Bill's Big Stuff

These three topics are tightly tied to marriage, family, and other sex related issues but those are topics in themselves.

All three are intimately (pun not intended) interrelated, but are continually discussed out of context with each other. Anti-abortion movements ignore the factors that lead to abortion, lack of birth control, lack of support for adoption, lack of knowledge of sex as a relationship. In addition, many anti-abortion groups consider any form of birth control other than abstinence as sinful. With their determination to suppress sex outside of marriage, they also do not discuss sex in any context, including that of permanent relationships.

Abortion proponents fail to consider that abortion occurs in a context of a father and a mother, even if the parents are immature teenagers. They also fail to consider the father as having any input to the decision. They also fail to consider that the fetus is not just a fetus prior to birth. They use a very simplistic discussion on fetal rights (The existence of which is a very emotionally charged question, and not adequately discussed.). Abortion proponents refuse to consider the larger implications of the act of abortion. They purposefully try to remove the moral, ethical, and religious questions in the issue. Abortion proponents generally support birth control, but they view abortion as just another form of birth control, not a serious moral issue. For that matter, infanticide through the ages has been "just another form of birth control" for many of the poorest people. This was pointed out in an article in Scientific American about twenty years ago.

Adoption used to be the outlet for unwanted children. If a girl became pregnant and was not old enough to marry and take care of the child, or could not keep the child for any reason, the child was "put up" for adoption. Adoptions were permanent. Also, abortion was less accepted than it is today. Girls were expected to deliver the child. Unless the girl was married or about to be married, she was discouraged from keeping the child. Today, much has changed. Abortion is looked at as a preferable option to carrying and adopting out a full term child. Children that are put up for adoption can be taken back by the biological parents years later. Every roadblock possible is placed in the way of adopting parents. There seems to be the revival of the myth that the biological mother is the most suited to raise the child[1]. In the cases where the mother bears the child, until recently, welfare paid her to keep it. It didn't guarantee that the money went to the child's benefit, and it frequently didn't. Many girls and young women made their living by having babies for the welfare money.

Birth control via the pill created a major furor when it was introduced. It is condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, and praised and/or used by most fertile couples and a lot of fertile singles. Because of its certainty compared to other forms of birth control, and because it gave women more control over conception, it created a major stir. It has been blamed for the so-called sexual revolution, though I don't see much of a revolution, just people less afraid of the consequences of doing what they were doing all along.

My solution proposed to this mess has a couple of easy parts, birth control and adoption and one very difficult part, abortion. In between there are some gray areas that could be highly contentious. Just to make the issues easier to discuss, I will restrict the current comments to birth control in a marriage context. Birth control and unmarried sex belongs in a different discussion.

Married couples have always tried to practice choice in having children. During the times when countries are developing, the choice is to have as many as possible, preferably boys. But as countries become more affluent, the birth rate per couple goes down. Choice is obviously being practiced. Until the development of the contraceptive pill, the choices were uncertain, inconvenient, and often interfered with the couple's pleasure[2]. There are two main forms of biochemical birth control, which are the most effective methods, the prevention of ovulation, and the prevention of implantation.

Prevention of ovulation is analogous to the various methods of preventing fertilization either mechanical or chemical. I see no moral issue here, despite the Roman Catholic Church. To me it is a crime to bring unloved, unwanted children, that will have a miserable physical and psychological existence, into the world, and not a crime to prevent their creation. To argue that they will be loved after they are born is to engage in wishful thinking. There are too many cases of infant abuse to validate that hope.

Prevention of implantation (the so-called morning after pill) is a much more contentious[3]. The argument stems from the belief that once the egg is fertilized, it is fully human, and therefore preventing implantation is the equivalent of abortion. Using my argument that the soul grows with the person, a fetus can have no soul until it develops a nervous system. At the time of implantation, it is a ball of 4 or 8 undifferentiated cells. There has also been recent research to indicate, that there are a large number of fertilized ova that naturally do not implant. The natural fetal wastage, if you will, is very high. To prevent implantation is merely an extension of a natural process, and by my arguments does not lead to the death of a human. Yes, a fertilized ovum is a potential human, but so are all those that naturally fail to implant, and all those that miscarry.

One of the consequences of the practice of birth control, is the relief of pressure on either abortion or adoption as alternatives to unwanted children. I strongly recommend that married couples have all the information on birth control and the means available to them to use it. This is one area where I believe that welfare and relief agencies can do some of the most good. It is much easier to prevent an unwanted birth than to deal with it afterwards. One of the biggest advantages of the biochemical forms of birth control is that they put their use in the hands of those most impacted by birth, the woman. The woman is the most motivated to use birth control, especially if she is educated in its proper use.

I see a stigmatizing of adoption in our country recently. There are horror stories becoming more common of parents that adopt, and then either go through years of uncertainty while the adoption is challenged in court by either the biological parent(s) or grandparents. This appears to be the result of some very sloppy thinking concerning parenting, and a perversion of the rights of parents under law. It used to be that a woman that was going to put a child up for adoption would never see the child at all. She would give birth, and the baby was taken immediately to another room. Nature does create a strong urge in new mothers to take care of the child and nurture it. Under normal circumstances where it is reasonable for the mother to keep the child, this is the desired result. However, hard as it is, there are circumstances where keeping the child would be detrimental to the mother, the child or both. In those cases, adoption is the answer. However, the adoption has to be permanent and untraceable. Harsh as it seems, it is better for the mother to form no attachment from the start, than to allow the attachment to form and the child be adopted. At the same time it is cruel not to give the adopting parents the certainty that the child is theirs. Considering the scrutiny to which we subject adoptive parents, they are better qualified to be parents than most biological parents. There is an argument that medical history is grounds for finding biological parents and linking them to the child. If this can be done without the biological parents finding out anything about the adopted child, then well and good. However, if it leads to a connection of the biological parents with the adopted child then it should not be done. Until adoption is made secure, adoptive parents will be much more inclined to adopt the children from other countries.

There is another pressure to adopt foreign children, the lack of available babies. The large number of abortions performed in this country, greatly reduces the number of Caucasian babies for adoption. In addition, adoption agencies do not encourage adoption between races. Thus black babies go unadopted and white would-be parents go childless because of officially sanctioned racism.

Now we are to the hard part of this discussion, abortion. Current law on abortion is based on a reading of the biological literature by Justice Blackmun in Roe vs. Wade. As such, it paid no recognition to any of the moral issues raised by religious groups. The issue is one that is so difficult to define that it is probably not possible for law to adequately deal with it, because it requires the definition of a human being. If a fetus is a human being under law, at what point does it become human? The Roman Catholic Church and most fundamentalist groups define it at conception. In effect, a human is defined by 46 chromosomes. But if that is so then any living cell is a human being. Of course, there are many other unstated conditions around it, but the definition is the most restrictive possible.

In dealing with this issue, I’d like to back into it from either end. Because of advances in medical care of neonatal children, the stage of development at which a fetus can survive outside the womb is increasingly being pushed back. To me this says that any abortion that kills a fetus, that could have survived outside the womb, is murder. This places me in agreement with those opposed to the so-called partial-birth abortion procedure. Medical risks to mother aside, then one can make a strong argument that once a pregnancy progresses to that stage, the mother must carry it to term, and if it is unwanted, put it up for adoption. I would support programs that assist mothers that are required to do that, and insure that they have adequate prenatal care, to provide the most healthy baby possible.

Coming at the issue from the other end, if a ball of cells that implants is not a human, at what point does it become human? Within the first month, the ball of cells elongates, becomes hollow, then a layer of cells invaginates and forms an interior group of cells from which organs differentiate(gastrula stage). At the same time the trace that becomes the nervous system is laid down. By the third month, the fetus has differentiated into something that looks human. It has a beating heart and circulating blood. (Antiabortionist make great emotional hay over this. The image is compelling). It also has a working nervous system, and in terms of humanness, this is more important. Based on my concept of the soul, the fetus is growing a soul at this point, and that makes it human. Where is the line then between the gastrula stage and the three-month stage that defines human? I draw it at the point at which the first nerve cell fires. This creates an electrical field that then grows and produces a soul.

In theory then, prior to the firing of the first nerve cell, abortion does not kill a human. However, in practice, this stage occurs early enough, that if there is any doubt about the time of conception, it is possible that awareness of the pregnancy could occur after that stage is reached. As a real-world issue, this effectively rules out abortion being considered non-sinful.

So then the question becomes, can we make a case to outlaw abortion? Yes and No. Partial-birth abortion that kills a fetus that might otherwise survive could probably be outlawed. Those who don’t agree with the religious stands on an absolute ban on abortion, could possibly accept the ban on this type because it is based on secular arguments. Banning the abortion of fetuses that would not survive would be much harder, because it is based on religious arguments. This is where the case for birth control and adoption with assistance to the biological mother can help. Prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible, and do everything possible to ease the birth of those that aren’t prevented.

I still have to deal with the tough cases, pregnancy due to rape and incest[4], and cases where the pregnancy is dangerous to the mother. The morning after pill would deal with the rape issue, unless the rape is reported too late. The earlier this is dealt with the better. To me it is cruel in the extreme to force a woman that has been raped to carry the result of that rape to term[5]. For nine months she would be forcibly reminded of the event, as if the memory isn’t horrible enough. However, if the pregnancy progresses to the point of fetal viability outside the mother, it should either be delivered by Caesarean section, or carried to term. Rape does not justify murdering the innocent product. (Murdering the rapist may be another question. ? ) I don’t think there is a single definitive answer to this one. The gray area beyond the morning after pill, and before the external viability of the fetus presents many difficult questions, very similar to the ones applying to maternal health.

I have a lot harder time justifying aborting the result of incest. I do not find the inbreeding argument particularly persuasive. There have probably been more healthy than unhealthy offspring of incest. The effects of inbreeding require several generations to show, generally. Where an incestuous pregnancy was not due to willingness on the part of the mother, or the mother was mentally inadequate to understand, it reverts to the rape standard. Where it is the result of willing, knowing partners, then I tend to come to the stand that it should carry to term[6].

The messiest area of all is that of inadequate maternal health or mental capacity, and severe fetal defects. I knew a couple that had a son and a daughter, both so severely retarded that they were barely trainable to do simple daily tasks. They kept the house segregated, a female side with female bedrooms and bath and a male side with male bedrooms and bath. One of the questions he had to deal with was what to do with the girl as she approached puberty. She was incapable of understanding or taking care of herself when menarche hit. One of the recommendations he had received from a doctor was to give the girl a hysterectomy before puberty. This example is very illustrative of the kind of issues being addressed her. What do we do about mentally defective girls and women that become pregnant? In some cases, it would terrify them to see themselves change over the months of pregnancy. What would she think the first time the baby kicked her? If her disability were genetic, would the baby also be mentally challenged (to be politically correct)? What would she think and feel as labor began? Though I don’t pretend to have an answer, much less one that would cover most situations, I tend to think that with great remorse, one would opt for an abortion. And even if there have been examples of a severely retarded person giving birth to a healthy baby, how many more counter examples exist?

What if the mother becomes too ill to properly carry a baby to term? I am not talking about a woman that is unhealthy and becomes pregnant. She should have been practicing some sort of birth control to start with. Ultimately, I think that is between the mother and God. Only she can decide if the baby is worth more than her life. The decision is compounded with the inclusion of the husband and other children in the mix. What does he value? Of course he values his wife, but he will also value the unborn child. Is he capable of allowing her to reach a decision that is right for her, and can he live with it? If there are children already, what impact do they have? They will value the mother over the baby, most likely, and with good reason. From their vantage point, if the mother dies, they lose a caregiver, and have to become caregivers for the baby. They receive injury added to injury. Generally I think these decisions go with saving the mother, but that is not an automatic choice, nor should it be. It is the horrible circumstance that at least one life will be lost, regardless of the decision.

As I was contemplating posting this essay, WSJ Opinion Journal came out with this story:

MAMA MIA: If the children of Gianna Beretta Molla put their mother on a pedestal, the Toronto Star suggests that they may have a better reason than most. A mother who knowingly sacrificed her own life in 1962 so that she could carry her baby to term, Mrs. Molla, an Italian doctor, was canonized by Pope John Paul II in May. In most ways, St. Gianna--who loved Parisian fashion, skiing in the Alps and zipping down the roads in her sporty Fiat--hardly fits the saintly stereotype. Yet the Star says that her three surviving children "may be the only people in the world who can say it without fear of stretching the truth: My mother is a saint."

Finally, what about fetuses that are deformed or have defects such that they can never live normal lives or will live truncated, miserable lives. Here there has to be some careful discrimination. There are defects that can be over come, e.g., thalidomide babies, club foot, other skeletal deformities, phenylketonuria, defects that cannot be overcome, e.g., anencephaly as the extreme example, and a large number of defects that might be overcome, e.g., various heart defects. The first category appears to me to be a no-brainer—carry to term. The second category also appears to be a no-brainer—terminate as soon as possible. It is the third category that will cause the agony and indecision. Sometimes events resolve themselves, the baby is stillborn. Other times, the baby is born and lives a short, painful life, subjected to surgery and other therapy to compensate or repair the defect(s). Again, it ultimately is the parents and God that must decide. I know I could never judge someone that had to make that decision, regardless of how they decided and what the outcome was.

As a closing observation on this discussion, though it is not possible to prevent all cases like the difficult ones presented above, more can be done with preventing their occurrence. Acknowledgement of pre-existing conditions unfavorable to pregnancy, and the application of appropriate birth control can prevent many horrible decisions from having to be made. A more realistic approach to the whole subject of sex in our culture would also help. It would increase the use of non-abortive contraception. By not condemning the victims, it could more effectively get rapists off the streets. By educating, it would give men and women true choices, not lesser or greater fears.

footnotes: ========================================================================
[1] It is one of the great ironies that the modern feminist movement has led to a reversion to behavior and attitudes associated with more repressive times. It appears to be a general attitude of all the modern "isms," that older times were some golden age, e.g., the environment was better, the natural mother is best suited to raise the child, small communities are better than large ones.

Problem of parenting being defined biologically not relationally--creates adoption issues in US.

[2] Since biologically reproduction is very much to be desired, the sex act is one of the most pleasurable. We are “wired” that way. The issues that arise or ones of when, and where, and with whom, and what are the consequences. Many people try to avoid the real issues by condemning sex itself. To me this is the equivalent of condemning life itself.

[3] I wonder which is more the cause of contention, the morning-after quality or the prevention of implantation. The morning after effect allows the avoidance of negative consequences of unprotected sex. To many this is a further invitation to engage in such activity. Inside of marriage, this argument is of no consequence, and I am saving the situation outside of marriage for another discussion.

[4] Properly rape and incest are outside the marriage context, but the discussion is more appropriate to the abortion question than to the unmarried sex question.

[5] The one possible exception is marital rape. I consider marital rape as rape just as much as non-marital rape is, but the context of marriage places a much different context on keeping the child. This is a very messy area, and I don’t have any answers.

[6] The evil of incest needs to be explored further. How and why is it sinful? I suspect it is a livestock type of argument—prevention of inbreeding