START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
731,328 people care about Women's Rights

Pro-Life or Just Pro-Sperm?

Pro-Life or Just Pro-Sperm?

 

Written by David Morris, Common Dreams

Recent events make clear the need for a new language to describe the raging debate about sex and birth.  Consider the problematic word that dominates our conversation:  pro-life.

Most pro-life organizations more accurately should be labeled pro sperm.  For they insist the sperm has the inalienable, indeed the God-given right to pursue the egg without human enabled interference.  Joseph M. Scheidler, the National Director of the Pro-Life Action League memorably declared, “I think contraception is disgusting-people using each other for pleasure.” Judith Brown, President of The American Life Lobby asserts its opposition “to all forms of birth control with the exception of natural family planning.”

The Catholic Church is fervently pro-sperm.  Decades before the Church mobilized against abortion it mobilized against contraception.  As late as 1960, many states outlawed sales of contraceptives.  The Catholic Church was the driving force behind these laws.  In the 1940s, Connecticut legislators introduced bills allowing physicians to prescribe contraceptives only for married couples if a pregnancy would be life threatening.  The Catholic Church swung into action.   One historian describes the process;  “priests became heavily involved…Their efforts were not confined to anti-birth control sermons on Sundays.  They engaged in voter registration drives, they encouraged parishioners to support anti-birth control candidates for the legislature, and they actively campaigned to defeat any changes in the birth control laws”.  The bills failed.

Prior to 1930, all Christian denominations held that contraception was contrary to God’s will. Then one by one, beginning with the Church of England they began to accept birth control.

Many expected the Catholic Church to follow suit.  In the mid 1960’s Pope Paul VI appointed a commission on birth control to advise him on the issue.  An overwhelming majority of its members favored lifting the ban. In his 1968 Encyclical, Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life) the Pope summarized the argument of the majority.

“world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequences that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships… not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family…(we need to take into account) a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, or the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love…

…if one were to apply here the so-called principle of totality, could it not be accepted that the intention to have a less prolific but more rationally planned family might transform an action which renders natural processes infertile into a licit and provident control of birth?  Could it not be admitted, in other words, that procreative finality applies to the totality of married life rather than to each single act?  A further question is whether, because people are more conscious today of their responsibilities, the time has not come when the transmission of life should be regulated by their intelligence and will rather than through the specific rhythms of their bodies…”

Pope Paul VI decided that the rights of the sperm transcended any and all of these arguments.  The use of contraception, he concluded results in “an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life.”

But the biological facts make God’s design less than clear.  Consider that when artificial birth control or abortion is not used, more often than not God chooses death, not life.  A third to a half of fertilized eggs do not implant.  Some doctors believe this figure could be as high as 80 percent. A third of those that do implant end up in spontaneous miscarriages.  Does the pro-life movement believe this makes God a mass murderer?

In 1965 the Supreme Court overturned state laws that prohibited married couples from buying contraceptives.  In 1972 it extended this ruling to cover unmarried individuals.  A few months later, in Roe v. Wade, it determined that states could not prohibit women from intervening in the reproductive process after the egg is fertilized.

Every year pro-life organizations gather to condemn Roe v. Wade but it may be instructive to point out that the typology used by the Court was very close to that which guided the Catholic Church and many other major religions for thousands of years.

The early Christians adopted Aristotle’s framework that embryos pass through three distinct stages and only become fully human in the last stage.  Saint Augustine, one of the most influential Catholic theologians, proposed that abortion in the first trimester should not be regarded “as homicide, for there cannot be a living soul in a body that lacks sensation due to its not yet being formed.”

At the beginning of the 13th century Pope Innocent II declared that “quickening” (the time when the woman first feels the fetus move within her) was the moment at which abortion became homicide.  In 1591, Pope Gregory XIV proclaimed that quickening occurred after 116 days, that is, into the second trimester.   That guidance remained Church policy until 1869 when Pope Pius IX eliminated the distinction between the animated and non-animated fetus and required excommunication for abortions at any stage of pregnancy.

In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court took a page from Aristotle and permitted increasingly severe restrictions by the state depending on the age of the fetus.  In the first 12 weeks, the Court prohibited states from imposing any restrictions on a woman’s right to an abortion.  In the second trimester, states may regulate abortion procedures to protect the health of the woman.  In the third trimester (after 27 weeks), when fetuses may be viable outside of the womb, states may restrict abortions.

Nearly 90 percent of all abortions occur in the first trimester. Six in ten are undertaken in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy.  About 9 percent occur in the second trimester, but many of these are a result of a delay caused by a lack of financial resources or state enacted stalling laws.  About .01 percent of abortions are performed after the 20th week.

For many Republicans, it is often said, life begins at conception and ends at birth, although I might amend this perspective given the recent evidence that for many life begins before conception.  Consider that all but one of 47 Republican Senators voted in favor of a bill allowing any employer to deny coverage of birth control in the company’s insurance policies.  In any event, it is clear that pro-life Republicans seem remarkably unconcerned with the health of newborns. A comprehensive review of abortion and child welfare policies in all 50 states found that states with the most restrictive abortion laws spend the least on education, on facilitating adoption and on nurturing poor children. These states also have fewer mandates requiring insurance providers to cover minimum hospital stays after childbirth.

A recent case in point. The Texas legislature has slashed its family planning budget from $111 million to $38 million, cuts that would eliminate services for nearly 284,000 women.

All four current Republican presidential candidates would eliminate Title X created in 1970 with Republican support from President Nixon and the elder George Bush, then a congressman. Title X does not pay for abortions. Only some of it covers birth control.

It appears that today’s Republican Party will pull out all the stops to protect the rights of the sperm but all but turn its back on the rights and needs of babies.  This is what the term pro-life has come to mean in 2012, and the reason we need to change the language we use when we talk about the issues surrounding reproduction.

This post was originally published by Common Dreams.

 

Related Stories:

On The Pill? Arizona GOP Thinks That Should Cost You Your Job

Want Viagra? Your Partner Has To Swear You Are Impotent

NC Rejecting Funds for Family Planning: “If Women Didn’t Have the Sex to Begin With…”

 

Read more: , , , , , ,

Photo from Grace Hebert via flickr

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

156 comments

+ add your own
4:16PM PDT on Jun 21, 2012

i am most certainly pro LIFE, I am an atheist, and I am a mom

11:09AM PDT on Apr 1, 2012

Until people realise that sex isn't bad, and isn't just a chore a woman must endure in order to have a child or appease her partner, we will have anti-contraception and anti-abortion laws.

12:19AM PDT on Apr 1, 2012

Really good history of the argument.
(And, may I take a childish moment to point out that I feel very badly for Joseph M. Scheidler's wife?)

3:54PM PDT on Mar 31, 2012

To be logically consistent, we would need to find a way to trap and preserve all gametes that remain un-united in the production of a zygote, as well as those zygotes which fail to fully develop into a fetus.

3:25PM PDT on Mar 31, 2012

In this case, make male masturbation illegal. It's the intentional release of viable life, aborting its natural purpose.

8:23PM PDT on Mar 29, 2012

What I meant to say in my most recent comment is "There appears to be strong evidence that the unintended consequences when abortion is illegal, there is an increase in societal violence against other innocent victims, who later become victims of crime."

12:19PM PDT on Mar 29, 2012

Then consider what happened in Canada. Zimring found that during the 1990s, Canada experienced a crime decline that mirrored the one in the United States. Canada's crime rate dropped about 30 percent in most categories for eight years after 1991, a near-perfect match with the U.S. pattern. Canada, like the United States experienced a drop in the relative size of its youth population during the 1990s, the age group that is considered to be at "peak crime age".

So, what happened in Canada that mirrored what happened in N. America? In 1969 abortion laws changed to allow abortion under certain circumstances. Prior to that it had been illegal. Then in 1989, abortion was legalized to unrestricted status and is publicly funded through the health system. Though other factors contribute to fluctuations in the national crime rate of a country, there is strong evidence that there is a connection between abortion and crime.

Therefore, though it has been argued that abortion is violence committed against the innocent unborn, one needs to carefully consider the correlation between crime and abortion rights. There appears to be strong evidence that the unintended consequences of illegal abortion is increased societal violence against other innocent victims, who later become victims of crime.

I would like to credit Janet Gilmore, University of Berkeley, for her contribution to the research on this matter.

11:51AM PDT on Mar 29, 2012

Compare what happened in Romania 15-20 years after abortion was ruled illegal, to what happened in America 15-20 years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. According to research by a University of California, Berkeley, law professor and author of "The Great American Crime Decline," Franklin Zimring wrote about how crime rate dropped dramatically during the 1990s. Crime rates decreased by 40 percent in cities and states across the country and in all major crime categories from homicides to auto thefts, producing the longest and deepest crime decline in the United States since World War II. Remember that just the opposite happened in Romania.

Zimring's research suggests that the nation's crime rate – which has leveled off and remained flat since the year 2000 – could drop even further and that major crime declines can happen without big changes in population and without substantial improvements to the nation's urban environment. continued in next comment box

11:32AM PDT on Mar 29, 2012

In 1966, Nicolae Ceauşescu, dictator of Romania ruled to make abortion illegal in order to boost the country's birth rate. The birth rate doubled and the aftermath of what happened became a worldwide spectacle after ABC TV aired a special program in 1990 about the children in Romania's' orphanages. The images of orphaned children were horrifying. Many were unwanted at birth, others were abandoned by parents later in life; all endured immense physical and mental suffering and many were damaged beyond repair. Furthermore, a considerable number of women either died or were maimed during clandestine abortions.

Bad as this was, pediatric AIDS/HIV cases skyrocketed as did the country's violence in later years as children who had been born unwanted grew into troubled youths and adults. continued in next comment box....

9:59AM PDT on Mar 29, 2012

Fantastic point Heather I. Probably those who believe in this law are "Pro-Lifers"
How interesting that if a man's "castle" is invaded by an intruder and the man feels a physical threat to his or his family's safety, he can shoot to kill and it is called "justified". Compare this to the "pro-life" viewpoint that abortion is murder even when a woman's life is at stake

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

FOCUS, Mary B, FOCUS!! The intent here is to show that the article "The Forgotten History of Gay Marriage"…

Tragic loss. Thanks for the link to the photos, sad that there aren't even images of quite a few of…

I love videos put out by Farm Sanctuary--I subscribe to them on youtube, have for years.

Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!

more from causes




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.