedom much. As I explained in the example of using somebody that is on a respirator confined to a bed, their freedom cannot be placed higher as a person that is in full health. Then the freedom of somebody who cannot survive without assistance. Those two. Can not be not be put on the same playing field. You have to take into account the person or people providing the support and make sure that provision of supports for the third party, survival is based on the voluntary means. If it's a co coerced support. Yeah. If you're holding up the hospital a gunpoint to make sure that your relative is on the ventilator and the hospital has no choice in the matter. Then you're really then you don't believe in freedom then you don't believe in ownership. You don't believe in the decisions that they are able to make on their own because you're forcing them to make decisions on your behalf. and I am a fan of freedom. So following that logic, then this new law in Texas is a horrible law. I hope that the number of abortions happening every year still go down because ultimately we should get to. With that guys. I hope you enjoyed the episode and I will see you probably on my show with Darren next. So if you're not listening to that check it out. I think it's pretty damn good. It's where Darren gets to say stuff and then I get to correct him and explain to him what reality actually is. We have a fun time doing it. thanks for listening. I will see y'all soon.