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.

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. 

Dividing Cells, Splitting Hairs

In his 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, a treatise condemning the use of contraceptives, Pope Paul VI famously established the Catholic church's official stance on all matters procreative.  In the 40-odd years since the publication of Humanae Vitae, the Church has not budged it its contra-contraception position, and Pope Paul VI's treatise has been lauded as "prophetic"for how it anticipated today's issues of reproductive ethics.  These aren't just echoes of the "be fruitful and multiply" argument, however.  Supporters of the Church claim that the Pope's views on birth control are even more relevant given that chemical contraception is "known" to induce abortions through preventing implantation of a fertilized embryo.  Thus contraception is not a lesser, separate evil, but is tantamount to abortion itself.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/appendixa.asp

A life begins... OR WILL IT????

It's not just the Catholics who have voiced this condemnation of the "abortifacient" properties of birth control.  The Evangelicals who fill the ranks of the pro-choice movement are similarly quick to criticize any use of "unnatural" hormonal contraceptives.  There is the outstanding example of the Duggar family, who believe that their use of the Pill caused the miscarriage of one of their pregnancies back in the '80s, and have spent the past two decades atoning for this crime by pushing the limits of human reproductive capacity.  Just a quick Google search will yield a bevy of emotionally-charged, poorly-researched, and often blatantly deceptive websites devoted to defaming all birth control use and equating contraceptives with murder.  (Notable examples including Birth Control is a Sin, Birth Control Causes Abortions, AbortionFacts.com, and perhaps most horrifying, PoisonedByThePill).  A common thread throughout these websites is that of deliberate deception at the hands of doctors and pharmacists.   Readers are urged to "read the fine print" and "wake up" - as if the entire medical profession were aligned in some giant conspiracy to kill Evangelical embryos for the good of Science and Atheism and Richard Dawkins.

From this movement has grown a plethora of misconceptions and taboos about the "Morning After Pill" and oral contraceptives.  Many women worldwide are misinformed about emergency contraception and its mechanism of action:  some actually mistake the Plan B pill with RU486, the "abortion pill."  Pro-life lobbying on this issue has also spawned “the Pharmacist’s Conscience Clause,” a provision which allows a pharmacist to withhold oral contraceptives and the "morning after pill” on moral grounds. A recent study estimated that 6% of American pharmacists actually withhold contraception - which probably makes it pretty difficult to purchase birth control in Kansas.  This poor understanding of emergency contraception deters many genuinely well-meaning women and couples from choosing Plan B following unprotected intercourse - which, of course, is the intended effect of the religious fear-mongering. 

Now, Pope Paul VI was not a doctor or a biologist, so I was interested in how he arrived at his understanding of the mechanism of action of birth control pills and emergency contraception.  So I popped on over to PubMed to see what relevant (and unbiased) information medical researchers had discovered on the topic.

But first, a little background on early embryonic development: the human embryo typically implants in the uterine wall at the blastocyst stage, approximately one week after fertilization, when it consists of 32 cells.  To prevent a subsequent pregnancy, the ovaries begin secreting progesterone, a hormone which inhibits further ovulation.  Progesterone also inhibits the process of sperm capacitation, which enables a sperm to fertilize an egg.  In addition, this hormone thins the lining of the endometrium - just like it does during the luteal phase, i.e. a menstrual period.

Both oral contraceptives and older versions of the Plan B pill (which is essentially a higher dose of the same thing) rely on progestrin, a synthetic form of progesterone, essentially to trick the body into believing that it is already pregnant.  Thus, ovulation and sperm capacitation do not occur, and the endometrial lining thins.  It is this capacity of progesterone which has conservatives jumping down throats and splitting hairs about what constitutes prevention vs. termination of pregnancy, and losing sleep over the fate of the human blastocyst.

http://www.glowm.com/?p=glowm.cml/section_view&articleid=2&SESSID=evpji2lnn7ah65gbjah4bgnc40

So let's see what a few decades of medical research have to say on the matter.  First, newer Levonorgestrel-based contraceptives (such as Plan B One-Step) can apparently only prevent ovulation, and cannot prevent pregnancy once ovulation has occurred.  No studies indicate that Levonorgestrel has any "abortifacient" capabilities.  Thus, Levonorgestrel is only 80% effective at preventing pregnancy.  The results of studies on progesterone-based pills are a little bit hazier:  some report "with mild confidence" that progesterone prevents implantation, while others deny this to be the case.  Most review articles state that the prevention of implantation is "possible in theory," but do not provide relevant statistics.  In contrast, the post-coital insertion of an IUD has been shown to prevent implantation of an embryo; Mifepristone, the "abortion pill," can be taken in small doses to produce the same effect.

The general medical consensus:  certain forms of emergency contraception (Mifepristone and IUDs) have the secondary effect of preventing embryonic implantation.  However, the most commonly-used form of emergency contraception (Levonorgestrel), does not act in this way.  In regards to the Pill, it is possible in theory that these contraceptives prevent the implantation of a fertilized embryo, but no study to date has strongly indicated that this is the case.  I speculate that the findings of such studies are complicated by the fact that, even in the absence of birth control, at least half of fertilized human ova do not successfully implant.  Here's a little graph I threw together about the prevalence possible fetal fates in the U.S.:

Needless to say, these stats are going to make Georgia Rep. Bobby Franklin's job very difficult if he in fact intends to investigate and press charges for every miscarriage that occurs in his state.  The majority of fertilized oocytes to not make it to be full-fledged humans, even without medical or chemical interventions.  Ultimately, it is difficult to determine how often emergency contraception prevents an embryo from implanting when God Himself is already doing such a good job of it.

Sex: Crime & Punishment

It appears that the U.S. is experiencing a disturbing trend with regard to beliefs on abortion.  According to the Gallup Values & Beliefs Survey, 2009 marked the first year that more Americans self-identified as "pro-choice" than "pro-life."  Remarkably, the percentage of Americans who describe themselves as "pro-life" has been climbing gradually since the mid-90's.

This change over time is so depressing to those of the pro-choice persuasion that it's barely worth talking about.  However, what I find more interesting is another result of the Gallup survey:

Evidently, the percentage of Americans who see the issue completely in black and white, who feel that abortion should be strictly legal or illegal, is relatively small.  The majority of those polled actually believe that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.  These "certain" circumstances always boil down to exactly two:  1) To save the life of the mother, and 2) In cases of rape or incest.

First, it is fairly difficult to find someone opposed to abortions performed to save a mother's life (although  the pale green line at the bottom of this graph indicates that these folk do indeed exist).  This is one circumstance rarely (and thankfully so!) subject to public debate.

The second clause is one that has generated a great deal of discussion, particularly recently.  Just this past month, the House got its panties into a wad over the precise definition of "rape," arguing whether federal funds should be allocated for abortions in all cases of rape, or merely for those cases John Boehner deems legitimate.

Biologically, a fetus is a fetus, whether it was conceived through rape, incest, or consensual sex; it is the same entity in question.  However, in these certain cases, an abortion crosses a fine line from the "murder of innocents" to an understandable and necessary course of action.  What is it that sways public opinion in these cases?

Ultimately, it is the willingness of the mother.  If a woman was raped, and presumably did not enjoy the violent act, then she need not be burdened further with bearing and raising a child she did not intend to conceive - she need not pay the price for a crime perpetrated against her.  On the other hand, if a woman had consensual sex, and especially enjoyable sex, then the subtle implication of the "in all cases except rape and incest" argument is that an unwanted pregnancy is the punishment she deserves.

Ultimately, the abortion debate is as much about sex as it is about the termination of pregnancy, because the one act so clearly predicates the other.  To me, this smacks not of sincere people genuinely concerned with innocent fetal life, but rather of those who view sex as a crime, and pregnancy as just desserts for loose women.  If you are going to be truly pro-life or pro-choice, at least be consistent in your arguments.  Either that, or acknowledge that the issue is a thousand shades of gray.