Non-Monetized Together #svalien


You can also view this article at

As I’ve mentioned many times already, I decided to stop having political opinions and motivations in 2020 because I just couldn’t convince myself that my political views were any more important than anyone else’s. Becoming politically neutral means that the pro-life components of my Catholic faith are presented in a luminous new perspective that not everybody is familiar with.

People tend to assume that pro-lifers want to outlaw abortions using state control, but my political neutrality prevents me from supporting that. I would rather make it easy for others to find access to information on why abortion is not such a great idea. This way, I can make a positive difference in society without trying to gain control of society.

I believe this is a more empowering approach for people than traditional pro-life or pro-choice movements because it is centred on distributing knowledge, not on forming oppressive laws. This is what’s useful about my neutrality — you know I’m on your side and that I have no ulterior motives.

Besides, as an eager follower of Christ, I don’t want to turn people away from Catholicism. I want to present it as something people would want to get involved with. By the way, the lack of public religious discussion is a societal problem. You should be spreading your own religion’s knowledge, too, unless it discourages that sort of thing for whatever reason.

So, in this article, I will present the Church’s pro-life philosophy from the point of someone who wants to share a valuable perspective, not from someone who wants to control you for political gain:

Remember that the reason why murder is considered immoral is because it takes away a life, which is the most valuable thing someone can own. By this standard, abortion would be worse than murder of a fully-formed person because a fetus didn’t even get the chance to own their life yet.

Plus, there’s no concrete scientific proof as to the exact point all fetuses become human, so you run the risk of killing someone who has already gotten to that point. You would have to use personal feelings instead of scientific proof in order to justify abortion, which is really irresponsible when a potential life is at stake.

When someone’s dealing with personal problems so bad that they have to kill someone in order to overcome the problems (like gangs, drug addiction, sex trafficking, etc.), people would usually realize that the solution would have been to prevent the problem from getting out of control, offer the sufferer alternative solutions, or find a way for them to be less desperate. In these cases, it would be ridiculous to say the issue could be solved by making it easier to kill someone, like pro-abortion camps would. That wouldn’t solve the greater problem.

So if you want to convince a pro-life person that abortion is okay, you’ll have to not only persuade them that someone’s life isn’t valuable enough for them to take ownership of, but you will also have to find indisputable proof as to the exact moment when all fetuses become human.

#Abortion #Catholicism #Philosophy #Power


This article was originally published to Medium on February 22, 2022 (

Just wanted to mention that I noticed this story does not match the egalitarian tone that my blog is meant to express. It was written shortly after I joined Medium, back when I didn’t have as clear of a plan for the types of articles I wanted to write about. However, I felt the article was important enough that it should be kept online anyways.

When the article was posted to Medium, the article was originally published on the ILLUMINATION publication, not Nonmonetized Together. Now, by posting it to, this article can finally be published to Nonmonetized Together. Even though I try to make sure my Nonmonetized Together articles do not speak from authority as much as the article you’re about to read, I felt it should be saved onto because defeating prejudice is a critical component of Nonmonetized Together.

Here are some tips you can use to help yourself treat people fairly and avoid double standards.

1. Question your environment

Sometimes I hear people defend someone’s actions by pointing out that they are a product of their environment. While this may be an accurate explanation, it’s not an excuse. Neglecting critical reflection should not be normalized. It can be all too easy to take what you have grown up with for granted and assume that it is the right way of doing things. Questioning it can help you realize its areas for improvement, keeping you humble while working toward a better future.

2. Don’t reduce individuals to a low number of descriptors

Microsoft Office stock image

Remember that people are complex. Don’t let your entire understanding of a person be limited to a few characteristics — or worse, just one characteristic. If you don’t know someone well, remember that there is a lot about them that you haven’t learned yet, so it’s too early to jump to conclusions about who they are as a person. Some people have done very bad things, but if you define the person by those actions, you will end up forgetting about good things they have done.

3. Don’t describe groups as if they’re individuals

The only exception to this is if you are referring to a requirement of being in a group. Otherwise, you promote prejudice by applying an attribute to an entire group. It’s not even good enough to add that there are some exceptions among the group, as you already manufactured an association between the group and a concept. Negatively depicting a group fosters prejudice against them, but positively depicting a group runs the risk of double standards in the group’s favour.

4. Always try to help people, no matter who they are

Microsoft Office stock image

Obviously, don’t do anything to let yourself get manipulated, but helping people improve is very important. It will allow you to realize that everybody has challenges and that we are all just trying to get by. It’s awful how poorly some people treat abusers, for example. Imagine where society could be if they helped the abuser realize that they are not worthless and decided to help them get over their problems instead of harassing them. Abuser or not, if you do a good job at helping someone, they will appreciate that, which may result in building positive social bonds with them.

5. If you respect others, they will act more respectable to you

It’s that simple.

6. Don’t call out people as hypocrites

You know, not everybody someone will say will be 100% consistent. They may forget other things they said, they may change their mind, or they may struggle to be as motivated as much as they once were. It makes more sense to gently mention the thing that is making the person’s words seem a bit “off,” and ask for some sort of clarification.

#Discrimination #Equality #Prejudice #SocialJustice #Philosophy #Equity #Acceptance #Peace

Medium comments:

Don’t describe groups as if they’re individuals

I agree with you here Kevin.

But I believe that the reverse is also true, in that one shouldn't do it.

To prescribe charateristics (real or imagined) of a group to an individual is, I believe, just as destructive.

Thanks for the read.

Michael Zwierzanski

Yes, that’s true

Kevin the Nonmonetized

You have a point. Like actually people and the world is complicated yet our attitudes have the great responsibility of making the world a better place! Thank you for the amazing article, Kevin! :)


Glad you enjoyed it

Kevin the Nonmonetized


Rostyslav Savchyn/Unsplash

Have you ever looked back at something you have said or done and realized that it contradicted something else you know about yourself? You may immediately feel compelled to dismiss the contradiction as not meaning anything. Or, you may assume that they both apply to you and that you need to spend some time seeking an explanation for how this is possible.

I feel like people, including me, have an urge to understand ourselves, and believe that having a stable identity is the way to master this. We settle on one set of beliefs, values, and preferences. We only allow this to change if it’s because we’re getting older and moving on from the past. We don’t turn back to who we used to be.

So what do we do when we uncover a discrepancy between our words, thoughts, and/or actions, and we know that it has nothing to do with getting older? We try to create excuses so we can justify it.

But rarely do we consider the simplest explanation: we can’t be ourselves all the time.

How can you maintain consistency through all states of mind? When you are scared, you’re going to perceive more threats than when you feel safe. When you’re exercising, you’re going to be using different parts of your brain than when you’re reading Medium. When you’re alone, you’re going to feel freer than when you’re around others. When you’re speaking in a second language, its distinct grammatical features will cause you to interpret the world differently than when you’re using your first language.

These are just a few examples, but there are many other examples of our minds behaving differently depending on the circumstances. Entering a new state of mind will make you interpret things differently, and this includes interpreting yourself differently.

This doesn’t mean that it’s time to give up on cultivating a consistent understanding of ourselves. Quite the opposite.

Suzanne D Williams/Unsplash

I’m just offering an idea of what it means to harmonize our own identities. It’s not about being true to ourselves. It’s about self-improvement. It’s about drawing a line from where we started (internal discord) to a more stable future personhood.

We can and should work on increasing the stability of our identities. But that’s the thing: we have to work at it. Our natural identity is by definition the one we have when we aren’t working on piecing it together. It’s the non-unified one.

I believe if one accepts that they are naturally inconsistent, they can get a better understanding of who they are as individuals. They would hold themselves accountable for things that they would have previously considered “not something I would have done.” They would open themselves to a wider range of experiences than they would in the past. They would understand that politicians are obviously going to be inconsistent when they’re unscripted.

But it’s an ambitious, somewhat unrealistic standard to obtain.

This article was originally published to Medium on October 13, 2022 (

#Philosophy #PhilosophyAndSelf #FindingYourself #IdentityFormation #Psychology