Abortion pushers will hate this. Fewer women getting pregnant, fewer babies to kill, decreased profit.
A long-term birth control method that women can all but forget about is the abortion industry’s worst nightmare.
Although the WHO does a lot of good work improving the health of third world inhabitants, it has a dark side. Some WHO representatives work tirelessly to do as many abortions as possible on third world women, instead of providing them health care. They think of schemes to increase abortions among these women. It is horrific.
I think that the potential of these chips to put abortionists out of business is fantastic.
I think the potential of these chips for genocide in the hands of a tyrant is horrifying.
If your thoughts are correct, then abortion pushers hate the current birth control methods like pills, condoms, etc.? Is this the case?
Just as a far-out "per absurdam" rhetorical example, cutting the sex organs out of all baby girls would work, but would be objectionable. Yes?
Keeping all girls under house arrest until marriage, and oh yeah, then under house arrest after marriage as well, would work, but would be objectionable. Yes?
Requiring all boys to provide sperm samples for cryostorage at puberty, and then neutering them all so they could not beget children except by artificial insemination, would work, but would be objectionable. Yes?
So the question is, is there some reason why being able turn women's fertility on and off by deranging their normal hormonal levels with a remote control toggle device, would be objectionable?
I think there is.
In the obvious, materialistic sense, it would lead to an epidemic of trivial sportf***ing, followed by, as the night the day, tsunamis of STD's --- which in fact every "advance" in contraceptive technology absolutely, reliably does. Helloo-o-o-o cephalosporin-resistant gonorrhea, hello middle-schoolers dying quickly and badly.
Second, it would completely deprive intercourse of the significance, the "weight," the "bonding energy" given to it by its procreative potential. This is so major it's the equivalent of, in physics, abolishing one of the fundamental forces, like gravity or magnetism. Everything in the Universe would fall apart. Its like taking all the mortar out of the brick walls that constitute the foundation of your house. The fundamental sexual forces that attract male and female, which inspire them to place their lives in each other's hands and "cling to each other, becoming one flesh" for a lifetime, would utterly evaporate.
You can see it happening now, can't you?
Sex, already deflated,diminished and almost undone as one of the awesome forces in the universe of human interaction, would shrivel the rest of the way down to being a meaningless sport, implying nothing in terms of sacredness and commitment, probably abolishing the whole notion of "relationship" along the way: not loving, not even user-friendly.
The real challenge is not just to stop abortion, which could be done by sabotaging the sexual physiology of women, or men, or both ---basically abolishing the difference between men and women, except for certain ornamental details.
The real challenge is to restore sexual wholeness.
Sexual physical, moral, spiritual wholeness.
That's the only way to make things right.
It's a big job, and a slow way.
But our choices are: the slow way, or no way.
It's counter-intuitive, but no, the abortion providers probably won't hate this, for two reasons.
Why do you suppose PP tries to drive sex ed into lower and lower grades? The reason is to generate an unnatural interest and curiosity about sex, to foster premarital sex at a young age when children fail to use sterilizers as prescribed, thus necessitating abortions.
The same principle applies with respect to contraception and adults.
The second reason is that PP is a eugenic movement in addition to an abortion movement. It has been since Margaret Sanger began the movement. 70% of PP abortuaries are located in black neighborhoods, and Bill Gates intends to begin this particular sterilization program in Africa.