The discussion about abortion should start earlier in the conception process. Unwanted pregnancies are caused by male orgasm, not by a woman’s sexual pleasure. Gabrielle Blair brought this fact into the conversation back in 2018, and then it resurfaced with a megaphone after Dobbs overturned Roe v. Wade. “Women can orgasm without penetrative sex or ejaculation, … the male orgasm is what causes pregnancy: ‘Unwanted pregnancies can only happen when men orgasm irresponsibly.’ For that reason, she says, focusing on men and male behavior — not on female sexuality — could have a massive impact on the rates of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.”
Well, it’s been a few months since Dobbs was issued, and the discussion I’ve seen still focuses on the risks to women’s health, the personhood of the fetus, and the woman’s responsibility to control when men ejaculate inside them. Very few people are talking about who is causing all those unwanted pregnancies. Men don’t want their bodies policed, not even if it means preventing unwanted pregnancies. (Creepy men, anyway, there are many thoughtful and mature men who don’t think a few moments of sexual pleasure is worth changing a woman’s life in such a drastic manner.)
My least favorite pro-life argument is that consent to sex is consent to [possible] pregnancy. It isn’t; it hasn’t been since birth control was invented. For many decades, women who have access to birth control have been able to have sex without getting pregnant. Women consent to sex even if they don’t want a baby. That’s reality, and banning abortion doesn’t mean that women will now obey the Christian purity laws and only consent to a man ejaculating into her vagina when she wants to conceive. And honestly, would pro-lifers really want them to?
I’m actually the sort of woman who would never need an abortion – I dislike sex (I’m asexual). I was a virgin until I got married: tolerated sex long enough to conceive the children I wanted, and then I filed for divorce partly so I would never have to have sex again. Perfect chastity; that’s what I achieved. I think pro-life Christian men gloating that a woman shouldn’t have sex if she doesn’t want to be pregnant is rather like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Okay – I hope you get your wish. No woman ever consents to letting a man ejaculate in her vagina unless she wants a baby, and that includes wives telling husbands no [fn 1].
I would think that men would be delighted that women want to have sex more often than they want to conceive. And here’s where we run into the Christian roadblock: female sexuality and sexual pleasure. There’s something sinful about the entire topic, isn’t there? The idea that women can want sexual pleasure without wanting a baby seems … dirty. In Christianity, women have only three sexual identities: virgin; whore; mother. Women are labeled based on how men are using their bodies.
The more autonomy women have, the more they do things that disappoint male Church leaders. When women are given an education and access to birth control, they choose to have fewer children. Despite Christianity’s insistence that motherhood is a divine blessing, women are content with less of this blessing. That says something important, and it’s short-sighted of Christians to just label this selfishness and tell women to repent for wanting fewer children. Nafis Sadik, a Pakistani gynecologist who became head of the UN Population Fund, said in a 1972 interview, “I say with certainty that regardless of country or culture, no woman in the world wants a baby every year.”
The pro-life movement is not an enthusiastic supporter of birth control. Only eight Republicans in Congress voted in favor of safeguarding a woman’s right to birth control; the other 195 voted against. The Church was against birth control, but eventually stopped preaching against it, though the health insurance provided for Church employees only covers birth control sometimes in certain situations. Catholics are opposed to birth control, but many Catholic people use it anyway. Evangelicals are divided on the question of birth control. Basically, the more conservative your Christian religious beliefs are, the less you approve of birth control. Sex produces babies; that’s what God intended. [fn 2]
The Brethren have renamed sex “the sacred procreative process.” I’m guessing they’re using that euphemism for sex to claim that sex is entirely subject to God’s commandments about the law of chastity and multiplying and replenishing the earth. However, we can also use the euphemism to exclude every type of sex that isn’t procreative. It isn’t a sacred procreative process if there’s no chance a sperm can fertilize an egg.
Masturbation never caused an unplanned pregnancy. The same is true for sex toys, gay sex and oral sex. If the abortion ban isn’t about forcing conservative Christian sexual teachings on society (which it totally is), then we can certainly talk about how often people want to experience sexual pleasure without making a baby, along with how to experience pleasure without risking a pregnancy. Humans, male and female, have sexual feelings and needs that go beyond just conceiving a baby.
The Brethren want women to be happy. The women in the Brethren’s lives are happy to obey the prophet and focus their lives on motherhood. Therefore, the Brethren conclude, every woman will be happy if she obeys the prophet and focuses on motherhood. Some will, certainly, but the rest of us are people too.
This is where my self-worth has to leave behind religious teachings about motherhood. I am more than the role I fill in a man’s life. I am more than motherhood. I am more than a wife, or a sister or a daughter. I am a whole and complete human being, whether or not I have sex, have a husband or have a baby. Relationships make life more full and bring joy, but to be healthy, you have to be a whole and separate person too. It’s a lot of pressure for a wife to expect her husband to validate her existence and provide all her self-esteem. It’s damaging to the parent-child relationship for a mother to expect her children to prove her life was well-spent. It’s a recipe for disaster to live your life in search of the Church’s approval. For our own sake, as well as the well-being of everyone around us, women must find their own worth outside of the roles men assign to us.
A woman’s sexuality and sexual pleasure is part of her personhood and identity; it isn’t something to be used by men solely for their own pleasure and purposes. We must separate recreational sex from procreative sex and talk about how to have one without the other. If Christians want to teach their children that sex is just for making babies with a spouse, they can do that, but the rest of the nation has no obligation to agree with their religious beliefs about sex.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
[fn 1] This wouldn’t happen, of course. In a country controlled by conservative Christians, women won’t have the right to say no to their husbands. Part of Christian purity culture is the expectation that, after marriage, a woman will meet all of her husband’s sexual needs. Marital rape laws are fairly recent; it took much work to overcome the idea that marriage is consent to sex. If Christian extremists continue to gain influence, I expect they’ll continue to curtail women’s rights and reduce women’s ability to be independent.
[fn 2] My cynical view about why conservative Christians want lots of babies is because they’ve noticed it’s much easier to raise a conservative Christian (either by birth or adoption) than convert one.
For discussion:
Christianity has one view of sex based on sin or righteousness; social science frames sex in terms of health, consent and bodily autonomy. Which view do you think is more sustainable over the long-term?
Do you want to have a baby every time you want sex?
Wheat & Tares 
And….personal responsibility & accountability (for both parties) comes into play when? Must this forever be about “it’s someone else’s fault”? (As for so called “Religious Leaders”….To Hell with them)
When men consent to sex do they consent to donating a kidney to any possible resulting offspring? Do they consent even just to donating blood if the woman becomes pregnant and needs a blood donation to save the mother and baby’s lives (and if blood/kidneys are not compatible, they could still be required to donate since someone else could benefit from the donated blood or kidney)? Would those who support anti-abortion laws be willing to see more parity in the law to require such donations? Something tells me that abortion laws are about controlling women rather than about preserving life.
Amen to everything! Excellent post! I kept wondering which parts Wendy Watson Nelson would agree to, and which parts she wouldn’t. I wonder if she feels the autonomy you described at the end (having been a senior woman by the time she married) and if given this lens would feel guilt for perpetuating the current narrative.
LHL, women are not saying that it is all men’s fault, but are saying that men need to take their share of responsibility. We get tired of all the responsibility for avoiding pregnancy being put on us, and then the pro (everybody but women)lifers saying that if a woman consents to sex she has nobody to blame but herself for getting pregnant and has to give birth to that baby even if it puts her life in danger, even if she can’t afford to raise it and feed it.
And right now, states are putting in abortion laws that do not consider the health of the mother until her life is seriously at risk. So, women are being told they have to carry a child who cannot possibly live, sometimes already dead until infection sets in and the mother’s life is at risk. Instead of giving the proper medical care when doctors know the outcome, the new laws are risking the mother’s life. The male politician attitude is that if the woman has sex, and then has pregnancy complications, that it is just her tough luck and she has no right to any medical care that might harm the potential child. The fetus’s rights are put above the mother’s, because, well, she consented to sex. They are considering punishing women who have abortions, but not considering any punishment for the man who got her pregnant. That is ignoring male responsibility for the whole problem of unwanted pregnancy.
Look at the real most common abortions, instead of just teen pregnancies that might go up for adoption. Mothers who are married, and say they cannot afford another child are the real most frequent abortion. They are women whose birth control failed, or they can’t afford effective birth control, or the irresponsible male chauvinist husband refuses to allow it, or cases of marital rape, or men who want to keep the wife “barefoot and pregnant” as a way to control her. There are men who slip the condom off during sex, purposely trying to get the woman pregnant. That is so common there is a name for it. Those men exist. In doing work with domestic violence I heard about that kind of man more often than you could believe. So, are we going to punish those men for the unwanted pregnancy? Are we going to charge him with murder or at least accessory to murder when his wife/partner has an abortion? Or do we just continue to ignore the fact that men need to take some responsibility?
I actually wholeheartedly agree that there are circumstances where abortion is warranted and necessary; most importantly to protect the life of the Mother. I would also agree that this particular issue is anything but “black and white” and is remarkably nuanced. What I cannot warmly embrace (and candidly, I doubt I ever will – although the laws of the land will ultimately dictate what’s “legal” ) is the idea of inserting a medical device into a women’s womb, crushing the bones and spine of the fetus, then slicing said fetus into multiple pieces – which are then suctioned out – is not a barbaric act in and of itself. I’m all for all forms of contraception and protecting the life of the Mother – I’m not supportive of using abortion (especially late term) as a means of birth control.
LHL, I’m assuming you read that description of late term abortion on a pro-life website. The articles I’ve read about late term abortion say that the doctor induced labor, and the mother delivered the baby, who was either already dead, or died in the parents arms shortly after birth.
The pro-life movement has really gone all out to demonize women who have late-term abortions. Those are exceedingly rare. Nearly all of them are due to a medical tragedy. By the time a woman is in the late stages of pregnancy, she’s picked out a name, decorated a nursery, told everybody she’s having a baby. Late term abortions happen when a woman finds out that something is terribly wrong with the fetus. Not just an ordinary disability, but defects that are incompatible with life. Some women may be able to face continuing a pregnancy and giving birth to a child who will need to be on life support and in pain for their entire life, which will be measured in hours, weeks or months due to the deformities. Another woman may choose a late-term abortion to spare the child that painful life, and maybe to acknowledge that she doesn’t have the emotional or financial ability to care for a child who will die shortly after birth. The decision in those tragic circumstances should be left entirely with the mother. Letting some Republican man make that decision is a slap in the face of a woman who was already grieving the death of the baby she wanted so badly. Late-term abortion is not used as birth control.
It’s like the pro-life people want demonize women to remove their rights and autonomy. “Gasp! Look at all these women who are crushing the spines of babies because their friend invited them to go skiing and it’s hard to ski when you’re 7 months pregnant!” No. Don’t believe people who tell you that women do things like that.
Thank you for an excellent and well reasoned article. You’ve skillfully laid out this polarized and emotional issue in great clarity.
I can only hope people who need to consider this and reframe their attitudes will.
@lhl nobody does late-term abortions for “birth control”. That’s fake news.
“Consent to Sex is Not Consent to Pregnancy”
Inasmuch as the former is intended to lead to the latter, then yes, it is There is only one absolutely surefire way to avoid pregnancy.
“Christianity has one view of sex based on sin or righteousness; social science frames sex in terms of health, consent and bodily autonomy. Which view do you think is more sustainable over the long-term?”
That’s easy, but your categories are not my categories. Christianity and its predecessor Judaism, sees sex primarily as human reproduction. True it is that love and bonding (house bond or husband) are essential factors, but the *purpose* is reproduction. So does science (what a surprise) Oh, sorry, you wrote “social science” which isn’t science.
We (you, me, everyone reading this) is ALREADY at the tail end of a very long term! Clearly it favors human reproduction.
Someone questioned whether a man consents to more that a moment of pleasure. It depends on the man. Before I had sex with my wife, she was my wife, and the first and only woman I have ever been with. I made a commitment to her and to our children. It was a VERY expensive moment of pleasure (then another, and another). It was many all-nighters with sick wife, sick children. So I consented to the whole package deal. Every moment of pleasure COULD produce a child, for which I will be responsible. My wife has to bear the child, and that’s a big deal, then I pay a price for the next 18 years Those that do not commit or consent to the whole deal, are not honorable. But you choose for you, and I choose for me. In that sense I am “pro choice” but once that choice has been made, it ought to remain chosen, a commitment, a covenant, a promise. But I understand that teenagers have a very small time horizon, BFF (Best Friends Forever) is about two weeks.
I am horrified by the idea that I could come home one day and my wife says, “Oh, you know that baby we had coming? Well, I changed my mind. It’s gone, flushed away.” I only hope that men and women get this possibility sorted out BEFORE marriage. Fortunately, my marriage had these sorts of things decided in advance. Were there even a hint of that possibility, I would have looked for another wife, or none at all if that’s the way of the modern world. No honor; no commitment.
@Michael 2 and @LHL
A few thoughts…
First, some political leaders are trying to outlaw abortion even when there is rape.
Second, not all rape survivors are able to safely report rape, so when abortion laws require a rape report, some rape survivors will be risking their lives to do so.
Third, maybe it would be a good to read the recent Wheat and Tares post suggesting ways in which pro life laws may become more equitable. It’s titled “LDS and Pro-Choice: A Modest Proposal for Pro-Life Equality.” You might find it interesting.
https://wheatandtares.org/2022/09/30/lds-and-pro-choice-a-modest-proposal-for-pro-life-equality/
The only “one absolutely surefire way to avoid pregnancy” is to be born male. Pregnancy is a dangerous and often life-threatening condition. An interesting perspective is offered by specialists in maternal-fetal medicine in this commentary that was published several years ago:
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/03/21/commentary-utah/
So, Michael 2, you’ve rejoined us. So, you’re saying that every time you have sex you intend pregnancy? I don’t believe it for a second. Take that trash out. And your second comment almost says nothing of relevance, so I’m not responding to that other that to say that your brief, “sure it could happen” is the comment of an unsympathetic, privileged male who clearly hasn’t listened to enough women and their concerns. Your portrayal of a “flushing down the toilet” is evidence enough of that. So, yeah, take that trash (and its accompanying ramblings) out as well.
Anon, your comments relating a MALE consenting to sex and possibly having to donate a kidney as a result touched a nerve…because that NEARLY came true this year for yours truly! How, may you ask, since obviously you were employing hyperbole? Well, it’s quite simple…my eldest son, 38 years old, after having to have his gall bladder out earlier this year, had to back into the hospital with again the acute abdominal pain. The doctors at first did think it was his kidneys, as soon he was on dialysis, and his pancreas was going haywire. His younger brother flew out to be with him as it was looking very bad, and we each considered that we’d have to “shape up” and rather quickly in order to be able to donate a kidney to him. His doctors, fearful that they might lose him, after ten days in that Sacramento-area hospital, managed to get him admitted to Stanford. I literally followed the ambulance down to Palo Alto that day. So, yes, having sex with his mother, resulting in her conceiving him, had the “consequence” that I might have been called upon to donate one of my kidneys to save his life, which I was prepared to do if needed. That some five years after his mother had herself passed on (she was 58 and died of cancer).
Fortunately the doctors were able to get his kidneys working again, so the kidney donation question was moot. Less fortunate was that his pancreas wasn’t getting better, and he’s still at Stanford after numerous operations and quite some time in the ICU. One might as well say “you’ll have to keep up with your demanding job and still find time for 2X to 3X a week, making the trip back-and-forth between suburban Sacramento and Palo Alto, duking it out with Bay Area traffic most of the way, and forking over bridge tolls, $6/gallon for gas, parking, and, at times, hotel rooms.”
Motherhood certainly makes demands, beginning with the physical ones of pregnancy, labor, childbirth, and nursing, and I won’t dare minimize them. But so does Fatherhood, and it’s more than being the breadwinner or hitting grounders to improve the boy’s fielding abilities. It ain’t all “phun”, but for the past four months, there’s no place I’d rather have been than at my son’s side in the hospital. But I “knew the job was dangerous when I took it”, or, if I naively hadn’t, then I’d have been likened to the foolish builder that failed to properly estimate. And I’m not claiming some extraordinary feat of nobility about it…to me, it’s just that I’m still “Dad”, and things like what I’ve had to do since mid-June come with the territory.
While I see nothing amiss about using contraception if pregnancy is not desired or it wouldn’t be healthy for the mother, once a human life, namely that of the unborn child, is involved, that’s a game-changer, for both parents. I especially hold scorn for a reluctant father that tries to cajole the young lady who finds herself unexpectedly “heavy” with his child to get an abortion. To me, such a male is no man at all, but a craven coward. It’s speculative, of course, but I’ll wager that many abortions would be averted if the father affirmatively stepped up and carried forth with his responsibilities, including marriage where appropriate.