Conversion

At 9:30 on Saturday, February 10, 1996, I changed from pro life to pro abortion. The purpose of this essay is to explain why.

The actual experience went like this: I went to the kitchen to get a drink, during the watching of Sisters, an NBC series that attempts to present feminist doctrine in an attractive way. (My family likes it). As I walked through the kitchen, I thought that since I lose no sleep over spilt semen, why is it different for fetuses. Since we are choosing an arbitrary moment to identify as the transitional moment when an entity transforms from potential into real human, why not the moment of birth. We would then have the advantageous possibility of relieving thalidomide babies of the necessity of suffering through their pitiable lives.

That was the actual experience but it doesn't include the actual reason for the change. I believe that the most dangerous threat to humanity is overpopulation. I have believed that for a long time, but the intensity with which I believe it slowly rises. If you believe as do I, the next question to confront one is: should humanity try to avoid this danger? This is a very hard question. Many believe that the events described in Revelation are inevitable, and to attempt to avoid this fate is not only futile but risks defiance of God's will. From the Lord's Prayer, we know this to be the most devout hope a Christian has, to avoid defying God's will. This would appear to be the Catholic position on the question, though they refuse to elaborate.

My thinking on the subject, as represented in my Theory of Mutual Dependence, leads also to the conclusion that overpopulation is inevitable and part of the synchronization process that new species must endure. None the less, I have reached that stage in my thinking and feeling on this subject, that I conclude that, even though it is probably futile, it would be inhuman not to make the effort to attempt to survive, and to avoid catastrophe. I base this conclusion on the similar reasoning that leads me to the conclusion that mankind can do no other than assume that he is an important species with a right to survive. That for humans this is a virtual fact.

So, to avoid population meltdown, it will be necessary to settle on a strategy for avoidance. That isn't too hard, as the UN says, you must use every means to reduce the rate of growth, while at the same time hanging on to the philosophical reasoning that leads us to inoculate humans against viruses, which obviously creates the problem in the first place and continues to exacerbate it. This means interdicting sperm while it is being transferred from the male to the female in some way, and when that fails, aborting the fetus. I believe this must be done by government edict since it would be immoral for a human to do it.

This also puts me in the position of supporting Dr. Kervorkian, and to support the cause of legalization of drugs and humane treatment of homosexuals. It does not mean I have to support perverse sexual practices, though. But it may cause me to relabel some sexual practices from perverse to normal. It may not be clear why I am moved in these areas also, but I would say that they are all part of the same cloth.

My position has been liberalizing for several months. I think the main reason for this change is the debate in Town Hall, on the network, on the subject of evolution. The most intense fundamentalists require that the earth be 4004 years old, which I believe is arrived at by adding up the years of life as recounted in the Bible of the generations of Jews. This is so irrational that it throws the whole Christian view of life into question. This eventually led me to investigate pagan creation myths and compare them to the Christian ones and to discover they bear a striking resemblance.

The Christian position, therefore, in the area of the genesis of the earth and species is, in my view untenable. Having reached that conclusion and seeing that many of the Christian myths are restatements of pagan myths, I am led, inevitably to the question of why Christianity is so harsh with homosexuals. Physically, it makes no sense. I am led to the conclusion that this is a part of Judeo/Christianity because it enhances the survival chances for the Jewish tribe by maximizing procreative potential. Thus, it no longer, in an overcrowded world, makes sense.

The next question is drugs. After reading the February 1996 issue of National Review, I'm convinced that no rational person can remain opposed to drug legalization and in possession of these facts. Beyond that, one has to ask why humans are so opposed to these Dionesian kinds of drugs (intoxicating drugs). I guess the first reason is that Judeo/Christianity is very serious about life and is repelled by drunkenness for this reason. Beyond that, Judeo/Christianity is very creative and nobody does worthy creation while drunk.

The reasoning behind the Kervorkian support is obvious from the preceding. The reason to prolong a suffering life is to endorse the sanctity of life view and therefore promote procreation. In an overcrowded world, it no longer makes sense. The slippery slope problem still obtains, of course, but that is always with us and has to be guarded against in the usual way.

Finally, in case I have not emphasized it enough, I am not pro choice. This means that individual women make the decision of life or death for fetus'. By and large, they are not wise enough to make such a difficult choice. On the other hand, the government will be forced to issue birth licenses, eventually, and to abort the fetus' that are unlicensed. This avoids the danger of women committing sins for personal convenience. They did, of course, sin in conceiving, if unmarried, but that is in no way a sin of the magnitude of child killing.