Stopping periods and messing with fertility

Stopping periods and messing with fertility

The culture of death advances a little more. A new contraceptive pill suppresses women’s menstrual periods entirely. Note the language used to describe the natural process of fertility; it’s a curse, not a blessing. That’s because any type of pain or suffering or inconvenience, regardless of the blessings associated or the redemptive nature of it, must be avoided. And certainly children are no longer in and of themselves.

Of course, we can ask what would be the physical consequence of completely suppressing this natural cycle. A monthly purge of the womb by a sloughing off of the endometrium is a necessary fact of having a womb. What is the long-term consequence of failing to evacuate all that dead tissue? The womb becomes a tomb.

The promoters trumpet this as a way to blur the differences between the sexes, predictably casting in terms of power, both economic and sociological. But the reality is that no matter how much the cycle and natural fertility is suppressed, you can’t ignore the fact that a woman has a womb that requires a natural renewal process.

What if someone came up with a pill to suppress bowel movements or urination? Those are unpleasant biological realities. So what happens to to your body then? Where do the toxins go?

Never mind the question it raises about the woman’s eventual desire to have children. Radically suppressing her natural fertility can’t but have a radical effect on that. Of course, then we’ll need radical intervention through fertility treatments with all the attendant moral problems.

This is the consequence of treating fertility as a disease and of the desire by Satan to attack “woman,” who put him under the heel of the “seed of the woman,” Christ the son of Mary.

Ironically, one of the researchers finds the answer to the “problem” they claim but completely misses it.

In 1986, Beverly Strassmann, associate professor of anthropology at the Institute for Social Research at University of Michigan, began a two-year study of menstruating women in West Africa. Keeping a check list of village women’s cycles, she noted that those women spent most of their lives not menstruating.

Women in their fertile years were either pregnant, lactating or wet nursing. Menstruation occurred primarily in younger teens and women approaching menopause, she said.

According to Strassmann, women do not need to menstruate to stay healthy — rather, it is exposure to hormones during the 28-day cycle that leaves women vulnerable to increased cancer risks.

The reality is that having children is supposed to be the natural regulator and a way for women not to undergo a menstrual cycle every day of their fertility until menopause, but because we have become a society devoid of children, that possibility can’t be imaged.

Meanwhile a researcher for the Planned Parenthood-affiliated Guttmacher Institute makes a strange claim:

Rachel Jones, a senior researcher at the Guttmacher Institute for reproductive health, told reporters that the inventor of the original pill incorporated a week of bleeding into the regimen, not only to gain support from the Catholic Church, but because many women found it “reassuring.”

Can anyone shed any light on that claim? I’m dubious about it.

Technorati Tags: | | | |

  • The urination example is one I have used myself, in reference to the contraceptive (it’s either a pill or a patch) that allows a woman to menstruate only once every three months.  In a conversation with a friend, I said suppose that I told you I have a way for you to overcome the annoyance of having to go to the bathroom every few hours.  Just take this pill, and you’ll only have to urinate once every 48 hours.  Wouldn’t most people just naturally shy away from such a pill, figuring that this surely can’t be good for their health?  And if so, then why do so many people look so non-chalantly at suppressing a woman’s menstrual cycle?  I guess I just don’t get it.

  • I read somewhere, and I don’t remember where, that the pill was invented by a Catholic who was attempting to invent some means of family planning that would be both effective and acceptable to the Church.  Since “everyone” knew that barriers and sterilization were unaccepable, and that the only thing that was acceptable was making use of a woman’s infertile periods, he tried to invent something that would extend the woman’s naturally infertile period.  I also read that this description of the mechanism of the pill is why contraception became an issue in the 1960’s. “Everyone” knew the Church wasn’t going to approve barriers or sterilization; the question the Birth Control Commission was supposed to look at and which HV was supposed to answer is whether the pill, which gave the woman a longer (full-time) infertile period was acceptable or whether it was immoral for the same reason barriers were.

  • I read one article that claims roughly 50% of the women who used this drug had to stop due to unanticipated bleeding.  HELLO!!!!!! Doesn’t this sound like something serious enough to keep the drug off the market. Yet another example of liberal ideology trumping science.

  • The mistake made in the article is that it says Paul VI made birth control and contraception immoral. That’s wrong. Birth control was always immoral. It’s just that everybody assumed that the proscription against it would be lifted.

  • I think the urination example also points to how we (individually and as a society) can be led to make choices that we know are bad for us but are also oh so tempting…

    Wouldn’t employers like us to take a pill that eliminated bathroom breaks?  Wouldn’t employees (me, for example) rather use their breaks for reading blogs and checking up on relevant news?  Wouldn’t mothers of toddlers appreciate the convenience of not trying to find a free moment to run to the loo?  I mean, think of the productivity (and sleep, too!) that is lost by urination time.  If there would just be another pill to counter the toxins that would build up in the body…/

  • I don’t know if the pill was invented by a Catholic but I have heard that the man who invented it thought it was bad for society.  We were taught that in high school sex-ed. 

    Here’s another side effect: it changes the pheramones that cause men and women to be attracted to each other and could be the cause of numerous divorces.