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: birth control | contraception | The Pill | motherhood |