Support This Website! Shop Here!

Thursday, December 04, 2003

A Modest Prophecy

With the 1968 release of Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI prophesied the explosion of pornography, divorce and sexually transmitted diseases. The prophesy came true.

By the 1970’s, the pro-life movement prophesied that if abortion remained legal, child abuse would explode and lead to the legalization of sodomy and child sex. The first has come true, the second is so close to realization that nothing stands in its way. When we have a former Surgeon General (Jocelyn Elders) writing a glowing forward to a book that praises child-adult sex, when the American Psychological Association asserts that child-adult sex is not necessarily a psychiatric problem, when abortionists are never prosecuted for failing to report statutory rape, there really isn’t much farther to go.

Here’s a prophecy I made in the early 1990’s. Over a decade ago, when I was a pro-life atheist and the Web was still a glimmer in the eyes of Swiss researchers, I regularly took part in a pro-life Internet bulletin board debate in a group called alt.abortion. Because Jeffrey Dahmer’s crime was still front page headlines, and because the pro-abortionists in the discussion were always making outrageous statements about the sanctity of bodily autonomy, I proposed the following scenario:

“Assume,” I said, “that Jeffrey Dahmer’s victims were willing victims. What if they wanted to be killed and eaten? According to your theory of personal rights, Dahmer couldn’t be convicted of a crime, could he? He wouldn’t have committed one. After all, his victim has the right to do whatever he chooses with his body. Maybe Jeff and his victim were homosexual lovers. If he chooses to have Jeff make a meal of him, then who are we to get involved in affairs of the bedroom?”

Amazingly, a few of the pro-aborts agreed that he would not have committed a crime, and that government had no business interfering in such a situation. Most, however, responded by saying the situation was absurd: no one would do that. I was just a crazy pro-lifer grasping at straws to maintain an impossible position.

Looks like they were wrong.

You may or may not have heard, but Germany is prosecuting the surviving homosexual who lived exactly this. The police know it was a consensual killing and consumption, because a videotape shows the victim’s male member being cut off and eaten by both gay men together before the victim was dispatched.

Sadly, the Germans are having real trouble prosecuting the case. Seems the defense wants to argue for consensual action between two mature people, asserting that this was really just assisted suicide, which is legal in Germany. The German police, on the other hand, insist it was a killing for sexual satisfaction, which is illegal, and the disturbance of a corpse, which is also illegal. Germany has no laws against cannibalism.

Oddly enough, American news outlets have not reported much on this story. When they have, they don't mention that it involved two gay men, nor do they name the body part that was severed and eaten. Which just goes to show that we shouldn't judge the news media too harshly. They may give us gays and sex in prime-time sitcoms, but they clearly want to spare our innocent ears the torrid details when it comes to the news. Aren't they sweet?

I have only one question: would consensual consumption be legal here? Personally, I don’t see why not. Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton have already established the right to privacy as a right of highest importance. The government has no business invading our bedrooms. If a woman and her doctor have a right to kill a child for reasons of bodily autonomy, certainly a man and his lover have a right to assisted suicide for reasons of bodily autonomy - indeed, assisted suicide is legal in Oregon. If there are no attempts to rip off an insurance company through the death, who is being harmed?

It’s also not clear why any laws concerning disturbance of a corpse would apply - after all, the victim clearly stated that he preferred neither burial nor cremation but a nice garnish with a bottle of white wine. On what grounds does the state interfere? Health? But what if both were healthy? Besides, the Supreme Court, in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, established that “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” In Lawrence vs. the State of Texas, the high court made specific reference to this portion of the Casey decision in order to find Texas laws against sodomy unconstitutional.

So, the law of the land certainly has all the elements necessary to support consensual homosexual cannibalism. But there is further precedent.

Long before the perverse and evil Christians of Western Europe descended like locusts on the pure and innocent American native, the Aztecs had a quaint religious custom: they cut the still-beating heart out of a man’s chest as part of their liturgical celebrations. They slaughtered up to 80,000 people a year this way. The east coast inhabitants of North America, the Indians who lived close to nature, to Mother Earth and Sister Wind, yea, verily even the forefathers of Pocahantus, regularly sliced up and ate captives, in that order. Even atheists remarked on the fact that the only reason the practice stopped was due to the influence of Jesuit missionaries (several of whom were also eaten and killed, in that order).

So, as long as the victim was of the same religion and/or agreed to having it done to them, who has the right to stop them? Who are we to judge? Don’t all religious traditions have value? Shouldn’t we draw from everyone’s experience if we want to discover our true selves? After all, who are we to judge alternate religions, sexualities or gourmet tastes?

The Germans have found themselves in the dilemma posed by Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons: "When you knock all the laws flat… what will you hide behind when the devil whirls to face you?” Like the Ten Little Indians of Agatha Christie’s novel, the laws are being knocked flat one by one. What will we do when - not if, but when - this situation presents itself here?

No comments: