Remote Control Contraception: Fertility be Damned!

Patti Maguire Armstrong

Imagine sending a text to your body for obligation-free sex. You’ll have to wait until 2018 before this invention goes on sale, but when it does, remote controls will do more than just turn on TV’s and cars. They will turn on and off fertility.

Who could have imagined such a thing? Bill Gates—advocate of depopulating the world–could have. He has backed the making of a contraceptive computer chip being developed that can be turned on and off by remote control.

According to BBC News Technology, the computer chip is implanted under a woman’s skin, releasing a small dose of the hormone levonorgestrel every day for 16 years. But by means of a wireless remote control it can be turned off and on at any time. It will be submitted for pre-clinical testing next year.

“Tiny reservoirs of the hormone are stored on a 1.5cm-wide microchip within the device,” the BBC stated. “A small electric charge melts an ultra-thin seal around the levonorgestrel, releasing the 30 microgram dose into the body.”

Think of what this could mean for governments. China would no longer need the village family planning officer to police who is getting pregnant. Home visits with her remote control would allow women with official permission to have their fertility returned by having their chips switched off. Likewise, those other potential lawbreakers seeking pregnancy at the risk of a forced abortion or hefty fine, could simply be kept infertile by remote control.

The article noted that this innovation comes at a time when governments and organizations around the world have agreed to try to bring family planning to around 120 million more women by 2020. Because, after all, women need that extra push to stop procreating. And who cares if contraceptive hormones have been classified as a Type 1 carcinogen according to a 2005 report released by the World Health Organization? Women should care since doctors keep prescribing it as if there was an actual War on Women, promoting a once-a-day poison in the quest for sterile sex.

When Pope Paul VI released Humanae Vitae in 1968, he understood that contraception would usher in a real war on women, making them seen as objects for pleasure, increasing divorce and lowering the moral standards of society. “The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator,” Pope Paul wrote. “Human sexuality cannot be totally cut off from the possibility of procreation and the mission to which married men and women are called toward God, themselves, their families and human society.”

Through working with the natural cycles, using self-discipline and chastity, couples live in union with God’s plan. Compare that to  union with a remote control. Rather than understanding that sex and the potential for life go together like love and marriage, this new technology will help people believe that they, not God, should call the shots.

Think of the potential bonanza for lawyers that make a living off of disgruntled consumers.

“Your honor, my client believes someone clicked off her birth control. She recalls seeing someone point a remote at her during a New Year’s party.”

“I was told my birth control would last 16 years and it’s only been 15 ½! Who is going to pay for this child’s college education if I choose to let it be born?”

“We planned to have a child by now but how were we to know that our remote control needed new batteries?”

“My ex took the remote with him when he left and I believe he switched off my birth control out of revenge.”

Oh, the world and it’s inventions. And pleasures. And inventions to clear the way for unencumbered pleasures. Technology is making sin so much easier. Who would have guessed that in just a few short years, sterile sex will be accomplished with just the touch of a button?

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest

16 thoughts on “Remote Control Contraception: Fertility be Damned!”

  1. Pingback: Leading Catholic Writer Stratford Caldecott Is Mourned -

  2. I`m not sure a lot of Catholics are aware of the Church`s stance on Natural Family Planning.. In fact I`ve just had my 3rd (all planned with NFP BTW) and everyone assumes my hubby will get the snip and they`re almost insulting and belittling us when we say we will not as it`s not a Catholic way of life to do so. I guess they`ll be happy with this remote …

    1. as it`s not a Catholic way of life to do so.

      With all due respect to your religious beliefs, there are some decisions that people make in their lives that depend on what you really and truly want for yourself and your family. Religion has devised ways to influence people to put their own personal needs and desires second to those of the religion. That is never a good thing. Have more kids if you want. If you don’t then take control of your own destiny.

    2. Bill S, I’m sure you put your personal needs and desires second to others all the time. And others do the same for you. It is called love. I will speak for myself, I am not influenced by religion. It is my choice to submit to God. Catholicism is not an irrational superstition. Catholicism takes God’s world and does a fine job of harmonizing the natural with the supernatural. Anyway, we don’t have control over our destiny. Nothing goes as planned, right? We make plans and God laughs.

    3. I would say that not everything goes as planned. I’d be in real trouble if nothing did. I believe in an intelligence behind all this that some people call God. Does the Catholic Church do a better job than anyone else at describing this intelligence?

      You might think it does. I think it is something that science studies and describes as best it can.

    4. When did it become acceptable to speak this way to people? “So, when are you getting snipped?” Geez.

  3. Through working with the natural cycles, using self-discipline and chastity, couples live in union with God’s plan.

    That is fine for people who believe in a god that has a plan for them. They are not the target market. There are people, however, who don’t want other people telling them what their god has planned for them. These people welcome any new development that gives them more control over their own lives. That being said, I think Bill Gates is a genius but I have my doubts about the utility of such a device compared to what other methods could be available by then.

    1. Patti Maguire Armstrong

      Yes, there are people who want and think they can have control over their lives. So sad. I was once in that camp but have the joy of experiencing the difference of putting God in the driver’s seat. But aside from personal control, there will be government control. It isn’t just China but Vietnam and India that has been coercive on individual rights. No doubt there will be many ways to abuse this technology.
      Consider this from LifeSiteNews:

      “Administration of dangerous hormonal contraceptive drugs, whether through new technologies or traditional oral methods, should not be considered a boon for women’s health, as the serious risks of these drugs are better known every day,” Fr. Shenan Boquet, president of Human Life International, told

      “Our concerns are only heightened when we see reporters promoting this effort of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation without mention of the harm done to women by other versions of these drugs, as if this only promises good health and empowerment for women,” he added.

      This isn’t reporting; it’s propaganda, and it is especially dangerous given the risks involved.”

      Then again, a remote-controlled computer chip that potentially leaves the patient’s health at the mercy of anyone with sufficient computer skills presents its own issues.

      Dr. Robert Farra of MIT said the subcutaneous computer chip must be given “secure encryption” so that “someone across the room cannot re-program your implant.” To date, that security has not been developed.

      Civil libertarians worry about how hackers – and rogue government agencies – could exploit that technology. “Whatever that chip transmits will go into a government file,” John Whitehead, a constitutional attorney and founder of The Rutherford Institute, told LifeSiteNews. “The chip may actually know when you’re having sex. So, there will be no privacy, no.”

    2. My wife must be one of the lucky ones. She was on the pill and we managed to have our two children when we wanted them and everything has worked out fine. I instinctively oppose implanting microchips in people for frivolous purposes. I’m sure there will be better alternatives than what Gates is anticipating.

    3. Bill, well said. Thank you. I, too, believe there will be better alternatives than microchips. I also believe the world population would be better off in the millions instead of the billions.

    4. I have no problem with billions of people in the world but there shouldn’t be so many that are unwanted mistakes.

  4. Just think of more of the lovely alternatives. Parents could “innoculate” their teenage daughter upon menses, just in case. Then when she wants to get married she can ask her parents for the remote and if they like her spouse they can hand it over. They paid for it, so it belongs to them right? It could all be part of the marriage ceremony, the handing of the remote over to the couple, complete with lighting a candle. I’m sure the Book of Common Prayer could include a prayer for that.

    Or maybe as a requirement of entering public school a girl or boy (they’ll have one for boys too by then right?) you get implanted with the chip. Teen pregnancy is a public health threat right? or BETTER YET as a requirement to get your food stamp card you and any children 10 yrs or older need to be implanted. THAT would be perfect right? The fulfillment of Margaret Sanger’s dream to keep down the population of those unfit breeders. Great for controlling the population of those pesky minorities. Half of all abortions in some cities are black babies anyway, let’s go for the full $100%! WOW, the possibilities are endless.

    1. Patti Maguire Armstrong

      Although your comments are humorous, they actually hit the nail on the head. There will be more opportunity for abuse. In the end, women will be less free, not more.

  5. Would you care to take a stab at … say, the year 2414 ? I say this because simply extrapolating
    the gist of the topic and graphing the expodentiality of where these practices will lead it seems
    like … self destruction – or will the accumulated weight of sin be no more than it is today. Abortion will be an ugly memory of another age. Marriage will still be the province of those who believe they can stay the course. The Church will still be there to heal the sick. God will be praised as always. Death will be grieved. Life will be wanted. All this prefaced of course by,
    I hope.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Sign Up for the Catholic Stand Newsletter!

%d bloggers like this: