When at university about 1970 I asked why conflict pervades our lives. After years I found the answer is simply the question of meaning I call "the last why" since it will never be answered. Still, we try and have tried to "fill the void" behind "Why am I?" in ways that conflict, since it was first asked by 'Eve'. Thus we've created our open-ended history of conflict we will soon close if we don't instead choose the "ideal reaction to the void".

In 2005 I decided to see if I was a fool for asking by seeking reaction to my analysis the only way an anonymous carpenter could, on this website. I first tried to attract visits with prose posts but changed to
poetry for reason in rhyme is memorable. I've had to advertise so I could be twice the fool but I remain undecided. Thanks for sharing. Doug.E.Barr  






Follow DougEBarr on Twitter 


Owner Login


Abortion can not be justified in "real life". I define "real life" as the existence that would be if all of us were reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God, the ideal reaction to the void. This natural activity, which results in self-realization, begins at conception; and we can argue otherwise only when living a less than "real life". Natural activity ends with an act of nature. Therefore, if the capacity exists, interrupting an individual's effort to "reach out..." at any stage of life for any reason, I consider to be a crime against humanity. In "real life" I see only one right, and that is reaching out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God. I see all obstacles to, interference with and certainly interruptions of this natural activity outside the definition of "right". If we can agree to call what is outside "the right", wrong,  then  clearly, abortion is wrong.

In what I see as our present much less than "real life", generally we do not consider all interruptions crimes against humanity. As members of groups we kill great numbers of each other in 'justifiable wars' with no apparent punishment for our crimes, unless as individuals we break the 'rules of war'. Then we risk being punished for some sort of war crime. In the same puddle of muddy reasoning we dither over definitions of genocide, ethnic cleansing and civil war. Millions of us allow millions of others to die of starvation without fear of retribution. We do punish to some degree individuals who kill other post-birth individuals. However, we give ourselves permission to abort the lives of pre-birth individuals trying only to become what they are capable of being. 

The apparent reason for these legalized abortions is that enough of us believe it is a basic human right for women "to choose". The real reason is that majority of us is predominantly trying to fill the void. In this context of unnatural activity we can justify getting rid of any obstacles, interferences and interruptions because we believe we have the right to fill the void in our own way. When trying to fill the void, nothing else matters. I suggest one of the eight ways we try to fill the void is with our anaesthetic reaction to it, which includes sex. When trying to fill the void with sex, all individuals who are killed at any stage of life are merely collateral damage, the innocent victims of the war against emptiness. 

My interpretation of our existence is that we are proving we can not win this war by trying to fill the void in any way. My sense is that if we keep exercising our perceived individual right to fill the void in our own way, we will self-destruct in an escalating rate of all crimes against humanity. If it matters, I believe we can reverse this wave of crime by simply exercising our common human right to reach out to the limits of our capacities, to others and to God; to become what we are capable of being. (the last why: the poem) 

Reader Comments (2)

The comment that I had in mind as I read the poem was made by you in the last paragraph. By reaching out to others and especially to God and reaching and focusing outside ourselves, there no longer is a void. What a great feeling. At least that is the way it has worked for me.
November 7, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterCarolyn Plitz

What a metaphysical conundrum! If there should be no interference from the body politic with the body politic's having, indiscriminately, of children, then there should be no responsibility of the body politic for the body politic's indiscriminately engendered children. Please to make up our minds.And to "leave it to God" when it is a social problem is the same as an ostrich sticking its head underground, which, I think, in reality an ostrich is too intelligent to do. Either regulate the having of children or leave it to the mothers, "either way."
Or get warlike, insisting people do it "your way."


Metaphysical conundrums are the consequence of imaginary dichotomies. We can say, if a society can not interfere with procreation then a society should not be responsible for the consequences, only because we have the pervasive, absurd notion that we are separate from each other and that society is separate from and in opposition to individuals. In real life there is no "Either...or...". There is also the fact that if we don't soon empty our minds of the religious/philosophical ideas that separate us from 'Her' and each other at all stages of life and prevent self-motivated, pre-conception, cooperative population control, our 'Mother Nature' will abort the brain dead human life form she has been carrying, before we have a chance to realize our full potential. Doug.E.Barr

June 8, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMila

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>