Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Pro-Life Continuum

By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted December 19, 2005.


From sperm to zygote to fetus to baby, isn't it time we brought some precision to the language of the reproductive rights debate?
Advertisement

In anticipation of the upcoming hearings on the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court I offer the following modest proposal: we should dispense with all-encompassing and ultimately meaningless labels like pro-life and pro-abortion. I've never met anyone who is anti-life, and very, very few who might be considered pro-abortion. Engage the issues involved more precisely. Label people based on where they fall in the chronological continuum between life and birth.

Let's begin with sperm. Many "pro-lifers" are really pro-sperm. Basically, they insist that the sperm has an inalienable right to try to get to the egg. Joe Scheidler, founder of the Pro-Life Action League once even flatly announced that he thought contraception was "disgusting."

The Pope and many Christian fundamentalists fall into the pro-sperm category (although as we shall see, only relatively recently did the Catholic Church itself adopt that position). In the 1990s, after 300 out of 1,000 students in one Chicago high school became pregnant and the school established a birth control clinic, the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin lashed out at the "contraceptive culture."

When Judge Bork advocated reversing the 1965 Supreme Court decision overturning state laws that made it illegal for married couples to buy contraceptives, he was clearly pro-sperm.

The vast majority of the U.S. population are not pro-sperm. Despite admonitions about the sinfulness of contraception by the last dozen popes, two-thirds of all American Catholic women now practice birth control.

I suspect that most conservatives aren't pro-sperm, either. They belong in the next chronological category: pro-zygote. They believe that once fertilized, the egg must be protected at all costs. The furor over the morning-after pill has thrust the pro-zygoters onto center stage in the reproductive rights debate.

Last July, when Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney vetoed legislation that would have allowed Plan B, the morning-after pill, to be sold without a prescription, he insisted, "If it only dealt with contraception, I wouldn't have a problem with it." In other words, if the morning-after pill prevented fertilization, he would support it. But it doesn't. Rather, it prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. Romney intervened to protect the zygote.

Those who would invoke the name of the Lord to justify protecting the zygote run up against a challenging reality. Over 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted, washed out before they attach to the womb. Some 15 percent of the attached eggs themselves are aborted spontaneously. It is hard to figure out God's will in all of this.

I firmly believe that mainstream America is neither pro-sperm nor pro-zygote. It is pro-fetus. Within this category, the debate revolves around when in the fetus' development it gains the right of personhood.

For 1,400 years the Catholic Church did not teach that life begins at conception. It embraced the view that a fetus is first endowed with a vegetative soul; then an animal soul; and when its body is fully developed, a rational, human soul. At the beginning of the 13th century, Pope Innocent II proposed that "quickening," the time when women first feel the fetus move, should be the moment at which abortion becomes homicide. In 1591, Pope Gregory XIV proclaimed that quickening occurs after 116 days, or 16 weeks.

Only in 1869 did Pope Pius IX declare conception itself the point at which human life begins. This was written into Canon Law in 1917.

All popes before Pius IX likely would have supported Roe v. Wade. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted states to impose increasing restrictions depending on the age of the fetus. In the first 12 weeks, largely coinciding with the traditional definition of the time before "quickening," the Court prohibited states from imposing any restrictions. In the second trimester, states may regulate abortion procedures to protect the health of the woman. In the third trimester, after 24 weeks, when fetuses can live outside the womb, states may restrict abortions.

To inform pro-fetus advocates, it may be instructive to know that about 90 percent of abortions occur before the 12th week. Only 1 percent occur after the 20th week. And many second-trimester abortions occur, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, because state laws erect barriers to pregnant women having the procedure more quickly.

One more category should be added to our pro-life continuum: pro-baby. Regrettably, many religious conservatives act as if life begins at conception and ends at birth. It is remarkable how closely pro-life and anti-baby policies track one another. 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, facilitating adoption and nurturing poor babies.

The labels we use should more precisely reflect the complexity of the reproductive rights debate. One way to do this is to abandon the empty term, "pro-life," and adopt labels that more accurately reflect a person's values and policies. Pro-sperm. Pro-zygote. Pro-fetus. Pro-baby. Where do you stand?

Digg!

David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minnnesota and director of its New Rules project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
funnyfarm
Posted by: funnyfarm12 on Dec 19, 2005 3:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll pose a question. Why is it that the IRS only gives a personal exemption for a child who has been born and breathed air? A child stillborn is not considered to have lived at all. If the government wants to stand on life begins at conception it should then allow the exemption from that point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The inconsistency of "pro-lifers" further exposed
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 19, 2005 6:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's bad enough that the same "pro-lifers" are pretty much pro-death when you look at their voting records on a whole host of issues be it the economy, war, environment, consumer safety, etc ... Thank you for providing even deeper food for thought as we sure could use this kind of information against "conservatives" any day.

P.S. : Note the quotes around "pro-lifers" and "conservatives". It means that they're not by definition what they so label themselves to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Freudian slip!
Posted by: DFrost on Dec 19, 2005 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Only in 1869 did Pope Pius IX declare contraception itself the point at which human life begins."

Dr. Freud aside, I applaud the author's effort to better define the terms of the debate.

While I think terms like "pro-sperm" are rather intentionally loaded (much like, say, pro-infanticide), I believe that a willingness to hear (and not just label) the views of others might lead to a better-informed public debate on this challenging topic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Freudian slip! Posted by: BlueTigress
TagsNOLA
Posted by: TagsNOLA on Dec 19, 2005 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks! You've broken this down very well. Very thought provoking! Thanks for your informative article. So much more useful in this important debate than a mindless harrangue. It is a challenge to all of us, regardless of where we are or think we are to rethink our position in terms of thes more precise definitions.
TagsNOLA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thanks
Posted by: gemelabuena on Dec 19, 2005 7:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
great article. i was extremely dismayed last week to read the postings of several people in response to an article on forced abortions in china, by people that i presume would call themselves "pro-choice" but who advocated forced abortions of fetuses with such fervor that i would not have been surprised if they had gone on to recommend forced infanticide of the children whose parents were stupid enough to disobey the one child policy. it is indeed a continuum, and i am glad to see someone recognizing that someone can be against illegalization of abortion with an entirely different set of values.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good points, but...
Posted by: dm. on Dec 19, 2005 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good analysis re. pre-natal life continuum.
However, much as I hate to admit it, the poor old , withering Catholic Church, especially via the late Cardinal Bernardin, has at least been trying to hold out a prophetic voice in its relentless tying of sexual intercourse to wider openings into life beyond its own impassioned moment. These are the doctrinally twinned, uncontrollable and unquantifiable mysteries of human procreation and/OR deeply committed human love. Of course, the Church then loses its prophetic edge in this voice being offered only by celibate males and comfortably monogamous, middleclass heterosexuals. As someone - female, poor, a single mother - who has struggled deeply and at much risk for all of my adult life on this issue, I want to know if abortion as a birth control technique has not helped open the door by science and business interests to further, profit-making commodification of life processes and of the human body, itself, ie, via the many ethical questions surrounding embryonic stem cell research?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Murder?
Posted by: lamar on Dec 19, 2005 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Menstruation = Manslaughter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Murder? Posted by: Granny
» RE: Murder? Posted by: lamar
» Abstinence is Murder Posted by: janvdb
» RE: Abstinence is Murder Posted by: Kneel
» RE: Murder? Posted by: morticia
A False Notion of "Pro-Life"
Posted by: 10wwjd29 on Dec 19, 2005 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First and foremost, there are no divisions within those who are truly pro-life. If you are pro-life, you believe in promoting life in its entirety and from its beginning, at conception with the formation of the zygote. Although life is a continuous process (zygote, fetus, baby, adolescent, teenager etc.), human fertilization is a critical, necessary stage of development in the life of human beings. The growth of a human embryo, a diploid organism, has a human end and will grow into a human being. There is no time during human development that a fetus is not a human being, it is a continual life process. Being pro-life means you value all human life from its biological beginning to its natural death and that includes the death penalty. We do not believe in the justification of killing another human being, whether it be a mass murderer on death row or a fetal human in an early stage of development.

Now, you like to label this position as "pro-sperm". You say that we, as pro-lifers, "insist that the sperm has an inalienable right to try to get to the egg". I find that statement amusing because I do not see what the point or end of sperm is unless it is used for the right of life in fertilizing the egg. Sperm is undeniably linked with life. The purpose of a male's sperm is to fertilize the egg of a woman (just like the purpose of food is to nourish the body, not to make us feel good). Abusing that right of the sperm is to go against the proper end and natural order of human nature in exchange for pleasure and immediate satisfaction. If you are pro-life, you do not believe in practicing "safe-sex" or using any form of contraception that prevents or blocks the formation of life (condoms, birth control, "pulling out", etc.) for the sake of personal gratification.

We have grown up in the age after the sexual revolution where we believe it is our right (with recent advances in technology) to practice sexual activity without the natural consequences. We have developed this mindset that the Church is behind in its teaching and it needs to adapt to modern culture. Mr. Morris, I guess you have not realized that this has only been a modern dilemma. The Church was not faced with this question over one hundred years ago because certain contraceptive techniques were not available. You can be a progressive Catholic who believes in the sanctity of human sexuality and in respect for all human life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Contrived Notion of "Pro-Life" Posted by: liberalibrarian
» RE: A False Notion of "Pro-Life" Posted by: Edward George
» RE: A False Notion of "Pro-Life" Posted by: MaryQuiteContrary
At last
Posted by: Edward George on Dec 19, 2005 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been waiting for this one for a long time. I hope it gets broadcast (with comments, and typo duly noted and corrected) anywhere and everywhere. I suggest copies to all clinics providing these kinds of services and handouts to the anti-abortion picketers. Also to the preachers who use millions of strongly stated anti "abortion" words while carefully (or ignorantly) avoiding clear explanation of what they are talking about. Maybe handouts in front of those big churches after such a sermon. Copies should also be sent to all media and to your elected local, state and national elected representatives and to all judges, including the Supremes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pro-lifers seem to get more radical as time goes on
Posted by: Jasonix on Dec 19, 2005 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was brought up as an evangelical Protestant, and we believed in birth control and, as far as I knew, had no position on terminating the life of brain-dead patients. In fact, most evangelical denominations (e.g., the Baptist General Conference or the 4C congregational churches, to name two) have approved resolutions within the last 20 years saying that ending life support is a decision left to the family. Imagine my shock, then, to see our so-called "Christian leaders" ruining a greiving husband's life just because he pulled the plug on his long-gone wife, or reading that contraception is disappearing from Target and Wal-Mart shelves as Catholic and radical fundamentalist pharmacists refuse to stock it.

I wonder how many evangelical Christians are going to tolerate the morals of Catholics, Mormons, and Muslims being imposed on THEM. When a Baptist has to have 12 kids because he lives in a town where the only pharmacist is a Catholic, I bet he'll be screaming that things have gone too far. But by then it might be too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great example... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Try another analogy Posted by: Xanthippe
» Again, I'm not judging your faith! Posted by: ABetterFuture
One Major Problem with This Article
Posted by: mesprague on Dec 19, 2005 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a Scientist, I was extremely disapointed that this article repeated a common myth about Plan B. It quotes the Gov. of Massachusetts as saying.

"...it prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, or induces bleeding to dislodge it."

This argument is often used to create a distinction between OC and Plan B. It is also a lie. This is part of what Susan Wood meant when talked about the adminstration ignoring science. No pharmacological difference exists between Plan B and most oral contraceptives.

Levonorgestrel, the hormone that is Plan B, is found in many OC preparations. A quick pubmed search turns up numerous references to the fact that is does not appear to have many post fertilization effects.

To quote one recent review
2004 Hum Reprod Update 2004 Jul-Aug;10(4):341-8"available data from studies in humans indicate that the contraceptive effects of both levonorgestrel and mifepristone*, when used in single low doses for emergency contraception, involve either blockade or delay of ovulation, due to either prevention or delay of the LH surge, rather than to inhibition of implantation."

*Note: Mifepristone is RU-486

Creating this distinction allows many people to justify opposing Plan B while using OC. It is important that people understand that there is no real difference other than dosing.

The scary thing is that the Bush administration would rather side with the religious right than with a large pharmaceutical company and its deep pockets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Other uses for Ru-486 Posted by: papergirl
sort out the bigger issues first
Posted by: vespasian01 on Dec 19, 2005 3:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My take on this is apart from policy or law. It's a simple appeal to former allies in the peace and green movements. Consistency can sometimes be encouraged by agreeing either on small matters (morning-after pill will eliminate suffering endured by unwanted abortees) or by agreeing on a consistent extreme-issue approach. The latter is where I'll make my case. During the Reagan years, I worked alongside peace and anti-nuclear activists, environmentalists, advocates of the poor. As these movements have waned, I see that many who had been active in the earlier efforts now find a comfortable niche in what is being referred to as women's rights. Those same folks I knew who were repelled by the legality of the leg-hold trap used by hunters (and justly condemned in the Green Party Platform) feel no empathy, it seems, for the unborn being who is tormented to death by saline poisoning. Or the predicament the baby girl finds herself in when, half-emerged into her bright new world, she is stabbed to death by the abortionist during the partial-birth procedure. All this is purely apart from legality for me. I just don't understand how the friends I knew to be so kind can find peace endorsing such extreme measures. I guess my argument is this: if you're going to get rid of your baby, at least make sure its done humanely.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I thought the life of the mother always took precedence over the life of the fetus.
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 19, 2005 6:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have not followed the issue closely enough to be certain. If it is so, then all the rest of the claptrap here is balderdash.

A mother is a legal person. Even if the fetus is close to term, if it threatens the mother's life, the pregnancy can be terminated.

Unless you are prepared to argue against that, opposition to abortion is pissing in the wind. Are there arguments to justify legally ending the mother's life for the sake of the fetus? If so, let's hear them, or shut up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NJRCRC Posted by: NJRCRC
Why are embryos from fertility clinics of no interest to the "pro-lifers"
Posted by: janvdb on Dec 19, 2005 7:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just why is it that, in the fertility clinic, a couple who deliberately sets about with full information and creates 10 or 12 fully conceived, divided and re-divided blastocysts can, after achieving that one desired pregnancy, toss them all right into the dumpster without navigating past a placard-waving maniac while the hapless couple who accidentally creates one blastocyst and feels they must end it for any of a dozen serious, difficult reasons are "murderers?"

Why aren't the pro-life people concerned about the thousands of embryos which are deliberately created and discarded by fertility clinics?

Why can fertility clinics continue to deliberately and in a pre-meditated manner create thousands of "extra" embryos in full knowledge that most of them will end up in the trashcan while 15-year-old incest survivors are being forced to notify their parents (and in this case, also the father of the child) before they can get an abortion?

It seems that the "pro-life" position is that the destruction of embryos is something to be ignored and winked at if it happens in the course of conception in an in vitro fertility clinic, but if it happens in the course of allowing women to live full, self-controlled, self-determined, adult lives (like men can) -- well, that is WRONG.

What crap.

What total crap.

These people are hypocrits and liars.

If it's embryos you care about, let's see those picket lines in front of the in vitro fertilization clinics and around their dumpsters, too, buds -- or SHUT UP.

Just SHUT UP and admit that it's not embryos you care about at all.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Adoption barriers Posted by: BlueTigress
Pro-Motherhood?
Posted by: precinct on Dec 19, 2005 8:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would "Pro-motherhood" work for anyone? Motherhood could be defined as a choice by a woman to have a baby (since conception is not always a choice). Pro Motherhood supporters would encourage women to choose to have a baby but never go so far as to enforce it by law. Pro-Motherhood supporters could encourage everything from prenatal and early childhood health care to funding of schools and orphanages. These issues seem too far removed from the pro choice/pro-life debate. "Pro-motherhood" could seemingly bring all these issues back into the forefront and cast a light on how pro-lifers can be so callous towards the mothers and their newborns.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pro-Motherhood? Posted by: BlueTigress
Of course you're pro-choice -- you're a libertarian
Posted by: Xanthippe on Dec 20, 2005 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most libertarians are pro-choice, but not all advocates of keeping abortion legal are libertarians.

I can claim that women should have the right to abort in the first six months of pregnancy because the fetus isn't a person, not (as a libertarian might argue) because I'm under no obligation to help others by providing them with life support.

I take it that's part of your rationale for claiming that pro-choicers (for the sake of consistency) need to support the right of pharmacists to "choose to refuse" to sell certain products? The conviction that none of us has the right to intervene in the choices of others, even if those choices are harmful, because there's no positive obligation to rescue people?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oops. Posted by: ABetterFuture
um...
Posted by: mindvsbody on Dec 21, 2005 6:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a very strong article, you made really good points, and same thing with below with the IRS statement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pro-sperm: a sexist outlook
Posted by: emobus on Dec 23, 2005 10:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm wondering about the lack of "pro-egg" in this article. I think part of the reproductive rights debate springs from the anthropomorphization of the sperm and the egg and how it does, to some degree, reinforce gender stereotypes by referring to the sperm as "active" and the egg as "passive"; the sperm "struggles" to achieve its goal of fertilizing the "waiting" egg, when obviously neither party has any sort of active intention - they're just cells. That article ignores the role of the egg in reproduction because it's not "doing" anything, just sitting there awaiting its prince. It's an absurd outlook to take, in my opinion.

Attaching these human qualities to cells, especially ones based on sexism, is much of the slippery slope of the abortion debate. Sperms are romanticized as brave little heros with "an unalienable right to get to the egg", but the egg, is more or less passed over in this equation, since it is "passive" (a "feminine" quality). To me this seems like blatant sexism, because, as I said before, THEY'RE JUST CELLS. They have no agency and certainly no personality characteristics. Pro-fetus is something I can understand. Pro-sperm just seems silly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NJRCRC Posted by: NJRCRC
Trillions and Trillions of potential humans die each year!
Posted by: FURonnie on Dec 23, 2005 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all of the protest about unfertilized eggs being destroyed by use for research and curing of living and breathing human health problems. Why isn't "W" and the neo-con artists going into our homes at night and arresting the killers of potential human life that is destroyed from noctural emmissions (wet dreams) and masturbation? Oh No! I hope I'm not giving any new ideas to these fuzzy thinkers. Do the abstenance crowd condem self abuse also?

Still whacking after all these years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New Jersey Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Posted by: NJRCRC on Dec 29, 2005 12:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found this article very interesting and telling. I especially loved that the author wrote about the comprehensive review of abortion and child welfare policies that was conducted on all 50 states. We pro-choicers have known for a long time that states with the most restrictive abortion laws spend the least on education, facilitating adoption, and nurturing poor babies. The hypocrisy of it is sickening. I like to call our opposition anti-choice or anti-women and us either pro-choice or pro-women.

In some ways the author’s arguments seem useful. However, his terms and arguments leave the woman completely out of the picture. Please – let’s not forget that it is women who get pregnant and must ultimately deal with the consequences. Also, why use the term “pro-abortion” to describe pro-choice? “Pro-abortion” is an anti-choice term. Let’s not give the opposition any more leverage.

With that said, I would still like to put this article on www.NJRCRC.org.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]