David Quinn
The outbreak of Zika virus in Brazil is being used to justify eugenics, writes David Quinn
On the flight home from his trip to Mexico last week, Pope Francis spoke to journalists, which is now a papal practice dating back to St John Paul II. Francis has, however, taken it to a new level. He is much more off-the-cuff than his two immediate predecessors and speaks to journalists for longer. On this occasion he spoke with journalists for an hour. (How many politicians do that?)
Among other things he was asked about a debate that is currently raging in South America, and especially in Brazil, about a possible connection between the Zika virus and birth defects, specifically microcephaly, which cases babies to be born with abnormally small heads and possible delayed brain development.
Most of South America places restrictions on the availability of abortion and pro-abortion groups have seized on the Zika scare to shift public opinion in favour of abortion. This was the background to the question one journalist put to the Pope on the plane.
Francis responded by saying that abortion is wrong under all circumstances, but then he seemed to open up the door to the possibility that contraception might be permissible as a way of avoiding the risk of giving birth to a baby with microcephaly.
He told the reporter: “Paul VI — the great! — in a difficult situation, in Africa, permitted sisters to use birth control for cases of violence. It’s necessary not to confuse the evil of avoiding pregnancy, by itself, with abortion… avoiding pregnancy is not an absolute evil, and in certain cases, as in that I mentioned of Blessed Paul VI, it was clear.”
The Pope was referring to reports that Paul VI back in the 1960s approved the use of contraception as a form of self-defence by nuns in the Belgian Congo (now Democratic Republic of Congo) where a war was raging and rape was being used as a weapon of war by combatants. As a form of self-defence, contraception in this case would be the lesser of two evils.
John Allen deals with this in more detail on page 22, but there is actually some confusion about what Pope Paul actually approved or did not approve, and moral theologians have long argued about whether or not contraception is permissible even in cases like this. In any event, what was or was not permitted is not official Church teaching.
Even if it was, would it be applicable to the situation in Brazil? It seems to me that it is not because there is a world of difference between using contraception to avoid becoming pregnant as a result of rape and using it to avoid the very slim possibility that you might conceive a baby that has a very small chance of suffering from an abnormality, in this case microcephaly.
The Zika virus itself is spread via mosquito bites. It is very difficult to transmit sexually, therefore contraception will not prevent the spread of the virus.
Symptoms
The virus itself causes only mild symptoms in the main. In fact, in only one in five cases does the carrier become ill at all. When they do, the symptoms are usually a fever, aching joints and/or a rash. Sufferers rarely have to be hospitalised and deaths are extremely rare. The virus usually clears up within a week.
There is no hard evidence that Zika virus leads to microcephaly in unborn babies. In Columbia, which has the second highest incidence of Zika virus outside of Brazil, no cases of microcephaly have been reported despite the fact that several thousand Columbian women have contracted Zika virus.
In fact, there is now a suggestion that a chemical used in the drinking water in Brazil called ‘pyriproxyfen’ may be responsible.
In other words, there has been huge hype and scare-mongering about Zika virus and microchephaly and it may not be borne out by the facts.
However, until there is hard evidence one way or the other, there is still a good argument in favour of sexually active women taking precautions so as to avoid becoming pregnant until the outbreak of Zika virus has been contained.
But what form should those precautions take? Should they use the pill, condoms, or Natural Family Planning (NFP)?
It is very odd that the Pope did not suggest the latter. Its real-use failure rate (as distinct from its perfect-use failure rate) is about the same as the real-use failure rate of condoms, that is to say, couples using condoms or NFP can expect to become pregnant in about one in five cases over the space of a year.
The real-use failure rate for the pill is about half this but that still leaves it at one in 10 meaning someone who fears catching the Zika virus, and as a result of this fears having a baby with microcephaly (however small the chances of this), might be better abstaining entirely until the outbreak has been contained.
The Pope should really have mentioned NFP or abstention in his answer to the journalist.
However, the campaign to encourage pregnant women to abort babies with microcephaly shows something much more sinister at work, namely the rise of eugenics as a widely accepted and promoted mentality.
Eugenics is a philosophy that says only those who are fit in mind and body should be born.
The least fit in mind and body have the least right to be born.
This mentality is behind the push in Ireland to permit abortion in cases where a baby will die at or shortly after birth (that is, babies with a so-called ‘fatal foetal abnormality’).
Promoting abortion for babies with microcephaly is a particularly vivid example of eugenics at work because these babies do not suffer from a ‘fatal foetal abnormality’ and can respond to treatment and sometimes lead full lives.
The campaign in favour of aborting babies with microcephaly (and with life-limiting conditions) is, therefore, really a campaign for eugenics and should be very strongly resisted.
That is much more worthy of media attention than the Pope’s remarks on the flight back from Mexico.