The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘Disgusting’ Childbirth?

Posted on | February 19, 2011 | 23 Comments

Megan McArdle hasn’t had any babies yet, but she knows women who have:

The women I know who have given birth, whether pro-life or pro-choice, do not romanticize it. They speak, of course, of the miracle that it is. But they also speak, often rather too frankly, of how difficult and often disgusting the process is. If a substantial number of pro-lifers are women who have given birth–and they are–then we pro-choicers can’t simply tell ourselves that it’s because they haven’t really thought about what birth entails.

Pundette is a mother of seven and permits her husband to respond to McArdle:

So this is what is at the bottom of the pro-choice argument — they are “disgusted” by pregnancy and birth? I thought it was supposed to be the crazy fundamentalists that hated the human body and feared sex. How sick do you have to be to be revolted by the process that brings new life, that brought your life, into being?

What accounts for these differences in attitude? Anti-natalist sentiments are a natural byproduct of the Contraceptive Culture, which propagates the belief that sex without pregnancy is normal, and where pregnancy is considered a rare medical anomaly.

This way of thinking — nowadays so common that we don’t even recognize it as an ideological phenomenon — is an inversion of nature.

From a strictly biological point of view, procreation is the only purpose of sex. People who like to condemn conservatives as being “anti-science” because we don’t go along with the global-warming crusade ought to be asked to explain why they are so hostile to the scientific purpose of sex, i.e., making babies.

Ah, but for the past half-century, Big Science has been in the business of preventing childbirth, you see. So the anti-baby industry has diligently promoted all the arguments and attitudes necessary to the marketing of contraceptive products and services. And this marketing campaign — for that’s what it was — has succeeded so phenomenally that the Contraceptive Culture is now nearly ubiquitous, and people don’t even stop to ask themselves: “Why do we think this way?”

A little history: In 1957, at the peak of the Baby Boom, the U.S. total fertility rate (TFR) – the average number of births per woman, over the course of her lifetime, based on annual rates — reached 3.74. As any student of statistics should see, this number meant that the typical American woman was far more likely to have four children than to have only three.

Today, the U.S. TFR is about 2.1, which means that the typical woman is about equally likely to have only one baby as to have three.

And it also means that U.S. women now are about as likely to have zero babies as to have four.

Whenever you discuss such demographic trends, you can expect to be met with arguments that socioeconomic changes explain the trend: More young people are going to college, couples are delaying marriage, divorce is more prevalent, more women are working, etc.

Yet all of those factors — attending college, marriage, divorce, working — involve individual choices. The conjuring of trends to explain these decisions requires us to believe that we are mere puppets dancing on the strings manipulated by impersonal forces beyond our control, and that our individual choices are pre-determined.

I do not believe that. Rather, it seems obvious to me that personal beliefs influence people’s choices and decisions, and that personal beliefs have shifted as a result of a nearly unnoticed process of indoctrination, the rise of a belief system called the Contraceptive Culture.

Revulsion toward the thought of childbearing – an averse response to giving birth as “difficult and often disgusting” — is exactly what we would expect such indoctrination to produce. One need not “romanticize” childbirth to see that those in whom an anti-natalist attitude has been carefully inculcated would dwell on the messy, painful and sometimes hazardous aspects of the process.

Why? Because childbirth is now viewed as a choice, merely one optional outcome of sexual activity, rather than as a routine and natural consequence. (Childbirth is almost certainly more “difficult” in Mali, yet the average woman in Mali will give birth to 7.34 children in her lifetime.)

What bothers me most about unthinking acceptance of the Contraceptive Culture is that it reflects a failure of imagination, and a death of hope. When I tell people that my wife and I have six children, the reaction is often disbelief: “How can you possibly cope? I can’t imagine it!” And yet we do, somehow.

We have never been rich and have often been quite poor, but we have hope, a hope informed by the knowledge that other people have overcome hardships far more difficult than our own, by a sense of duty to fulfill the obligations entrusted to us, and by the belief that God will give us no burden that we are incapable of carrying.

You may believe otherwise. But you ought to ask yourself why you believe what you believe.

“In the hands of a skillful indoctrinator, the average student not only thinks what the indoctrinator wants him to think . . . but is altogether positive that he has arrived at his position by independent intellectual exertion. This man is outraged by the suggestion that he is the flesh-and-blood tribute to the success of his indoctrinators.”
William F. Buckley Jr., Up From Liberalism (1959)

UPDATE: Via Twitter, Amanda Read calls my attention to a 2009 article she wrote about demographic trends, which she subsequently expanded in a blog post. The upshot of all this can be summarized succinctly: The future belongs to the fertile.

For the benefit of young bachelors out there, I should point out that Miss Read is a student at my alma mater, Jacksonville (Ala.) State University. She is a devout Christian, the daughter of a retired Army officer and the eldest of nine — yes, nine — homeschooled children.

Amazingly, Miss Read is still single. Get moving, fellows.

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/ Neil

    Kudos to you for viewing children as a blessing.

  • Melody

    I know personally the experience of living after the thrill of living life [as it's presently understood and experienced] is gone.

    I’ve experienced layers of it at two different ‘chapters’ in my life.

    It was not at all horrific.

    Painful yes, but not horrific.

    Rather it seemed perfectly natural.

    It is from this ‘angst’ of experiencing life as hollow, meaningless and un-fulfilling; and through attempting, yet failing to find anything temporal to satisfy, that something ‘new’ can be born.

    And in retrospect, it’s kind of beautiful.

    In the same kind of way that childbirth can be painful, messy, bloody and protracted – seemingly horrific – and yet, on the ‘other side of it’, it’s seen as one of life’s most precious (and necessary) experiences.

  • Anonymous

    All very interesting, but neither Pundette’s husband’s “response” or yours is … um, responsive to what McArdle actually wrote.

  • Anonymous

    My wife and I had four sons. The oldest is 36, the youngest is 26. Unfortunately none seem interested in marrying and having children themselves. No grandchildren that we know of. :(

  • Pingback: Rep Gwen Moore: Not Funding Planned Parenthood Means Ramen Noodles for Kids | The Lonely Conservative

  • ThomasD

    It’s not just about prevent childbirth. It is about the prevention of life in general. In their worldview even the act of living an already existing life is something to be onerously and tediously restricted, less somthng untoward happen.

    This is the puritanical nannystate writ large and they couldn’t be more wrong.

    Life is for the living. Life is often arduous, bloody, heart wrenching, and ultimately it is always and inevitably fatal. People must be free to live with what little time they are given. The utopians, of all stripes, seek to deny or avoid this ultimate truth.

  • GoinGGood

    I find it utterly fascinating that in my younger days, the ‘sex drive’ was in the very center of my motivations; in other words, I assumed (as I see now, later) that it was this way for everyone.

    The sex drive was thus ‘transparent’; it was a portable environment, a bubble I carried with me, with me inside, at its centre. I viewed everything through the wall of this bubble; thus, everything had to do with ‘sex’.

    I drenched myself with sex; I was an artist of the sexual union. My vitality was geared to my ‘sexuality’; yes, I did many things which were ostensibly non-sexual, but usually, sex was involved, at least indirectly.

    I became, in my teens, a ‘master outdoorsman’. I learned to live in the wilderness, by choice, eating wild plants and fish. By forming myself in this way, I became attractive to nubile women who desired deep wilderness experiences, which I could provide. Of course, the close proximity of tents and sleeping bags, and the scary night, provided me with endless sexual coupling.

    I discovered that the most vital and fit and exciting women simply adored having naked sex in the deep forest, on tops of mountains, on top of rugged red rocks in the deserts; to be able to look upat the infinite blue sky while orgasm mounts, was described to me as one of the ultimate experiences to be had.

    In this fury, and flurry, of sexuality, I was somehow immune to the stories and reports by my elders; but now, I am such an elder, and so, I have this perspective to share, a ‘before and after’.

    I understand and appreciate the total and all-encompassing sex drive; it is beautiful, and, it is a force of nature, in the truest sense of the word.

    Sexuality is not something that I chose it is not something which I decided upon; it was the central informing energy of my life for many years.

    That people have this sex drive in youth, and in youth have children, makes the reality of pregnancy and childbirth and of husbanding children, part of this most powerful drive; children thus result from this non-stop tsunami of energy, and they are swept along by it, carried by it, as they are the products of it, and I ask; what could be more ‘right’, than to surrender to this species-sustaining energy, to this drive to come together, for unity, to interpenetrate, to become ‘one’ for the best of purposes?

    I am saying, that I became an expert ‘surfer’ on the wave of sexuality, and at the time, did not realize the bigger picture; that the urge, and the babies born, and the lives started, and the forming of personalities, are all balanced on this huge wave, which blesses us all; but now, I have been deposited on the beach, after my longest and best ride, the most magnificent and magical meeting, coupling, and realization of sexuality that I could ever imagine.

    Now, I am amazed; I stand on the beach and watch the huge waves coming, and upon them are the latest ‘crop’ of expert and joyous surfers, and their children pop up around them, and they are all of them, very happy; they are doing their species duty, unafraid of pain, mindless of the drudge of parental responsibility, and it is one big party, and I am not complaining.

    I am amazed also, by how I was able to tolerate certain female personalities, as long as I was engaged in the sexual energy field which they carried and deployed as they do; or did. Now in later days, I feel lucky to have known those women, several of whom are close friends.

    I am happy now, to have my energy moving in different channels; and there is a lot of it, all of what formerly expressed as sexuality, is expressing as creativity, and my ability to see forward, to plan and to avoid danger, and folly, is greater than it ever has been. I see now, how I was heedless of the lack of those things before, now that I have them; it is the view, of ‘before and after’.

    For me, there has been a smooth and gradual shift, from overt ‘full time universal stud’, to circumspect observer and wise investor of energy; now, things have a very different cast, than before; but when I see young people ‘on the chase’, in love, pregnant, making families, I feel a deep and penetrating joy, which is somehow even greater in force, than the sex drive was ‘before’.

    Do not mistake me; I have not “lost” either my ‘gender’ or my sex drive. My role has shifted, and so far from its previous position, into a territory which I did not even suspect had existence; and I am happy about that change, genuinely so. There is a peace available, one which I had sought but which had eluded me. And that is no wonder, as I was slaved to my universal duty as a biological organism that reproduces ‘sexually’, and that ‘duty’ involved deftness in competition, and such competition is stressful, but has a blissful reward in its success. The pains were accepted, because the drive to the reward was not only for personal satisfaction, but as I now see, it was obedience to a ‘higher power’.

    I am no longer in that bubble, I am outside of it, and when I see it surrounding others, I smile (at least inside) for I know how they are involved; totally, and not by choice, but by universal assignment.

    And it is good.

  • Melody

    GG, a masterpiece, you are a giant in the face of life.

  • Roxeanne de Luca

    Childbirth seems rather frightening, and my friends who have had babies have said that it’s humiliating (mostly the medical aspect, not the act – “Five different doctors had their hands up there, and nurses would walk by and take a look – you have no modesty after giving birth,”) and incredibly painful. “It felt like the muscles in my legs were pulled so tight that they would snap” is how one friend described labour pains.

    There are a lot of natural things that are unpleasant, painful, or disgusting – no one really romanticises urinating, how ever necessary it may be, nor loves the smell of sweat-induced BO, however sure a sign of good health and stamina it may be. There’s plenty of people who say, “Childbirth is incredibly painful and hard, and it’s amazing that women will go through that to bring life into the world”; in my opinion, that’s a fine, non-anti-child way to look at it.

    Rather… that childbirth may be a physical nightmare doesn’t mean that babies are anything but good. That there is a cost does not mean that there is not a benefit!

  • oddlysensible

    It is the ‘true nature’ of woman to bring forth life, nurture, and love. In order to manifest this ‘true nature’ requires that women maintain a state of open-heartedness, which is in some ways quite a vulnerable state of being.

    Therefore, open-hearted women need to be, and learn to be, very prudent in handling the fiery energies of sexuality, or they can get ‘burned’ quite badly.

    This can be achieved quite easily by going with the flow of what many believe is the true nature of women — to be highly monogomous (exclusive) in terms of sexual affections and behaviors.

    So, there is nothing wrong with women being fully a part of the perceived advantages of the “sexual revolution” — not at all… We are all here to live and learn in this dream world, and it is All Perfect… and it can well be argued that we are all doing the best we can, and any given moment within the illusionary space-time continuum.

    The only point I am (in impossibly too few words) attempting to convey is that there just might be entirely different experiences when intimately connecting to ‘worldly women’ (who for self-protection purposes may have their heart centers shut down somewhat) and primarily ‘monogomous women’ who may or may not be in a more empowered position to love another in such a way that has potential to be received in a manner that is deeply satisfying to said other (and this is the most awful example of a run-on sentence that I have ever written)!

  • Melody

    It is really interesting to hear another woman writing the above sentiments. Examining my resistance to your conclusions, I offer the following thoughts.

    The sentiments are not so unusual. I have been hanging around discussion blogs dedicated to pregnancy, childbirth and parenting for a while and have come across similar sentiments, though often they are arising directly from some sort of religious foundation that presumes a certain ‘nature of woman’ and familial structure relative to (more often than not) a Christian God.

    It isn’t that there is anything surprising about the notion that the ‘nature of woman’ falls in the area of bringing forth life, etc., and that there seems to be a sort of biological determination about the whole thing. I’ve related with several intellectuals who had previously based their entire academic POV purely on nurture. After becoming pregnant, they were confronted with feedback from their bodies that directly countered some of the key elements of what they had been writing and teaching. Imagine the amazing challenge of having to revise a long-standing theory-based profession and teaching (one upon which their careers had been built!), once their bodies began talking and manifesting a whole, previously inaccessible range of strengths and weaknesses, contradictions and complexities! Perhaps you are already familiar with this particular ‘recalibration’.

    However, the thing that does surprise me is that, as a woman, you seem to have aligned yourself with a certain ‘story of woman’, which carries with it quite visible and distinct potential-limiting boundaries. For anyone involved in academia, it is possible to see that we write our stories, and then our stories write us. Further, when writing stories concerning the nature of one thing or another, it is helpful to keep in mind that nature is endlessly variable, malleable, and changeable. With that said, one might ask, what is the truest story to write? It would have to be a very large story to contain the truth…

  • Anonymous

    A giant *something*, yeah. :/

  • Taxpayer

    I’m not one of those romantic moms. I entered motherhood with much trepidation. And I’m a big weenie when it comes to medical stuff, so I was a prime candidate for totally grossing out during my labor and delivery. But it didn’t turn out that way.

    I had toxemia, which required my labor being induced. The first hour or so I was in the hospital, I was scared. But then I realized–THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME ANYMORE. Everyone in that hospital was there to make sure my baby was born safely; and my fear vanished.

    Yeah, the labor was gross. My contractions never got shorter than 5 minutes apart, my daughter was born via vacuum extraction, I had an episiotomy, and I lost a lot of blood because of the toxemia medication.

    But all of the gross stuff became a blur compared to the first time I saw my daughter. Her eyes were wide open, and she was looking around questioningly, as if to say, “What’s all the fuss about?” That is the memory I carry with me today when I think of the day she was born.

    Yeah, having a baby is not easy or pleasant. But I don’t think it’s supposed to be. I think it’s God’s way of emphasizing the incredible importance of the life we have created.

    Some say blithely that any worthwhile achievement comes only with hard work. We think of the struggle through college, or up the career ladder, and look back with pride at how we hard we worked and far we’ve come. Yet we look at the work of giving birth and go “EWWW!” What is wrong with this picture?

  • Charlie

    Parenthood is not a thing you can analyze intellectually. You’ve either been there, or you haven’t.

    Charlie

  • http://twitter.com/ThePaganTemple WhiskeyDrumCock

    Its not child-bearing that’s unnatural, it’s child rearing that’s been turned into a horror show thanks to the government, the courts, the human services bureaucracy, and the schools. Add all that interference on top of that natural headaches and its no wonder more people try to get out of it. I almost think its by design.

  • Anonymous

    It occurs to me that RSM is in no position to cast stones on “gross childbirth” allusions, having some time back posted the following link (for which I will reprise his warning — once you’ve seen this, you can’t UN-see it):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMkMh4bB8lE

  • Sybilnahasapeemapetilon

    Many years ago, when I had my hypnotherapy practice, a psychologist referred to me a client who had been abused by priest as a child. (This was before the Vatican even considered admitting there was a problem, and was one of the first I had heard of abuse by a priest)

    I worked with him for quite some time, and can share what I know from that instance.

    The priest was very close to the family and my client was an altar boy who thought the world of the priest. What made it more difficult for my client was not only how close and trusted the priest was – not to mention being so ‘close to god’; was that the priest was in such denial of it himself.

    As is often exemplified here on this blog, when someone successfully deceives themselves, they will be the last to see or admit their attitude or behavior – much less see the consequences
    of their actions.

    No one is more dangerous than someone with a strongly repressed shadow. (First person experience.)

    It reminds me of a story my therapist told me back in the 80′s. He was also an ordained minister, and he told me he lent money to a Baptist minister friend of his who let himself get in a little ‘hot water’ financially.

    He said, despite his best efforts, he was finally resolved that he’d never see that money again because the preacher just couldn’t admit to himself that he was ever ‘in hot water’.

    So if the ‘hot water’ incident never happened, neither did the loan of the money. Ha!

    And that’s how I think so much of sexual abuse happens: people have these strong standards and ‘principles’ (for themselves and others) that people simply can’t live up to.

    But they become so IDENTIFIED with these standards and ideals that the shadow can come and do its ‘dance’ with complete (and wholehearted) deniability.

    So it’s been my general observation over time that the people who shout their moral judgments and condemnations the loudest, are apt to be the people most likely to strike ‘under the cover of darkness’ and deniability.

  • Anonymous

    That creature you’ve responded to is a guy originally named gg. Or at least most of it’s personalities are male.

  • Anonymous

    Ah gigi self hypnosis gone awry that explains a lot.

    “people most likely to strike ‘under the cover of darkness’ and deniability.”

    Wackamole time.

  • Pingback: K-Lo Slams Contraceptive Culture : The Other McCain

  • Pingback: Defunding Planned Parenthood: A cultural debate - Current Affairs - abortion birth control Eve Ensler Femininity Fourteenth Amendment H.R. 217 House of Representatives Lila Rose Live Action Margaret Sanger Mike Pence Natalie Portman Planned Parenthood pro

  • Pingback: Defunding Planned Parenthood: A cultural debate - Current Affairs - abortion birth control Eve Ensler Femininity Fourteenth Amendment H.R. 217 House of Representatives Lila Rose Live Action Margaret Sanger Mike Pence Natalie Portman Planned Parenthood pro

  • Pingback: Fishersville Mike: Another Social Security means test

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE