Birth control is the first important step woman must take toward the goal of her freedom. It is the first step she must take to be man’s equal ( Margaret Sanger).
A man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and reduce her to a mere instrument of his own design (Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae).
[Jesus] did not need anyone to testify about man, for He knew what was in man. (John 2:25).
It began with the Pill.
Sex became separated from reproduction. While it was originally intended only to be prescribed to married women, the Supreme Court quickly overruled state limitations, and the use of oral contraceptives skyrocketed, changing a relationship with a woman forever. As predicted by Pope Paul VI, the reverence for the sexual embrace quickly subsided as sex became a recreational activity with no consequences or connection to the creation of new life. “Free love” not only became popular: it became expected.
This “freedom” promoted by Sanger and others, however, came with many unwelcome side effects for women which still exist today: increased risks of blood clots, various cancers, migraines, and many more. The burden of birth control fell entirely upon women, who were tasked with denying their own uniquely feminine creative genius, in order to be enthusiastically portrayed, both in media and in men’s minds, as sexual objects to be used. Men altered nothing, were denied nothing, bore no risks, and acquired all of the benefits. With windfalls of money for the pharmaceutical companies, oral contraceptives were promoted as a liberating lifestyle medicinal and a modern blessing for women. How could any rational woman disagree?
Look, the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore, and breasts that never nursed! ( Luke 23:29).
Abortion logically followed. The argument went that, when contraceptives failed, women had the right to kill their unborn babies. All children should be wanted, and no woman should be forced to carry a baby. It was her body, after all. Again, the burdens fell entirely on women, along with the risks of physical injury (sometimes permanent) and proven damage to mental health.
Once again, they were expected to deny their uniquely feminine creative genius, primarily for the benefit of men. Studies have shown that nearly 70% of all women obtain abortions because their partners expressly or implicitly pressured them to do so, and nearly 90% would not have obtained an abortion if their partner would have supported them and their baby. Men altered nothing, were denied nothing, bore no risks, and acquired all of the benefits. Abortion was promoted as a reproductive “right” and funded by government entities to make even more money for abortion mills. The freedom to “choose” is necessary for a happy life. How could any progressive woman disagree?
And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? (Matt 15:3).
With the legalization of civil marriage for same-sex couples came the acceptance of two women or two men as parents of a child. Unless a child was adopted or brought in from a previous heterosexual relationship, the men must hire a surrogate to be impregnated and carry their child. The higher physical and psychological risks to surrogate mothers is well-documented. The burden of surrogacy, even though it is entered into voluntarily, is a heavy one for women. Women’s uniquely feminine creative genius was now commoditized and sold to the highest bidder. Her womb was “rented” to provide a service. The baby she has carried, and for whom she may be the biological mother (if her own eggs were used), would be completely separated from her. The men involved, either as sperm donors or parents, altered nothing, were denied nothing, bore no risks, and acquired all of the benefits. Not surprisingly, the commercial surrogacy businesses become more profitable each year as it is promoted as a way to support justice for gay couples. Not wanting to be homophobic, how could any woman disagree?
Now we have the transgender movement: the end result of the slippery slope.
With reproduction no longer tied to biological sex, why does biological sex matter?
With the creative genius of women being monetized, suppressed, or denied, what is the difference between men and women, other than artificial social constructs like hair, make-up, clothing, or pronouns? If men can look like women, talk like women, be parents without a woman, and have the same pronouns as women, why do we need women, other than as “rent-a-wombs”? Even their language is not necessary, as they are no longer mothers, but simply “birthing persons.”
Like a snowball getting larger as it rolls down the hill, men’s gains from the Pill onward only increased until, finally, they have won all through the transgender game. Men who wish to become “trans women” only need to suppress their testosterone (over 70% of men have no surgery at all), yet still, have much more than women will ever have. Thus “trans women” are larger, louder, bolder, bigger, and dominant, sometimes dangerously so, but always unfairly.
The recent debacle at NCAA Women’s Swimming Championships, in which a male-bodied swimmer won the 500-yard freestyle, is only one example. They have altered nothing, are denied nothing, bear no risks, and acquire all of the benefits. Meanwhile, the transgender industry has boomed, with several large LGBT-oriented philanthropies donating millions of dollars each year to medical centers, pharmaceutical companies, and university research in support of the transgender agenda. These donors also underwrite organizations like the ACLU and Planned Parenthood (which is now in the “gender-affirming” business) and have a huge influence on many corporate boards and in the media.
The defeat seems to be complete. Women went from being asked to give up their dignity and their bodies to give up their entire existence as females.
Worst of all, we women are expected to be celebrating this. Not wanting to be transphobic, how can women disagree?
But disagree, we must. Clearly. Loudly. Strongly.
When we choose to fight back, we will win, because we have the way, the truth, and the life on our side. It will not be easy, and we may be called all sorts of names, or worse. But we will live in the only way that matters as females, reclaiming our feminine genius.
So From This Day Forward:
NO to the myth of transgenderism, a big business con game which deludes young men and women with lies, emotional blackmail, biological fallacies, pseudo-psychology, and surgical mutilation—and ultimately erases women. This means fighting to protect spaces solely for biological females, using only “male” and “female” to describe fellow humans, and refusing to play the pronoun game.
NO to surrogacy which denigrates women to be nothing more than uterine prostitutes.
NO to abortion which destroys one life and dehumanizes another.
NO to hormonal birth control which denies the reverence due to women and debases them as objects to be used.
Be a woman who says NO to this world, and YES to our feminine genius, just as we were created to be. It’s not too late.
Do not be afraid, for I have conquered the world.
12 thoughts on “At the End of the Slippery Slope”
Pingback: At the End of the Slippery Slope, Can Eucharistic Ministers Give Blessings in the Communion Line, and More Great Links! - JP2 Catholic Radio
CaptCrisis@ 4:10p-
With all due respect, so what? Your personal opinion while no doubt meaningful to you, is of limited consequence. My own as well. Modern “science” hasn’t changed the moral calculation one iota.
That HV may well have been a “complete surprise” to modernists, including theologians, is true, but again: so what? They do not constitute the magisterium. True enough, very many priests and bishops are too timid when it comes to defending Church teaching; with the sad consequence that many are being led into mortal sin. As we sow, so shall we reap. And what we’re reaping, is an abundance of broken relationships and marriages, a surge of out of wedlock pregnancies, and abortions galore.
God will not force us to live a righteous and virtuous life. He will allow us to degrade ourselves and suffer the consequences if that is our will.
I should have thanked Cynthia in my post at the top. No offense to Edna, but I was intending to affirm agreement with Cynthia’s piece.
Re: CaptCrisis@8:15am-
Couples regularly using artificial contraception before Humanae Vitae were already in a state of sin, per clear and longstanding Church teaching. All HV did was make the point clear as a bell, as if Casti Connubii, issued by Pope Pius XI in 1930 wasn’t clear enough. In fact it was clear enough. Emphatically so. The world, including many professing Christians, simply didn’t want to hear it. When it comes to sin, what else is new?
In light of the approval of the rhythm method by Pius XII in 1951, and in light of the significant advance in women’s freedom afforded by the Pill, it was widely expected that the Church would change its stance. In fact approval of the rhythm method was a greater departure from past teaching than the Pill would be: for the first time, married couples could licitly restrict sex to conditions where conception was impossible, or at least very improbable.
HV’s condemnation of “artificial” birth control was a complete surprise. The Papal commission assigned to study the issue overwhelmingly concluded that there was nothing doctrinally wrong with it, and the married couples on it wrote eloquently about how restricting sex to the least desirable time of month (for the woman) destroyed intimacy and turned sex into a grinding, rutting chore for the woman and a guilt-inducing, dehumanizing ordeal for the man for the sake of assuaging his sexual desire.
The result of HV was an illogical teaching which most priests can’t and won’t defend. For the first time in the entire field of moral theology, the rightness or wrongness of an act was to depend on the mechanics and not on the intent. If I wrongfully kill someone, it doesn’t matter if it’s by gun, or knife, or a blow to the head; what matters is the intent. But it’s ok for couples to have intercourse by the rhythm method (intending to avoid pregnancy) while it’s not o.k. if they are taking the Pill (intending to avoid pregnancy).
An incredible thing has happened in the last 50 years. More people worldwide were brought out of abject poverty than in the history of the world. And the average lifespan has increased dramatically. Does it have anything to do with women having some ability to control their fertility. I think that is very probable. Look at places where women have no control over fertility or much of anything – like Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Pope Paul VI – God rest his soul – was presiding (presumably blissfully unaware) over perhaps the largest child abuse scandal in history. Right under his nose. No prophetic encyclical on that topic, was there? You can say that it’s a matter of faith. But God gave us reason and expects us to use it. Just as the popes erred grievously by providing religious justification for populating the New World with African slaves (and then pretended they didn’t actually do that, despite it all being in black and white in a series of papal bulls), the attempt to keep women in the 1300s will be recognized as an error. If that shakes your faith, you’ll have to deal with it like we all do. But denying the truth to maintain belief is selfish and leads to a bad place.
Thanks Edna. The world needs to hear this message. Pope Paul VI was a prophetic voice when he affirmed fundamental Catholic teaching. Artificial birth control has led to everything he predicted. It’s not a popular message but it’s one the faithful should not hesitate to speak. After all, it is the teaching of Christ our Lord.
All Paul did with Humanae Vitae was turn faithful, married Catholic couples who were using the Pill — and there were millions of them — into mortal sinners. If HV had embraced the Pill, and made it a symbol of responsible, loving parenting, the world would have become a better place, with couples having happier sex lives and raising happier, wanted children. Instead “using the Pill” became a watchword for irresponsible behavior. At least for many. And for Catholics, a realization that to have a happy marriage with spacing of children meant disregarding Church teaching.
Pingback: TVESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
Describing birth control as denigrating women seems to fly in the face of data and experience. If controlling fertility in some measure is bad for women, why is it so wildly popular with most women, including the vast majority of Catholic women? Are they all stupid? Or morally corrupt?
Since the abuse scandal in the church broke (and never seems to end), the idea that allegedly celibate men should make rules for women seems pretty discredited. Like the biblical idea that women could be bought and sold, its time has passed.
Hi Edna
I never wrote that spacing children or controlling when you give birth is denigrating to women (and the Church agrees that spacing kids is a good thing).
What I did say is that taking hormones, which are listed as carcinogenic by the WHO and have well-documented, harmful side effects, in order to stop a perfectly good and normal female process, is denigrating to women.
Best wishes
C Millen
Cynthia – people out all kinds of things in their bodies, much of which involves some risk. Think of the dangers of certain types of sunscreen or Tylenol, for example, not to mention alcohol or tobacco. Are they “denigrating to women”? My point is that women are a better judge of what is good for them and their families than any other source. My sister has a condition that would likely kill her if she got pregnant again. Her judgment about the best decision for her 5 children, her husband and herself is best left to them. One of the reasons women were subjugated for millennia was because they had no control over their fertility and were at the mercy of physically stronger men who made the decisions for them. I think it is unarguable that that grossly unjust social system is in the past and should stay there.
1. Everything Edna said.
2. Condoms are OK then? No hormones involved.
3. The Church has no problem with the birth control pill — if it’s prescribed for a medical purpose apart from contraception. What about those women? Do they keep a kind of “shadow NFP calendar” and only have sex during the days when they *would* have been infertile?
4. The Church has no problem with other hormonal medications that change the body’s natural processes. For example, post-menopausal hormone therapy is considered licit, even though according to the WHO it has far more health risks than “The Pill”.