top of page
  • publiusfederalist

Life of a Soul

Updated: Jan 17, 2023


Shame. Hurt. Embarrassment. Pain. Regret. Sadness. These emotions and more can be part of and run deep for many women that choose the path of abortion. In light of a criminal offense that might have brought about a pregnancy that a person might long for a termination, and a sense of relief of the atrocity that might have brought it. There is very little rejoicing to be had if the woman has made the decision.

But in the end this is a decision, a decision of life and death, of relieving a woman and a man, if they are still in the picture, a lifetime of burdens to raise a child. The effort and resources today to raise a child far outpace many ordinary couple or single woman whom may have made a mistake. In the end the woman does own her own body.

And the Choices she makes are one of her own, her own life and her own responsibility to her dreams and her needs. But this fight for the life of a mother and her dominion over her body must surely be one that must consider the life of the child that has yet to be born.


As each side of this political football pursued a war drum to rally each other’s perspective, the rest of the population that are not attentive to the subject are forced to swallow each side of the argument, as they each have to be right. Yes? A mother does own her body and an unborn child is deserving of a chance at life.

It has been argued that this specific challenge requires a “balance of rights”, that somehow there is need for the government to assist the citizens in balancing each of these rights. Thus the legal system is then somehow most geared to assist us in these matters.


So here we are, the bed is made, we can stretch our legs and arms out in pride to the battle lines that have been drawn. The values that have seeped into the soul of each radicalized side and their story.


Where the stories of those whom made a choice to live a life without a child they once carried, has a significant psychological weight to collect the right information to stabilize and confirm their choice have been right. Compared to the mother that kept that child in spite of the hardships she and her possible partner had to face. These choices, with these unbounded needs to stabilize a life, ensures their own sanity in a very challenging world.

So the attempt here is not to share an opinion, or a reasoned argument to slide into a position within this war. My perspective is purely one of governance and overall management of a society from a Federalist 2.0 perspective and philosophy. With this goal in mind we see in our theory of politics, there are 4 basic positions. Those are the system of socialism, democratic secularism, theological and the small ‘r’ republican. So can we best paint a picture within each of these perspectives on this subject, this war of rights? I would suggest the answer is YES! https://www.federalist2.org/unified-theory

Theological Political Perspective


From a Federalist 2.0 philosophy, this position requires the determination of those playing the King and Queen of their domains, or the anointed religious leaders, to deal with this reality. These folks, to stay consistent with their religious teachings will take a position in alignment with those beliefs. As such, we see around the world those countries bound by these rulers embrace Pro-Life perspectives, we are not aware of any religious text that condones the ending the life of unborn children. I am sure if there is some need behind doors there might be activities that violate this rule for the leadership. But for the citizens, there would not be public displays for the activity of abortion. (This anti-abortion position best secures their hold on power…)


Socialistic Political Position


Due to the nature of socialism, the state will do what is perceived as beneficial to the state, if there are too many citizens, the state will cap the allowed number of citizens. When birth rates drop they will enforce a greater number of births. The purpose being population control and management, so abortion becomes a tool to help manage the number of citizens, encourage abortion when needed and enforce through the police force when needed. If more citizens are required restrict the use of abortion. Effectively in these governance approaches, there is no debate and you follow the mandates as a citizen.

Now we come to the hard part, setting the stage for what seems to be playing out in the marketplace of ideas and trends that are defining the place and roll of abortion. Personally, I see both sides and for the sake of this discussion I am attempting to set aside the feelings of either direction, so here goes the attempt.

Democratic Secular Political Position


From our Unified Theory as noted here, the position of the Secular State is to manage the society through the eyes of the majority, and this style of management of a civil society has utilitarian requirements, where the focus of the society is protecting the rights as defined by the majority. These rights are then confirmed or denied by the legal system.


So let’s apply this perspective to abortion, regardless of whom has what rights, if the majority of people believe it is ok to legalize abortion, then it is legal. But it first must be legal by law, which means there needs to be a navigation of the current constitution to make it effective. Once we have the political will and backing we can drive a narrative that it is an individual right for a woman to have an abortion. We then can codify that right through the legal process, with the final anointment being a ruling of the Supreme Court.

But if we apply this to other things such as housing or food. One could define new rights such as the right to food and the right to housing. We can then legalize this right through the courts and drive to solutions such as the requirement of the government to supply housing or food. Or, as we are seeing this trend, the right of protesters to loot or the right of people to not pay rent or camp out in a home they do not own.


So this then is looking to be less than optimal, it does not feel right on many levels, but yet here it is. Abortion is a legitimate right within the Democratic secular political framework. …but only for as long as the legal body says it is. Hence the abortion ruling in the summer of 2022.

Debates and consequences can be driven from these realities and cultural norms being imposed on the citizens to remain in this political quadrant, but the pressures to move to the upper left corner are great, and move us to the use of abortion as a means of population control as deemed necessary by the state.

So, this explains the claim and demand of its permanece as a close second place tool by those whom would argue the need for socialism. And so here we are, this is the place we live in today, and the reasons why there is such debate. The USA is now a Democratic Secular State, with movement to Socialism.


Republican Political Position


Technology, advancements that are driving a sea of change that in most cases are beneficial to all, without it our planet could not support the 8 Billion in it today. But technology also has given us means to avoid natural processes that make us human. The establishment of a family, the growth of our character and, yes, the making of babies. Within each of these things humans must do, there is the responsibility that people/humans must carry, no matter the burden and no matter how much technology can be crafted to avoid it. In the end, we are human, we must live, become something more and we must have children. There is no other choice if we wish for mankind to prosper. The opposite choice as a society ensures the end of humanity in 100-200 years.

This, our over reaching goal, is a context in which we pursue the philosophy for Federalist 2.0. Within this form of republican political arrangement, we find the reverence of the human spirit and the need to fulfill the overall goal.


“Freedom is the unhindered pursuit of a full life, development of one’s skills, development of a family, development of deep connection to family and friends, the struggle to overcome the vices in life to become a conscious human devoted to a higher power, which leads to happiness.”


Where this was our response to this question:


  1. “The earth was made for all of us.

  2. We are birthed from a mother.

  3. We have free will.

  4. Hence, we all are free We bind ourselves. Sometimes knowingly and sometimes unknowingly.

  5. We die. Dead, no more.

Question: What is freedom?”


Within this direction we also see the responsibility for the mother to care for and ensure this living being be given this life, to live and to serve. No matter the situation that faces that future family. We extend that notion to the child as being young and growing to adulthood, so why should we not care for that SOUL from the moment of conception? The answer is we have to do that and maintain this perspective of value and reverence for the human soul for our own existence.

We have to look at and manage the consequences of actions taken before the pregnancy occurs and where the SOUL of the mother missed the signs of good character and should have waited and/or said NO when engaging in activities that result in children. Such that we can say with confidence and fortitude, the life of a child starts at conception, not so much that it is a child, but as it is something that could become, something the mother must care for like the survival of the earth itself, it is a responsibility in the long run to emotionally and physically bond to a family member and that process starts at conception.


Supporting Both Sides of Abortion


So how can it be that, in this post alone, we can both support the warring sides? It is because buried into this conflict is the vector of time, in time all wounds heal, and as a philosophy, we could be wrong in the long run. The challenge in this experiment of life is that if we are wrong, the existence of our lives are at stake. The sons of mankind, what ever they manifest, requires a political system dynamic enough to direct the population to serve all. Given our current political position in the USA as Democratic Secularism, the allowance of abortion in those states that provides that option will need to be respected.

Where the efforts to move those states to a family orientation and efforts to increase the delivery of babies should be an on going cause, there should be a refrain against an equally oppressive set of rules and ruling by the Supreme Court to eliminate abortion across all states. Though enticing, the results would enforce and energize those focused on deploying socialism overall.


Finally, Federalist 2.0 as a philosophy, recognizes in the Democratic Secularism Political System, there is a need to define and balance rights as ratified by the legal system. But this game of balancing is also the necessary tools to push a society to socialism. And given that they are the key tools, we at the Federalist 2.0 reject this notion of balanced rights. Rights are NOT subjective.


Rights are objective and require some switch to enforce decisions and approaches as points of reference. For a baby’s life, the moment of conception is the creation of a SOUL and it requires love and attention as such. Rights cannot be balanced, but need to play out in the world through law. The people will determine what level of constraint that one can live with given their own community. Global decisions are a form of tyranny in the long run.

Technology and education and faith combined, if permitted, will elevate the need for and reverence for children, and we will minimize and nearly eliminate the need for abortion over time. Meanwhile a universal Branding Campaign to normalize abortion needs a constant flow of customers that make bad choices and can be trained to embrace the mindset of socialism to quell the feelings that have been entrenched within the decision that most likely was presented on a bed of broken promises and erroneous assumptions about life.


In the creation of the Federalist 2.0, it is our goal and commitment to you the reader, to share with you the pieces of the original intent of the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence and why it is critical that we claim this moral imperative to ensure the health and safety of our future generations and our capacity to continue as the Originally Planned United States of America.


Come join the Federalist 2.0 effort, help us resurrect the beliefs and understandings that made this United States of America the greatest nation on the planet to date. Let's make America great once more!


In the end, what do you have to lose?.... Maybe you can be Publius too


- Publius

(TM) Federalist 2.0




109 views2 comments

Recent Posts

See All

2 Comments


River Song
River Song
Jan 24, 2023

I love what I have read so far! Your vision is what mine has always been for America, the way I have believed and loved this Country of ours so very, very much!

Like
publiusfederalist
Jan 24, 2023
Replying to

Please see if you can help and get the word out, I have been a closet conservative for over 15+ years. While in Oregon I lost several jobs once they found out what work I was doing. This is only a vision and a BETA approach at this time. But it could get alot more traction if people understood the significance of this approach would and could be for America. It's not just interesting, it's an approach that is leveling up the Constitution and right sizing our moral and virtue to this day and age. Thanks for stopping!

Like
bottom of page