Can Does Not Mean Should

Today the Yahoo machine flashed an article of women up in arms. The women, according to the article, are upset not about Rona vaccine side effects, but about the continued side effects in contraceptives. Mainly the threat of blood clots from the presence of too much estrogen. Their argument is, if men were taking these hormones, they would taste like bacon and be perfectly safe, but since it is women shouldering the burden of sex without repercussions, the men of healthcare, science, and insurance do not care if some women develop blood clots.

There is of course a 100% safe measure to not get pregnant or catch a sexually transmitted disease. Abstinence works every single time it is practiced and when used, it allows women and men to pursue careers on equal footing without threat of pregnancy, if they so choose. However, many in the world consider this an anachronistic view because they want their sex and cupcakes too.

This brings up an actual issue that is being ignored in the fight over the safety of birth control. Just because science has created the means to allow people to engage in sex with very little fear of conception, is this something we should do?

I understand for many women, Birth Control has resulted in a freedom many did not feel women had before, but has it made their lives better? I dare you to Duck Duck Go the types of stress induced illnesses and deaths women are experiencing today, which are almost on par with men, that they did not experience before contraceptives. Our decisions come with results and they are being hidden.

For many women when the pill was developed, Lorretta Lynn wrote their anthem with her song, "The Pill." Lynn talks about freedom from a new baby every year. Freedom to live like a man. Freedom to work and play without the burden of motherhood until she wants it and when and with whomever the females select. Lynn even calls the traditional family home a "brooder house." The pill might sound like an improvement in sexual liberty, but it certainly comes with costs ignored by Lynn and most people today.

Have contraceptives improved living conditions and the lives of women and families? Sure women earn more money and have seats at the table in businesses large and small, but have their lives improved? Are the lives of the children they do have better off being raised in factory schools and daycares instead of with their loving parents? Do the lives of the children born and not born not warrant equal or even greater consideration to employment and free sex?

It is inarguable women were having more children before contraceptives and most were staying home to raise them. There is no doubt very few women were having long and successful careers in business, but are they happier and more fulfilled now chasing careers than they were then? Where does the Bible stand on this and what would Jesus think about it?

Is there a difference in the Church vs society in general on this issue? The Church initially opposed birth control and made very solid arguments that God is the only one who should open and close the womb. There is a lot of literature out there on this issue and the ethical dilemma of contraceptives. Christians argued any attempt to take control of God's realm is to introduce women to a whole nother set of curses, which has borne fruit. They were already cursed with labor pains and desire for their husband...

Uh oh, has the second curse been fully realized with access to birth control?

Are women now experiencing a double curse? It would appear women are suffering the full consequences of their curse from abandoning God in the garden today and because of their desire for men, have also willingly taken on the curses of men to work and toil in Genesis 3. The question remains, just because science has provided the means for women to enter the workforce and take control of their lives through control of conception, should they?

This discussion has been going on for decades and I would argue it was settled well before contraception was invented. Sex is designed and planned to occur within the confines of a committed relationship sealed in marriage. Sex is not something to be cheapened and used for thrills and pleasure seeking. It is supposed to be enjoyed within a marriage between a man and a woman in a committed relationship where they will both shoulder the full responsability of their family.

Unfortunately, the Church has fallen into a satanic trap to act like the world and pursue careers and sexual fantasies over families. To pursue sex without marriage instead of the security of the family is a satanic attack on God's design. The Saints need to come marching home. Leave the satanic temples and their birth control clinics alone. There is no righteousness to be found there. Abstinance is 100% effective and risk free for any woman that wants a career.

The Saints and the Church should not reflect society.

We are distinct and separate, it is time we start acting like it. I know this call to righteous living will arouse great anger amongst people who think access to work and employment without regard to childbirth is old man thinking and a measure to control women, but that is the way the world thinks. We are called out of the world, not to wrestle with those deeply trapped in it. Our lives should reflect our Savior and that does not happen when we throw the ordered measure of Creation out and replace it with the kind of order that turns women into wage and sex slaves.

Saints, we must exit the world and its thinking. We know better, it is time we start acting like it.