Of sex, dynamite and evil

With reference to Phillida Bunkle's letter in the last Salient, one can only entirely agree that women are oppressed, that pregmant women are more oppressed, that society in general has scant regard for human life.

But how far does one bend before this oppression. Like the Gay Libber or Feminist, should not one rise and fight back rather than capitulate? In the face of disregard for human life one should surely defend the life rather than cooperate in its death. Since, in Ms Bunkle's words, abortion is not 'a positive good' but 'a pragmatic solution to immediate problems', why do some prominent feminists advocate this 'necessary evil' in a society so full of evils?

Surprisingly many regard the ova and sperm as being of the same status as the foetus. A little clarification will resolve this matter. Both the ovum and sperm are alive but of and in themselves have reached the fullest development of their potential. When united, however, they produce a new being. This being is totally different from either the sperm or ovum. The new being contains its own complete genetic "package" programmed for active continuing development into a human person. The new being is unique, quite different from its mother, if not yet separated from her.

So there are no 'arbitary' or 'pragmatic judgements' about the differences between one kind of life and another. From the scientific analysis of each form of life the foetus is clearly of a higher status than ovum or sperm. The foetus is a human being — ovum and sperm only have a possibility of forming human life. Given the status of the life eliminated abortion is not a humane option to, but a furtherance of, the barbaric conditions of society.

We do not have to ensure that each sperm and ovum eventuate in a person. What all should insist on is that the natural functioning of the reproductive processes take place and two of the natural physical processes are bocturnal emission and menstruation.

Where emphasis has been laid on putting human sexuality in a natural setting has been done so because here natural is synonomous with human. Because the human person is a psychosomatic unity what is natural to our physical processes is best for our whole personality. I think it was Levi-Strauss who said that sex is is dynamite for the human person. If it is not treated in its proper manner it can wreak havoc. When we defend the natural we are, in fact, defending what is most human.

Phillida also mentiones that 'traditional' morality is out-of-date and 'proves' it with facts and figures about present behaviour. But here morality has been reduced from the behaviour best suited to the human personality to the behaviour pattern of most people. Morality should be governed by what humans are, not by what they do almost instinctively. The 'head count' morality of sociologists and sexual surveyors such as Kinsey is therefore useless. There was more human happiness with traditional morality than there is with the form of morality most people hold today. Higher suicide, neurosis, family break-down rates indicate the failure of up-to-date morality.

The punitive aspect of pregnancy thus expressed "she shouldn't have an abortion because if she didn't want to get pregnant she shouldn't have had intercourse," I agree is stupid and heartless. But such a comment does not prove that abortion is right.

Incidentally the Society of the Protection of the Unborn Child was not founded by Dr Dunn, but by Sir William Liley, world renowned for his knowledge of foetal life. He is a Methodist.

Frankly I'm frightened at the use of 'being wanted' as a measure of whether a human life is allowed to develop. Logically its converse awaits us — that the unwanted can be eliminated.

Whereas Ms Bunkle says she will support abortion as long as society is so hypocritical and so harsh with women, especially pregnant women. I find myself tempted to say, as Baxter did that abortion receives my support as long as priests and nuns fail to lake unmarried mothers into their presbyteries and convents, bishops fail to exert political influence for better conditions for mother and child, and Catholic matrons curse and disown their daughters for becoming pregnant. I don't give in to the temptation however. Human life does not tolerate the conditional respect.

But the idea basic to my thought is that human life has ultimate value because it is human. The foetus may not have attained personhood, but it is human. Therefore it has rights of the same order as any man or woman. Happiness is the thing.

Brendan Smith