Life and Sex

One of the most controversial posts I ever wrote was a post in 2010--Pro-Life or Anti-Sex?--where I made an argument that much within the Pro-Life movement is backlash in response to the sexual revolution. To be clear, I don't want to say that the Pro-Life movement reduces to this impulse. Just that this impulse is present in the movement. And I think we've seen this impulse working in the background over the last year or so in the public debates about universal health insurance and contraceptives as well as in the recent debates about narrowing the definition of rape (e.g., abortions are only legal if it is "forcible rape").

For example, when someone says "I don't want my tax dollars to pay for someone's birth control so that she can sleep around" we see a concern about the sexual revolution. In a similar way, in the discussions about rape versus "forcible" rape there is a worry among conservatives that abortion is being used as a form of birth control. That is, a promiscuous woman sleeps around and gets pregnant. To get clear of the pregnancy all she has to do is tell a story about, say, date rape, that the sex wasn't fully consensual. By narrowing the legal definition of rape to "forcible rape" the hope among conservatives is to remove this loophole to make the promiscuous woman face the consequences of her sexual behavior. Again, we're back to the sexual revolution.

The problem, as I hinted at in 2010, is that this concern about sex muddles the logic of the Pro-Life movement. It's hard, from a policy stance, to be both for life and against the sexual revolution at the same time. For example, you want to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies but you don't want tax dollars to go toward contraceptives. Or you start questioning the stories of rape victims to make sure the woman isn't getting away with something. In your zeal to roll back the sexual revolution you become callous toward and skeptical of victims needing your help. That's a tragic place for the church to be--calloused toward victims.

This isn't to say that the conservative concern over sexual ethics is wrong-headed. It's just that it has been folded into the Pro-Life conversation in a way that confuses the picture. You think you're talking about life when we are often talking about sex (and its consequences). In my personal opinion, you can't have it both ways from a policy perspective. If you want to protect life then that's the priority, that's what you have to do. Even if that means swallowing a bitter pill, like seeing tax dollars go toward contraception. And really, is that so hard a pill to swallow given how much of our tax dollars go to, say, defense spending? Last time I checked condoms were less expensive than bombs.

So as best I can tell a coherent Pro-Life stance would be to vote for policies that reduce unwanted pregnancies, even if that means allowing people to have sex without consequences. Policy-wise, don't try to roll back the sexual revolution by forcing women to "face the consequences" of sex. (Which is really what this whole debate about "forcible rape" is about.) Just reduce pregnancies however you can.

And what about the sex?

Well, I'd recommend preaching about it. Put those pulpits to good use. We don't have to reduce everything to a vote.