An Intimacy Forgotten
On Birth
There has been much talk about abortion, and in this light I came across a video displaying an extreme example of a proponent of the right on abortion:
Of course this is an extreme example, and perhaps only representative of one extreme side of the divide, or representative of nothing at all. But let us take it as a starting point for thought. Not to think about abortion, but rather to think about the fact of birth in general, and how we relate to this fact.
In the video, there is a child, its living presence visible to all with eyes intact, and it is being fed with this energy, with this message that it is not human, that it is not a child, but merely "a limb.” The woman tells us the child is not a distinct human, but a part of her, just like her own arm is a part of her.
It is only because the child is so close to the mother, that it is able to extract energy, nutrients, blood, life. It is only because of this closeness impossible to put into words, that it is able to differentiate itself from the mother. It is precisely because, as the woman says, the child is a part of her, that the child is different. It is this unity between mother and child, that births the distinction between them. This opposition drawn between ‘part of me’ and ‘something different’, is largely a false opposition. Leaving aside the scientific evidence for this child’s relative autonomy, it is merely about a life, and our attitude towards it. To welcome, or to denounce as “not yet human.” What does it matter if ‘it’ is a part of me or distinct from me, should I not care either way?
It is this closeness between mother and child from which the child draws the energy to differentiate itself. But what is this energy in this case? What is this power born in this union with which the child differentiates itself? Is it positive? Is it life affirming? Is the child welcomed? Or is it rejected before it is even born? Is rejection its way of coming into this world?
Is it born from a flow of love? Or is it born from a flow of hatred? Is this woman’s ‘limb’ treated with love, or with the silent desire for amputation? Is there intimacy, or is there distance, created in the space of a choice not yet made?
The woman is right in many senses, that the child is a part of her, and not distinct. But she is wrong in believing she acts rightly on this belief. For she still acts as if the child is merely a limb, more foreign than of one’s own. There is a lack of awareness as to what this closeness between mother and child entails. For this closeness entails precisely that the woman’s attitude vis-à-vis her child matters. What she eats affects the child as it affects herself, what she thinks affects the child as it affects herself. And hence, it is not so much a question as to what this life is —something of oneself or distinct—, but of how one relates to life. What is our primal attitude towards life, one of care, or one of neglect? The question of abortion is in all ways second to the question of care, of the mother for herself and the child, and of society for the child and the mother.
On the other hand, the child is often seen as something different from the mother, some ‘thing’ the mother is condemned to carry with her for a while. But the child only becomes different from the mother, because it is so close, because it is at one with the mother. If it weren’t so close, it would never be able to receive the energy needed to differentiate itself. It is this primal fact of birth —this differentiation born in this intimacy impossible to put into words—, and the attitude of care that naturally flows out of it, that has been occluded in the mess of our contemporary debates.
Having distanced ourselves from this fact, everything becomes permissible. Neither the physical health of the mother, nor her mental attitude towards the child matter anymore, for nothing matters. Alive or not, neither determines anymore if we should care. Dead or alive, the option to care is yours.
And having distanced ourselves from this fact —that life demands care—, our thoughts and questions go nowhere. What is the sense of asking “when can the child be said to be alive”, when either way we have no interest in caring for life?
I cite from Aristotle’s Politics:
“And pregnant women also must take care of their bodies, not avoiding exercise nor adopting a low diet; […] As regards the mind, however, on the contrary it suits them to pass the time more indolently than as regards their bodies; for children before birth are evidently affected by the mother just as growing plants are by the earth.”
(Aristotle, Politics, VII. 1335b)
Taking in mind the primal fact of birth —this intimacy from out of which the child differentiates itself—, it is evident that pregnant women should take care of their bodies and minds. But apparently, we no longer believe that before birth a child is affected by the mother, “just as growing plants are by the earth.” And after all, why put in so much effort, when ‘it’ turns out handicapped we can always abort the operation. And why should we take care of our bodies and minds? If in all simplicity, we do not care about life?
A little further, Aristotle adds that “the line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive.” But when ideologues claim the child only lives when it first takes a breath, and when mothers and fathers alike claim they should be allowed to abort a child after birth, the discussion has lost its primal sense. It is no longer self-evident that life is a concern for us. We have entered dangerous territory, when the question emerges: “should we care for life?”
The moment questions are asked, answers are found in extremes. And when answers are found in extremes, the original fact that gave sense to the question is lost. This fact is the primordial fact of birth, it is the mere fact of life. And it is because we cared for this fact, that we first asked the question, “when can the child be said to be alive?” and “when is abortion permissible?” But having pursued our questions, we have lost this primal care that gave sense to our questions, and we are discussing whether or not life even requires to be cared for. The lives of women, and the lives of children, all suffer in this spectacle.
I do not care about your position in the debate concerning abortion, nor do I experience horror at any sight, for I know it must all be experienced. But consider for yourself, to at least not lose the original fact that gave sense to this debate. This original fact of birth, and how each birth is affected by the lives of those involved, and their attitude towards a coming life and their own.
This mere fact of influence of mother on child pertains not only to the current abortion question, but cuts to the core of our attitude towards birth in general. Somewhere along the way of progress, we have forgotten that the bodily health of the mother influences the health of the child, and we totally disregard how the mental state of the mother influences the child. It is in the name of such progress that mothers are encouraged to keep working hard until the moment of birth. All the stress, “do you really think this could influence the child?” At most people will stop drinking alcohol, “but do you really think it matters if I gorge myself on poisonous foods made of industrial waste products?” This is our particular stupidity, that we have become so smart that we have forgotten that “children before birth are evidently affected by the mother just as growing plants are by the earth.” Concerning the video I shared, who in his right mind would go to such a stressful environment as a protest the day before one is to give birth?
We deny this closeness and this influence between mother and child, and consequently, devoting one’s time of pregnancy fully to the pregnancy is seen as oppressive vis-à-vis the mother. And a man proposing to his wife that she should stay home during pregnancy, is seen as the expression of a patriarchal virus of the mind. As if in proposing to care for the mother and the unborn child, there must always be ulterior motives. We are so distanced from the care implied by pregnancy, that we can no longer imagine, that one could honestly care.
It is this mere fact of influence that we deny. When women give birth in a hospital, it is not unusual for the child to be taken away to a separate room very shortly after birth, as if the contact between mother and child is not of importance at this point. The umbilical cord is cut as soon as possible, even when all the science shows that the child still extracts nutrients from it for some time after seeing light. The vast majority of births are traumatic experiences for both mother and child, and it need not be this way.
In his Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, Weston A. Price shows how in many ‘primitive’ societies, the social group as a whole goes to great lengths to provide the best possible environment for a woman expecting a child. The best foods are selected, and life is organised in such a manner that the woman has as little stress and obligations as possible. I quote from Price’s book:
“Among the important applications that can be made of the wisdom of the primitive races is one related to methods for the prevention of those physical defects which occur in the formative period and which result in physical, mental and moral crippling. When I visited the native Fijian Museum at Suva, I found the director well-informed with regard to the practices of the natives in the matter of producing healthy normal children. He provided me with a shell of a species of spider crab which the natives use for feeding the mothers so that the children will be physically excellent and bright mentally, clearly indicating that they were conscious that the mother’s food influenced both the physical and mental capacity of the child. The care with which the expectant mothers were treated was unique in many of the Pacific Islands. For example, in one group we were informed that the mother told the chief immediately when she became pregnant. The chief called a feast in celebration and in honor of the new member that would come to join their colony. At this feast the members of the colony pledged themselves to adopt the child if its own parents should die. At this feast the chief appointed one or two young men to be responsible for going to the sea from day to day to secure the special sea foods that expectant mothers need to nourish the child.”
(Weston A. Price, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects, 392)
The child is welcomed into this world, and the woman is honoured for her role in the dance of life. This way of relating to the coming of a child could not be more opposed to our modern attitude. Out of a care for life, we started asking questions. And pursuing our questions, we have forgotten to care.