Introduction: Challenging the Conflict Narrative
The dominant narrative in contemporary culture presents a fundamental conflict: respect for women and their bodies on one side, and respect for pre-born human life on the other. This assumption, that the rights of women are pitted against the rights of their children, is so deeply ingrained that we often fail to recognize how historically recent and unintuitive it truly is. In her recent talk, “The Female Body & A Culture of Life,” philosopher Melissa Moschella dismantled this conflict narrative, arguing that a culture that fails to respect nascent human life inevitably fails to respect women. She asserts that true human flourishing requires recognizing the profound and inextricable connection between the two—a view held by early women’s rights advocates. As 19th-century feminist Mattie Brinkerhoff wrote, “When a man steals to satisfy hunger we may safely conclude there is something wrong in society and so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child it is evident that she has been greatly wronged.” To understand how to rebuild a culture of life, Moschella first deconstructs the historical and philosophical shifts that created this false dichotomy.
Unmasking the Roots of a False Narrative
To restore cultural recognition of the link between respect for women and the unborn, Moschella argues we must first understand the ideological revolution that severed it. Drawing on the work of Carl Truman, she outlines a “tripartite revolution” in the modern understanding of the self. This began with a shift to expressive individualism, where identity is defined by inner psychological states rather than by one’s body or social roles. Second, this psychological self was sexualized, leading to a philosophy of “sexual expressionism” that places sexual feelings and the freedom to act on them at the core of personal identity. Finally, this sexualized self was politicized, as radical thinkers sought to dismantle traditional norms. Second-wave feminists like Simone de Beauvoir argued that liberation required women to “destroy the concept of motherhood,” while Shulamith Firestone contended that true equality could only be achieved by replacing natural reproduction with artificial reproduction.
This philosophical evolution found its legal culmination in the 1992 Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The court’s opinion captured the essence of expressive individualism by stating, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Central to this self-definition, the court argued, was sexual expression, which relied on the availability of abortion. This decision codified the cultural assumption that freedom requires severing the natural consequences from sexual activity—a shift that carried significant and often hidden costs for women.
The Hidden Costs for Women’s Health and Dignity
The cultural embrace of sexual expressionism was not a net gain for women. Instead, Moschella contends, it has imposed significant physical, emotional, and medical burdens, often by treating the female body as an obstacle to be overcome.
• Bodily and Medical Burdens: The pursuit of consequence-free sex places the entire burden of managing fertility on women. Hormonal contraceptives carry serious health risks, increasing the likelihood of heart attack and stroke, with high estrogen versions of the pill labeled Group 1 carcinogens by the World Health Organization. These risks are deemed medically “acceptable,” Moschella explains, because pregnancy itself is framed as a health condition to be avoided—a perspective that treats the healthy functioning of a woman’s reproductive system as a quasi-disease.
• Relational Dehumanization: The cultural script of consequence-free sex creates what Moschella, referencing Erica Bachiochi, calls “sexual asymmetry.” Because the physical and emotional risks of uncommitted sex are far higher for women, a culture that normalizes it often leads to female objectification and absolves men of responsibility.
• Commodification of Fertility: The modern medical establishment often treats a woman’s fertility not as an integral part of her health, but as a machine to be manipulated. It is suppressed with contraceptives and then “turned on” with technologies like in vitro fertilization (IVF). This logic of manufacture treats children as products and instrumentalizes women’s bodies.
A Vision for a Reintegrated Future
As an alternative to this fractured and manipulative view, Moschella proposes a constructive “vocational vision” of human life—one that reunites sex, marriage, and procreation. Drawing on natural law and the thought of St. John Paul II, this vision understands sexual union not merely as an act of pleasure, but as the unique physical embodiment of the marital commitment, an act inherently oriented toward the creation of new life. This integrated perspective calls for an approach to fertility that works with the body rather than against it.
In contrast to the “manipulation” of hormonal birth control and the “manufacturing” of IVF, Moschella highlights the growing field of restorative reproductive medicine, including methods like NaProTechnology. By identifying and treating the underlying causes of infertility, these methods respect the woman’s body. They are also demonstrably more effective, enabling “70% of infertile couples to have a child by contrast with IVF’s 30% success rate.” Moschella concludes with a powerful call to reclaim a culture where human flourishing is found not in pitting women against their children, but in recognizing that the dignity of both is, and always has been, profoundly interconnected.
