CoL IV, No Grounds

Since no one (well, almost no one, and those who do only just barely) knows what we really mean by "culture' "of" "life" -- I'm going to offer a partial definition for now. There will be more from time to time. It will sometimes be more "academic" and sometimes not. But, since we have no grounds, at least not any mutually agreed grounds, I wind up back with my intuitions and my own moral compass. Which, right now, strike me as way more demanding than "just saying no".

Abortion should safe, legal, and rare; because women and their lives are NOT worth less than children or men and their lives. To pass laws and establish cultural traditions that treat a woman and her life as a means (which is what a lack of choice is equivalent to, and why lots of people get so mad about it, in case you hadn't put that together yet) is sinful. Yes, I'm using the religious language. On purpose. Kant said it was unethical. Righteous actions are those that treat humans as ends, not as means to ends. It's sinful because the hearts of all our religious traditions teach us respect and love for our brothers and sisters comes first. Why? Because that's the hardest thing to do. The second reason that it is a sin is this (and read well, because I'm coming back to several version of this point as I go along): that woman and her potential contributions to world (including that potential child) are the result of a whole community's contribution to her existence and expression of her talents and abilities. Most of the community's investment is in her, not yet in the child. If that child and raising derail her contributions -- everyone loses. (Hang on, I am not discounting the child -- I'm getting at why this is so hard.)

Now, the problem is that we have competing goods, competing right values here. Her life (in the broad sense, not just her physical existence, though that too sometimes) and the life of the child. Both are good. The problem is that sometimes two goods come into conflict.

In a Real Culture of Life, like we might have after Renaissance 2.0, she would have a choice, not be demonized no matter her choice, and there would be hundreds of thousands of people who wanted to adopt children of other races, and there would be amazing health care, and amazing child services, and amazing education, and amazing day care, and amazing responsible men and women who don't run out on their responsiblities, and all of this would never, ever, get defunded even in time of war.

In a Real Culture of Life, young people would be taught in school, in church, and at home, and (frankly) in the popular media that sexual responsibility rests on the shoulders of both men and women equally. Sexual responsibility includes a host of complex behaviors, including not having sex. No boy should coerce a girl into sex by telling her that it would prove her love to him. Girls in their teens are vulnerable in this area, and boys in their teens know it. This kind of emotional manipulation is irresponsible sexually, and also sinful. It is using a person, a whole person, as a means, as a tool. Condoms? Always. Birth control pills? Yes. Engaging in sexual behavior only with people who actually consent and actually know what they're getting into? Absolutely. Problem: almost no one fits that definition because as a society we do not teach the young about sexuality, or about the intricacies of relationships, emotions, or about how popular culture influences (not determines) attitudes and behavior. We need to teach our kids just how little sex real people actually "get," and that sex is not a sign of cool. It's mostly biology. And the rest is spirit and mind, and that part we need to teach in classes at increasing levels of complexity just like we do with Math.

In a Real Culture of Life: we would recognize that abstinence is for monks and nuns who consciously choose the celibate life, and who, frankly, wrestle with their sexuality all the time. Why? Humans are sexual. Why do they choose to wrestle with this all their lives? Because it is one of the hardest things to do and the path to transcendence is all about doing the hard things. Most people are not on paths to transcendence. Most people want love, and comfort, and excitement, and sizzle, and adventure. And in this culture, we associate all those things with sex, sexiness, and sexuality. We should recognize that and face it head on, and honestly, and with care and respect. Our sexuality is one of the most powerful aspects of our being, and it's really hard to learn to understand, or deal with, or control. Young people, grown people, we could all use some clarity around it.

In a RCoL: we would understand that our sexuality is a gift. That itself, it can be a path to spiritual growth. But, that it is "strong magic." We would not treat it as a sport, or a calling card, or a poker chip, or a simple exhange. We would treat sex and sexuality as sacred. Not secret, hidden in the basement of church sacred. But as central to our existence, something to bless, and give thanks for, and to share, and to learn to make and do well just like we do with food. We would make sex and relationships and sexuality a sacrament, and bless each other with it. It would never be something one "gets" or "takes." We would have no language of commodification for sexuality or love in a real culture of life.

Bonus: if we treated sex and relationships in this manner, there would be fewer accidental pregnancies. Why? Because we would have a clearer sense of sin and virtue. If we could just get honest about it, finally, 40 years after the "sexual revolution", parents would learn to speak about sex to their children in reasonable, clear, unembarrassed ways, and there would be less anxiety around the whole issue for everyone.

Our prudishness is one cause of these problems. Combine it with our hedonism, and, well, here we are. Sexuality needn't be either forbidden taboo or surrender to unreason. It should be an art, a discipline, a fully integrated aspect of one's character. Like dance, or music, or math, or cooking, or paying bills on time.

In RCoL rape and incest would be punishable by permanent incarceration.

In RCol we would work to disconnect pleasure from abuse and power.

In RCoL there would be no question about choice and a mother's health.

In RCoL we would get that there are lots of ways to have lots of risky sex and hurt both body and soul while still maintaining one's technical virginity. And that most of the teens and adults in the US know what those ways are.

In RCoL LIFE would mean something more than DNA and breathing and digestion. It would include, encourage, support, adore, and fiercely defend spiritual, psychological, physical, and intellectual well being. In RCoL we would organize economies that serve humans (not the other way round, where we are now). In RCoL we would respect good behavior more than power. In RCoL we would insist on education, not incarceration becuase it's right to do so -- and it's much less expensive in terms of total social and economic cost. In RCoL we would realize that how we raise our children is in fact a social issue, because eventually they go outside, to society, and do good or wreak various kinds of havoc, and that parents are responsbile for that in their homes. In RCoL we would get over the notion that everyone else is wrong/dangerous/persecuting us. In RCoL we would create a culture in which we were not fight fighting to the death just to feel that we are who we are.

We don't do that. Never have. So, let's not be using this phrase, shall we?