Professor Carl Djerassi, a chemist who contributed to the development of the birth control pill, recently spoke to Britan's "The Telegraph" about his predictions for the future of sex, babies and their connection (or lack thereof). According to Djerassi, by perhaps 2050, the majority of women will choose to freeze their eggs in their early twenties, thus "freeing" them to experience their careers without the worries of a baby interfering.
Next, these women will be sterilized, thereby "freeing" them to live life without the specter of an unexpected pregnancy haunting their limitless sexual encounters. And, finally, when women are ready to check "motherhood" off of their to-do list, IVF will be performed (possibly with frozen sperm, but that needs to be experimented with and researched first). Genetic screening will become standard. Sex will officially be "just for fun." No one will have to worry about having an "unwanted" child. Daily Pill-popping and abortion will be no more. Apparently, Pro. Djerassi is unfamiliar with the number of women who have aborted their children who were "wanted" and conceived by IVF after they changed their minds. Surprisingly, he did not mention artificial wombs entering into the equation, thereby "freeing" women from the biological constraints and responsibilities of pregnancy. Such an arrangement would also give men equal womb access, which would give the equality-as-sameness that the Pill seeks. A brave new world indeed! Where is the beauty of the mystery of fruitfulness, rooted in something (Someone) greater than ourselves? Where is child-as-gift instead of child-as-commodity? It's staggering to consider how detrimental this would be to society. More than ever we would say, "We've forgotten who we are."
OK, so let's get this straight ... Clark and Valerie want to protect their son Jonah from divorce, so their solution is to host an "uncoupling ceremony" on a California beach, live in the same home together and date other people. For Jonah. Apparently seeing Mom with her boyfriend ... or not seeing her while she spends "private time" with him at another location is not damaging. And, I guess knowing that Dad doesn't want a third divorce but that Mom is keeping her options open doesn't hurt either.
What is it about divorce that is damaging for children? A broken covenant, a love that has "ended," a break in fidelity ("if you promised to love Daddy forever and didn't, then do you really mean it when you tell me you will love me forever?), a turbulent, unknown rollercoaster where there should be a secure foundation. So, what about Jonah's situation is supposed to be different? His parents are dating other people and divorce is still a viable option, at least for Valerie. Clark doesn't want to get married a fourth time, but he has trouble convincing other women to see where their place will be in the relationship. Apparently, Mom's boyfriend Joseph has no problems with greeting Valerie for a date ... and then Valerie's husband. And apparently Jonah is "fine" with it. Why would he say otherwise? Does this little boy feel like weight of his parents' happiness is squarely on his shoulders? And might be feel that he shouldn't say a word because this odd little arrangement is being done "for him"? It's just so sad! Who does "uncoupling" benefit? It would seem it benefits no one. In the end, while Clark and Valerie say they want what is best for Jonah, it would seem that this uncoupled, "open relationship" is hardest on Jonah. Splashing in the waves together after returning wedding rings can't possibly convey the same security and love that lifelong fidelity (even if clearly sacrificial) could give a little boy who just wants (and deserves) to know authentic love.
It might seem like no big deal, but the fact that McDonald's is no longer serving boy or girl Happy Meals seems to be making a large cultural statement. McDonald's, whatever we might think of the quality of its burgers, has become an icon of the United States, erecting its golden arches throughout the world as a is symbol of the greatness of America. So, when McDonald's does something, we tend to listen. Getting rid of meals that are marketed toward boys or girls says something about how our culture views gender. It doesn't exist. Take your pick, small fry, would you like a My Little Pony toy or a Skylander toy? You choose. You choose your toy. You choose your gender. Simple. It's nothing more noteworthy than determining whether your whim of the day is chicken mcnuggets or a double cheeseburger. Yes, even something so seemingly simple as McDonald's is teaching us, and in this case, teaching our children. Yes, it's just a toy, but in this case, a little piece of plastic in a paper bag with fries is sending a big message.
Just in time for Christmas, it's the "I Married Me -- Self-Wedding in a Box" kit. Truly, you can't make these things up. Learn more about the phenomenon and how it misses the mark of what marriage is at the "Marriage in the News" column on ForYourMarriage.org.
There's a new children's book out, whose title describes its topic, "What Makes a Baby." With cartoon-like illustrations aimed at an audience of 3-7 year olds, it might come as some surprise that a "certified sexuality educator" would have to write it. But this book isn't the usual, "Mom and Dad loved each other very much and their love grew into you!"
Indeed, the book doesn't even mention the word "mommy" or "daddy". Instead,What Makes a Baby explains that "Not all bodies have eggs in them. Some do, and some do not;" and that "Not all bodies have sperm in them. Some do, and some do not." Similarly, sex isn't so much tip-toed around as it is relegated to one unspecified option among many. "When grown ups want to make a baby they need to get an egg from one body and sperm from another body. They also need a place where a baby can grow."
The book is proudly lauded as appropriate for all "family styles," no matter how nontraditional. By removing gendered terms and family language, it attempts to communicate the origin of a child as some sort of raw scientific data that can occur inside a person or in a petri dish or in a doctor's office.
But is this really generosity to children? To attempt to write books that water down the meaning of their existence as pure gift and mystery and love in order to find a way to excuse the technological and production-like vehicles invented to "make a baby"? What does this say to the child? What will our future world be like if all adults learned when they were five that to "make a baby" one simply needs an egg, a sperm and a place for the baby to grow?
Live Action just released a new video in their Inhuman campaign. I'm still in shock at the casual way that this 23 week old baby is described and handled. It truly is inhuman.
Live Action is at it again. This time they they have undercover investigated late term abortion clinics. Kermit Gosnell, the late term abortionist in Philadelphia, is currently on trial for killing one woman and several newborn babies. Anyone who has even cursorily followed his case knows that incredibly gruesome things were happening at 3801 Lancaster. But we have to ask -- is Gosnell alone?
In reality, 3801 Lancaster was not the only site of inhuman treatment toward babies and their mothers.
In an effort to garner support for mandated contraceptive coverage, a group of women has decided to embark on a strike. A sex strike. No sex for a week, they say, to prove to men that men benefit from women having "reproductive choices"too.
So, what's ironic about this?
Well, to start with, these are the same people who would say that Natural Family Planning is a laughable endeavor because it involves periods of abstinence. Times of abstinence, in fact, that average about a week to ten days each month. So, if they can abstain for a week to prove a point, then why is it "impossible" to abstain for the same duration (or a few days more) every month for a greater purpose?
Secondly, do these women realize what they are saying by this strike? "I realize that you value me for the sex I give you. I am a dispenser of sex, not a unique and unrepeatable woman with dignity." Who wants to be treated as an object? Yet, this is precisely what these women are saying: "I am going to strike against being treated like an object, which ironically proves that I allow myself on a regular basis to be treated like an object." How sad!
Thirdly, what is the vision of men here? Men who make their decisions based on a week without sex? And men who must abstain involuntarily. That's a far cry from women who embrace Natural Family Planning ... they can't go it alone. If it becomes necessary for serious reasons to abstain, then both husband and wife unite together in their abstinence. It's not a matter of one person greedily grabbing for control for some sort of power trip. It's a matter of two people discerning how to love one another and their family in the best way possible. Abstinence doesn't become the lack of a gift; it becomes a gift of self in a different way. For "Liberal Ladies Who Lunch," where are the men with courage, self-control, generous hearts and self-sacrificial desires?
Fourthly, do these women realize what they are saving about sex? It's a bargaining tool. It's something useful that can get me something. Where is the dignity, sacredness and mystery of sex? If sex deserves such flippancy, then why is it worth withholding as a bargaining tool anyway?
So, as the "Liberal Ladies Who Lunch" gather women to strike for a week, I'm left feeling very sorry for them. They see their bodies as objects. They see men as sex-hungry monsters. They see sex as a bargaining tool. And contraception? Well, apparently, they see that as the key to freedom.
There just has to be a positive news story out there somewhere, right? Well, this one is not. Marcel Lejeune is alerting readers to the fact that Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania is now selling the Plan B chemical abortion pill in vending machines. It's for convenience, of course, that we are now able to encourage young college women to behave sexually however they so choose, and then head to the campus building that provides easy, confidential access to a pill that supposedly erases the effects of what they did last night. With the ease of purchasing a coke or a pack of M&Ms on a whim, college women can now purchase death for their own children.
Apparently H&M has used computer-generated bodies to model their swimsuits (and perhaps other clothing). They photoshop a real face on to the fake body, and -- voila! -- they can market clothes.
But what impossible standard does this set for women today? That we can look at a fake body that looks real and entertain impossible ideas of looking like that? Does this tell us that no matter what we look like it, it just can't be good enough? That even models aren't good enough, so just by this sweater or dress to stuff the feelings of inadequacy for awhile -- not to look good but to forget our inability to be beautiful?
I just visited the H&M website and was unnerved by the eeriness of seeing fictitious bodies matched with real-life faces. It is almost as if it were another form of attempting to create a human or a hybrid or some sort of person-like entity.
And perhaps the strangest thing is that these bodies look rather real. We could flip through the pages of a magazine and have no idea that we are passing through pages of computer-generated unreality. It goes to show that reality is not always what we think it is. Authentic beauty isn't either.
...pornography. Yes, Ryanair, the wonderfully cheap airline in Europe has announced that they are considering offering "in flight pornography" to their patrons. Apparently, chief executive Michael O'Leary said, "Hotels around the world have it, so why wouldn't we?"
Well, the New York Times is reporting the story, and it appears their worst fear is that a child might be sitting behind or next to someone looking at pornography. And then there's an account of one man who felt awkward when an elderly woman next to him on a plane caught a few seconds of graphic content on a film he was watching.
But, that's all. It might be bad for the children. Old ladies may feel uncomfortable. But, carry on!
Really? As someone who flies rather frequently, I cannot even imagine the discomfort and distrust that could loom through the tightly-cramped quarters of a plane, not knowing if other patrons are taking advantage of the "in flight pornography." It is already uncomfortable to be near someone looking at inappropriate magazines or watching particular films offered on the in-flight entertainment system. Certainly, there is a paramount concern of the danger this poses to children, but we also need to examine how the choice cannot be authentically beneficial to anyone.
What can we do? Well, I think a good place to start is to contact Ryanair. When I visited their website to find the proper contact information, I was startled by women in their underwear advertising a Ryanair calendar "for charity." So it appears that the problem is much bigger than the question of whether or not to offer pornography on flights. Perhaps we should start with the dignity of women, the dignity of men, the dignity of children and the responsibility to live that dignity in all of our interactions, policies and ideas.
What an oxymoron! But apparently, lawmakers in Mexico are proposing a two-year marriage license. Not happy after two years? Well, your marriage contract will automatically terminate. Happy and ready for another round? Then feel free to renew your contract.
First, marriage is a covenant, not a contract. As such it is not "renewable." It doesn't end (until "death do us part"). Secondly, since when is marriage simply about personal happiness?
Marcel LeJeune has the scoop on bad news that the federal government is requiring all insurance providers to include coverage for contraception and sterilization, beginning one year from today. Read the news here.
Well, Sweden has a gender inclusive preschool that forbids using words like "him" and "her." Instead, you can refer to "hen," which is a blend of Swedish "him" and "her."
You can stroll over to the reading corner and pick up a book about two male giraffes, who adopt an alligator egg since they can't have children of their own.
And then you can meander into the toy kitchen -- right next to the Lego's, so you know the two play areas are not mutually exclusive. Rather than fight over who gets to be the mother, multiple mothers in the same family can be involved at one time. (Side note: If we can't say "him" and "her," then why can we say "mother"?)
It's all in the name of casting off gender in order to allow the children "to be who they are meant to be."
So, what does our world teach little six year old girls about their value, worth and beauty? What do moms teach their daughters when they obsess over eating a second brownie or complain of needing to work out more frequently? How does the culture train young women -- very, very young women -- to view themselves as imperfect, less-than and unloveable whenever they turn to a mirror or to the often more cruel "mirror" of another person? Where are we living when 50% of 3-6 year old girls in a survey worry about being fat?
Well, this might tell us something we don't want to know:
Gender confusion is abounding these days. I keep coming across stories about children whose parents raise them "without" gender, or who give their sons pink, sparkly dresses to twirl around in, or who encourage shedding the "enslaving" stereotypes of boys and girls.
And now there's this:
Isn't it just heartbreaking to see these beautiful, innocent, wide-eyed, confused but listening nine-year-olds? When in the world did we begin to think it's a good time to come into a public school and "celebrate diversity" by telling the students that they can be anything they want? Not that they can be an astronaut or a doctor or an explorer, but that they can be a boy, or a girl, or a boy and a girl, and can create their ideal gender style, just like they can choose their ideal career choice.
Gender matters. We seem to have forgotten that. We seem to think we can determine sex/gender by how we feel. And gender isn't something that's reduced to pink, sparkly dresses or playing with toy trucks. Gender is about masculinity and femininity, about different modes of giving and receiving (and we both do both, but differently), about being created with absolute dignity but not "sameness," about a difference that matters.
Gender is a beautiful reminder that I am not God, that I cannot encompass the whole of reality, that I cannot be everything ... there is always someone different from me, "other" than me. And that difference and "otherness" is good. And it reminds me that I did not create myself, nor did I create the "other." I was created. I am a child. My life has been given.
Gender is a beautiful reminder that I am called to love. In seeing that there is another with whom I have unity (same gift of humanity) and difference (gender), I see that it is possible for me to give to another and to receive from another. I begin to see that love is possible, that it is good and that it is the meaning of life.
Gender is a beautiful reminder that I am called to love fruitfully. When I realize that I did not create myself, that I come from God, and when I realize that I can love another with whom I share a unity and a difference, I can see that my love can be fruitful. It can grow and be more. It doesn't have to collapse in upon itself. It can open me up to new experiences, new wonder, new gratitude as I watch love unfolded as something I am given and not as something I create, dominate or master.
So, why do we think it's a good idea to march into classrooms, and onto national television shows and into newspapers and tell children, tell parents, tell the world that we don't need a reminder that our life is a gift? In fact, we don't want a reminder that life is a gift, thank you very much. We'd prefer to take out the mystery, take out the wonder, take out the gratitude, take out the fact that we did not create ourselves. And this is supposed to lead to happiness and freedom?
It's no wonder that as I watch the fourth graders on the video clip above, I have to reach for the tissue box.
Well, the New York Times has done it again. I'm quite certain that I should avoid sipping my coffee when I venture onto their Fashion and Style page. My computer would probably fail to operate, as the coffee would likely land on the keyboard in my shock.
So, what is it this time?
"Cloud Girlfriend" -- a new website that allows users to create a fake profile in order to find other people with fake profiles to begin a fake relationship, with the thought that perhaps the fake relationship could become real.
The new incarnation of the company raises interesting questions: Can two consciously misrepresented people flirt privately and rewardingly? And can that experience blossom into a relationship?
The online gaming world indicates there’s potential. Mr. Fuhriman has described the site’s current iteration as a combination of Match.com and Second Life, an online role-playing game wherein users create avatars — idealized selves — to navigate virtual worlds. Players in such games have fallen in love and even married.
Sarah Smith-Robbins, a professor at Indiana University specializing in social media, said that because avatars are highly customizable forms of self-expression, other players can infer things about the player’s true personality from them.
Relationships starting with total fabrication could succeed, she guessed, but perhaps not often in meaningful ways.
“It’s going to be the equivalent of a nightclub,” she said, adding, “Maybe you hit it off, and you go home together, but the next day it’s a completely different world.”
It looks like this new venture into online dating has completely missed the magic ingredient of a relationship -- two human persons. How can there possibly be a relationship in which two people are knowingly and willingly attempting to be someone else? But the website's promo video advises, "Feel free to be creative. Remember, you're creating the ultimate you."
There is inherent risk and vulnerability in a real life relationship. Difficult? Certainly. But to take this important ingredient out is to ensure that one's "relationship" will be meaningless, unfulfilling and ultimately degrading. Instead of a relationship that affirms the value of both people, this website can't help but enhance a lack of confidence in who one truly is. And if we can't find ourselves except in a sincere gift of ourselves, and if we can't give of ourselves unless we have an awareness of who we are and what we are giving, then how can a site like this be anything but a dead end street, walking us right into heartache, disappointment and futility?
The logic of "Cloud Girlfriend" is a far cry from the beauty of "Love and Responsibility," in which the future John Paul II ponders the dignity of the human person and how this inherent beauty and goodness can be best affirmed in a loving, chaste relationship. After all, a person can only be loved and never used as an object.
I have long been aware of the terrible things that occur at Planned Parenthood, but the latest Live Action video is the most horrifying example I have seen yet. Rather than discuss it, just watch:
Keith Urban and Nicole Kidman's daughter, born to a "gestational carrier" is garnering lots of attention.
So, the quote of the day comes from a fertility specialist in Boston, Dr. Alan Penzias: "I have seen couples of modest means who save up their money to have one child," he says. "People save up for a house or a car. Some people say they want their money for something much more important."
One more articulation of the mentality of children as commodities.
