The Business of Being Born.

I knew the minute I heard about this documentary that I had to see it, because I've always been intrigued by the process of birth. When I was about ten years old I saw a scene depicting natural childbirth on TV and it triggered a fascination that has lingered. I never remember being freaked out in later years, despite your stock movie portrayal of shrieking woman in hospital meeting up with nightmarishly long needle -- that earlier natural birth scene prevailed in my mind. It took longer for me to decide that I was excited to be a parent for the long haul or even care for a sweet, cooing infant -- let alone a grouchy, wailing one -- but I was always sure I wanted to have the experience of being pregnant and giving birth. (Need a surrogate mother? Womb for rent! Anyone?) So I was deliriously happy that I got to see the birth of my niece, even though my sister didn't especially want me there (sorry, Sis -- you know I was forced). And then later, my nephew as well. What an honor to be there when the little ones appeared. Humbling experiences, on many levels.

However, despite my fascination with the natural aspects of birth, I was sure that I would ultimately settle on a standard hyper-sanitary hospital birth: backless paper gown, stirrups, epidural, the works. I “knew” that my vision of birth was romantic and dangerous that if I didn't give birth in a hospital attended by a physician that even if things turned out fine I would feel that I had been irresponsible -- that I'd endangered my child to indulge my silly Earth Mother notions. But I kept indulging them on the sly. About twelve years ago I read the Pulitzer-winning history A Midwife's Tale, and marveled that an experienced Revolutionary-era midwife living in frontier conditions could attend 816 home deliveries with only 39 fatalities (14 stillbirths, 20 newborn deaths, 5 deaths of mothers), but concluded she must have been freakishly skilled. Clearly a standard modern hospital birth offered the greatest chance for safety, I repeatedly told myself. Several years ago when a friend started indoctrinating me about doulas and home births, stuff even wackier than my own thinking, I decided she must be a devil on my shoulder, feeding me more and more of what I wanted to believe, encouraging me to ignore the Known Truth. Later, after the birth of her first child (with doula, without drugs), she told me how she had felt strongly that the room of the birthing center had been transformed into a temporary religious sanctuary, and that someone should have been standing at the door interviewing potential intruders to ascertain whether they were worthy to enter the sacred space. I had heard many joyful birth accounts before, but nothing quite like that.

On the other hand, my own mother has no romantic notions about the epic ordeal of moving babies from Point A to Point B, which is not surprising given that I was her first and had such an abnormally large head that the doctors thought I was hydrocephalic. Thanks to me and my massive noodle, she needed a blood transfusion afterward, and even if 1976 had offered her any real birth alternatives, I would have thought her insane to do anything but what she did -- demand the drugs.

So like most of our peers my two siblings and I are epidural babies, and despite what rabid granolas would predict, we three are all highly intelligent (even if we do say so ourselves), well adjusted, and non-psychologically-scarred. And whether or not Mom was initially slighted by the circumstances of our entrances (the documentary notes that certain modern interventions interfere with early hormonally triggered mother-child bonding) she went on to be the warmest motherheart in this cold earth, and has only grown more remarkable as the years have ticked by. She's waaay better than your mom. Just accept it.*

So now we come to the who's-a-better-mommy wars: you don't have to linger long on a typical “mommy” blog before encountering this nasty phenomenon, as mothers beat each other over the head for decisions they don't approve of. We had a female neighbor when I was growing up who was also a dear friend of my mom's, and the only thing that that woman ever did that hurt Mom was occasionally boast that both of her children were born naturally, implying that she was a braver, better mother than the hosts of epidural mothers around her. (Of course, she was a six-foot-tall woman having average-weight babies, so.....) In spite of my secret views about birth I took Mom's side whenever that conversation resurfaced, and felt the ickyness of any woman using her childbirth experience as proof of her superior mothering ability. Not to mention that that lady's children were nothing particularly special -- I know because I was their regular babysitter for several years. They were good kids and I loved them, but neither were they exceptional. Surprise, surprise -- they turned out just like those of us who had “normal” mothers.

But having said that -- having stood on the side of those mothers who choose (or have chosen for them) medical interventions and defended those mothers against the delusional nature-will-never-betray-us kooks who see a forked tongue in the mouth of every OB/GYN -- I do have to say that I'm very glad that if/when I have babies it will be in a time when there are beginning to be real choices again in the US. When birthing is beginning to be seen as something intense and excruciating, but rarely dangerous when allowed to proceed normally under the watch of an experienced attendant who knows when interventions are wise and when they are not. When we are able to see how our childbirth culture has evolved and consciously choose the good developments and reject the evil developments (and I don't use the word “evil” lightly -- economic and legal considerations have trumped medical considerations in recent decades to give us a ONE IN THREE Caesarian birth rate in the United States and the second highest infant mortality rate in the developed world).

So I'm nearly done rambling. You should just see The Business of Being Born if you ever plan to have children, whether in the role of mother or father. It is balanced. It doesn't paint women who give birth in hospitals with drugs as lesser mothers, because if it had I would have laughed at the screen and turned it off. It just tells us some of our forgotten American cultural history, exposes some of our scientific vanity, gives some jarring facts, and asks some compelling questions. Not questions related to wowing the other mothers at the park with your harrowing tale of birthing 9-pound breech-presentation triplets in the woods without drugs, but rather questions related to how we can be conscious participants in the transformative process of birth rather than hit-and-run victims. As someone notes in the movie, all women are transformed by the process of birth whether or not they want to be, and that transformation can be joyful and empowering or devastating and scarring (both spiritually and physically).

Informed choice is a beautiful thing. And if I ultimately choose to go with the hardcore drugs, the first person who calls me a wimp is meeting up with the heavy end of my diaper bag.


* Note to future spouse: you can only PRAY that I'll eventually become my mother.

You've been Googled.

I befriended Suzanne Stradling over a hilarious letter to the editor she sent in to the BYU newspaper many years ago. When I learned that my new roommate was the author of that much-beloved letter to the editor (which I had read long before I met her), I had no choice but to like her a whole lot.

We haven't kept in touch very well lately, but it would appear she's still in the business of writing to newspapers -- now primarily to the Washington Post. Here are her incisive thoughts on gay marriage, from the Washington Post website:

Gene Weingarten: A long, sane post from Suzanne Stradling on the subject of gay marriage and why I am not helping the situation:

For a long, long time, marriage was the way you got permission to have sex. Having sex outside of marriage was offensive to God, and so marriage had the secular effect of creating a legal child-rearing unit and the religious effect of allowing the devout to actually get some action. When Church and State are one, no problem. But society and religion have parted ways on the subject of appropriate sexual behavior, and that aspect of marriage-as-a-concept disappeared sometime last century in the broader American society. There are still significant religious communities where sex without marriage is considered a sin, however, and committed believers remain celibate until marriage.

Most of these orthodox religious communities don't accept a solely religious ceremony as a valid marriage. Having a civil law covenant is part of receiving the religious legitimization of sex. (There is an exception in some polygamist communities, but even there, a man may be required to legally marry a wife, divorcing her before legally marrying again, on the basis that you can ignore the divorce but the marriage is necessary.) Furthermore, in most of these communities, there is no actual religious ceremony required--in the sense that a couple married in front of the county clerk are regarded as being morally chaste when they engage in conjugal sex, while a couple married by a minister but without a legal license are committing the sin of fornication.

In communities where marriage is the one and only way to get God's imprimatur on sexual behavior, gay marriage causes problems of logic. If God hasn't accepted or has forbidden gay marriage (a belief of most orthodox religious communities), then one presumes that a marriage of two men does not carry the same legitimizing religious effect as the marriage of a man and a woman.

You can argue that believing this in the first place is bigotry and perhaps for some it is. But there are plenty of religious people who believe that, while they have been instructed by Spirit or grace to follow certain principles, those people who haven't received the same instructions or made the same commitments are not bound by the same rules. So gay sex (or premarital sex) is forbidden in the believer but not a reason to condemn anyone else. Since it's hard to live in a heterogeneous society without knowing and liking lots of people who have different values and beliefs, I suspect that many or most of the people who govern their own lives by strict religious rules are actually pretty laid back about everyone else's version of decent human behavior.

So why object to gay marriage for others? Essentially, the state has become the only legitimate sponsor of a religious sacrament. Significantly reworking or expanding the definition of marriage calls into question the sacramental nature of the resulting civil act.

Opposition to gay marriage is based in concern about the effect gay marriage would have on the religious validity of heterosexual civil ceremonies. Sound bizarre? Well, yes, making the government the vehicle of something that religiously important IS bizarre. What we have here is the intersection of deeply held religious belief and the obligation of the government to treat all its citizens fairly.

Given the immense religious importance attached to marriage by the religiously orthodox (how would you like to spend years celibate?), it's unfair to call them bigots for questioning the theological effect of a reorganization of marriage. (And, given the celibacy thing, you can even understand if they're a little cranky about it.) If the state solemnizes marriages that fall outside of the religious requirement of marriage, then what happens to the power of the state to act in loco dei and legitimize sex? Does it lose its effect altogether?

This is why you have people who are fine with a gay equivalent of marriage--"so long as it's called something else." The idea is to protect the power of divine sanction for people whose concept of marriage requires that sanction.

The "Save Traditional Marriage!" campaigns have simply failed to point out that the traditional marriage they are saving is one not actually entered into by most heterosexual couples. It's VERY traditional marriage, in which neither partner has sex before or outside the marriage bond. Admittedly, this translates poorly to focus groups. Most people support marriage, but find unmarried celibacy unappealing. But the religious don't want everyone to be forced into their idea of marriage, they just want the original religious significance of the ceremony preserved for those who value it--not an unreasonable request, given that the state originally adopted, supported and modified religious marriage for its own ends.

Here we actually have a nice moment of the religious community getting worked up about a legitimate theological question. Can anyone really doubt that the greatest threat to this very traditional idea of marriage is heterosexual sex outside of marriage? But there is no movement to ban Britney and K-Fed, or to recriminalize gay sex or premarital sex. The focus really is on a genuine threat to the theological concept and treatment of marriage within a religious community.

And, yes, the psycho guy who takes "God hates fags" signs to funerals probably also supports banning gay marriage. But that doesn't tar everyone with his viewpoint, any more than the fact that Saddam Hussein also wants the U.S. to get out of Iraq makes you a deposed ex-dictator. (If I were writing to the ex-Czar of the Style Invitational, now . . . .)

The question is, of course, what ought to be done? The government is and should be in the business of providing equal rights to all its citizens. It should not be in the business of watering down religious ceremonies. I would like to see a complete break between the civil and religious marriage ceremonies (as in France, where marriage always takes place at City Hall and is followed by the religious ceremony of choice, if desired.) At least a few religions have found it necessary to institute additional religious requirements in order to obtain a divorce, so coming up with something for marriage ought not tax their abilities. The idea of making the government come up with marriage-plus-plus (a la covenant marriage) for the devout is idiotic.

Since most orthodox religious communities are, by their nature, conservative, instituting an entire new set of marriage rules is much less desireable than maintaining the status quo. Yet the status quo is going, like it or not, and, as the matter is a theological one, it ought to move to that arena to be resolved. It would also save us all the inanities of clueless politicians posturing to their base without any comprehension of the issues in question.

I genuinely believe that a subtantial number of the people against gay marriage are not bigots. But I should probably add that, for true "non-bigot" cred, they have to believe and observe restrictive religious rules--making the question about them, not about gay people. And there are a substantial number of people in the discussion who are bigots, or whose bigotry fuels a broader desire to "make a statement" about gays or otherwise squash any government support of alternative sexual lifestyle.

So, discussion question: are there gay people who have religious beliefs preventing gay sex outside of marriage but sanctioning it within? The entire argument I've made presupposes no overlap between the gay people who wish to marry and the religious people who place a very high value on marriage-as-sanction. Am I wrong?

More on the Hill v. Thatcher case.

I've read through the case a couple times and this is what I gather happened:

Sometime in 1842, a case between Leroy Hill and Hezekiah Thatcher ended in Thatcher being awarded a $225 judgment by the court (or $450? there are two different amounts given). Hill claimed that at the time of the judgment Thatcher told Hill that he didn't have to pay the amount immediately and gave him until January 1, 1943 to pay. At that time Hill gave Thatcher a promissory note for $250 that he had not yet collected from a third party and told him that if he hadn't paid Thatcher the full amount of the judgment by January 1, 1943, Thatcher could collect on the note (from that third party) for payment of Hill's debt. However, at some point before January 14, 1943 the sheriff seized some of Hill's property for the purpose of paying the judgment (I can't tell if this was at Thatcher's request or what). Hill then became worried that if his land was sold and the judgment paid to Thatcher by those means, Thatcher would still cash in the promissory note rather than returning it to Hill. (Mr. Hill! How dare you question my ancestor's integrity!) This case was to settle this question and ease Hill's mind. Lincoln was the lawyer hired by Hill.

Another interesting thing I dug up: just nine days before this case was filed Joseph Smith had been brought to that same court house (Sangamon District Circuit Court in Springfield) for a trial to determine if he should be shipped back to Missouri to face charges of murder conspiracy for the attempted assassination of Governor Boggs. Hezekiah was not yet a Mormon in January 1843, but was baptized later that year, in December. Everyone in Illinois knew about Mormons, but wouldn't it be interesting to know what, if any, role the Smith trial in Springfield had in exposing Hezekiah and his family to the details of Mormonism? Warming them up to conversion? I wonder if he saw Joseph Smith in Springfield during that time, or even was present for the trial? (We know that Mary Todd Lincoln was present at the trial; it was a big news story in Springfield.) In the complaint drawn up by Lincoln on January 14, 1943 Leroy Hill said that part of the reason for his anxiousness about settling accounts with Hezekiah was that he thought Hezekiah was thinking of leaving the state. Why would he think that? Was Hezekiah already showing LDS sympathies and therefore assumed to be westward-bound? Hmmmmm.......

Anyway, I did my best to transcribe that first document in the case file, the only one that is in Lincoln's handwriting (just the first two and a half pages are in his writing). I may transcribe the other documents in the file if family members express an interest.

To the Honorable the Judge of the Sangamon Circuit court in chancery sitting--

Humbly complaining showeth unto your Honor your orator Leroy L. Hill that some time previous to the month of November last one Hezekiah Thatcher obtained three judgements against your orator before Thomas Moffett one of the Justices of the Peace for said county amounting together including cost to about two hundred and twentyfive dollars; that executions issued on said judgements, when in the month of November aforesaid, it was agreed by and between said Thatcher and your orator that said executions should be staid until the first day of January then next, being the now present month, in consideration of which your orator placed in said Thatcher’s hands a certain promissory note for something more than two hundred and fifty dollars principal and interest thereon accrued, which note was executed by James R. Gray payable to your orator, and assigned by your orator to Robert McCondy, and by McCondy to said Thatcher -- The note at the time it was so passed to said Thatcher was the property of your orator and was delivered to him on the express condition that he was to collect the amount of it if he could do so before the said first of January, and apply sufficient of it to the discharge of said judgements and cost and pay the overplus to your orator; but if he could not so collect it before said first of January, he was to return the note to your orator, and to have his execution in force against your orator’s property. Whether said Thatcher as collected said note your orator does not know, but he supposes he has not -- Your orator further states that said Thatcher has procured his said executions to be levied on your orator’s property by one one James ?Newby a constable of said county who has the said ??? to be sold on Monday the sixteenth instant, and that your orator has, since said levy and advertisement, demanded said note of said Thatcher, but that said Thatcher refuses to deliver the same up to him -- Your orator further states that said Thatcher as no real estate, as your orator believes, in this state, and that your orator is informed and believes said Thatcher contemplates removing from the state -- Your orator therefore fears that said judgements by execution as foresaid, and at the same time, either collect said note, or sell and transfer it, so that your orator will be defrauded out of said note entirely -- Your orator therefore prays that said Thatcher and Gray be made defendants to this Bill; that the People’s ?court of ?Subpoena issue for them that they answer etc, and that the said Thatcher, Moffett, and Neale be enjoined and restrained from further proceeding towards the collection of said executions; that said Thatcher be enjoined and restrained from selling, assigning, or otherwise transferring said note and that said Gray be enjoined, and restrained from paying said note to any person other than said Thatcher or your orator until the further order of this court -- and that your Honor will grant such other and further relief as equity may require, and as is in duty bound etc.

Leroy L. Hill

Sworn and subscribed before me this 14th day of January 1843

Samuel H. Treat Judge ??


The clerk of the Sangamon Circuit Court will ?upon the complainant Hill entering into hand, with Robert McCondy as ?recently in the penalty of $450 payable to the said Hezekiah Thatcher and conditioned as the law directs, will issue an issue an injunction as prayed for in the forgoing bill of complaint.

January 14th 1843
Samuel H. Treat
Judge ???

The preceding posting is supplemental to a related posting at my other blog.