The Pathology of Birth: or how we oppress babies and women

In the mid-1800s, doctors began using technology to “ease” a woman’s labor, first with ether, and then with other analgesics and then anesthetics.  Medicine, at the same time, became enamored with technologies that allowed them to do things they hadn’t before.  The stethoscope, for instance, was a rather ingenious invention that let a doctor examine the heart beat of a woman without touching her breasts.  Over a hundred years, technology improved, and doctors became more involved in labor and birth.  At first, in the United States, midwives held their own, but when doctors and hospitals realized the amount of money they could make by delivering babies in the hospital, they began an aggressive attack on midwives and began to define birth as a pathology.  By the 1950s, birth was no longer seen as something normal and natural but something closer to an illness, dangerous and deadly.

Today, women fear birth perhaps more than they ever had previously.  And yet, because of hand-washing, and not the various machines doctors have invented, birth is much safer than it ever has been in the past.  But when’s the last time you saw an easy birth in a TV show or movie, or heard about it in the press?

If we want to greatly reduce the number of abortions in the United States, we can begin by fighting against this technological attitude toward birth.  We must begin to tell stories far and wide and loudly about the wonder and miracle of birth.  And we must begin to reassert the role of the midwife in the birthing process.  Cross-cultural comparisons show that infant and maternal mortality rates are much lower when birth is attended by a midwife instead of a doctor for the vast majority of cases.  In those rare cases when a doctor is needed, midwives are trained to recognize the danger and call in proper medical services.

As I said in yesterday’s post, the solution to the abortion problem is tied to the way we treat women.  As women allowed themselves to be anesthetized during birth, not only mothers, but midwives and families in general lost autonomy.  So today, when faced with a surprising and unwanted pregnancy, a young woman may not be able to view the pregnancy with any hope, and may view the birth with great fear.

I do not mean to say that all midwives are pro-life in any legislative sense, though, of course, they are pro-life in the sense that they have dedicated themselves to the delivery of healthy babies to healthy families.  I do mean to say, however, that one step toward resolving the abortion crisis is to return the midwife to the dignity she held before technology reared its Janus-head and birth became pathological.

Obama’s Gun Stance

Please read the full text of the Obama’s plan to limit gun violence.  It’s helpful.

President Obama should be congratulated on moving swiftly regarding gun violence in the United States after the shooting in Connecticut.  He has put forward a moderate program to curb gun violence that does not only look at laws about guns but also considers what to do about health care for the mentally ill and security in schools.

One of the pieces of legislation I was hoping to see, however, did not appear: the use of thumb-print identification technology on guns.  Such technology can greatly reduce accidental shootings (e.g., when a child finds a gun and fires it thinking it a toy gun) and the shootings like in Connecticut (where the shooter used his mother’s guns).  Obama is obviously aware that he is working with a very resistant Congress on a very high-charged issue that has people literally up in Arms about the second amendment.  He is for all practical purposes unable to begin a dialogue about the nature of the second amendment, but I suspect that he would not want to in the first place.  Obama is, at heart, a center-right moderate- not left and certainly not progressive.

We Christians, however, should be able to have this debate.  What is the nature of our “right to bear arms”?  What is the justification of this right and how is it prioritized with other rights?

As I’ve said before on this blog, these kinds of questions are almost impossible to answer because they require a discussion about the common good.  A discussion of the common good entails prioritizing the goods we value politically as a community.  The United States, however, lacks the shared standards for making those priorities clear and the practical reasoning for having a conversation about those priorities.  This fact is clear in the gun-control debate, the abortion debate, the tax debate, the energy debate, and almost every debate we have in this country.  What shows this lack of practical reasoning even more is that those who consider the protection of fetal human life a priority are linked with the right, when the protection of life has always been a progressive cause.

Gun’s do have some value.  They are a good for us.  The questions we must ask to curb gun violence, however, cannot be asked in this country.