After almost fifty years of promising, and failing to deliver, "no child an unwanted child," the acolytes of Margaret Sanger have a new weapon in their arsenal: chewable mint flavored birth control pills.
I am a little nonplussed at the fanfare surrounding this development. Having come late to Holy Mother Church and Her theology of the body, I have had a certain amount of experience with these products, and I can state from personal knowledge that your average birth control pill is about one-third the size of a Tic-Tac and could be swallowed by any mammal the size of a guinea pig with no complications. Why a chewable version is more appealing is lost on me.
It does occur to me, however, that there were howls of outrage when Eli Lilly compounded a liquid peppermint version of Prozac. They were called drug-pushers and child abusers, even though the liquid formulations of both Prozac and competitor Paxil had been designed for senior citizens who do often have trouble swallowing pills.
We all know what's going on here. Just put the stuff in bubblegum and be done with it.
Yet another high-water-mark moment for the forces of the death cults.
ReplyDeleteIf we combine the past fifty years of anti-natal developments with their pro-euthanasia developments, beat well, and season with liberal amounts of Gaia-worship, the resulting casserole could well denude the West of the manpower it needs to defend itself by about 2050 -- the year in which the global Muslim population is expected to peak.
No, it's not deliberately so. Probably not, anyway.
Now if they could just get the stuff into a bottle of Scotch, you could get the girl drunk and protect yourself from an untoward and potentially life-changing accident all at the same time. Modern chemistry is a wonderful thing, ain't it?
ReplyDeleteHehe, Akaky.
ReplyDeleteHaving come late to Holy Mother Church and Her theology of the body...
It is the question of the age, Miz H. We are all on a path, and we hope we will be better for the journey and not worse.
Do we reason from high to low or low to high? If the latter, how do we begin to climb a mountain we cannot even see?
how do we begin to climb a mountain we cannot even see?
ReplyDeleteMost of the time I feel like I'm putting my feet down and I don't even know if there's land or air down there. But I just keep walking.
That iconic Virgin Bowman's riffing about in a future post holds my hand though.
Kathy, my own feet are decidedly stupid and by all accounts ungraceful, yet even they can tell if they're walking upwards or down.
ReplyDeleteAnd I too want to hear more about Bowman's Virgin.
"Do we reason from high to low or low to high? If the latter, how do we begin to climb a mountain we cannot even see?"
ReplyDeleteOr can ever hope to see. The climb is beyond a Sisyphean effort in that there can never even be an apex, and therefore must always be infinitely further away.
Which reminds me some of the earlier discussion around here about art. Starting from the bottom means that things could always be infinitely more beautiful. And if that's true, what does that say about what we are working with now?