Don't Spread Your Legs

In my previous posts* I have discussed the biblical, biological and ethical dimensions of the "pro-life" (i.e., anti-choice, forced-birth) debate.  Now I will address the more practical sociological concerns that affect nearly everyone on a personal level.

In the ongoing public debate around this issue there has been a recurring theme raised by the "pro-life" faction:
"If you don't want a baby, then don't spread your legs!"  The purpose of sex, they say, is reproduction, and if women don't want to be pregnant, then we shouldn't have sex.  It is that simple.

But, is it?  Let us consider the implications of this.

Obviously, one could argue that a better or more workable plan would be universal access to reliable birth control.
There are a few problems with this plan:
1.  Not everyone, in fact, has access to birth control, and most conservatives are opposed to birth control being provided as part of "Obamacare" because it supposedly violates their religious liberty as well as their wallet.  While it is true that generic birth control pills are available for $10 a month or less, the real expense is in the doctor visits and lab work that are required to obtain a prescription, which many women cannot afford.  Moreover, doctors will not prescribe The Pill or other hormonal methods to women with various underlying health issues, even though pregnancy and childbirth would be even more strongly contraindicated for these women.
2.  Many people who are opposed to abortion also argue against some of the most effective forms of birth control such as the Pill, the Patch and the IUD on the basis of their mistaken belief that these methods can cause abortion by preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum.  Others oppose any artificial birth control in principle, because it implies that pregnancy is undesirable and that babies could ever be anything but a blessing.
3.  The more readily available and affordable birth control, condoms, are typically only about 89% effective.  Even the best birth control is not 100% effective and pregnancy can result despite the most careful precautions.

So, this brings us back to the assertion that abstinence is the only valid approach for any woman who is not ready and willing to bear a child at any given time.

Perhaps this is not particularly bad advice for, say, young teenagers who are still in school, assuming that they can manage to control themselves despite their raging hormones, which unfortunately history and statistics suggest they can't.  I don't think that girls under 18 necessarily ought to be having sex; even though most of us did and they probably will, I would prefer that they pay attention to their textbooks and ignore the boys for a few years.  But, in a society where many people postpone marriage and childbearing until they are finished with college and established in their careers (which, IMO, is a good idea), typically around 28 years old, is it really reasonable to expect that they will remain celibate until that time?

Ah, celibacy.  This is something that I know quite a bit about, having been celibate myself for 14 years, from the time I became a [third-order] Sister until I got together with my husband 9 years ago.**  Interestingly, I received fierce criticism from all sides regarding my lifestyle choice.  Friends, family members, coworkers and complete strangers, liberal, conservative and otherwise, told me that my lifestyle was abnormal and wrong!  Society is, after all, oriented around couples and family life, and sex is the glue that holds romantic relationships together.  So while the conservatives say they support celibacy in theory, it's quite another matter when you actually practice it, then suddenly you are going against God and Nature.  Basically, in my experience you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I had fully intended to remain happily celibate until I died, but as we know, life often turns out differently than we had imagined.  I say "happily" because yes, if you have the "gift" - the rare vocation - it can be a very happy life indeed, especially if you know advanced yoga practices.  In fact, there are places you can go in meditation that involve ecstasy as far beyond ordinary sex as mushrooms are beyond beer.  And, being a yoga teacher, I can show you how to get there!  But, it requires years of discipline and undistracted practice, so if you are going to learn, I strongly recommend that you do it before having kids, because once you are busy raising a family, it is highly unlikely that you will have the time and energy to do so.

And this brings us to the next problem with the "keep your legs closed" plan:  It's not just irresponsible young teenagers and wild 20-something singles who are having sex.  Contrary to popular belief, married people also have sex!  At least, many of them do.  So, if we are to take the plan seriously - that a woman should ONLY have sex if and when she is prepared to have a baby - this means that married couples must stop having sex once they have had all the children that they can manage to support.  While the Vatican encourages couples to remain "open to life" because "God will provide," realistically I think experience demonstrates that He won't.  In today's economy, most people can probably afford no more than one or two kids, which will likely be born within the first few years of the marriage, after which there will be no more sex according to this plan.

Now, I'm sure many wives won't have a problem with this, because they are exhausted from working [since nowadays both spouses need to work in order to support a family] and taking care of the kids; their husbands aren't that great in bed anyway, it's hardly worth the trouble, and if a woman really feels the need, a vibrator can do the trick.  Being "pro-life" and sincerely concerned about a potential baby that you cannot afford to give birth to, never mind raise, is a convenient excuse to ward off your husband's unwanted advances.

But, the "don't spread your legs, you slut!" program neglects the other half of the equation.  After all, women don't become pregnant all by themselves.  What about the men?  While I have found that many "pro-life" men endorse this slogan with great passion in online discussions, I wonder how they feel about it in real life.  Men, are you serious that you really, truly, don't want your wife, girlfriend or mistress to have sex with you unless she is ready and willing to have a baby, and that you are willing to stop having sex after the number of babies you can afford to support, have been born?  REALLY?

For some reason I don't believe this.  And if you're honest, neither do you, unless you are in fact gay or closet gay, in which case good for you!  You'll never have to worry about unwanted pregnancy again, since men cannot get pregnant.  But for the rest of you [straight] husbands, no, I'm not buying it.  I don't believe that you are really willing to be celibate the rest of your life.  As I said above, celibacy is a rare gift and more than likely, not one that you would prefer to receive.

So if the women are supposed to keep our legs closed, then with whom are all you [straight] men planning to have sex??

I think we can all agree that this "don't spread your legs!" idea, while it sounds all morally righteous in theory, is not a practical solution.  People are going to have sex and unwanted pregnancies are going to result.  So, what is left?

Adoption, of course!  Adoption is the "pro-life" solution to everything.  Never mind that orphanages and foster homes are already overflowing with unwanted children who desperately need homes.  It's bad enough for the children.  But what about the women?  If the men keep having sex with their wives/ girlfriends/ mistresses which will inevitably result in pregnancies which if carried to term they won't be able to afford, what is going to happen?

Simple:  Poor women will have to give up their babies for adoption by rich women who either cannot conceive, or would rather not be bothered by the messy and uncomfortable [to say the least!] process of pregnancy and childbirth which would interfere with their high-paying careers.  So assuming that in fact there are enough such wealthy families to adopt the babies (which the "pro-life" people assure me there are, despite statistics to the contrary), then we have "The Handmaid's Tale."  And apparently everybody is ok with that.

You know, on second thought, maybe it's not a bad idea after all.  Maybe women in states where laws are being passed to infringe on their reproductive rights, ought to keep their legs closed.  Don't give the men sex until the laws are repealed, especially if your spouse is a politician or lobbyist.  Help your men to understand the real-world implications of these policies.

* 
Is The Bible Pro-Life?
How Pro-Life Are You?

Privacy, Property and Communism
The Gift of Life

The Allegedly Nonexistent War on Women

Biology, Personhood and Civil Rights

** Third order religious, who live outside of the convent, are permitted to marry.  See my account of celibacy and relationships here.

Biology, Personhood and Civil Rights

I have already discussed the issue of abortion at great length and in some depth in the past (1) and thought I had said everything I needed to say about it. Lately, however, I have noticed in the public debate two recurring themes which demand further discussion, namely, a lack of understanding about basic biology, and the implications of "personhood" with regard to civil rights.

Many of us had believed that the fight for sovereignty over our own bodies was settled years ago, back in the 1960s and 1970s, in America.  But we were wrong.  Now that we are menopausal, here in 2013, our daughters and granddaughters are facing the same battle.  One might think that this right to bodily integrity was self-evident, but apparently it is not, based on the quantity of legislation being introduced and the many commentaries posted on the subject.

Texas, North Carolina, Virginia and several other states are in the process of trying to pass more restrictions on abortion, both by changing the licensing requirements in order to shut down clinics on technicalities, as well as rolling back the allowable time limits based on, e.g., whether/when a fetus is able to feel pain (medical science is unclear on this), or when the heartbeat can be detected.  A more dramatic proposal, which is included in the official GOP agenda, is the "Personhood Act" which would define a fertilized ovum as a "person" with the same rights as any other person, making abortion and some forms of birth control, such as the IUD, completely illegal.

Other legislation is even more drastic, adopting the so-called "gestational age" of the fetus as being the date of the woman's last menstrual cycle which, technically, is about 2 weeks before fertilization occurs!  Proponents argue that it is valid because obstetricians use this method.  It is true that the LMP is used for convenience since the actual date of conception is rarely known.  However, it is only a formality, in much the same way that the first birthday of all Thoroughbred racehorses is arbitrarily stated as January 1.  If we needed to know the horse's actual age for medical reasons, such as to assess the maturation of bones, it would be necessary to use the real birth-date.  Likewise, the actual age of a fetus according to embryology is the "developmental age" which begins at fertilization.  The purpose of the legislation using the date of LMP is to restrict a woman's access to abortion by an additional 2 weeks.

Now, there has been much discussion as to when a zygote or fetus becomes a "person."  Some say all that is required is human DNA, so the zygote is a "person" as soon as the sperm meets the egg, which is actually prior to pregnancy!  The onset of "pregnancy" is defined by medical science as implantation in the uterus, which occurs 7-10 days after fertilization, towards the end of the woman's cycle (in contrast to the "gestational age" which erroneously uses the first day of her LMP, nearly a month prior to implantation).  Some say that a fetus becomes a person when the heartbeat is detected, others when brain activity and/or neurological development reaches a certain stage.

According to the classical Judeo-Christian tradition, the baby becomes a living person independent from the mother when it draws its first breath, because the breath is life, although it should be noted that technically only male infants one month of age or older were counted as "persons"; females were not "persons" at all. (2)  Roe v. Wade, the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in in 1973, permits abortion until the third trimester, at which time a fetus becomes "viable," meaning that it can survive outside of the mother's body, which could likewise be equated with "personhood."

Many people insist that it is pointless to define "personhood" at any particular stage because they imagine fetal development as a steady continuum from conception to birth which, if not interrupted by abortion, would naturally result in a live baby.  They believe that God/Nature has a plan for every single fertilized ovum and that abortion at any stage disrupts this otherwise perfect process.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth!  This belief reveals a significant and widespread misunderstanding about biology on the part of the general public, including many legislators.  The startling reality is that the vast majority of fertilized ova never make it to implantation.  Between 60% and 80% of fertilized ova fail to implant and are expelled with the next menstrual period.   Of the approximately 30% which do successfully implant in the uterus and establish a pregnancy, about 1/3 will undergo spontaneous abortion ("miscarriage").  Therefore in the natural course of events, even if there were no intentional abortions, only about 20% of zygotes, at best, would make it to full-term; all the rest are aborted, and a live birth is the exception rather than the rule! (3)  This epidemic of "lost babies" should raise ethical questions in that if they are "persons," don't we have an obligation to save them by finding ways to prevent miscarriage?  Don't they all have a right to medical care in utero to correct the birth defects leading to spontaneous abortion?  And whenever a woman has a miscarriage, shouldn't that require a criminal investigation to determine whether she was guilty of manslaughter?

Regardless of how many "babies" are spontaneously aborted by God/Nature, the anti-choice argument is that a woman cannot voluntarily abort if the fetus is a "person," because that would be murder.  However, I think the "personhood" argument completely misses the point, and that is why I am blogging about it again today, even though I've already discussed it in my previous articles.

Let's assume, just for the sake of the argument, that a fertilized ovum is a "person" with equal rights as already-born persons.  Is a woman therefore required to carry it to term?  If the fetus has a "right to live" then the woman has no right to kill it.  But, what if we don't kill it?  A point that has been almost entirely overlooked in this argument is that the purpose of abortion, after all, is not the death of the fetus, but simply its removal from the woman's body who doesn't want it inside of her.  So, what if we just gently remove the fetus from the body of its unwilling host, without harming it?

The problem is that, much like a parasite, the fetus is unable to survive outside of the woman's body until a very late date in gestation (as reflected by Roe v. Wade).  So even if it is removed very gently, it will still die.  It needs to use the woman's body for the following functions:
1.  Ventilation.  The fetus cannot breathe on its own and must receive oxygen from the woman's bloodstream.
2.  Food and drink.  The fetus cannot eat on its own.  The woman must "eat for two" in order to provide the fetus with the nourishment and hydration it needs to develop from a single cell into a full-term baby.
3.  Shelter.  The fetus is completely vulnerable to the elements.
4.  Utilities/waste disposal.  The fetus needs the woman to process its wastes through her body, particularly the kidneys.

So the real question is not, should the woman be allowed to "murder" the fetus? but rather, does the fetus have a right to stay inside of the woman's body and use her womb, lungs, bloodstream, calories and kidneys against her will for 9 months so as to be provided with all the things that it needs in order to survive?

If the "pro-life" people were communists I would be more sympathetic to their assertion that the fetus does, in fact, have such a right.  But since the vast majority of "pro-lifers" also claim to support private property rights and strongly oppose welfare and other social programs which provide exactly the above services to already-born people, I must question that claim.  If you say you want "equal rights for the unborn," but are unwilling to provide the SAME rights to already-born people, then you are actually giving the unborn rights beyond anybody else's.  In America nothing is for free; food, shelter, utilities, even necessary medical care is a "privilege," not a right!  But many of the people who protest that they should not be obliged to give their hard-earned money to provide the basic necessities of life to already-born persons, are the same ones who insist that a woman should be forced to provide for the needs of an unwanted fetus.

Some have stated that a woman automatically "agrees" to carry a pregnancy to term whenever she willingly has sex, and "if she doesn't want to have a baby, she should keep her legs closed."  But, since fertilization occurs several days after intercourse, the fetus did not exist at that time, so we might question with whom the alleged agreement was made.  Of course, the ideal solution would be universal access to contraception, but the technology is not 100% effective.  In addition, many who oppose abortion also oppose contraception, on the basis that it promotes the "culture of death" by implying that pregnancy could ever be unwanted.  In any case, the argument is that a woman should only have sex when she is able and willing to have a baby.

Now, imagine if the same rule applied to your house as to her body.  What if you invited someone over for supper and he said, "Wow, that was a great meal!  I'm going to enjoy living here."  A bit taken aback, you say, "Excuse me?"  He explains, "Well, I lost my job recently, the bank foreclosed on my house, it's the middle of winter and I have nowhere else to go."  You reply, "I'm really sorry to hear that, but I'm not in a position to take on a house guest.  I am broke myself and I have to support my own kids.  Look, I don't even have a spare room."  "That's ok," he says, "I will sleep in your bed with you."  After some discussion, the guy refuses to leave.  You call the police and are informed that you have to let him stay due to the Affordable Housing Act signed by President Obama.  The law says that by inviting a person into your house you are thereby agreeing to let them stay and be supported by you for 9 months.  So if you don't want a 9-month house guest, then you must never allow anyone into your home for any reason.  Or, if you fail to lock your doors and windows and somebody gets in, it's your own fault for failing to secure the premises.  That person has a right to life; they have no food, no coat, and nowhere else to go, and if you throw them out, particularly during the winter, they will die and you'll be guilty of murder.

That's communism!  Unthinkable!  But the "right to lifers" are asking more of a woman than just to provide the fetus with food, water, shelter and utilities for 9 months.  She is required to keep it inside of her body, which is quite a bit more "inconvenient" than having a house guest.  Moreover, the fetus has a "right" not only to gestate inside of her womb, but at the end of the 9 months, to exit through her vagina (the euphemistically named "birth canal"), a process involving considerable pain as well as probably some degree of physical injury, and which can even result in death.

Let us keep in mind that, again, this gives the fetus "rights" far beyond what any born person has.  No man can use a woman's vagina without her permission; it is a crime called rape.

Statistically, most rapes are over relatively quickly and do not necessarily result in serious physical injury (although there will be lingering psychological damage).  By contrast, the fetus uses the vagina during its exit from the womb anywhere from 4 to 8 hours, in the culmination of excruciating, gut-wrenching labor pains that can last 24 hours, and while a rapist's unwelcome penis is painful, it pales in comparison to the baby's head which stretches or tears the vagina to about 10 cm, nearly 4 inches in diameter.  Hemorrhage is a common complication of this process, but in America it rarely results in death; only about 2 women per day die from childbirth here.  In other places, such as Afghanistan, the maternal death rate is as high as 50%.

Anyone who refers to giving birth as a mere "inconvenience" is either ignorant or lying; it is a violent, traumatic assault on a woman's body.  Even the most "uncomplicated" birth under the best circumstances, where a woman is happy and enthusiastic about bringing her baby into the world, is no picnic.  How much more torturous would it be for a woman or a terrified child who did not want to be pregnant in the first place, especially if it was the result of rape?!  But according to the "pro-lifers," because the fetus is a "person" it has a "right" to demand this of the woman and she should be legally required to endure it.

What is wrong with this picture?  Are we really talking about "equal rights" here?  Clearly, we are not.  When the "pro-life" rhetoric talks about the "right to life," it is giving the fetus property rights over the woman's body, as well as immunity to laws against rape and assault, not allowed to any born person.  Does the "right to life" include the right to make other people give us whatever we need in order to survive and if so, why does it only apply to fetuses and not already born people?  In essence the fetus is granted rights which nobody else has and which trump the rights of the person in whose body it resides with or without her permission.  And if all fetuses have this right to life, why are we only focusing on the 10% that were unwanted - what about the other 80% that were wanted, but lost due to spontaneous abortion?

Call me cynical, but I don't believe this is about "babies" or "the right to life" at all.  It is a backlash against the sexual revolution, an attempt by the patriarchy to regain control over women's bodies, to put us back in our place, barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen; to keep us out of the workforce and turn us into obedient broodmares.  "Babies" are being used as a sentimental ploy to sway public opinion and I'm not buying it.

I trust God/Nature to know what He/She is doing in the natural biological course of events which result in spontaneous abortions being the norm and full-term births being the anomaly.  And I trust women, who have the power to give life or withhold it, to choose wisely.

(1)  The Allegedly Nonexistent War on Women
and my "pro-life" series:
Part 1 - Is The Bible Pro-Life?
Part 2 - How Pro-Life Are You?
Part 3 - Privacy, Property and Communism
Part 4 - The Gift of Life

(2)  http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_biblh.htm

(3)  http://amirrorclear.net/academic/papers/scourge.pdf