ProLife is the Wrong Choice (Why it's a Self-Defeating Position)

ProLife is the Wrong Choice (Why It’s a Self-Defeating Position)

Although abortion vs. anti-abortion has been framed as a culture war, and there have been many anti-abortion laws passed (all of them egregiously passed, we might say) the debate isn’t really a debate because one position is scientifically, legally, and philosophically sound. And that position is the ProChoice position. The ProLife position is not scientifically, legally, or philosophically sound. And this is why I have often referred to the ProLife argument as a non-sequitur or non-argument.

Now, what do I mean by saying it’s a non-argument?

Well, boiled down to the base claim behind the ProLife position, it’s that = Human life is sacred, therefore terminating human life is bad.

This is a religious claim, not a scientific one. Certainly not a legal one.

Even if the claim is reframed to say = Human life is sacred, therefore terminating human life is unlawful, the ‘unlawful’ bit has NOT been defined either because the legal status of an unborn fetus has never been defined in a court of law.

But a mother’s rights (as an autonomous individual) have been defined. And this causes problems later on, as we’ll see.

Knowing their ProLife claims are undefined, savvy lawyers working for religious institutions have tried to frame it in scientific terms in order to better try and hitch their religious ideology to the science and thereby validate their claim as more “credible.” As such, they will say things like “Life begins at conception.”

This is also not a scientific claim.

Biologically speaking, there is no delineating point of “life beginning” at conception. Or at any other given point, for that matter. It simply doesn’t exist.

Life’s beginning point in terms of embryonic development is scientifically undefined. Saying that “life begins at conception” doesn’t mean anything.

We also know that it’s scientifically false to make this claim.

Life often self-terminates after conception. Miscarriages, chromosomal defects, genetic defects, environmental toxicity, and other factors might make the so-called life non-viable. That’s why you’ll hear people talk about the viability of a fetus. If it’s not viable, it means it’s not “life” in the sense of it will become a living organism.

More importantly, though, self-terminating cells which immediately die after conception cannot be called “life.” Saying a collection of dead cells after conception is “life at conception” isn’t only wrong, it’s categorically wrong and shows there is a willful ignorance in making such a claim.

(Logical fallacy note: Category mistakes are an analytical misstep wherein an individual misclassifies a concept into an improper framework, assigning attributes to an entity that it fundamentally cannot possess.)

Willful ignorance is, in this case, a tactic. If the science disproves the validity of your claim, then it’s better to only use science when it’s in favor of your claim and not delve too deeply into the nuance of it lest you invalidate your own claim. Which is why abortion debates usually skirt the science and double down on emotional appeals.

(Logical fallacy note: An appeal to emotion becomes a fallacy (argumentum ad passiones) when someone manipulates feelings—such as fear, pity, anger, or flattery—to make you accept a claim that has no actual factual or logical proof.)

But why is it categorically wrong to say that “life begins at conception”? Partially because the number of steps in embryonic development and the way cell division works happen along a gradient so gradual that it’s nearly impossible to simply select a starting point. It’s undefined.

Without a point of demarcation around what we’d consider life, or precisely at what instant it begins, all we are left with is a gradient of cellular division. Interestingly, the philosophical concept of the Theseus ship paradox is the best way one can describe this gradual biological transition and why it’s so hard to define.

(Philosophical note: The Ship of Theseus (also known as Theseus’s Paradox) is a classic philosophical thought experiment about identity and continuity over time. It asks whether an object remains the same thing fundamentally if all of its original parts are eventually replaced.)

When it comes to cellular division and embryonic development, you’re dealing with the Thesesus’s ship paradox not merely as a philosophical thought exercise but as a real, literal version of the event.

As such, saying that “Life begins at conception” runs into the very difficult dilemma of “Life” being undefinable and so saying that it starts at the implantation of the sperm into the egg is simply a semantic way of manipulating the language to sound like there is a defined “starting point” when there clearly is not.

Both sperm and eggs are living cells. When they combine, they form a different living cell. And when they change and develop new, different cells, they become something different. Each developmental stage is technically a new kind of life, but this is why it’s a literal real life Theseus’s ship paradox.

In order for “life” to begin, each stage of development would need to define a new “life” as beginning. It would need to be defined at the Germinal Stage, at fertilization of an oocyte, to the zygote, to cleavage and the morula, to blastocyst formation, to trophoblast, to embryoblast, to implantation of the blastocyst and the endometrium, to chorionic gonadotropin, to the Gastrulation & Neurulation stage, to the germ layers, the ectoderm, mesoderm, and endoderm formations, on to the neurulation and formation of the neural tube, on to Organogenesis and embryo growing various buds which may turn into body parts, to literally eight more stages of this, then, finally, at the end of week 8, the Carnegie stage 23, the embryonic period concludes and the organism is officially classified as a fetus.

None of that has been defined as a “starting point” for life, because each one of those stages represent different forms of cellular life which are distinctly not the form before it nor the form after it. As such, each kind of life is a different kind of “life.”

That’s what science says.

Legally speaking, it’s even more complicated.

Remember earlier when we discussed how a mother’s legal rights are defined but an unborn fetus’s are not? This is because the fetus isn’t born yet and therefore does not have identity or autonomy apart from the mother. As such, they cannot be a protected individual under the law because they are not a separate entity from the mother. Not yet, at any rate.

To define it as such would be problematic (and is problematic wherever they’ve passed anti-abortion laws) because essentially what needs to happen is you must grant privileges and rights to something undefined at the same time as having these rights usurp the mother’s identity and autonomy, thereby putting both forms of “life” in conflict with each other definitionally.

Under the law, minors (aka children) do not share the same rights or privileges as adults, for good reason. Well, not just one reason, there’s hundreds of reasons why undeveloped, young, still forming children cannot be granted the same rights as adult humans. It’s for their protection and safety that they have LESS rights, not more.

So, it’s strange to take a fetus, as an undefined kind of life, and automatically give it protected rights that outweigh the mother’s protected rights. When I talk about conflict of legal rights, this is what I mean. Because there has been no legal definition of a fetus having any legal standing as anything separate from the mother, it’s a very weird thing to suddenly say it’s an individual with protected rights that usurp hers legally. Steps have been skipped.

Furthermore, the more problematic part of granting a fetus such rights is that only individuals with a legal identity can be given rights to the degree religious-backed lawmakers are trying to give. But giving something without an identity the same rights as something with an identity, creates a conflict of identity which then legally voids the meaning of the rights for both entities. Why is it null and void? Because you’ve confused what the law can discern in terms of an entity’s “rights” without teams of lawyers to translate and explain what the heck anyone means by erecting laws this way. It’s nonsensical because it’s incoherent and therefore incorrect. Use all the legalese you want, without any clear definitions of what we’re talking about, it might as well be Greek to us.

The fact that laws HAVE been passed this way SHOULD bother you.

Religious judges accepting laws this way are doing a disservice to not only citizens rights but the law in general. It’s lazy. And, frankly, they’re setting us back. Because all these ill defined terms and conditions will need to be undone or corrected when someone finally decides to take the time to PROPERLY define these things and rewrite the laws to make LOGICAL sense.

This is only the start of the legal issues which complicate the ProLife position. Other legal things are = life is undefined, life beginning at point X is undefined, a fetus’s rights are undefined, a mother’s identity and rights are in conflict with the way laws are treating her sovereignty.

Finally, there’s a legal and moral complication we have yet to discuss. The laws as written don’t guarantee a better quality of life for the fetus/baby and therefore cannot be the primary reason to “save a life.”

ProLife advocates say that the fetus must be brought to term no matter what. Life, according to them, is sacred after all (also not a legal term, but a religious one). But what’s the moral implication of this if the baby is going to be born into an immediate world of suffering, starvation, and pain?

Forcing a life into a world of pain, suffering, starvation, disease, & etc. knowing that this is the outcome is the opposite of kind or just. It’s evil. Abortion, in this case, would be a mercy.

Morally speaking, to force a child into a miserable existence just to feel good about your religious convictions is evil.

To demand a mother who doesn’t have the means to provide a good life to the child is cruel.

Demanding both these things be written into law so they are forced upon the mother and the child is not justice, it’s the opposite. It's an injustice.

This is why it’s legally problematic. Because laws, although not needing to be necessarily just, do seek to limit and control behaviors of the citizens these laws are erected over. As such, if the premise is that life is sacred, then writing a law which guarantees the suffering of this life is neither just nor moral, so what is the purpose of the law since it defeats the purpose of the claims which the law was predicated on? In this case, it defeats the claim that since life is sacred it must be protected.

All of these reasons should be enough for us to dismiss the ProLife position altogether. It’s an unthought, underdeveloped, legally and morally problematic position that avoids actually defining its terms because it doesn’t rely on facts but emotions to gain any traction with people. It’s manipulative and, if taken as an absolute, can lead to conditions which are anti-thetical to its own claims, meaning that it’s SELF-DEFEATING.

The last thing we need to be weary of is that a lot of these anti-abortion bills don’t actually seek to protect the infant after birth. They are written, more or less, to force women to be incubators and birth children for no other reason than this is what aligns with the religious beliefs of those seeking to pass these laws. In other words, it’s not about saving babies but forcing women to make babies no matter what so that they can be later converted into religious acolytes. That’s not hyperbole, that’s literally what many of these anti-abortion bills and laws–as written–are seeking to do.

Naturally, this ulterior motive to control women is sinister. There’s no reason to think that women would be making bad decisions about their own bodies as long as they are getting proper medical treatment, good medical information and support, and access to good healthcare. It’s no wonder then, that so many of these anti-abortion bills/laws try to strip healthcare away from women, or else limit and restrict it. There’s absolutely no valid reason to do this except to control women.

All this just to ask a simple question. Do you know what position isn’t self-defeating? Which position aligns with science? Which position contains clearly defined terms? Which position doesn’t manipulate the law or your emotions? Which position doesn’t seek to harm a baby that’s come to term? Which position doesn’t seek to limit women’s healthcare? Which position doesn’t try to pass religious superstition off as scientific fact and then try to codify it into law?

You’ve probably already guessed it, but yeah, it’s the ProChoice position.

It’s not only the superior position legally, morally, philosophically, logically, and so on, but it’s the only position that makes sense if you’ve ever given it a modicum of thought.

So, what needs to change in the ProLife arguments for them to be valid? Well, literally everything. Everything about them is wrong, incorrect, illogical, invalid, and self-defeating.

Yet we write them into laws. If this doesn’t bother you, something is very very wrong with you.

If you still think ProLife has any merit whatsoever, you haven’t understood a single one of these arguments and may need to re-read this critique several more times for it to sink in. Until real changes are made, however, the ProLife position doesn’t have a single leg to stand on. It’s a non-argument. A non-starter. It’s an invalid position to take morally. It’s legally confused and oftentimes contradictory.

Until a valid argument can be brought forward regarding the abortion debate, the only valid position is the ProChoice position. Given what we’ve learned, though, that’s not even a controversial statement. It’s just a brute fact at this point.

Universal Health Care in the U.S. is a MORAL Problem (Not a Political One)

 Universal Health Care in the U.S. is a MORAL Problem (Not a Political One)

I recently heard someone say that “If you can fund endless wars in the Middle East for trillions upon trillions of dollars, then universal healthcare for all isn’t a budgetary issue, it’s a moral issue.”

There’s so much truth to this that it hurts.

I have a conservative co-worked who is fully against what he calls “Obama Care” which he’ll immediately conflates any concept of a socialized or universal healthcare program. It's odd, because he also served in the Armed Forces and uses the most social healthcare in the country, the military VA. But anything else that looks like universal healthcare is "Obama Care" to him. It’s meant as a pejorative, a slur, as libelous slander. Obama was the Devil, for him, and so anything associated with Obama is evil or bad.

This is called being lead by propaganda. It's letting party affiliation and bias confuse one's moral judgement. As such, this bias causes him to says things like, “Why should I have to pay for my neighbors cancer treatment?”

Well, technically, you’re not.

You’re not footing the whole of your neighbor's cancer treatment. If we're talking about universal healthcare, you’re likely paying pennies on the dollar, because ALL your neighbors on every block on every street in your town, in your county, in your district, in your State, in your entire country are SPLITTING the difference of that bill.

That’s what the “universal” means in universal healthcare. Universalism is about ethical rules that apply to all. And if you believe your country was founded on Christian values, then the moral principal is that Christians are supposed to help those in need.

Jesus came to heal the sick, feed the hungry. Universal healthcare is an extension of Jesus Christ’s teachings. If you’re a Christian, there’s no reason to deny universal healthcare, because it is what Jesus would have done. It’s what he wants YOU as a Christian to do.

Think about it. To hoard your money and say, “Well, I don’t want to foot the bill for my neighbor in need,” is anti-Christian. It’s mamon. It’s greed. It’s callous indifference to the suffering of others. Like I said, it’s anti-Christian.

All Christians, by the very definition of being followers of Christ, MUST agree that universal healthcare is the most Christian endeavor they could do to help their fellow neighbors, their fellow human beings, their friends and families.

I’m not a Christian. But I know that every civilised, democratic socialism in the world has universal healthcare. I’ve lived in countries with universal healthcare for several decades. One time, I broke my tooth and I had to have a crown put on done when I was living in Japan, and I also had to have one done in the U.S. a few years later.

My crown in the U.S. cost me upwards of $3,000 USD. It put me in medical debt. Meanwhile, my crown done in Japan cast me $40 USD. That’s right, forty dollars. Why? Because everyone on my city block, on my street, and on every subsequent street, of the whole city, of the whole district, of the whole Prefecture, of the whole country paid into the system. What were my monthly healthcare payments? Roughly $150 for my whole family.

Do you know what I currently pay into my BlueCross BlueShield plan here in the U.S.? $750 per month, just for myself! In order to add my family to that plan, it's another $600 for each family member. Each! That's the opposite of affordable. And, in the U.S., people who are in bad health are stuck in bad health. They can't find relief. As someone who cares about others, I find this sad. But it's also frustrating. Because why do countries who spend way less on healthcare have universal healthcare and we don't?

I find it ironic how much my Government spends on war, on killing, on invading other countries, on oppressing other nations, on the theft of oil, and etc… yet the majority is seemingly fine with our tax payer dollars being spent in the trillions on empire building (Okay, some of us aren’t fine with it to the extent that it’s gone beyond protecting our borders from enemies to being all out war mongers, because did we ever pause to ask in a globally united economy what spending trillions of dollars on diplomacy would look like instead of war? No? Okay then).

But we’re NOT okay spending pennies on the dollar to help our fellow citizens have health care?

What do you call that? It’s certainly not political. It’s a moral issue.

NOT caring about anyone enough to want to help alleviate their quality of life when they run into health issues is, I don’t know, what do you call the complete indifference to the suffering of others?

Oh, yeah, that’s right. Evil.

I’m not a Christian, but I know that being glad to let others suffer needlessly is wrong. It’s that term “needless” that we have to consider here. That’s what makes this a moral issue, not a political one. If it’s needless suffering, this implies we have the means to prevent it or alleviate it to substantial degrees.

Human decency is something that as a humanist I take seriously. Authenticity and human decency are the two biggest moral tenets of how I choose to live my life. These principles are followed by kindness, understanding, and acceptance of others and other points of view.

It’s something far too many people have a problem with because they still think in tribalistic terms. It’s my tribe, why should I help the warring tribe over there? They only ever steal from us, kidnap our women, and pillage our land.

But the world is growing smaller and smaller, and more interconnected by the day. We can no longer afford to live tribalistically, or think like cavemen.

Civilisation requires cooperation to work smoothly. In order to advance, as a global society, or even as a country in a global community, we need to learn to work together. Peacefully.

It’s something we’re taught as kindergarteners but so often forget as adults. How to be kind to the person sitting next to us. How to share. How to help each other when we see someone who needs help.

Universal healthcare is not a political issue. It’s not a budgetary issue. If people with good hearts cared enough about their fellow neighbors, it would be a moral imperative. If you know Immanuel Kant, you’ll know what I’m talking about.

Those who are against universal health care are immoral. They lack empathy. They’re self-centered and callous. They’re, for the lack of a better description, selfish pieces of shit.

I don’t want to know you or have anything to do with you if you want to remain indifferent to the suffering of others. That’s a deliberate choice. A choice only a piece of shit person would make.

So, if you’re living in a country that has all the means in the world, can spend trillions upon trillions of dollars effortlessly, yet doesn’t have universal healthcare, do you know what that means? It means you’re living in a country that’s being governed by immoral leaders, who are carrying out policies voted for by immoral people who care only about themselves.

If that’s the country you want to live in, I hear North Korea has some openings. But, I’d rather live in a place where the government isn’t deliberately trying to make our lives harder but begins working for the people. I prefer to live in a place where people understand that enacting a universal healthcare system says as much about their moral fiber as it says about the quality of life we could strive toward.

It certainly would say a lot as compared to the morally depraved depths a person would need to sink to think that any amount of suffering cast upon their neighbor is good because at least they didn’t need to “foot the bill” even though they never did in the first place.

Honestly, if you were ever for “building that wall” or support ICE or agree with bombing foreign countries just because, you were never a good person to begin with. This message isn’t for a person like you. You don’t even have a moral compass. Your compass isn’t broken, it simply doesn’t exist.

What I am writing here is an explanation that people who can at least understand right from wrong need to do better in recognizing that doing the kind thing isn’t always easy. There is a cost to helping others that requires a bit of self-sacrifice.

It requires our effort, whether that’s through giving our time or paying our fare share in making things better for others, it’s a small price to pay for when the day comes (God forbid) that we might need to turn to our neighbor and ask for help.

Do you want to live next to the neighbor who’ll have your back? Or do you want to live next to the neighbor that would rather let you suffer in agony perchance to die just to be rid of you so they needn’t be bothered with YOUR problems? Because, that’s the kind of neighbor that’s going to rot in Hell.

In the future, when you’re voting for real change in this country, ask yourself, is what I’m voting for going to help my fellow neighbor? Or is it going to make me a selfish piece of shit? If what you’re voting for actively seeks to strip the rights of your fellow neighbor, then you’re also a piece of shit. Don’t be that person. Be better. Be kind. Be considerate.

Being a good person is hard. Being a self righteous prick, that’s easy. Pricks say whatever they want, without consideration of how their words will impact others, they say things that harm, they lobby insults without batting an eye, they only ask what they can get out of it? Sometimes being good for goodness sake is the best possible outcome. Sometimes you do need to consider how your words sting. Sometimes it’s not about what you can get out of it but what you can provide in terms of your service of others. Uplifting people requires you to use a bit of muscle, put them on your back, and to stand up strong and tall when they can’t.

What do you get out of it? You get a better world. A kinder world. A world where you can live in health and prosperity. So, when I say universal healthcare is a moral problem, it’s also a personal problem for people who don’t know how to be kind. It’s a tough ask to ask others to be less selfish, to be less self-absorbed, and to be a little more caring for others. 

But in the grand scheme of things, I don’t see why I wouldn’t want my neighbor’s cancer to be treated. If they came out with a cure for cancer because I helped fund a universal healthcare system and then they discover a cure for cancer, then everyone wins. If I someday get cancer, then I’ll be in need of such care too. It doesn’t make sense to say, well, since I don’t have cancer I don’t want to pay for my neighbor’s cancer treatment. People who say self absorbed shit like this are not worth our time. But they shouldn’t dictate national policy.

No, if we’re to live in health and prosperity, and continue to be moral and civilised people, then universal healthcare is a necessity at this point.

THREE REASONS I.C.E SHOULDN’T EXIST (The Aftermath of Renee Good's Killing)

THREE REASONS I.C.E SHOULDN’T EXIST (The Aftermath of Renee Good's Killing)

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” ― George Orwell

She wasn’t supposed to be there. Being there was her first mistake. She should have complied. She didn't listen. She got what she deserved.

Well, not exactly. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the rights of its Citizens to convene, assemble, and protest in public. These are separate protections, repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.

So, if we’re being honest, Renee Good was free to be in public and free to protest.

Yet, here’s where the plot thickens. Because many who use the argument "she shouldn't have been there" or "she should have complied" don’t seem to realize that the ICE agent who shot and killed Renee, Jonathan Ross, had a prior altercation with a vehicle six months earlier that left him hospitalized. At least, we get this medical insight directly from Vice President J.D. Vance.

The problem with this is that it proves via a previously undisclosed medical history that it was actually the other way around: Jonathan Ross SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE.

Obviously, he was not psychologically stable or healed enough to return to duty.

This is evidenced by his excessive force and extreme use of vulgar language toward a woman he did not know. Legally speaking, this ruins any defense he might have in a court of law for "fearing for his life." If he was not psychologically of sound mind, "fearing for his life" is not a defense for his over-reaction, it's a proclamation of his continued and hitherto untreated mental illness.

If tried, the very fact that he was unfit due to prior incidents that may have traumatized him, any good lawyer worth this salt will use this to throw the full weight of the court on him.

Mind you, at the state level, this also leaves him vulnerable to incarceration because such a ruling excludes presidential pardons. In effect, he could not be pardoned. And, also, there's no statute of limitations on murder. And, yes, it was murder as the law defines it -- unlawfully taking another person's life. It was an unlawful killing (i.e., murder) because his "I feared for my life" defense is not valid due to his untreated mental illness. Therefore, it was murder as the law defines it.

If you don't like this fact, take it up with the courts. But that's just how the law defines it in this case.

The lawyers would likely talk about how he was mentally unfit to be there, how his trauma wasn’t resolved, and how it was reckless for him to be put back in the line of duty, where he was clearly not able to de-escalate a situation where other POLICE officers and legal authorities are saying the shooting could have been easily avoided.

But, I’ve heard it said, she was merely there to harass ICE, and so she F*CKED AROUND AND FOUND OUT.

Actually, no. ICE is not a civil service. They are not required to pass any civil service test that would allow them to train as law enforcement, and as such, are dangerously ill-equipped to handle scenarios of engagement where there are civilians involved or where there is civil unrest. Their job requirements as immigration officers do not include engaging with the citizenry, and, therefore, as Federal agents, they are ANTAGONISTIC to civil peace. They do not serve the public or the public’s best interests.

Taking this into consideration, we realize that if Renee Good was indeed harassing them (ICE), it would be a crime of a misdemeanor. There is NO death sentence in this country for the crime of misdemeanor.

There is no justification to murder someone for the crime of a single misdemeanor.

There is no person of sound mind who'd argue that the killing was justified.

To claim it was a "justified killing" is to claim that Jonathan Ross was sound of mind and so could make the difficult judgement calls required in a highly stressful civil unrest situation. But we know this is not the case. We know that he was suffering from PTSD as explained by the Vice President of the United States. So, nobody can claim it was a justified killing. It's an impossible claim to make given the conditions surrounding Jonathan Ross's mental instability.

Moreover, if the ICE agent were properly trained, like LEOs are, they would not have escalated events in a way that deliberately put themselves into GREATER danger. Public Law Enforcement is trained to de-escalate such scenarios so that the danger is LESSENED. And even though the DOJ website says that ICE agents are trained to de-escalate things, technically speaking, this seems NOT to be the case when ICE’s engagement with the public as evidenced by the numerous videos showing exactly the opposite.

We know that ICE is being used ANTAGONISTICALLY and poses a threat to civil society, because they are not even following their own rules or guidelines, and seem to break the law when it is convenient for them to carry out their orders. This is NOT how LAW enforcement is done. You do NOT break the law to enforce law. That's a contradiction in terms. It's illogical. It's nonsensical.

In order to say that Jonathan Ross was in the right, you literally have to make an illogical, nonsensical, unethical claim. That, in my opinion, is beyond the pale. If you're doing this, something is wrong with you mentally. And I don't say this flippantly. You truly need help if you still think Jonathan Ross's actions were justifiable in the way Renee Good detractors seem to be claiming. Their claims are, quite literally, insane.

And this should frighten you. Because why is ICE attracting this type of irrational, unethical, authority kowtowing, fascist driven mindset? When I hear someone say "She should have complied," I equate that sort of limited reasoning with mental illness. If you think that, you need to seek professional help. Again, I'm not being flippant here. I'm saying, in all truthfulness, the only way to reach this conclusion is to ignore the facts and adhere to a delusion that supports this kind of authoritarianism. 

Why is it fascist? Because it ignores the Constitutional rights of citizens. It ignores the laws of the land. It ignores its own rules and protocols. When all these things get shoved aside so that a mentally ill-man like Jonathan Ross can shoot a citizen (who ICE has no jurisdiction over) and it's an unjustified killing due to the conditions as explained by the Vice President of the United Stated, then to side with ICE requires a delusional mindset. A mindset that doesn't question the fascist authoritarianism because it cannot see the fascist authoritarianism. That's a real problem.

ICE agents are not beholden to civil service rules, although they must still obey Federal and State Laws. As such, ICE, not being beholden to civil safety, are agitators, since they effectively and deliberately disrupt the public’s civil safety. In fact, they challenge the very notion of civil society because of the antagonistic relationship they deliberately create between themselves and the public and the public’s safety.

This is NOT how the police act. This is NOT how firefighters act. This is NOT how EMTs act. All these public agencies act on behalf of the public’s interest with the goal to keep us safe, to ensure laws and safety rules/regulations are being followed, and helping us when something goes wrong.

And, clearly, ensuring that our laws and safety are being adhered to is NOT how ICE acts.

If this wasn’t bad enough, ICE's very existence is anti-democratic for three principal reasons.

First, the term “Illegal Alien” is a made-up concept, like ethnic race is a made-up concept. Legally speaking, there are only undocumented people. Getting documents is only a matter of knowing where to file the proper paperwork. But there are relatively few programs that help immigrants find the information they need to legally take these initial steps and legalize their status.

Yes, unfortunately, this means these things tend to frequently get overlooked. Yes, many immigrants overstay their visas and don't acquire the proper visas to remain in the country. This act isn't criminal in itself; it's a civil offense. It's sort of like how a parking ticket is a civil infraction, not a criminal one. If I accidentally park in a restricted spot and get a ticket, it doesn't make me an "illegal driver." It doesn't make me a criminal.

Undocumented people (incorrectly referred to as "illegal aliens") are expressly NOT criminals under the law. They are undocumented people who need compassion, understanding, and a little bit of help. And this brings me to my second point as to why ICE is wholly unnecessary. Undocumented people are a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

Remember, ICE was created to HUNT terrorists after the events of September 11, 2001, and capture, confine, and deport those who were deemed potential terrorist threats to the United States.

ICE was created via the Homeland Security Act of 2002. But do you remember when Republicans and Democrats decried government overreach when the Patriot Act was passed? Why would the government need access to ALL OF OUR DATA?

Do you remember Edward Snowden? Do you remember why the U.S. Government was so hellbent on ruining his life? Because he was the whistleblower who showed the American people that the U.S. Government and the NSA had a global surveillance program that was spying–not only on foreign interests, including America's allies–but on its own people as well. Something that, prior to the Patriot Act, was unconscionable.

So, why is is wrong when the NSA practices a gross form of government overreach but not when ICE does it? Overreach is overreach.

But I’m getting off track. My point is, we already had immigration officers, we already had border patrol, we already had the U.S. Marshals Service, we already had the F.B.I., we already had Homeland Security and the NSA. But instead of using these agencies, this administration chose to quadruple its spending and give ICIE new paramilitary-style equipment and turn them into over glorified commando bounty hunters. Yeah, not exactly the wisest spending on the government's part.

Where was DOGE then? If you’re worried about your taxpayer dollars going to school meal programs so that school children from impoverished or low-income families can eat, but you’re not concerned about the $75 BILLION dollars spent on ICE for 2025, I don’t know what to tell you. I think DOGE could have made some better cuts other than Medicaid and school lunches. But that’s just me. $45 BILLION spent in 2024 simply to build more detention centers? Seriously

(Side note: I’m often troubled by the notion that people aren’t more upset by the cost of these detention centers, which, by the way, are not for the secure capture of terrorists. Shouldn’t that give you pause? But, if these detention centers remain, U.S. taxpayers are the ones who are going to foot the bill for decades to come. I really don’t see how a taxpayer would be fine footing an endless cost to an ineffective policy vs. desiring to support policies that actually benefit their fellow mankind, such as helping sick people and helping to feed kids. I guess I’m too damn compassionate for my own good.)

Why, might we ask, weren’t the already established agencies utilized? Why were taxpayer dollars wasted to bring back and resurrect an anti-terrorist group of Federal agents instead of, say, using the F.B.I. or the U.S. Marshals? A couple of reasons. The current administration, under Trump, has been antagonistic toward traditional law enforcement agencies. As such, Trump effectively reconstituted ICE so that he could use it for gathering up and deporting what he labeled as “Illegal Aliens.” (This terminology is highly problematic, which I’ll explain further below.) 

Secondly, Trump only hires "yes men," and there are too many Constitutional loyalists in these legacy agencies who would not break the law on his behalf. Trump needed to revamp an agency and pump it full of loyalists and yes-men who would blindly follow his orders and not let any of that civil law or patriotic constitutional business get in their way. Oh, and there wasn't any Congressional approval for any of this. And, yes, this makes it highly illegal. Yes, this means it's government overreach, regardless of if its being used on “illegals” or not.

Here’s the thing, though: Conservatives have statistically been shown to support the ideas of dictatorships and are fine with the idea of living under oppression. Numerous sociological studies have been conducted showing this exact phenomenon, and you can Google it if you don’t believe me. 

I’m not here to quote you a bunch of hard-won statistics, though; rather, I merely want to point out that the urge for Conservatives to stand up and defend the illicit activity of the President or of ICE agents is completely understandable. They’ve been conditioned to think totalitarianism is an acceptable tradeoff for security–for safety.

I personally don’t think it is. I don't think giving up our freedoms makes us more free.

And before you call me a bleeding heart liberal or "libtard," I am not liberal. Some of my positions lean liberal, yes. But I also hold centrist and right-wing/conservative views. It really depends on the issues being discussed, and I try not to be overly limited in my ideological political thinking.

I think it's important to vote for good policies, no matter who promotes them. I think voting for party and towing the party line does no good. It's not democratic. Falling in line and towing the line is serf behavior.

You may agree with me that there’s no single political position or policy that will always align with every individual's personal policies. The key to finding a well-balanced political worldview isn't to tow the party line, but rather to vote for better policies that improve our overall economic and social conditions. TIME AND TIME AGAIN is has been proved that ICE's deportation of undocumented people doesn't improve our overall economic or social conditions. Rather, the deportation of undocumented minorities actually hurts our economy by trillions of dollars. Immigrants make an enormous tangible impact on the United States, generating roughly $1.7 trillion to $2.1 trillion in annual economic output (GDP) and paying hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes each year. 

Comprehensive analyses from nonpartisan institutions like the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Brookings Institution, and the Cato Institute reveal the astounding scale of these contributions. As such, deporting undocumented people (aka "illegal aliens") only hurts our economy and increases the tax burden on American people.

How is that a good thing?

Which brings me to the third reason ICE shouldn’t exist in the first place. ICE is a byproduct of RACIST IDEOLOGY.

Imagine finding yourself in a foreign country where nobody speaks your language, and you’re just trying to get by. Let me ask you, without looking it up or using a translator, what is the form in Japan that you’d need to fill out to establish residency? 

Without knowing Japanese, how would you know what the form is called or where to find it? Do you pick it up at the Embassy, the Consulate, the City municipality, or the district municipality, or the post office? Who’s going to help you find the information needed to track this information down? How would you contact them? How would you gather this information?

If you can’t expect yourself to simply know the Japanese words for these technical documents, you cannot expect other people to know them for our country. That's just deductive reasoning. Expecting all immigrants to automatically know these things and simply know what to do isn’t actually fair. You're putting these people at a disadvantage and then punishing them for it because you cannot sympathize with their situation. You just see them as a burden, not as a neighbor. You see them as an illegal, not a human being.

“Illegal Alien” is a rage bait term to get you to think they are doing something illegal. Immigration is a civil matter, though, not a criminal matter. So, even if they are in breach of our laws, it’s not a criminal act. It’s a civil matter that can easily be corrected by being compassionate enough to put yourself in someone else's shoes and realize that helping them find the immigration office so they may fill out the proper paperwork isn’t the end of the world.

But, although “Illegal Alien” is a made-up term intended to demonize immigrants, just as race is a made-up concept to categorize human beings as categorically different so we can claim supremacy and inferiority when we are practically genetically identical at the level of our DNA, it doesn’t mean racism isn’t real.

Inegalitarian, baleful, xenophobic racists have frequently and consistently used the term “Illegal Alien” pejoratively to create a wedge in public policy and discourse to deliberately interfere with how we view and treat foreigners in this country. If you fell for that ruse, I’m sorry.

I’m sad to see so many Americans be casually okay with this line of rhetoric. That, somehow, in their twisted narrative, "Illegal Aliens" are everything wrong in this country or that they're bringing this country down. That's nonsense. It's the equivalent of rhetorical bile. And it's racism at its most hateful.

That's not hyperbole. That's not sensationalism. That's not defamation. And it's certainly not rhetorical. It's a direct consequence of holding such beliefs. If you don't want to be considered a racist, don't hold fast to racist ideologies. It's as simple as that.

The America I grew up in during the 80s seemed endlessly diverse. Racism existed, but people were about communities. Immigrants always made the strongest communities, and as long as they stayed to their little part of town, so to speak, the racists pretty much kept to themselves. The America I grew up in had Republicans and Democrats who welcomed immigrants. I watched the Ross Perot, George Bush, and Ronald Regan presidential debates on live television, where they applauded and welcomed immigrants into America.

I grew up in an America where there was still a whisper of the American Dream and where there were no Federal Agents shooting women in the streets because they looked at them the wrong way.

This current administration's style of discourse is anti-Democratic and untrustworthy. They constantly gaslight, gish-gallop, rage bait, obfuscate, and duck and dodge every criticism or question that would reveal their position to be little more than a house of cards.

At the end of the day, it saddens me when more people can’t see that they are being manipulated. I think people get too entrenched in this ME VS. THEM mentality. What we really need to be asking ourselves is, why am I being positioned in this way–and how am I letting them use me in a way that is beneficial to their agendas rather than my own?

Some will disagree with many of the points made here, and that’s fine. I think they’d be hard-pressed to find rational counterarguments or refutations to my reasoning, but they could certainly try. I am always willing to change my mind when adequately challenged.

As I opened with one of my favorite lines from George Orwell, I’ll close by quoting one of his most haunting insights.

“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.” ― George Orwell, 1984