Pages

Sunday, June 20, 2010

the two lists

If you are pro-choice, please read this. If you are pro-life, please read this. If you are unsure where you stand, please read this.

Up until a few years ago, 33-year-old Jennifer Fulwiler was "militantly pro-choice." But not anymore. In this article, she bravely and effectively weaves together the common threads between contraception and abortion, and explains why her view of sex changed. In order to address the abortion issue, Fulwiler suggests (and I agree) that we must address sex and contraception as well- perhaps even first.

If you don't read anything else on this blog, read this.


Vita Pro Omni!

The Two Lists

By Jennifer Fulwiler

Of all the things I remember about the Texas March for Life in Austin last January, the memory that stands out the most is the look on the faces of the counter-protesters who followed us along Congress Avenue and down to the capitol that frosty morning. When I glanced over to see the source of the epithets that were being screamed at us, I met the eyes of one young woman wearing a black bandana over the bottom half of her face. She happened to look over and meet my gaze, and in her eyes I saw one thing: hatred.

I was caught off guard when my gut response to her rage-filled glare was one of sympathy. In fact, I realized as she turned away to continue yelling angry pro-choice slogans that I knew the source of the rage behind her eyes and had even felt it recently.

Until a couple of years ago, I was militantly pro-choice. When I heard people make anti-abortion statements, it filled me with a white-hot anger that I could barely contain. Behind my views was a buried but unspoken sense that there was something inherently unfair about being a woman, and abortion was a key to maintaining any semblance of a level playing field in the world.

My peers and I were taught not that sex creates babies, but that unprotected sex creates babies. We absorbed through cultural osmosis the idea that every normal person will have sex at some point in his or her life, and that the sexual act, by default, has no significance outside the relationship between the two people involved. In this worldview, when unexpected pregnancies came up, it was seen as a sort of betrayal by the woman's body. My friends and I lamented the awful position every woman was in: Unexpected pregnancies were like lightning strikes, and when one of these unpredictable events did occur, there were no good options for dealing with them. Abortion wasn't ideal -- even we acknowledged that it was a violating procedure that was hard on a woman's body -- but what choice did anyone have? To not have the option of terminating surprise pregnancies when they came up out of nowhere would mean being a slave to one's biology.

My staunch support of these views did not soften until a few years ago, when a religious conversion after a life of atheism led me to the Catholic Church. I began researching the ancient Judeo-Christian understanding of human sexuality, in which the sexual act is seen as being inextricably entwined with its potential for creating new human life. The more I considered this point of view, the more I questioned my long-held views. In fact, I started to see the catastrophic mistake our society had made when we started believing that the life-giving potential of the sexual act could be safely forgotten about as long as people use contraception. It would be like saying that guns could be used as toys as long as long as there are blanks in the chamber. Teaching people to use something with tremendous power nonchalantly, as a casual plaything, had set women up for disaster.

The gravity of this error became clear to me when I came across research that Time magazine published in 2007, citing data from the Guttmacher Institute that showed the most common reasons women have abortions. It immediately struck me that none of the factors on the list -- not feeling capable of parenting, not being able to afford a baby, not being in a relationship stable enough to raise a child -- were conditions that we encourage women to consider before engaging in sexual activity.

It was then that I could finally articulate the source of the anger I'd felt all these years. In every society, there are two critical lists: acceptable conditions for having a baby, and acceptable conditions for having sex. From time immemorial, the one thing that almost every society had in common is that their two lists matched up. It was only with the widespread acceptance of contraception in the middle of the 20th century, creating an upheaval in the public psyche in which sex and babies no longer went hand-in-hand, that the two lists began to diverge. And now, in 21st-century America, they look something like this:

Conditions under which it is acceptable to have sex:

• If you're in a stable relationship • If you feel emotionally ready • If you're free of sexually transmitted diseases • If you have access to contraception

Conditions under which it is acceptable to have a baby:

• If you can afford it • If you've finished your education • If you feel emotionally ready to parent a child • If your partner would make a good parent • If you're ready for all the lifestyle changes that would be involved with parenthood

As long as those two lists do not match, we will live in a culture where abortion is common and where women are at war with their own bodies.

Considering the disparity between the two lists made me begin to see the level of damage that contraception and the mentality it produces have done to women as individuals and as a group. I thought of the several friends whom I'd helped procure abortions, how each was scared and caught off guard, overwhelmed with a feeling of "I never signed up for a pregnancy," angry at a faceless enemy. They had followed all of society's rules, yet still ended up in a gut-wrenching position. We hated the anti-abortion zealots because we thought they tried to take away women's freedom; what we didn't understand is that women's freedom had already been taken, when society bought the lie that sex is primarily about bonding and pleasure, and that its life-giving potential is tangential and optional.

In an article published by the Guttmacher Institute's Family Planning Perspectives, John A. Ross estimates that a woman using contraception with a 1 percent risk of failure has a 70 percent chance of experiencing an unwanted pregnancy over the course of 10 years. Guttmacher also reports that more than half of women seeking abortions were using a contraceptive method when they got pregnant. As soon as we as a society accepted contraception, a large-scale game of Russian roulette began, with women and their unexpected children as the players with the guns to their heads.

Austin's March for Life was this past Saturday; I wonder if the girl with the black bandana was there again this year. I wish I could offer to buy her a cup of coffee and tell her that I think she's right to sense that something deeply unfair is afoot in our society, and that nothing less than women's freedom is at stake.


I have republished this article from LifeSiteNews.com in compliance with their copyright conditions.

11 comments:

  1. The author herself acknowledges the foundation of this (flawed) argument: "a religious conversion after a life of atheism led me to the Catholic Church." What a coincidence... religion leads to her sudden role-reversal on abortion. Perhaps the women with the black bandanna felt the same anger that I do reading this- that she refuses to be guilt-tripped by the religious, pro-life contingent wielding condescending beliefs completely in congruent with others not living in their same, isolated world. Make all the lists you want, but it is impossible to generalize and categorize such deeply personal decisions. The whole notion of consistent "lists" regarding when it's okay to have sex vs. when it's okay to have a baby is completely bogus. Huge variables like culture, geographic location and changing political regimes have led to very different sexual histories in different places. But instead of addressing these issues or giving evidence of this blanket assertion, the author takes the easy way out and blames birth control.

    Abortion and birth control are legal, and women do not need to be derided for exercising a choice they are allowed to make. Unless you have a concrete way to pay for and take care of desperate pregnant womens' babies, you are not constructively doing anything to help women.

    This blog falls into the same trap as this article. Unless you want to be taken seriously by an audience outside the Catholic church, you cannot point to religiously-based texts as stand alone evidence of anything.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Rachel,

    Thanks for your comment. I think neither I nor the author were pointing toward religion or the Catholic Church as an argument for anything. Rather, the author was describing her changed view of sexuality, contraception, and abortion. Is she not free to express her opinion on those issues just as you expressed yours in your comment? It is interesting that you would chastise her for stating her perspective in the midst of stating yours.

    I think we should look carefully at your claim that pro-lifers must have "a concrete way to pay for and take care of desperate pregnant women's babies." I am completely with you that we need to have outstanding resources available to mothers who are desperate emotionally, financially, etc. Nothing less is acceptable. But it's strange that pro-lifers are the only ones working toward that. I thought pro-choicers wanted women to be able to choose whether or not to keep their child- so why aren't they helping pro-lifers give women the necessary resources to be able to make a choice either way? So-called pro-choice groups, instead, only provide women with abortions... which sounds more like pro-abortion than pro-choice. It also sounds like cheap love rather than costly care and commitment.

    On the other hand, pro-lifers' hundreds of pregnancy care centers across the U.S. today create what is arguably the largest grass roots/ volunteer movement in history. These centers help women realize that they can choose life, if they want to. This is encouraging, but we always need to be doing more. Maybe pro-choicers could help us out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Catherine! Thank you for sharing this--it's definitely a powerful argument.

    When we have the time, I want to speak with you about the parts of the argument that are especially resonant with me.

    For now, two points that jumped out at me were the declaration of war a woman makes on her own body and the notion of freedom. The resentment women feel for their ability to become pregnant is sad. You've gotten some idea of how obsessed I am with babies and motherhood, etc. I don't ever want to feel that ovulation is the enemy. That being said, I really believe that sexuality is as integral a part of me as my ability to ovulate. I'm not suggesting society should encourage every person do indulge every sexual impulse, but a society that mandates people stifle sexuality except in the event of deliberate pro-creation would, from my understanding, be a societal declaration of war on all bodies. Despite Fulwiler's observation that every society's lists matched up until mid-20th century sexual liberation, people have always been and will continue to be sexual beings. (I'm also not suggesting that empirical claims translate to normative claims. Rather, "ought" implies "can.") I cannot accept a society wherein a woman must choose between being a slave to society's standards and being a slave to the government's legal control of her body.

    Freedom, from my understanding, means (beyond physical freedom) a person (that term alone will carry us back to the North Star couch!) has the ability to honor and nourish his or her own humanity, soul, basic psychological/ emotional/physiological needs. I do not believe people can be free in a society that requires them to restrict sexuality to deliberate pro-creation.

    I'm sure we both have SO much more we'd like to discuss with each other about this and everything else! Thank you, again, Catherine for sharing this with me. Please continue doing so throughout the summer (either on Facebook or email--eliz.ashton1@gmail.com). I love my job but I wouldn't mind a few philosophical interjections here and there :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Libby, Dear!

    It's always wonderful to talk with you. Thank you for 1) reading the article, 2) responding so thoughtfully, and 3) being so consistently pleasant. :) You're right that even just one part of this conversation could lead us to 3.5 more hours of chatting on the North Star couch, haha, but I'll try to keep things brief for now.

    Let me just start by clearing up a point that I think is fairly important: I don't think (and neither does this author think) that "society [should mandate] people stifle sexuality except in the event of deliberate pro-creation." However, my position, and I believe the author's, IS that sex should happen exclusively within marriage- which I know you disagree with. It seems to me that in order for women to NOT be at war with their bodies, this is the only way to go. Why? Because since it is (almost) always a natural possibility that a woman will conceive a child after having sex, artificial attempts to prevent this from happening (by using contraception outside of marriage) seem to automatically put her in a state of tension against her body; whereas within marriage, women don't generally have to face that tension. A married woman is usually in a position where having a child would not be the end of the world- and if she isn't in that kind of position, then there is NFP (which we also should talk more about!) I guess the way I see it, there's no way for there to exist what, in your view (from the way I understand it), seems to be the best of both worlds: freedom to have sex whenever a woman wants to "nourish [her] own humanity, soul, basic psychological/ emotional/ physiological needs" and at the same time never be in a position where she might "[resent]... [her] ability to become pregnant." How can she have both?

    Finally, I completely agree with you that "people have always been and will continue to be sexual beings." I think that's not only a true thing, but a great thing! And I also think that our sexuality should be liberating, not stifling. But I suppose we have different notions of what true freedom really is. I don't think contraception makes a woman free; I think it makes her at war with her body.


    Thanks again, Libby! You know where to find me- here, facebook, or catherinempalmer@gmail.com :) Love you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Catherine. I've read quite a bit about of your blog, and we both know that we have different opinions. I don't really want to get into those differences at this point, but I do have a question for you. I've noticed that you repeatedly support and promote NPF. My question is: why is NPF any different from "non-natural" (that's not used as quote or anything, I just didn't know what else to call them) birth controls? At their core, NPF, condoms, birth control pills, and whatever else all have the same purpose: to prevent conception. I know NPF users are typically open (?) to the idea that it may not work (because obviously no form of birth control is 100%), but why would that be any different than a couple who use other forms of birth control, but are still open to having a baby if their birth control fails?

    I don't know if this is the appropriate post to ask that question, but it's something I've been curious about (as I don't really see a difference between them) and never really had the opportunity to ask someone. Admittedly, I don't really know much about NPF (except for its basic practice), I'm just curious to know why the Church seems to be all for it, while being against other forms.
    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Allyson! Thanks for your comment/ question. :)

    You're not alone in your curiosity; I think this can be a tough thing to grasp. Doug McManaman has done some writing to hopefully elucidate the moral difference between NFP and contraception. Below is part of his work that I think may be of particular interest to you. I posted it in another comment section on this blog, but I will re-post it here. I hope it helps, and please let me know if there's anything else you'd specifically like me to address!

    One note of my own: When the Church talks about Natural Family Planning (NFP) as being "natural" (as is explicit in its title), it does not mean simply that it is natural in a non-synthetic way (although it is true that it is natural in this way). In other words, for instance, a given medicine might be synthetic/ unnatural/ "fake" but that doesn't mean the Church is necessarily against it. By "natural", the Church means, rather, that NFP is natural in a philosophical sense; it is compatible with natural law. It serves the dignity of the sexual act and the human person rather than opposing it. To read more about natural law, I would recommend J. Budziszewski's book titled "What We Can't Not Know."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Alas, here is McManaman's explanation:
    (Note: McManaman uses "Couple N" to describe a couple using NFP and "Couple C" to describe a couple using contraception.)

    He writes:
    "Couple N has chosen not to do something. They have a good reason not to have a baby, and since sexual intercourse is a life giving action, they have a good reason not to have sex. And so their decision not to have sex is reasonable.

    Couple C chooses to have sex even though they have a good reason not to, and they take further steps to prevent a possible baby (which they have projected) from becoming an actual baby. This is contra-life. For the act is directed against a basic intelligible human good, namely potential human life. A possible baby, even though not an actual baby, is still a basic intelligible human good. In fact, all human goods are possibilities before they are actualities, such as friendship, marriage, religion, etc. That is why the intention to act against possible human life is morally significant. It is not possible for the will to bear upon nothing, and possible human life is not non-being. When a couple decide to have a baby, they are choosing life (even though the life is not yet). When a couple choose marriage, they are choosing in favor of a human good that is initially only a possibility. In the case of couple C, their wills do bear upon something, a real possibility, and not just any possibility, but the possibility of human life. And their wills are directed against (contra), the possible person. This is contra-life; hence, contraception...

    There is a real difference between preventing something from being and choosing not to cause something to be. In the legitimate use (unselfish use) of NFP, the couple chooses not to cause a baby to be. The contracepting couple chooses to prevent a possible person from coming to be. These two relationships, with respect to human life, are morally different.

    It is not possible to intend to prevent a possible baby unless a baby is about to emerge as a result of a life-giving action, or one believes one is about to emerge. If a couple simply chooses not to have sex, they are not preventing a possible baby, because choosing not to have sex is not a life giving act. There is no need to contracept an act that is not life-giving. But sexual intercourse is a life giving action, which is why the contracepting couple takes steps to contracept it. A baby is a real possibility if they choose to have sex, and it is against this real possibility that the couple willingly act against.

    The argument that choosing not to cause a baby is identical to preventing a possible baby from becoming an actuality is rooted, I believe, in an invalid syllogism, namely, the undistributed middle term:

    'Choosing not to cause a baby results in a non-pregnancy.
    Preventing a possible baby from becoming an actuality results in a non-pregnancy.
    Therefore, choosing not to cause a baby is to prevent a possible baby from becoming an actuality.'

    It is identical in form to the argument that since all chickens are born from eggs, and all turkeys are born from eggs, all chickens are turkeys."


    One final note of my own, Allyson: It IS possible for a couple to abuse NFP by using it with a contraceptive mentality; the Church would consider this morally wrong. But I think this is a more minor point/ another conversation.


    Thanks again, Allyson!

    ReplyDelete
  8. "By "natural", the Church means, rather, that NFP is natural in a philosophical sense; it is compatible with natural law. It serves the dignity of the sexual act and the human person rather than opposing it."
    Could you possibly clarify what you mean there? I don't really see the connection with NPF and dignity--Does this mean other forms of birth control are opposing the dignity? How so? I would have to say that NPF does an oppressive side. A woman's libido is highest during ovulation- due to fit evolutionary purposes when it was more important to increase population. By forcing a woman to not have sex, because she would prefer to not get pregnant, while her libido is at its highest seems oppressive to me.

    I understand the basic difference between the two: the prevention by not committing the action and the prevention by other forms, but still committing the action. However, contraception is defined as: the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control. I think by this definition, NPF definitely falls into the category of contraception. To me, either way, no egg is fertilized, no embryo is created.


    It is identical in form to the argument that since all chickens are born from eggs, and all turkeys are born from eggs, all chickens are turkeys."
    Chickens and turkeys are not the same, no, but they're both birds. In both forms, sex is used as a non-procreational activity. To me, when broken down, they are the same.

    I hope this makes sense. It's kind of late :(

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi again Allyson,

    I’m glad we’re continuing this conversation! Your first question was in what sense contraception opposes the dignity of the sexual act and the human person, while NFP, according to the Catholic Church, upholds those kinds of dignity. The answer, I think, goes back to natural law.
    Natural law holds that “the foundations of morality are to be found in the well-being and fulfillment of human persons and the communities they form” (George, Tollefsen, Embryo). The most fundamental elements of our overall wellness are called “basic human goods.” They are called ‘goods’ because they are good for us, satisfying us and fulfilling our needs in various dimensions of our lives. But they are called ‘basic’ because they do not exist as a means to an end; they are not instrumental. In other words, their goodness can be reasoned to and discovered in and of themselves, rather than as means to different ends. For instance, friendship and living in peace with one another are ‘basic goods’ that help better and fulfill all human beings; friendship and living in peace are basic human goods. The Golden Rule is also consistent with natural law. Other examples of basic human goods include health/ life preservation, knowledge, and marriage, to name a few. A person pursues these things for their own sake because they help to fulfill that person. Additionally, each of these goods fulfills a different aspect of a person and serves a person’s well-being in a way that the others do not. In this way, basic human goods collaborated with one another in a person’s life help to orient all aspects of that person towards living well and being happy.

    So where does contraception fit into all of this? Contraception opposes the basic human good of marriage. The way Dr. Janet Smith puts it, "It is wrong to impede the procreative power of actions that are ordained by their nature to the generation of human life."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Regarding Smith’s statement, Catherine Collins says, “This is one of those ideas that are either obvious or incomprehensible. Secular moderns reject it completely: they see no reason against manipulating human fertility. One might call this the argument from personal blindness: ‘I see no difference between men and animals, and will govern myself accordingly.’ The two positions are so far apart it is hard to know where discussion might begin. But looking at the kind of arguments used to elaborate the traditional teaching, we can find a difference that might offer the possibility of dialogue, since it is a difference that both sides might understand.

    If we look at their arguments, we see that utilitarians look to the future, while the natural law looks to the present moment. In one way or another, a contraceptive society, a society of fetal testing and abortion, of euthanasia, makes its decisions on the basis of future events we can't possibly predict or control. Will there be enough money for another baby? Would periodic abstinence place impossible strains on my marriage? Could I cope with a handicapped child? How would I deal with the pain of terminal illness? Will the Earth's increasing population lead to mass famine and economic collapse?

    This has an unexpected consequence. Utilitarianism is held to be "rational", but a choice based on unknowable future outcomes cannot possibly be rational. In the absence of reason, emotion takes over. Emotionally, the decision for contraception rests on the desire for frequent sex and the fear of being overburdened by children. We should not be surprised, then, that a contracepting society like ours is dominated by hedonism and timidity.

    The natural law tradition takes a different approach. Since we cannot know all the consequences of our actions, we cannot base our decisions on the probable good of possible outcomes. They must be based on what we can know precisely at the time the decision is being made.
    According to Thomas Aquinas, there are basically four things we can know at the point of action: what we propose to do, why we intend to do it, the relevant circumstances, and our follow-through (Are we competent? Skillful? Courteous? Kind?). For a decision to be a good one, all of these must be good, including the action itself. This means that once we determine that it is wrong to block the fertility of the sex act, then contraception is wrong, regardless of circumstance and intent; regardless also of whatever "good" we think might result from contraception, such as a less stressful married life or fewer people in crowded cities.

    Actually, natural law promises a double win: you can be good in the present and get good results in the future as well. On balance, and for society at large, the best results occur when people do in fact choose what is objectively good” (Collins, Natural Law Denies Contraception, 1998).

    ReplyDelete
  11. To address your next point, I don't think a woman choosing not to have sex during any given part of her menstrual cycle (whether when her libido is at its highest or its lowest or somewhere in-between) because she does not want to have a child is oppressive; I think it is just 1) logical and 2) working with the way her body is naturally designed to work. In a very similar way, me choosing not to eat dessert every time it sounds good because I don't want to become obese is not "oppressing" myself (if that is even possible; I know that phrasing is funny); rather, it is just working with the way my body is naturally designed to work by not putting many more calories into it than I can burn. We cannot possibly "indulge" in every pleasurable activity, whether sex or eating or anything else, every time we want to; it would not be good for us. We have to take responsibility for our actions and especially for the (in this case, foreseeable) consequences they might lead to. We practice self-control in all kinds of areas of our lives, and our sexuality is no different.

    As for your point about NFP fitting the definition of contraception, I think what is actually accurate is saying that NFP fits the definition of natural birth control; NFP could be considered a form of birth control, inasmuch as it can be used to avoid pregnancy. But NFP (i.e. natural birth control) is different from contraception. Contraception is pitted against fertility, suppressing it and trying to sterilize it; NFP simply takes advantage of the natural rhythmic pattern of fertility and infertility, working with the woman's body. In other words, though NFP and contraception can have the very same end (avoiding pregnancy), they have very different means. In ethics, means matter. As a side note, I think it’s important to know that NFP is often used to achieve pregnancy, not just to avoid it.

    Sorry for writing so much, Allyson; I hope some of this helps!

    ReplyDelete