On the divorce and illegitimacy rates:  they are HIGHLY segregated by class and education.  Among the college educated, the divorce rate hovers around 10% and the illegitimacy rate is in the single digits.  It has actually gone down over the past 30 years.  When educated people cohabit, it is almost always as a precursor to marriage.  Even if social views are generally liberal among the educated, they are actually LIVING the family values.  The egalitarian marriages of the upper middle class are an huge success.  I am in one; I would NEVER trade places with my grandmothers from the 1950s.

It is among the working class and the poor that the divorce and illegitimacy is rampant, and growing.  This would hint that there might be some serious economic causes of the breakdown, in addition to the breakdown of values.

And single women are not all the result of the failure of men.  Women are single for many reasons.  I was single until 30 because I was finishing an advanced degree and because I enjoyed my freedom.  Again, there is a split between the educated and the working class.  Many women are single because they CHOOSE to be, or because they are waiting longer to get married, or being more selective about who they marry, which is a good thing and results in stronger marriages. 

Going into a culture war thinking women are all single because of men’s failures and that families are falling apart across the spectrum is not going to work well for you, because your enemy isn’t based in reality.

God told us through Moses, in Deut. 30:15-20, to make the proper choice: good or evil, and as history has a bad habit of coming back and seeing how we chose evil, instead of good, what happened to the Israelites, will come down upon us, but, it will be a far worse chastisement then what they had received, and it will be the end of America. Now, we will find out just how many of us say “JESUS, I TRUST IN YOU” will truly know just what that statement really means.  I quit asking God to bless America, I just ask Him to have mercy on us, something that we don’t even deserve. A very good article Tom and now let us pray that the Bishops, including those that voted against God, will become strong Men of God, as the Apostles were, and not quiver when OBAMANISM, the worst of all modern evils, will take over completely.  +JMJ+

Thanks, Tom, for a good synopsis of the electorate dynamics this year.  I am devastated with the results, and have suffered a real challenge to the Christian hope I am supposed to hold dear and strong.  Having spent the end of last week fighting on Facebook with a couple of gloating characters, I wonder what is next for our sad country, which seems defeated just now.  I hope and pray our family Thanksgiving dinner will not descend into fighting.  I simply cannot comprehend how any serious Catholic could vote for ANY Democrat.  The party is so many bad things today, but mostly it is ugly, dark and sleazy.
.
Don’t be so hard on Romney.  Living in MA, I must say to your readers that we are a cultural warzone here, fully immersed in the ‘culture of death’.  When Romney was governor, he tried to be bipartisan, which, in this state, forces one to enlist with the dominant party apparatchiks, comparable to joining the Vichy regime in WWII France.  Romney nailed it when he commented upon gay ‘marriage’ when it was forced upon us in 2006, in a 5-4 judicial decision;  he opined that people gave tacit approval to these mock marriages because they knew gay people and didn’t want to upset them.  We let an emotional urge to empathize, to get along with others, overtake our realization that marriage will be further undermined by redefinition.  With moral relativism, the arguments of a well-considered philosophy or theology, or simple obedience to a traditional moral code, mean much less than the exigencies of how one ‘feels’ about an issue.  Romney is a good man who would have been a hard-working, excellent president.  I guess he is being punished for his collaboration with the post-modern nihilists here in MA.  Please pray for us up here - it is a dismal, dreary place, and do everything to keep your state from following us into the abyss, the dead end of liberalism.
.
A good note about MA - with the help of our wonderful Cardinal Sean O’Malley, we (narrowly) defeated the physician-assisted suicide referendum.  I must also admit that Victoria Kennedy’s stand against the measure helped in the defeat.  Sadly, so many in this state will put faith in the opinions of a Kennedy, but in this case it worked in favor of bringing in a little bit of light into this declining cultural environment.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.  We should and will stay the course.Our Catholic faith matters more than politics—-praise the Lord!

Good article.  I agree with you and you write it so much more charitably than my thoughts.

Your observations should be directed to the Bishops, priests, and other religious who set the tone for those of us in the pews to follow. Vacillating leadership has resulted in the current sad situation.

We must consider that with the exception of CSPAN and FOX that the secular media did not and would not cover any Hispanic or Black speakers at the Republican National Convention - by going to their own talking heads for opinions that were not relevant.  Their censorship and biased coverage was appauling and important for people to remember.

We will all be judged by our own actions or inactions.
We must LEARN our Faith by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
so that we can LIVE our Faith,
And SHARE our Faith is with others.
Give CCC’s for Christmas, Birthday, Graduation or other gifts.

When voting in State and Local elections - remember the Democratic Party Platform - supporting Abortion with taxpayer funding, and supporting sodomy (homo-sexual marriage).

Excellent article, Tom. 

I think it’s also important to remember that the priests, bishops, politicians and reporters we get didn’t appear out of thin air.  They weren’t secretly bred in the pits beneath Isengard.  They came from our families. Liberals and heretics -  who are actually a *minority* in this country - didn’t gain so much control and influence by force of arms.  It’s just that they were more motivated and organized than faithful, conservative Catholics (and Christians in general).  We’ve allowed this to happen.  Where are all the faithful Catholic politicians coming from our families?  Reporters?  Bishops and priests? 

When, as a group (faithful Catholics and other Christians), we care as much or more than the extreme liberals and unfaithful Catholics and other Christians, then we’ll get organized and focused enough to start making a more serious and effective impact on the Church and the culture.  Until then, we’ll be stuck with the “somewhat less evil” candidates, biased media and diffident priests and bishops.  (To be sure, there are notable exceptions in all the aforementioned groups today, but clearly not enough of them.)

My guess is that, as a group (faithful Catholics), we’ll all do some things - but not enough to really change the culture - and continue to complain, at least until our personal lives are affected sufficiently.  Then, we’ll finally realize that we need to start the transformation with ourselves and our families -  and then our families will transform the Church and subsequently the culture.

But right now, as a group, we’re too comfortable to care enough.  We’ve effectively abdicated our roles and authority as priests, prophets and kings.  That authority vacuum has been filled by others.  And I think we’re going to increasingly see the ramifications of that abdication in our daily lives.  I pray that enough of us wake up in time.

This article from the Archdiocese of Washington brings to light some relevant information about the nature of persecution of groups and how it begins:

http://blog.adw.org/2012/11/some-thoughts-on-the-five-stages-of-religious-persecution/

Guys, since the 1970s at least, the American Catholic bishops and clergy have been squandered their credibility and now have little, if any, left.

I enjoy listening to Gov. Christie, but isn’t he pretty squishy on abortion, gay marriage and other social issues?  I could be wrong; but I know I was disappointed in some of his positions.

Newt Gingrich is a great supporter of the values you speak of. Now that he has his serial adultery out of his system, and has bought his way into the Church, he is appearing regularly on EWTN every time he or his latest wife have a book or a movie to promote, so they can maintain that half-a-million dollar account at Tiffany’s. Paul Ryan, another values man, for many years spoke effusively about the impact of Ayn Rand on the very basis of his philosophy. But one day early this year he decided that everything about Rand was anathema to his Catholic faith. And Joe Walsh, who owes $100,000 lost in his bid for re-election for his inane comments about abortion. It seems that a serial killer would get the support of the so-called “family values” voters, as long as he was against abortion.

I totally agree with Tom’s article. If anything the GOP needs to be even more the party of family values. The Democrat party is growing into the party of all those who have some problem with some aspect of healthy, industrious, responsible, moral living. The GOP needs to offer a true vision for the future of our culture and maybe needs to get out of the way of the Tea Party. The more we cave on what’s truly important, the more we look like Democrats/secularists.

Women do not look to Obama to “help ward off single motherhood”.  Women look to the democratic Party to keep the GOP and government out of the bedroom, to block the weird and unwarranted control that the RC Bishops and the GOP want to have over the lives and bodies of women.  The government does not belong in our bedrooms. he RC bishops do not belong in our bedrooms. The GOP wants to keep government out of corporate boardrooms, but Romney and the GOP are all for regulating the bedrooms of American women. Women, like men, are adults who do not need the government or the RCC controlling our lives.  If the RC bishops continue to preach what they preached in during this past elction cycle, they will continue to lose (which of course is a good thing for all American women).

Republicans lost because they have embraced politics of division. Romney’s 47% “victims” comment was representative of the “us vs. them” mentality. How do you expect to win over a nation when you attack half of the nation as feckless opponents. Hal fof the reason we lost is ebcause of horrid insensitive comments, like “legitimate rape” and vitriolic attacks on people on “food stamps.”

Modern-Day Conservatism(TM) has become too mechanical and superficial. Love and worship of Money/Greed has long replaced adherance to genuine holistic/spiritual principles. Synthetic over organic. Why has the GOP abandoned, at large, the Conservation Ethic? Environmentalism has only become more Leftist because Conservatives has ABANDONED the field.

I have some suggestions for a conservative revival.

1. Re-embrace the conservation ethic. Become the philosophy that upholds the intrinsic value of family farms and local food.

2. Recognize that being pro-environment IS Pro-life. When we conserve and restore natural ecosystems, we leave the world in tact or better off for the next generation. The unborn have a Right to Life (i.e., not to be killed by abortion), and they also have a Right to be born into a world that is not plagued by toxic air and fouled water.

Creation is proof enough of God’s existence. When we degrade the environment, we degrade God’s holy works.

Also, since when did conservatism place Profits over People? When did corporations deserve more freedom than human beings?

* Corporations are NOT People. I can’t even believe that it is a matter of debate.

There are plenty of reasons why modern-day conservatism failed in 2012. It has become too superficial, too materialistic, too greed-driven. Let us become more spiritual, genuine, more locally-driven. Let ur embrace the “little platoons of society” once spoken of by Edmund Burke.

Thankyou…........  have been feeling like our great country lost since this election, going the way of other secular countries, but there’s hope…........

Thanks for the uplifting message, Thomas. But you neglected to mention the extreme rise in illegitimate births among the black population. While it was 25% in the mid-60’s, the illegitimate birth among blacks in Detroit hovers near 80%.
No doubt some women are pressured by men to have sexual relations outside marriage. But many women choose to use contraception, without a steady man in their life. Abortion is often the solution if pregnancy results. FYI, the number of women who voted for President Obama was a key to his victory.
Hate to admit it, but Obama’s move to force Catholic institutions to provide contraception and abortion coverage probably helped him win more votes from Catholic women. Obama did not fear the tough talk of our American bishops. Pray for the bishops, who have failed to instruct and form Catholics for the past 50 years. Our bishops need to teach Catholics the simple message of the gift of life: sexual relations are reserved for husbands and wives, who will accept the children God sends them as the fruit of their married love.
FYI, Chris Christie holds liberal views which the Church does not approve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy#Viability_and_established_pregnancy

“As a result, even without the use of birth control, between 50% and 70% of zygotes never result in established pregnancies, much less birth.”

Turns out procreation is rather inefficient.  If personhood begins at conception, more persons naturally die before birth than are born.  It seems odd that God would instill souls in all zygotes at conception if the system he created kills the majority of them shortly thereafter.  If life begins at conception, unprotected sexual intercourse has killed far more persons than induced abortion has.

It’s amazing to see how backwards our American population continues to be in the religious sphere.  As our country moves forward with modern issues and problems, you all continue to adhere to doctrines that do not match with our own times.  If our parents and grandparents had continued to latch onto Catholic traditions, the atrocities that would have continued to exist are repulsive.  I encourage you to open your mind and heart as a person who loves through inclusiveness, not descrimination and hate.  As Vatican II states, it IS up to the religious leity to have the power to interpret Catholic doctrine.  You have the choice to love or hate, so I AM keeping hope after this election.

Dear anon,

Thank you for taking time to respond to my commentary.  Your main contention is that what I wrote about doesn’t apply much to college-educated persons, in particular college-educated women.  In that light, I’d first like to say that knowing the natural moral law, i.e., the law of God written on our hearts (cf. Rom. 2:14-16), and possessing the virtue to live that natural law, does not require a college-education, as I’m sure your grandmothers could affirm.  Nor does a college education guarantee the acquisition of this immutable wisdom and the virtue to live it.  I’ll revisit and develop this fundamental point as I proceed through my response.

In responding to your comments, anon, I agree that we must be rooted in reality, and included in that is fairly representing what I wrote.  To be fair, I never said that “women are all single because of men’s failures.”  Rather, I specifically spoke about those single women who have embraced contraception and abortion—and unfortunately they are many—and how contraception and abortion hurts them, such as preventing the genuine intimacy and commitment most of them so understandably desire.  I also noted that many men are more than happy to support such policies, as they enable them to continue in their irresponsible, no-strings-attached relationships with women.  This last point is particularly self-evident, as we see in our culture the increasing pervasiveness of “hook-ups,” “friends with benefits” and other forms of uncommitted relationships.  And cohabitation has, at best, minimal strings attached, until common law kicks in or there is some form of non-marital contractual relationship.

Yes, I realize that women choose/consent to these relationships.  While I focused my criticism on men, I have written elsewhere about the reality of “self-induced sexism.” In other words, while the slogan “men are pigs” can be used to describe sexually irresponsible men, the sad irony is that a good number of the women who utter those words are quick to jump into the sexual pigpen.  I just chose to focus my attention on men in this commentary.  As a secular-minded woman acknowledged to me just the other day, she’s increasingly running into more and more “50-year-old boys.”

But let’s consider the question more deeply:  Do contraception and abortion truly harm or benefit women, their children and our larger society?

Contraception undermines marriage and family, which are the basic building blocks of any society.  The possibility of procreation is a natural indication that those who engage in sexual intimacy should be committed, i.e., married, including for the benefit of their children, who should be the fruit of their love. 

And as an examination of “sex au naturel” illustrates, there is inscribed into the very nature of the marital act a love-giving and a life-giving aspect, and that the latter is activated by the expression of the former.  Contraception doesn’t simply undermine the life-giving aspect.  Rather, it also undermines, to one extent or another, the very expression of conjugal love that is ordered toward procreation as one of its fruits.  It thereby undermines the total and unconditional self-giving that marriage is called to be as a lifelong union, and of which the marital act and its regular renewal is a microcosm.

Some may think such a perspective is the product of outdated and otherwise misguided philosophy and theology, because contraception operates only on the merely biological plane, and thus what a welcome development modern, pervasively available contraception has been.

But consider the evidence.  First, wherever contraception has been legalized and embraced by a country’s citizens in their everyday lives, abortion as its logical birth control back-up has inexorably followed.  For example, in the United States, Griswold v. Connecticut made contraception-on-demand legal in 1965, and abortion-on-demand followed in 1973 with Roe v. Wade.  These U.S. Supreme causes were not the strict causes of these social maladies, but they were certainly major confirmations that served as greatly exacerbating catalysts.

Aborted children are among the prime casualties of our increasingly “sexually liberated” culture.  And that includes the untold number of children who are aborted via the Pill, which significantly impairs the implantation of conceived, embryonic children in their mothers’ wombs, when breakthrough ovulation takes place.  Indeed, the reality of a child begins at conception, not implantation, which is merely a change in geography.  Also included in abortifacient contraceptives are IUDs and other means.

And regarding reality, why is the great gift of a woman’s fertility a “medical problem” that must be treated with “preventive care”?  Ditto with pregnancy, or more specifically unborn children whose dignity and personhood should not be contingent on whether they’re wanted by their parents.

And Sandra Fluke and others like her don’t have a medical problem; they have a moral problem.  And given that their college educated women, should taxpayers be forced to subsidize their vice?  No.

Contraception also teaches us that sex isn’t necessarily for marriage, and marriage isn’t necessarily for keeps.  Cohabitation began to become more prevalent in the latter 1970s (see Tony Schwartz’s Newsweek cover story “Living Together,” August 2, 1977.)  Given its uncommitted nature in “playing house,” widespread cohabitation would not be possible without the advent of modern, pervasively available contraception.

You argue that “the divorce rate hovers around 10%” among the college-educated and that “when educated people cohabit, it is almost always as a precursor to marriage.”  You add that “even if social views are generally liberal among the educated, they are actually LIVING the family values. The egalitarian marriages of the upper middle class are a huge success. I am in one; I would NEVER trade places with my grandmothers from the 1950s.”

First, let’s consider cohabitation and marriage.  For those couples who cohabit and actually marry, divorce is higher than for those who don’t. 
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/zcohabit.htm
That shouldn’t be surprising.  In contrast to your grandmothers’ generation, in which couples were much more likely to be God-centered and thus committed to truly sacrificial, lifelong love—and that would include my parent and those of many friends—the contraceptive mentality works in an opposite, self-centered direction.

In his best-selling book The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectation, which was first published in 1979, Christopher Lasch got to the heart of the matter: “Efficient contraceptives, legalized abortion, and a ‘realistic’ and ‘healthy’ acceptance of the body have weakened the links that once tied sex to love, marriage and procreation.”

And the “generally liberal” social views among the educated are an indication that their family values are not well-founded.  (Not to mention that their political choices, which flow from their socially liberal views, tend to foster societally erosive policies, witness the reelection of President Obama.)  Couples who embrace contraception—vs. the morally different Natural Family Planning (NFP)—and support legalized abortion and same-sex “marriage,” are couples who don’t truly understand marriage, don’t know God well, and are thus more much vulnerable to having their marriages crumble as narcissism creeps in over time in one or both spouses.

And even if they don’t divorce, contraception will undermine the quality of a marriage, as men will be less likely to look at their wives as whole persons and more as objects, and also be more vulnerable to have variously wandering lustful eyes—and worse.

In that light, regarding divorce, be wary of your statistics.  In May 1990, Prof. Neil G. Bennett, an Associate Professor of Sociology at Yale University, wrote in to The New York Times when someone questioned the 50-percent divorce rate.  Dr. Bennett noted that if one is interested in the proportion of marriages that ultimately end in divorce, one must consider currently married Americans who either 1) have not yet divorced but will do so eventually or 2) have already divorced and have since remarried (and, one may add, are more likely to re-experience divorce.)

Dr. Bennett added that “by modifying the life table technique, demographers are able to project the eventual divorce rate of recently married couples, for whom we do not have 20 years’ worth of information.  It is this group to whom the 50 percent figure, even 60 percent by some estimates, applies.”

And what we’ve sadly and increasingly learned in the intervening 20-plus years is that staying together 20 years doesn’t mean a couple will avoid divorce.  Divorce rates are becoming increasingly more common among those who have been married 25, 30 and even 40 years, and that often includes the college-educated.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/05/25/graying-divorces-what-boomers-need-to-know-to-protect-their-assets/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/sex/7805836/The-40-year-itch.html

So a college education is no guarantee that a woman is going to sidestep the social disease of divorce.  Also, the “Murphy Brown” syndrome of willful single motherhood among the college-educated is sadly not insignificant in current times (almost 10 percent),
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brycecovert/2012/07/16/the-rise-and-downfall-of-single-mothers/

And we need to remember that this societally problematic phenomenon was basically unknown only decades ago.  And as to whether children do better in single-parent or intact homes, whatever their socio-economic status, The Atlantic published an excellent article almost 20 years ago.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/04/dan-quayle-was-right/307015/
As the statistics I cited in my commentary substantiate, things haven’t gotten better in the interim.  Children of single-parent households, specifically those involving unwed births or divorce, tend to do more poorly in life, including re: poverty, and the increasing incidence of such homes does not bode well for the future of America. 

A Princeton University study from last decade studied the behavior of college-educated women who were unmarried mothers, noting that a significant 20 percent of all unmarried mothers, whether never-married or divorced, are college-educated.  The study concluded: “We find evidence that being college educated and single is associated with holding more independent views about marriage, with having lower-quality partners and with increased odds of becoming a mother late in life—above and beyond the main effects of education and marital status.”
http://ideas.repec.org/p/pri/crcwel/957.html

This is further evidence for what I call the latex-immune nature of the moral law.  A college-educated woman will sidestep unwed motherhood and sexually transmitted diseases more frequently than her non-college-educated counterparts, but she can’t flout the moral law with impunity.  Moral absolutes substantiate themselves absolutely, whether to our benefit or detriment. 

Anon, you said that “many women are single because they CHOOSE to be, or because they are waiting longer to get married, or being more selective about who they marry, which is a good thing and results in stronger marriages.”  But we must recognize that the single life is not necessarily the primary desire of many single women.  It’s often because the men with whom they’re in relationships won’t commit because they lack virtue, while other men may be interested in them but they’re less desirable and less virtuous.  Such is our culture.

And, to reaffirm, the women are to blame too.  But for better or for worse, women tend to follow the lead of men.  When men don’t lead well, choosing not to lay down their lives for women, whether before or during marriage (cf. Eph. 5:25), women tend to follow suit, attempting to level the sexual playing field through contraception and abortion.

In summary, moral absolutes substantiate themselves absolutely.  Sexual misbehavior, beginning in the premarital realm, has inevitable consequences.  Lust, casual sex and aversion to commitment—character defects of every sexual liberationist to one extent or another—inevitably take their toll, producing great alienation between many men and women, with many repercussions for many children and families, existing and prospective, and thus for society at large.

If we’re going to change our culture, we’re going to have to change the way men and women relate to each other.  We need to re-cultivate the virtue of chastity among men and women, and here we’re not talking about a teeth-gritting “just say no” or mere abstinence approach.  Rather, the virtue of chastity, in which men cultivate joyful self-possession and view and treat women as whole persons, and women, in turn, act in the same toward men.

And it’s gotta start with the formation of our young people, but that won’t likely happen until parents obtain their taxpayer rights to choose the school of their choice for their children, because the federal government, the teachers unions and the public school system in general is not likely to recognize and promote the moral law anytime soon.

And finally, and most important, a return to God is needed, and specifically in full communion with Jesus Christ and his Catholic Church.  Jesus is the way, the truth and the life (Jn. 14:6), and he communicates his way, truth and life through his Church.  Indeed, Jesus provides us with the truth that sets us joyfully free, now and forever (Jn. 8:32).

Thanks to everyone for your kind/affirming comments and/or simply taking the time to share your thoughts.

Regarding Gov. Chris Christie, I’ve been impressed by, among other things, his standing up to Planned Parenthood and their supporters:

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/30/chris-christie-vetoes-planned-parenthood-funding-again/

And in a rather liberal state like New Jersey, no less.  That takes some conviction.

Thanyou, the 2nd column is even better than the 1 st.

@ Graham:

And the last I checked, pretty much 100% of human beings die.  The point is, there’s a difference between one human being intentionally killing another human being and a human being dying of natural causes. 

Most of the time when the situation you describe arises (very early miscarriage), it’s because something has gone wrong - blighted ova, etc and as such, the life was not viable from the beginning and may never have actually begun at all (as in the case of a blighted ovum). 

@ Ben from Maine: 

1) Romney received 2 million fewer votes than JOHN McCAIN did in 2008 and 2) Obama received 9 million fewer votes than he did in 2008. Romney received many more independent votes than McCain, so it seems to me that the primary cause of Romney’s loss was that his own Republican base just didn’t like him enough. If Romney had even managed to get as many Republican votes as the hardly beloved John McCain did in 2008, Romney would have won.

I think Paul Kengor is right here: “The old adage is true—people prefer to vote for someone rather than against someone.”

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/09/mccain-beats-romney

Thanks for your thought-provoking post, Graham.

Some offer these statistics re: the purported existence of God, as in, what do these statistics say about a God who would allow the lives of most humans to be so absurdly short?  Or, assuming God does exist, he clearly wouldn’t do it this way, all things considered.

First, in light of eternity, the span of a human person’s temporal/earthly existence is relatively fleeting, whether its days or many years.  Second, if one posits the existence of God, the doctrine of original sin—and its impact on humanity in various ways—can certainly account for the “failure rate” of those many human persons who don’t survive the womb for natural reasons.

In any event, God is sovereign over all of creation in general and humanity in particular, and thus the issue of how one dies becomes an issue, and that is why I italicized “natural” in the preceding paragraph’s last sentence.  If an unborn human person dies naturally, there may be some human contribution, but we’re not talking about the directly willed malevolence of a doctor who performs an abortion.  In the case of a doctor who performs abortions, there is clear and serious culpability, though presumably mitigating factors for the often-desperate women who have abortions.

Regarding the 30-70 percent of human persons who reportedly don’t survive the womb, it’s interesting that the writer of the Wikipedia article still refers to them as merely zygotes when he/she cites factors that reportedly increase that rate to 50-70 percent.  I say interesting because “zygote” is a term that refers to the human person at a pre-implantation stage,
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
and yet all the factors the author cited to account for the increase to 50 percent (on the lower end of the rate) were, by the author’s own words, post-implantation: “Of those that do implant, about 25% suffer early pregnancy loss by the sixth week LMP (after the woman’s Last Menstrual Period), and an additional 7% miscarry or are stillborn.[33] As a result, even without the use of birth control, between 50% and 70% of zygotes never result in established pregnancies, much less birth.” 

Thus, while the “term” zygote may be more rhetorically useful, since it describes a stage of human life that to some seems less human, its use here is scientifically inaccurate. 

Finally, since you raised the issue of “unprotected sex,” we should also consider those unborn human persons whose deaths occur as a result of the use of the Pill and other forms of abortifacient contraception.  The number of deaths is rather significant, especially when you consider that using contraception is accompanied by a greater frequency of sexual activity among married couples, as well as an increase in sexual activity among the unmarried and adulterous, the latter of who might not otherwise engage in such activity were modern contraception not available, or at least not as frequently. 

Here is a general article on the Pill and its impact on unborn human persons.
http://www.aaplog.org/position-and-papers/oral-contraceptive-controversy/birth-control-pill-abortifacient-and-contraceptive/

As for the culpability of those involved re: abortifacient contraception, I’ll ultimately leave that to God to sort out and meanwhile I’ll pray for all concerned.

Thanks for your engaging interaction, Graham.

Tom

Thank you for your very good article and commentary, Mr. Nash.  I’m sure there are many saints who would agree with you on morality! 

I’ve always found it odd that people involved in questionable sex practices tend to repeat phrases such as “Keep your politics out of my bedroom”, “Stop imposing your religion on us”, “Stop trying to legalize your morality”.  Then I realize they are not defending Catholic morality, Christ’s religion, a holy bedroom or God’s laws. 

Like you said, couples who perform the sex act outside of true conjugal love (i.e., outside of marriage between a man and a woman) are indeed just “objects” of sexual pleasure to each other.  Chemicals, drugs, and other devices are artificial blockades against total sexual fulfillment.  Without the full blessings of God and His full participation, only partial pleasure, love and joy result since those truly blessed gifts only come from God.  He only blesses that which is Good in His eyes.  Thus, a sexual encounter using contraception (even within heterosexual marriage) is never between two “whole persons”. 

The false world of glitter, glamour, risque clothing, porn, and foul sex-talk in our music laud the diminutive “pleasures” of “pseudo-sex”.  Couples who have never experienced anything even close to sexual fulfillment have been totally enthralled with satan’s siren song.  Sadly, having only a faint glimpse of the real thing, they have nothing to compare their sexual incompleteness with.  “It’s as good as it gets,” they say. 

The alcohol industry and its advocates, I believe, share the heaviest blame for the atrocities involved with unnatural sex, since they participate materially by approving its fundamentals tacitly and publicly.  Alcohol often permanently impairs judgement, negating every thought that questions whether these sexual relations are “good enough” or “good for me”.  Therefore, considering a sexual tryst with a “50 year old boy” or a potential rapist takes on a more welcome, attractive tone to a woman under the influence of alcohol than it would if she hadn’t been drinking.  The “boys” and rapists know this and they come back for more, knowing exactly where to find her and more like her.  The same scenario holds for same-sex prospects in the world of alcohol-related sexual debauchery. 

Of course, some politicians support wholeheartedly the actions of non-married and same-sex couples, but their support, again, does nothing to impart the qualities that only the blessings God can give during conjugal love.  Such political support only gives societal, materialistic, egotistic “blessings” of approval which fall very short of Christ’s blessings.  Couples can only be superficially thankful for the support of Big Alcohol, the media, and politicians, but with nothing more substantial, they remain completely unfulfilled.  Mutual superficiality is mutually unsatisfying. 

Thank you again for your excellent article.  I hope many people read what you wrote and will seek out your future articles, too. 

@Franciscan

Yes but society works towards preventing causes of natural death.  There is no such work to save the millions of “people” that die shortly after conception.  When the abortion is natural, they are not regarded as people.  When the abortion is unnatural, they are.

Most of the time in the situation I described is not a miscarriage as implantation has not happened.  Anembryonic gestation (blighted ovum) also requires implantation.  Your statement about viability seems inconsistent with that of the Catholic Church.  The teaching is that life begins at conception not at implantation, no?

@Tom

It seems convenient and a double standard that when God kills, it is inconsequential as the soul is eternal, but when man kills it is a heinous act.  Furthermore, why is it immoral for a human system of justice to kill children for their ancestor’s crimes, but it is permissible for God?

Additionally there is a third option that you missed, that God does not define life as beginning at conception.  This is more parsimonious and simpler than an arbitrary and up until recently unknown punishment from the fall.

The statement is scientifically correct, it was just misread.  Given a zygote (conception) in the present, there is a 50%-70% it will not result in an established pregnancy (implantation) in the future let alone birth (not a miscarriage) in the future. 

My apologies, I misspoke.  I meant to include non-barrier methods of contraception as well when I used the phrase “unprotected sex.”  However, the article you linked to is speculative.  It admits that there is no scientific evidence that hormonal birth control can be abortifacients.  This would be easy to determine as there are millions of women using such methods and I fail to see the ethical concerns when it is already in use.  If anything it would be more ethical than speculating.  The birth control pill simply simulates pregnancy.  It is biologically no different than having intercourse with one’s pregnant wife.

@ Graham:

The Nazis didn’t consider Jews, Slavs and Gypsies to be fully human - they were described as untermenschen (sub-human).  So what society does or does not do to save human beings does not establish the objective identity of any being as human not human.

But regardless, I’m not sure I follow your point because society does try to save unborn children from conception.  This is what all the prenatal nutrition programs are about - vitamins, medical care for the mother, etc.  They also have hormone therapies etc. to help unborn children implant, come to term and be born.  It’s just that in the U.S. and other countries where abortion is legal they only provide these therapies and nutrition if the young human being is “wanted.”

Conception/Fertilization is a process that must reach a successful completion.  My understanding is that if something is sufficiently wrong on the genetic level, then that process may be unsuccessful and fail to ever create a living human organism (i.e. growing, dividing, undergoing metabolic activity). 

Regardless, I don’t see what the practical application is for us.  It’s a scientific fact that human life begins at conception.  We have no way of knowing immediately whether the process of conception was successful or not (and this is a scientific question, not a theological one). But when in doubt, morally, one must err on the side of life.  If I’m hunting in the woods and see a target in the distance and I’m not absolutely sure it’s a deer and not a human being, I don’t pull the trigger.

It’s also true that the Church has not dogmatically established precisely when ensoulment occurs, but this doesn’t change the scientific aspect of the equation.  Human life begins at conception.  At conception, a new member of species homo sapiens comes into existence.  And as a human being, he or she deserves to be treated by other human beings with respect and dignity.

This response by bioethicist Fr. Tad Pacholczyk is worthwhile:

http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/embryonic_ensoulment/

Also:  What does science say about when human life begins?

“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.” (Carlson, Bruce M., Patten’s Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.)

“Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei ... and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning ... of a human being.” (Moore, Keith L., Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker, Inc., 1988, p.2.)

“Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus.” (Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146.)

More quotes:

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20110716074456/http://clinicquotes.com/site/story.php?id=28

http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm

@Franciscan

Good work validating Godwin’s Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law

I was under the impression that ensoulment at conception was Catholic dogma.  If that is not the case, my apologies, I will relay it to my source.  My point was that God seems to have little regard for zygotes as the system He designed kills more of them than it creates.  Ergo it is tough to use God as a reason against abortion.

“Conception/Fertilization is a process that must reach a successful completion. My understanding is that if something is sufficiently wrong on the genetic level, then that process may be unsuccessful and fail to ever
create a living human organism (i.e. growing, dividing, undergoing metabolic activity).”

“It’s a scientific fact that human life begins at conception.”

Your first statement is correct, however it creates a contradiction with the second (which is definitional).  Does the living human organism begin at conception or not?  As you stated it is a process.  It is not discrete, but continuous.  I realize this makes it difficult to draw a clear line and therefore it seems cleaner to do so at conception, but it simply is not that easy.  The physical world often does not fit into clean/simple mental models.

@Graham:

You wrote, “Good work validating Godwin’s Law:”

Many people who cite Godwin’s law mistakenly believe that it necessarily proves something substantial about an argument. It doesn’t.  They almost all seem to miss this part of the law itself:  “The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate…”

I think the comparison I drew was perfectly legitimate and appropriate in this context.  By citing Nazi Germany’s view of Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and those with disabilities, I was only illustrating that your argument about the value of newly conceived human beings in light of what you believe society does not do to save/protect them doesn’t actually prove anything about the objective worth and dignity of that human life. And then I provided evidence that, contrary to your claim, we do in fact make concerted efforts to save unborn children from conception.

You wrote, “My point was that God seems to have little regard for zygotes as the system He designed kills more of them than it creates.  Ergo it is tough to use God as a reason against abortion.”

I disagree.  Again, the “system” God created for all human life results in pretty much a 100% mortality rate.  For much of history, life expectancy was perhaps less than 30 years.  Infant mortality rates were also extremely high.  Does that mean God therefore has little regard for all human beings at all stages of development? 

Death was something that entered into the world as the result of human sin –whether miscarriage, sickness, accidents or murder.  I would strongly advise against presuming to read God Almighty’s Mind and intentions based your interpretations of the evidence:  “‘My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,’ declares the LORD.”  (Isaiah 55:8) 

But He did spell out very clearly to us that we are not to intentionally kill innocent human beings.  We don’t need to try to read His Mind on that.  And I provided a great deal of evidence from standard biology/embryology textbooks and renowned biologists/geneticists that human life begins at conception.  Currently, we can’t know whether any specific conception was successful or not (resulting in a living member of the species homo sapiens).  But, from a logical, moral perspective, the benefit of the doubt should always be given to human life.  Again, if you’re hunting in the woods and see a figure in the distance and you’re not sure if it’s a deer or a human being, you don’t pull the trigger. 

You wrote, “Your first statement is correct, however it creates a contradiction with the second (which is definitional).”

If one understands conception as a process that must reach a successful conclusion (i.e. it results in a living embryo - one that is growing, dividing and has a metabolism), then don’t see the contradiction.  Each human life begins at conception, but not every conception results in the creation of a living human being.  Some conceptions are unsuccessful (because of serious genetic abnormalities etc.).

If the process isn’t successfully completed (resulting in a living [i.e. growing, dividing, metabolizing], distinct member of the species homo sapiens), then there can be no abortion because abortion involves directly and intentionally killing an innocent human being.  One can’t kill something that is dead.  But we know that many conceptions are successfully completed, resulting in the creation of living, distinct members of the species homo sapiens.  And it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill them.  I think that’s a pretty simple, clear line.

@Graham:

You wrote, “Good work validating Godwin’s Law:”

Many people who cite Godwin’s law mistakenly believe that it necessarily proves something substantial about an argument. It doesn’t.  They almost all seem to miss this part of the law itself:  “The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate…”

I think the comparison I drew was perfectly legitimate and appropriate in this context.  By citing Nazi Germany’s view of Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and those with disabilities, I was only illustrating that your argument about the value of newly conceived human beings in light of what you believe society does not do to save/protect them doesn’t actually prove anything about the objective worth and dignity of that human life. And then I provided evidence that, contrary to your claim, we do in fact make concerted efforts to save unborn children from conception.

You wrote, “My point was that God seems to have little regard for zygotes as the system He designed kills more of them than it creates.  Ergo it is tough to use God as a reason against abortion.”

I disagree.  Again, the “system” God created for all human life results in pretty much a 100% mortality rate.  For much of history, life expectancy was perhaps less than 30 years.  Infant mortality rates were also extremely high.  Does that mean God therefore has little regard for all human beings at all stages of development? 

Death was something that entered into the world as the result of human sin –whether miscarriage, sickness, accidents or murder.  I would strongly advise against presuming to read God Almighty’s Mind and intentions based your interpretations of the evidence:  “‘My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,’ declares the LORD.”  (Isaiah 55:8) 

But He did spell out very clearly to us that we are not to intentionally kill innocent human beings.  We don’t need to try to read His Mind on that.  And I provided a great deal of evidence from standard biology/embryology textbooks and renowned biologists/geneticists that human life begins at conception.  Currently, we can’t know whether any specific conception was successful or not (resulting in a living member of the species homo sapiens).  But, from a logical, moral perspective, the benefit of the doubt should always be given to human life.  Again, if you’re hunting in the woods and see a figure in the distance and you’re not sure if it’s a deer or a human being, you don’t pull the trigger. 

You wrote, “Your first statement is correct, however it creates a contradiction with the second (which is definitional).”

If one understands conception as a process that must reach a successful conclusion (i.e. it results in a living embryo - one that is growing, dividing and has a metabolism), then I don’t see the contradiction.  Each human life begins at conception, but not every conception results in the creation of a living human being.  Some conceptions are unsuccessful (because of serious genetic abnormalities etc.).

If the process isn’t successfully completed (resulting in a living [i.e. growing, dividing, metabolizing], distinct member of the species homo sapiens), then there can be no abortion because abortion involves directly and intentionally killing an innocent human being.  One can’t kill something that is dead.  But we know that many conceptions are successfully completed, resulting in the creation of living, distinct members of the species homo sapiens.  And it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill them.  I think that’s a pretty simple, clear line.

@Franciscan

“I think the comparison I drew was perfectly legitimate and appropriate in this context. By citing Nazi Germany’s view of Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and those with disabilities, I was only illustrating that your argument about the value of newly conceived human beings in light of what you believe society does not do to save/protect them doesn’t actually prove anything about the objective worth and dignity of that human life. And then I provided evidence that, contrary to your claim, we do in fact make concerted efforts to save unborn children from conception.”

The analogy you are making is the following:
Single celled organism => multicellular sentient organism

Is the same as:
Jew => Non-Jew

Which is a nonsensical analogy biologically.  I am pretty sure many Jews and in particular Holocaust survivors would disagree with you.  Furthermore:

“I disagree. Again, the “system” God created for all human life results
in pretty much a 100% mortality rate. For much of history, life expectancy
was perhaps less than 30 years. Infant mortality rates were also extremely
high. Does that mean God therefore has little regard for all human beings at
all stages of development?”

So premature death and death of old age are the same?  At times, yes, God seems to have little regard for human life. 

I would strongly advise against presuming to read God Almighty’s Mind and intentions based
your interpretations of the evidence: “‘My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,’ declares the LORD.” (Isaiah 55:8)

Very convenient that you know his intentions but anyone that disagrees with you does not. 

God, or agents of God in his name, did kill innocent children and fetuses in the Old Testament, so I am not sure what passage you are referring to about him being against it.

You didn’t provide any evidence, you just showed definitions.  A brain dead person is alive too.

“Your first statement is correct, however it creates a contradiction with the second (which is definitional).”

No response?