The family has been planning to take advantage of our little patch of suburbia to plant a small flower and vegetable garden, something we never dreamed of doing during the 10+ years we lived in New York City. But the nice weather caught us unprepared. The man at the hardware store told my wife that the unseasonably high temperatures meant that all recommended planting schedules should be advanced by one month. We thought we had a little more time to get our acts together. Such is life.
One recent evening, with a wooden picnic bench serving as an impromptu potting table, my eight-year old and I set to work troweling scoops of organic starter-soil mix into our seedling trays, made of course from the finest recycled, organic, and decomposable material. Into each individual cell—designed to “prevent entangled roots” and “reduce transplant shock”—went a single, open-pollinated, heirloom red bell pepper seed, deposited to a depth of ¼ inch by the index finger of my wide-eyed and determined daughter.
I shared her enthusiasm. It felt good to touch the soil. It felt natural to plant the seeds. It was an organic way to do some quality bonding with my daughter. Unfortunately, I’m the kind of person who can’t ever just sit back and enjoy a nice night. I’m the type to see symbols everywhere. When I dig my bare hands into soft, loamy soil, I wonder, “How come so many environmentalists are pro-choice? Why such urgency to purge our food supply of genetically modified corn chips and pink slime? Why so little regard for the pharmaceutical-ization of human reproduction?”
After all, abortion is not organic. That may sound glib, and I should maybe be better at just living in the moment and enjoying quality time with my kids, but I think it’s a useful way of looking at an issue that is almost always viewed through a political lens. Abortion is unnatural. Interrupting a pregnancy is literally an act against nature. Usually, if left alone, the little seed that is planted in a woman’s womb when she becomes pregnant will grow, thrive, and blossom into a beautiful, organic human child.
That is nature’s way. As sure as the sun rises in the east, babies are what nature wants. Is there another species in all of creation that goes to the lengths we go to subvert nature’s plan? I’m not talking about miscarriage, or other physiological reasons why a pregnancy in the animal kingdom might come to a natural end. I’m talking about a medical abortion induced by intentionally ingested or prescribed chemicals. I’m talking about suction-aspiration procedures which literally vacuum out the contents of a pregnant woman’s uterus.
It is a lot of things. Natural, it is not.
Yet, somehow the politics of this have gotten all turned around. The greenies are in league with the pro-abortion people. The same ones who promote all-natural living—organic fruits, locally-grown vegetables, hormone-free milk, free-range chickens, solar panels, wind turbines, etc.—are usually the same ones who want to make sure that women everywhere have unlimited access to synthetic compounds—gemeprost, methotrexate, mifepristone, misoprostol, etc.—that cause abortions.
It is, of course, everyone’s favorite political game to point out when the other side is being inconsistent or hypocritical. It doesn’t necessarily prove anything, but I think it’s worth pointing out. There are a great many environmentalists who see population control as the logical—nay, necessary—implication of their radical ideas about the damage being done to the earth by human beings. Some of the bolder voices in this group have been open about the crucial role they see for abortion in building a “sustainable society.”
Funnily enough, there is a way of controlling the population that is entirely organic. When I was a kid in public school, our teachers told us that abstinence was the only form of birth control that was 100-percent effective. Do they still tout that line? I doubt it. These days abstinence education is associated with religious prudery or, worse, undue pressure on girls to act as the gatekeepers of their own sexuality against the ferocious and uncontrollable appetites of boys. And, you know, nature be damned, that’s not fair to the girls now is it?
In most quarters it is fashionable to say that promoting abstinence is a fool’s game. It doesn’t work. Teenagers are naturally sexual and naturally curious. They are naturally aching to do what comes naturally. So let them do it, they say, but let them do it “safely.”
Do I need to point out that there’s nothing organic about the Pill, either? It rarely gets mentioned in a media that sees these issues only in terms of “women’s reproductive rights,” but the urine of women who take oral contraceptives or use the contraceptive patch has been shown to contain certain synthetic estrogens that are not broken down in sewage treatment plants and so find their way into streams and rivers. Studies have suggested that these chemicals have dire impacts on fish and other aquatic life.
Sustainable, indeed.
I wonder how much more effective it would be if the public education system promoted the idea that abstinence is organic. It could dovetail nicely with the natural inclinations of kids who are hard-wired to worry about the environment. American teenagers, such as my eight-year old will shortly be, are especially burning with a passion for all things green.
If, as everyone assumes, theological arguments against abortion and birth control are a turnoff to these kids, why not try a different tack? Plant the seed in their heads: Abstinence is organic. Abortion is not.
Matthew Hennessey is a writer and editor who lives in New Canaan, CT. You can follow him on Twitter @MattHennessey.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
This was a fine article that touched upon an important distinction within modern secular life and ethics. Most people do not realize that secular ethics are entirely based on 4 primal instincts: Survival (the need to survive), Victim (the Weak have a need to herd together and manipulate the Strong in order to ensure survival), Nature Ethics (all of nature is absolutely equal--according to a god-free model of evolution--therefore it is WRONG for the Strong to dominate the Weak: and Humanity is very a very Strong threat to our natural planet. And lastly, at the core of every human instinct is Utility: the human animal desires to get whatever it wants, to UTILZE whatever means necessary, to achieve satisfaction.
The apparent contradiction your article uncovers, regarding abortion and what is most natural, is not really a contradiction to the modern secular thinker. The secular ethical system divides the world into "good" and "evil" based upon those who follow Utility (me getting what I want) vs those who follow a more nurturing life of Survival, Victim and Nature ethics. Thus, abortion would seem to be an act of supreme utility and an "evil" act. However, secular ethics allow acts of Utility if the overall goal is one of Survival, Victim or Nature ethics. In other words, if you can justify what appears to be an act of selfish Utility for a greater "good" (woman's health, victim's access to care, the poor getting what the rich can afford, the Natural world getting overcrowded...etc)...then you are OK in the secular ethical system.
Animal Farm outlines the classic progression of the secular system: where Victims are saved from Utilitarian abuse only to be re-enslaved by Utilitarian abuse. We see the same thing today with Leftists saving the world from the evil of Utility (capitalism) while utilizing every lie possible (Saul Alinsky tactics).
Your article is a fine read that unearths how modern secular morality is indeed quite ugly. Yes, with History as a bleery-eyed witness, the earth is littered with a billion bones of the Weak and "equalized"....whose leaders had suddenly discovered that they were Strong.
My wife and I sought out our first natural family planning (NFP) class as an extension of our "granola" lifestyle -- organic food, home birth, breast feeding, home schooling, even home brewing.
We were agnostics and liberals at the time; our motivation had nothing to do with political philosophy or adhering to a faith tradition. It had everything to do with living in harmony with nature.
(And as you might guess from the fact that I'm commenting here on the First Things blog, the practice of NFP had ramifications far beyond its value as "organic" family planning.)
Young women are given the Pill like candy to "regulate their cycles"--with a little wink between the doctor and mom, who is so terrified at the prospect of pregnancy that she subjects her young one to the moral, psychological, and physical harm the Pill will bring. Give the Pill to a young woman before she has carried a baby to term, and the chances of breast cancer go way up. One in 8 women now get breast cancer at some time; was one in 12 a couple generations ago.
Fish and other wildlife are not the only creatures affected by the Pill's hormone overflow. Sperm counts of human males go down wherever Pill use is common. Maybe our "green" friends think this is a positive trend--but it is anything but "natural."
It makes a bit more sense to say the use of oral contraceptives is not "organic," but if one were to rule out hormonal contraception purely on the grounds that taking hormones is not "organic," not only would one have to rule out the use of oral contraceptive drugs for the treatment of conditions such as endometriosis, but also other hormonal drugs (corticosteroids) would have to be ruled out as well, resulting in fewer effective treatments for those suffering with asthma, arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lupus, psoriasis, and ulcerative colitis, just to name a few conditions.
I do believe that in the near future the humanity of the unborn will be impossible for anyone to deny. Today's pro-choice liberals will, in the future, be as disgraced as yesterday's eugenicists.
On a horticulture note (I'm a horticulturist by trade) I'm afraid your hardware friend is giving you bad advice on starting early. He may be right but I would bet you're in for a long frustrating spring if you follow his advice!
The organic, all natural stuff is a form of self-pampering for a lot of followers. Much of it has no scientific basis, is expensive, and becomes fearfully obsessive. The connection between this and NFP is tenuous. "Natural" family planning doesn't mean some pre-lapsarian, granola law, it means natural law. It is based on decades of scientific research and to intercalate NFP with the local integrated, holistic vitamin store does a disservice and some will continue to view NFP as snake oil.
Conservation is becoming lost in all this: some want to depopulate humans and save kittens (who eat native songbirds), and some see no limits the destruction of creation.
But does the Pope, telling us to follow an "Ecology of Man," necessarily oppose birth control, say?
Here as is usual the language of high theology, is open to more than one reading, one understanding. To say that there is an "ecology of man," is not to assert necessaarily, that 1) one must reproduce continually, naturally. Indeed, 2) an "ecology" of man, suggests that we must live in a harmonious way within nature; the rocks and trees and so forth. While the latter? Suggests to many that endlessly reproducing ourselves, leads to the collapse of the ecosystem, and the massive starvation of billions of individuals.
So that? Regarding a proper ecology of man? Here as always, the Pope's statements do not lend themselves just to the "conservative" theology, but equivocally, to either 1) a conservative, pro-reproductive position. Or more likely though, to 2) a liberal, anti-reproductive, more truly, properly "ecological" theology.
Thank you immensely for raising this question, and pointing out the apparent contradiction between the environmental ethic that is more and more pervasive in our culture, and the ease with which that ethic co-exists with the culture of death. My own experience with professional environmentalists (as opposed to ordinary people who embrace the environmental ethic) convinces me that the reason for this disconnect is that radical environmentalism, as pursued by the movement's leaders, is the religion of the culture of death.
As with most other social phenomenon in our culture today, the environmental ethic is conditioned by activists and leaders in schools and universities, community thought leaders, foundations, government agencies and elected officials, celebrities and characters in TV and the movies, and others. As a result, the common form of environmental ethic that most Americans exhibit is formed by the priorities of these leaders and activists, and reflects their omissions as well.
My experience with many of those leaders and activists who are radical environmentalists is that they view humanity as an invasive weed which threatens the well-being on an otherwise wholly-good pantheistic nature. This view either drives their support for the culture of death or neutralizes any criticism of it which they may have. But generally, radical environmental leaders are of one mind with the social and intellectual leaders of the culture of death.
I also find, as a NFP instructor, that there is an important and effective way in which NFP appeals to regular people who have embraced the environmental ethic. I do think there is an important opportunity for Christianity to propose that the Church and its teaching on the nature of the human person provide a stronger, more balanced, and more reasonable basis for the environmental ethic, which then may serve as a gateway to faith for many of these people.
To do this, I also think it is necessary to be vary cautious about identifying with mainstream environmental activist organizations and signature issues. Instead, the Church needs to begin articulating an authentic environmental ethic that hews a virtuous middle course between radical environmentalism on the one hand and laissez faire environmental and natural resource exploitation on the other. This seems to me to be similar to the Church's long term project of identifying the errors of both atheistic communism and materialist capitalism.
I think the crucial term and concept is "natural". i think it was more common in the past (I am speaking of the 1970s) to refer to "artificial birth control" rather than just "birth control" or "contraception". That was a red flag to me, whenever the Return To Nature crowd seemed to support the Pill and other artificial forms of birth control. i wondered why they didn't have large families. They otherwise espoused "natural" ways of living, some of which made sense and others were less clear (I certainly didn't buy into the "carob is better than chocolate" pressure).
I thought most were well-meaning and would not have spent much time wondering about their apparent hypocrisy regarding the Pill. But I'd had enough with their frequent unsolicited advice about my make-up and Gloria Steinemesque streaks ("phony") and called some of them on it. Those that had an answer gave the Zero Population defense. For the most part, though, they seemed unprepared to explain this embarrassing lapse. They had simply and inexplicably given themselves an exemption to their own All Natural Lifestyle mandate. They were angry and defensive (and inconsistent and hypocritical) on the subject of artificial birth control.
Years ago while on a flight back to Europe I sat next to another woman. I do not remember how, but we got into discussion about abortion and women's rights, etc. When I suggested it was not natural and asked her how she thought a class of kindergarten children would react if we sat them all down and explained what abortion is and why mommy might do such a thing, she looked horrified. How much more horrified and terrorized do you think these children would be?
"Epidural anesthesia is a very popular form of pain relief for labor. Just over half the women in the US choose an epidural to numb the pain from contractions."
http://pregnancy.about.com/u/ua/epidurals/epidural.htm
"Epidural anesthesia is the most popular method of pain relief during labor. More women request an epidural by name than any other method of pain relief. More than 50% of women giving birth at hospitals use epidural anesthesia."
http://www.americanpregnancy.org/labornbirth/epidural.html
"Epidural anesthesia is the most common form of pain remission during labor. Although there are several methods of anesthesia, most women ask for an epidural anesthesia; almost 50% of women give birth using this type of anesthesia."
http://www.methodsofhealing.com/epidural-anesthesia-pros-and-cons/
Even if one were to take God out of the equation, which is what should be done with political issues, I still don’t see how pro-choice individuals have a leg to stand on. At just one month in the uterus you can hear a heartbeat. How is sucking that out not ending a life?
I do have to admit, that there are a lot of liberal issues I side on, however the way they handle the pro-choice debate is definitely not one of them. It was turned into a woman’s right issue. Their biggest claim is ‘her right, her choice’. Yes, it was her right to have sex, it was her right to not choose abstinence, and now it is her duty to have this baby.
Good luck getting public school educators to promote abstinence over contraception. We're so busy trying to keep our heads above water after years of top-down abuse from the state and federal gov't folks that we're afraid to deviate one inch from the curriculums that will "produce well-rounded citizens ready to compete in the global economy." I fight the man, though. I say "God bless you" when the children sneeze.
They'll get me eventually.
You might as well pick one name and stick with it. Your rhetorical tells are so obvious that I (and no doubt many others) can tell the real source of the post at a glance.
Richard
Gaining control over human fertility is, for some, an irresistible aphrodisiac. In the twentieth century, the left was not able to achieve this level of control, except in one notable instance. Our century is up for grabs.
Perhaps one question worth thinking about is, would the left be content to leave sterile sex uncontrolled, or would they try to sublimate that energy for their use, as George Orwell suggested in "1984"? Or, would sterile sex be semi controlled, as Zamyatin suggested in "We"?
If these musings seem esoteric, they shouldn't.
Is it because he realizes, at some unconscious level, how ridiculous his assertions truly are?
Is it a pathetic attempt to make viewers think his beliefs are more widespread, instead of the lunatic fringe?
Very curious...and then I'm reminded what he really needs is prayer.
In 2008: "[The Church]must also protect man from self-destruction. What is needed is something like a human ecology, correctly understood. If the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and demands that this order of creation be respected, this is not some antiquated metaphysics.What is involved here is faith in the Creator and a readiness to listen to the 'language' of creation. To disregard this would be the self-destruction of man himself, and hence the destruction of God’s own work."
In 2011: "Yet I would like to underline a further point that is still largely disregarded, today as in the past: there is also an ecology of man. Man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will. Man is not merely self-creating freedom. Man does not create himself. He is intellect and will, but he is also nature, and his will is rightly ordered if he listens to his nature, respects it and accepts himself for who he is, as one who did not create himself. In this way, and in no other, is true human freedom fulfilled...."