The Culture of Death

“The Culture of Death” is a phrase that gets tossed around a lot in certain circles.  Very creepy circles, to be fair, so you might not have heard this particular turn of phrase if you don't spend a lot of time researching reproductive rights.  First coined by Pope John Paul II, this emotionally-laden and contrarian saying refers to the prevalence of birth control, abortion, and euthanasia in Western society.  It is also used as the official Root Of All Evil by those who hold to the belief that we somehow desperately need more people in the world.

http://xfinitytv.comcast.net/blogs/2010/tv-news/peta-takes-a-dig-at-the-duggars/

Last July, during the commemoration of “the Pill’s” 50-year anniversary, a coalition of Evangelicals hosted an enormous conference in San Antonio, TX, called "The Baby Conference:  A Historic Family Summit on the Triumph of Life Over the Culture of Death."  Highlights of the conference included discussion on the Pill’s adverse effects on society, a vigil for the pre-born victims of abortion and miscarriage, a lecture on "not believing the lie of overpopulation," and a speech by Michelle Duggar on accepting God’s gift of children. The convention center was bedecked with images of chubby white babies and of Terry Schiavo, who has become the unofficial “face” of euthanasia (though her actual cause of death was withdrawal of care, not euthanasia or assisted suicide).  At the root of the discussion was the theme that creepy crawly secular culture was diffusing its “fascination with death” throughout America.

http://www.visionforum.com/news/blogs/doug/2010/04/

This terrifying alternate reality is brought to you by 

Toys R Us & George Orwell

I doubt that attendees ran out of conversation during the conference.  Fifty years after the release of the Pill in America, 88% of sexually active women report having taken hormonal contraception at some point in their lives, and the average fertility rate is 2.04 children per woman.  Ninety-five percent of Americans have had premarital sex, and 43% of women have had at least one abortion.  With all these insults against "pre-born lives," it seems like the "culture of death" may truly be pervading the US.

On the other hand, let me introduce you to the Culture of Life.

http://www.stolenchildhood.net/entry/child-soldiers-recruitment-flourishing-in-democratic-republic-of-congo/

In the DR Congo, abortion is illegal, contraception essentially unheard of, and the fertility rate 6.7 children born to each woman.  Infant mortality is the second highest in the world, at 7.8%, female literacy is 55%, and about 5% of the adult population is HIV positive.  What lesson are we to take from a culture which really truly knows how to accept God’s precious little gifts?

The "culture of death" conversation is laden with both a flippant disregard for real-world problems and a sinister attack on individual freedom and fulfillment.  There is plenty of inherent misogyny, yes, but even deeper than that is the notion that we, all of us, are nothing more than breeders.  There is an outright rejection of humanity and quality of life, a lack of concern for the planet or for the plight of others, a denial that there are some things worse than death.  Absent is any desire to better the world, to create a world worth living in.  Though this group typically dismisses evolutionary theory, they have nevertheless completely co-opted natural selection by making procreation the greatest possible good.  Furthermore, the proponents of the "culture of life" blatantly ignore the fact that the philosophy is completely untenable.  Being able to stand in a sanitary auditorium in front of your nineteen healthy children would not be possible if everyone followed the calling to reproduce as much as humanly possible.  Barring an actual Rapture occurring within the next 50 years, the problems of unrestrained reproduction are going to have to be addressed by scientists who put education and the pursuit of a greater good ahead of procreation.

Worst of all, the sentiment behind the "culture of death" conversation isn't confined to a few Bible-thumping breeder weirdos in a convention center in Texas.  It's behind the House's latest decision to defund the UNFPA, behind abstinence-only sex education, behind bans on condom advertising:  in short, the religiously-fueled idea that we live to procreate is inherent in everything I've ever discussed on this blog.  Rise up, secular world.  We are more than the sum of our parts, and so too should we be more than the fruit of our loins.

"Population," or "The World Is Not Enough"

When the Supreme Court delivered its famous Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973, it upheld a woman's right to choose based on the Constitution's guarantee of a right to privacy.  This makes perfect sense:  the prevention or termination of pregnancy is, and should be, a private matter, and thus the decision to end a pregnancy belongs to the woman alone.  I contend, however, that the opposite does not hold true:  the decision to give birth is not a matter of privacy.  A woman who has an abortion affects only herself; bringing another human being into the world, on the other hand, immediately impacts the mother, the newborn individual, the larger community, and the very fate of the planet.

The concept of a population's carrying capacity is something we all learned about in high school.  The idea is that a population of organisms will increase in size until it reaches a set number, determined by resource availability and competition pressure.  After this point, large scale death will prevent further population growth.  population size will oscillate around the point of the carrying capacity, but increased death rates and reduced reproductive fitness will not allow population size to increase further.

http://www.goldiesroom.org/Note%20Packets/22%20Ecology/00%20Ecology--WHOLE.htm

We usually discuss such concepts of population in relation to yeast cells, mice, deer, etc.:  organisms to which we have no particular emotional attachment.  We have to be a lot more careful, though, when talking about the growth of the human population, since most of what we do is already an effort to deny that we are, by definition, animals, constrained by biological precepts.  The notion that we are somehow different from yeast cells, mice, or deer is enforced by the observation that our population's growth curve currently shows no indication of approaching a carrying capacity limit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa/evolution/humansrev1.shtml

The fact that our population's growth curve has so far been uninhibited by starvation or disease seems to be testament to our high level of "success," reproductively speaking.  Nevertheless, though our world population will reach 7 billion this year, hunger, disease, and conflict are still taking their toll, killing millions each year even as new births more than compensate for this loss.  A little less than half of the world's 7 billion people currently live on under 2 USD a day.  And these are the communities whose populations are growing the fastest.

In The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins advanced the idea that exercising moderation in reproduction could actually be evolutionarily advantageous.  Producing many more offspring than can survive under certain environmental conditions is, evolutionarily speaking, wasteful.  Likewise, reproducing at an unchecked rate will quickly deplete resources and is also a terrible evolutionary strategy.  For these reasons, the population of a certain organism will stay relatively constant over time, and when population pressure begins to increase, the organism will (unconsciously, of course) curb its rate of reproduction to avoid a dangerous scarcity of resources somewhere down the line.  

Human reproduction, however, has proceeded at an explosive rate, which Dawkins attributes to modern medicine, the welfare state, and complete failure to look to the future.  We may have been reproductively successful during the last five hundred years, but that is small change in the span of evolutionary time.  Our current reproductive strategy is, to say the least, unsustainable, and may prevent us from seeing another five hundred years.  As Dawkins says, "The one thing animal populations do not do is go on increasing indefinitely."

http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/ballantine-books/14

Unfortunately, population discussions are not politically correct, and tend to conjure up dystopian images of calculated killings and mass sterilization programs.  Furthermore, the discomfort with the issue belongs to those at every stage along the entire political spectrum.  Regardless of the environmental or societal impact, argue conservatives and liberals alike, the human right of reproduction is too sacrosanct to curtail.  Thus we talk about population growth in positive, rather than normative terms:  "How will we emend farming techniques and colonize other planets to keep up with the human race's inevitable increase?" Yet the human population has the potential to double in less than a hundred years; we can't afford to be so magnanimous forever.  In a stand-off between biology and political correctness, biology will always prevail in the end.

The Utility of Choice

As a matter of reason, good taste, and, well, the entire principle of separation of church and state, Bible verses have no place in political discourse.  However, it's unsurprisingly difficult, if not impossible, to disentangle the abortion debate from religion.  The Bible apparently has a lot to say on the matter, since most pro-life websites are headed with quotes from the Book of Proverbs, images of a pained and sorrowful-looking Virgin Mary, and (the ultimate trump card) the question "What if Jesus had been aborted?"

What you don't hear much of are utilitarian arguments against abortion.  In a nation faced with a growing deficit and heinous unemployment, the far right still doesn't seem interested in forming logical social and economic justifications for its endless effort to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Now, I am fully on board with decreasing the national deficit and bettering overall quality of life, so I think we would do well to transfer the abortion debate from the religious to the practical sphere.  From a small-government, fiscally-responsible standpoint, are there any positive external effects of legally requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?

http://intenseproductions.blogspot.com/2010/08/practicing-your-scales-effectively.html

Weighing pro-life against pro-quality of life.

The term "utilitarianism" scares us, or at least makes us uncomfortable.  We like to fancy ourselves ethical, to think that we don't "cut our losses" when it comes to issues of morality.  Yet we make a utilitarian bargain every time we eat meat or wage war.  So how do we apply these calculations to issues of reproductive choice?

First, there is the issue of population.  In a matter of months, the world's population will hit 7 billion; by 2030, it will be over 8 billion.  Needless to say, this "population bomb" will have far-reaching implications on the environment, politics, economics, and general quality of life.  Basically, everything.

http://www.blogiseverything.com/general/worlds-population-graphs/

This graph should scare the shit out of you, and if it doesn't, you probably lack basic abilities of projection.  Now add to this stunning rate of growth the fact that even in the United States, where contraception is readily available, half of pregnancies are unintended or unwanted.  This leaves us with a rapidly exploding world population of 7 billion people, at least one half of whom were born to parents who didn't want them, or didn't have the maturity or resources necessary to raise them.  Would illegalizing abortion impact these statistics positively?

Then there are the social effects of abortion.  As we learned from Freakonomics, the legalization of abortion in America corresponded with a decrease in the crime rate.  Similarly, there are indications that abortion lowers the incidence of child abuse.  Correlation doesn't imply causation, of course, and both these claims are surrounded with controversy based on statistical approachs to the questions.  Nevertheless, we can imagine how unwilling parents would be more likely to lash out at an unwanted child, and unwanted children more likely to last out at society.  And then there is the fact that abortion actually saves money:  by conservative estimates, each dollar spent on family planning saves us almost four down the road, in Medicaid and welfare costs.  Would defunding Planned Parenthood or overturning Roe v. Wade better financial stability and quality of life?

Finally, there are the effects of abortion on women themselves.  The pro-life side loves this argument, because it is a perfect opportunity for them to rail against abortion while pretending to care about women's rights and health.  From this ostensible concern has arisen the concept of "Post Abortion Syndrome," a mental-health condition which supposedly causes flashbacks, depression, and suicidal thoughts in 50% of women who have abortions.  

But alas, as much as the pro-life camp wishes that it existed, it turns out that studies which supported "PAS" were fraught with statistical errors, and it's actually just a load of shit.  When compared to women of similar socio-economic backgrounds who decided to carry their pregnancies to term, women who have had abortions actually fare the same, and often better, in terms of mental health.  Not surprisingly, being able to finish an education or further a career, remaining financially stable, and not having to bear and raise an unwanted child actually has positive effects on a woman's well-being.  And this isn't even touching the fact that Roe v. Wade ended the bloody era of coat-hanger abortions.

I haven't said a single thing here that hasn't been regurgitated time and time again.  That doesn't, however, dilute its significance.  Allowing women to take charge of their own reproduction has far-reaching positive implications, and I know not of any non-religious, practical justifications for the other side.

A fetus does not have a fully developed nervous system, lacks self-awareness, and cannot feel pain until at least 24 weeks of gestation.  In these regards, it ranks somewhere between a jellyfish and a salamander.  Thus, any concern felt for a fetus in another person's body can only be for its nebulous "soul," and thus can only be religious.  Naturally, this realization isn't likely to send shockwaves through a country of which 90% self-identifies as religious, and I would have to be fairly naive to pretend that the barrier between church and state is impermeable.  But let's make that barrier a latex barrier, and keep the pro-life separate from the pro-quality of life. 

Globally Pro-Choice

Last week, I was walking across Georgetown's campus when I was stopped by an acquaintance and asked if I would give a minute for "Global Health Day."  Behind her, a large banner proclaimed "Half the world lives on less than $3 a day... that is what we spend on a cup of coffee."  After filling me in on several additional depressing statistics regarding starvation, malaria, and infant mortality, this well-meaning girl asked if I would help global health awareness by writing down something that I believed everyone in the world deserved.  Without pausing, I wrote "access to birth control."

My response was met at first with a smirk, then with irritation, as she suggested that I write something else. "Please take this seriously," she pleaded, implying that my answer had deliberately mocked the plight of millions of starving children worldwide.  It was as if I had suggested sending vibrating cock rings and flavored lube to the war-torn Congo.

http://www.foogle.biz/starving_world/starving.htm

Poverty and global health are issues that we love to talk about.  Starving children in China/Africa/Southeast Asia are eternally the subjects of guilt-tripping rhetoric.  Droves of celebrities and well-meaning high schoolers descend on developing nations each year, all seeking to "combat hunger" and "fight AIDS" in fairly non-specific ways.  Images of barefoot toddlers crying in the muddy streets of Delhi and Lima rouse us to donate to a myriad of international charities.  Yet in all of this discussion of child poverty, there is no mention of the children themselves being a compounding factor.

The correlation between high fertility rates, poverty, and low life expectancy is well established.  According to the UN TFR Ranking (2009), the top twenty nations in terms of fertility rate per woman include Niger, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan; each of these countries has a fertility rate more than three times that of the U.S. and Western Europe.  The UN TFR has also provided this helpful visualization of average fertility rates worldwide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_rate

Anyone who has taken a class in logic knows that correlation does not imply causation.  With a little imagination, though, it's not difficult to picture how a rapidly growing population coupled with a finite number of resources keeps literacy rates low and poverty rates high, fuels political unrest, and greatly facilitates the spread of disease.  And that's not even touching the impact on the women who are actually bearing these children.

http://www.glpinc.org/Web_pages/Illiteracy_Globally.html

Unfortunately, the international community is unlikely to embrace worldwide family planning measures any time soon.  For one thing, one of the world's most powerful men, Benedict XVI, would not approve.  A large number of charities aimed at alleviating poverty are religiously affiliated, and these groups prefer to combat world hunger by collecting canned food, building new churches, and praying.  Contraception, of course, is not in the Catholic or Evangelical vocabulary.  This view has played no small role in the House's recent defunding of the United Nations Population Fund.

It's not just the right wing that's to blame, however.  Even liberal and pro-choice groups shirk from advocating contraceptive use abroad, less they be accused of promoting eugenics or forcing Western practices and culture upon the developing world.  Additionally, the realm of international charity seeks to project itself as bipartisan, eschewing controversial issues such as contraception.  Food, water, health, and education are all hot topics of conversation, but one of the best long-term solutions remains, for now, grossly overlooked.

At the end of the day, it's touching and inspiring to see a a picture of volunteers building a school abroad or serving food to little brown children.  It's very difficult to evoke the same feelings with a picture of a couple using a condom.