Andrew Cuomo's Patriarchal Bargain

Recently, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo put forth a legislative package, the Women's Equality Act, which includes bills designed to ensure equal pay for equal work, prevent gender-based discrimination in housing and lending, and eliminate human trafficking.  Good news so far, but the package also includes the Reproductive Health Act, which essentially aims to make abortion as legal as a haircut in New York.  Actually, that's not quite fair.  People are still expected to pay for their own haircuts.

When does human life begin?

Recently, we saw our President and Vice-President moved to tears a short time after the senseless massacre of 27 people, 20 of them children, in Newtown, CT.  It is certainly a relief to see that this manner of tragedy is abhorrent to America despite how often they seem to occur.  Without the intention to pass judgement on anyone, I will point out that Planned Parenthood alone destroyed 333,964 unborn children in 2011.  That's an average of more than 900 per day.  This illogical contrast is not lost on the organizers of the March or Life either.

Some say that human life does not begin at conception.  To which I say, "When does human life begin?"  A fertilized egg is alive by any biological criteria, and if a fertilized egg is not human, it has to be something else. What is a human egg that has been fertilized by a human sperm?  Certainly not a lizard.

Abortion is unhealthy

Congressman Diane Black (R-TN) recently reintroduced Mike Pence's bill, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (H.R. 217).  Black, a former nurse, stated, "Planned Parenthood's blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars to fund its big abortion business is an attack on life and women's health.  It must be stopped."

Here's an abbreviated list of known health risks to the mother from afterabortion.org.  Note that this does not include known psychological risks.

• Cancer of the cervix, ovaries, and liver
• Uterine perforation
• Cervical lacerations
• Handicapped newborns in later pregnancies
• Pelvic inflammatory disease
• Death

This is what we offer to women who are concerned that they can't support a child, continue their careers, or finish school.  Congratulations, women of America!  We have got your back.

Patriarchal bargains

The term patriarchal bargain was coined in 1988 by Deniz Kandiyoti.  According to Lisa Wade of http://thesocietypages.org, "A patriarchal bargain is a decision to accept gender rules that disadvantage women in exchange for whatever power one can wrest from the system.  It is an individual strategy designed to manipulate the system to one's best advantage, but one that leaves the system itself intact."  Wade concludes that a successful patriarchal bargain is what made Kim Kardashian famous.

We live in a world where abortion-on-demand is considered a necessity for women to participate fully in American society.  Think about this.  A woman who wishes to realize her dreams in America can't do so as long as there is a possibility that she might become pregnant.  And the solution is not to change American culture-- think maternity leave, anti-discrimination laws, etc.-- but to ensure a legal right to contraception and abortion.

Here's the difference.  Our society tells men that women are objects to be used and disposed of as they see fit.  It's rather obvious to me that young men are getting this message loud and clear.  Consider the response to Anita Sarkeesian's Kickstarter campaign to create a video series documenting sexist portrayals of women in video games.  *Warning: There is strong and vile printed language briefly shown in this video.

As a man and presumably a member of the patriarchy, I am embarrassed that men in government are willing to run for public office not only on the backs of unborn children, but also with their feet on the head of every woman of child-bearing age.  Simply put, if women cannot fully participate in society without access to abortion on demand, the solution is not to pass out abortions like candy.  The solution is to rewrite the rules of participation in society.

Back to politics

According to WGRZ TV, Independent Democratic Conference Leader Jeffrey Klein is of the opinion that 'abortion is a defining issue for Democrats-- if you're not pro-choice, you're not a Democrat.'  Good to know.  I'll be sure to pass that along to Democrats for Life of America.

However, Klein has one thing right.  Abortion is most definitely one of the defining issues of our time in that it trumps a host of other issues.  In the Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics, abortion is at the top of a list of five non-negotiable items.  There is a hierarchy of political issues, and some things take priority over all others as far as Christian social values are concerned.  I've had this discussion with people quite close to me.  Think about it this way.  If a candidate or party planned to legislate an American system of apartheid, would you care about their foreign policy plan?

A few questions

Finally, I will pose a few questions.  If an unborn child is the property of his or her mother, then that unborn child can be disposed of at will.  Is there not a logical connection between this and a husband owning his wife?

Are the legislators of New York going to impose Gov. Cuomo's patriarchal bargain on citizens?  More importantly, will same said citizens demand true equality for women in education, the workplace, and government?

1Flesh Meme Parade

I wanted to share my addition to the Memeical Graphical Competition Parade going on at 1flesh.  Here's the Koala.

Find me on memgenerator.net

The 96.8% real world effectiveness refers to the Creighton Model of natural family planning.

Violence and Artificial Contraception - The Logical Connection

Recently, I posted to Facebook an item by Michael New over at the National Review Online entitled Tracking the Times on Contraception.  In it, New takes exception to Juleanna Glover's recent New York Times op-ed piece wherein she argues that pro-life Republicans should advocate public financing for artificial contraception.  Without summarizing these works, I will share the results of a fruitful discussion I had with Thomas of Faith and Reason concerning the matter at hand.

The contraceptive mentality

Much has been written about the place that contraception sits at in our society. Unfortunately, much of it is little more than knee-jerk opinion, which I prefer not to engage in-- at least in public.  It is certainly clear that our society has become more promiscuous if one measures promiscuity by instances of sexually transmitted infection, unintended pregnancy, abortion, and contraceptive use.  Though they are hardly an unbiased source, the Guttmacher Institute certainly bears out this conclusion in their own data.

From Next Steps for America's Family Planning Program

As the above chart indicates, the typical woman has first intercourse at age 17.4 and first pregnancy at age 22.5.  Think about that.  This typical woman will have sex for the first time more than 7 years before first marriage at age 25.1.  Clearly, ours is a culture with a nonchalant attitude with respect to non-marital sex.

Both Glover and the Guttmacher Institute blithely ignore the fact that pregnancy is perhaps the simplest human condition to avoid.  However, in the post-Kinseyan world in which we live, sexual activity is considered a birthright-- an opinion from which only the most stodgy and unrealistic persons deviate.  Hence, the Catholic Church is considered uptight at best, hostile to women at worst.

How does contraception equate with violence?

With the number of yearly abortions in the US typically over one million, one can certainly conclude that the logical extrapolation of the contraceptive mentality results in violence against the unborn.

In the Rutgers Law Review, Dr. Alan Guttmacher himself stated, "When an abortion is easily obtainable, contraception is neither actively nor diligently used.  If we had abortion on demand, there would be no reward for the woman who practiced effective contraception.  Abortion on demand relieves the husband of all possible responsibility; he simply becomes a coital animal."  This was in 1968.  Just three years later, Drs. Eugene Sandburg and Ralph Jacobs wrote in a 1971 issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, "As legal abortion has become increasingly available, it has become evident that some women are now intentionally using abortion as a substitute for contraception."

So, what about those who don't slide down the slippery slope?  Does contraceptive use that doesn't lead to abortion also have an element of violence associated with it?  I would say yes.  If not explicitly, there is a logical connection.  I will elaborate.

Christ's teaching on violence

In the gospel of Matthew, Our Lord states, "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.'  But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well." (Matt 5:38-39)

Until recently, I read this passage as Christ advocating a form of radical pacifism. However, some biblical exegesis reveals that this is not the case.  The key point here is the right cheek.  In first century Judaism, no one would use his left hand in public for anything.  The left hand was considered unclean.  So, to strike a person on the right cheek, you would be hitting him with the back of your hand.  This is a strike intended more to humiliate an inferior person rather than to injure someone.  Fr. Robert Barron provides an excellent summation of this teaching in episode 2 of the Catholicism DVD series-- which I think I just parroted.

The point Jesus was making is that a Christian is not to respond to violence either with more violence or by rolling over and accepting it.  Rather, the Christian must always seek for a third option that neither accepts evil nor responds in kind.

Consider NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre's solution to the Newtown school shooting disaster. He suggests armed guards in every school in the country.  Clearly, the NRA intends to solve gun violence with more guns and more people prepared to use them.  This sounds like the response of a violent culture.  Never mind the gun violence successfully perpetrated in places that actually have armed guards.

The connection to contraception

I would argue that proponents of contraception as a means of regulating births and avoiding abortion are thinking about the problem in the same manner Wayne LaPierre is thinking about school shootings.  Rather than avoid sexual relations when pregnancy is likely yet not desired, the contraceptive mentality prefers, rather violently, to interrupt otherwise healthy reproductive function.  One need look no farther than the warning label on any hormonal contraceptive to see the associated health risks.  The folks at 1flesh.org have a large list of harmful side effects of all manner of contraception.  And it doesn't strike me as mere coincidence that one of the greatest advocates of non-violent social change, Mahatma Gandhi, was also no fan of artificial contraception.

It's not just Catholics who oppose contraception.

Do not think that I am advocating complete abstinence for happily married couples with legitimate reason to delay pregnancy.  Fortunately, in this modern age, there are multiple means of charting a female's natural reproductive cycle.  They typically require abstaining from marital relations for a mere 7-10 consecutive days per month. If you and your spouse can't manage that, your method of regulating births is not your biggest concern.

Why don't advocates of family planning support natural methods?

Here's where we get to the insidious nature of the contraceptive mentality.  If natural methods are so healthy and effective (real-world effectiveness is cited at 96.8%), why are they virtually unknown outside of the Catholic Church and a few other places?  Simple. Follow the money.  Natural methods are so inexpensive that Planned Parenthood will never bring home $64 million in yearly profits if we refuse to swallow their promiscuity doctrine.