Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Dr. King: The Moral Disaster of Federal Family Planning

  1. #1

    Icon2 Dr. King: The Moral Disaster of Federal Family Planning

    Dr. King: The Moral Disaster of Federal Family Planning
    Thursday, 21 Jun 2012 07:39 PM
    By Dr. Alveda C. King

    Dr. Alveda C. King’s Perspective: Today marks the historical 40th Anniversary of Title IX — the federal legislation that prohibits sex discrimination in all educational programs that receive federal financial aid.

    Many people have thought over the years that Title IX was about equality for women in the area of sports, even though athletics was not mentioned in the initial bill. The initial effort of Title IX was to advance equality for women in the areas of math and science.

    Now, 40 years later, while women athletes have benefited from Title IX initiatives, women are still sadly lagging in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields.

    Title IX Sounds like a practical and compassionate program for women doesn’t it?

    Yet, we can only wonder how and why the detour which basically abandoned STEM fields for almost exclusive athletic programs has not been seriously noted over the past four decades.

    Another seemingly compassionate and well-intended legislative effort intended to help women which has become a moral disaster is The Title X Family Planning Program.

    Title X is officially known as Public Law 91-572 or “Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs” — part of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only existing federal grant program that is completely devoted to providing comprehensive family planning and other related preventive health services to individuals.

    Purportedly, Title X was legally designed to prioritize the needs of individuals from low-income families and/or uninsured people (including those who are not eligible for Medicaid) who might not otherwise have access to these healthcare services.

    These services are provided to low-income and uninsured individuals at reduced or no cost. Its overall purpose is to promote positive birth outcomes and healthy families by allowing individuals to decide the number and spacing of their children. The other health services provided in Title X-funded clinics are integral in achieving this seemingly well intended objective.

    Title X sounds like a very positive program doesn’t it?

    Yet, moral turpitude has turned something seemingly intended for good into something quite harmful. In the case of Title X, “family planning” has been invaded by chemical and surgical products that along with preventing the conception of babies, often bring harm in the form of increased risks of breast and liver cancer, strokes and heart attacks, physical and emotional duress and a host of other ills to the women reportedly targeted for “affordable health care.”

    Many of the recipients of the Title X funding are also connected to the abortion market, with abortion also being promoted as a “woman’s civil right.” How can abortion, which takes the life of a human being be called a civil right? This is surely a “civil wrong.” Abortion and surgical and chemical procedures that prevent or interrupt the woman’s natural and healthy reproductive life are not beneficial to women.

    To the contrary, under the guise of “women’s reproductive health and freedom,” women are being encouraged to enter into risky behaviors with the deceptive promise of “safety nets” which are full of loop holes. Again, Title X funds are being misused in the guise of “women’s health programs.”

    Finally, there is a raging war in America today over the issue of homosexual “marriage.” Again, people are victims of “misplaced compassion,” in our efforts not to offend our brothers and sisters who desire “same-sex marriage.” Too many of us are afraid to suggest that compassion doesn’t necessarily mean abandoning moral beliefs.

    The efforts to make abortion and homosexual marriage “civil rights” actually tramples the rights of babies in the wombs of their mothers to be born, as well as the rights to freedom of religion of those who do not endorse homosexual marriage. As a result, people are seeking to compromise, hoping not to offend, while not realizing that we are hurting little babies, and also impacting the future with some of our decisions.

    God doesn’t create “unwanted” babies. People do. As to human sexuality, that’s an ancient issue that has a lot to do with DNA, RNA and the original plan for procreation that is circumvented by forces that prevent the birth of whole and healthy human beings.

    We could ask ourselves if we dare to: “If God wants us to be fruitful and multiply, why would God put a stamp of approval on two processes — abortion which circumvents the birth of babies, and interrupts the procreative process; and homosexuality which also interrupts the procreative process since two men nor two women united in sexuality cannot procreate?”

    Obviously there is some energy, some force, some influence around in the atmosphere that wants to prevent procreation. But are we sure that God is the one who is engineering all of this? Who creates high blood pressure? Who creates sugar diabetes and cancer? Who creates unwanted babies? Who creates the “homosexual gene”?

    Are we sure that God is the author of sickness, disease and other forces that cause humans to enter into strife and get sidetracked by misplaced compassion?

    Is God the author of confusion? Just asking.

    In my personal testimony video I explain how abortion harmed my life. I also have been the victim of physical and emotional harm and duress caused by artificial and unnatural “birth control” methods.

    Jesus Christ brings hope and healing into my life, even in my darkest hours. I’m not trying to convince anyone to try Jesus. I’m just telling you that I did, and am happier because I did.

    Whatever we believe, most of us are not afraid to admit that America and indeed the world needs something or someone to make a brighter day. There is such a thing as right and wrong. Many will admit that we are on a path that is headed in the wrong direction.

    This leads me to dare to suggest that when moral wrongs become civil rights, the generations suffer. America, we are suffering from “misplaced compassion syndrome.” We as a nation — and indeed perhaps the whole world — need healing for our wrongs, so that the generations to come can truly experience civil rights.
    Source: LINK
    Last edited by CatholicCrusader; Jun 22 2012 at 02:40 AM.

    "Government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

    "I have now been in 57 states. I think I have one left to go." - Barack Obama


  2. #2

    Default

    .....bumping......
    Last edited by CatholicCrusader; Aug 09 2012 at 02:46 PM.

    "Government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

    "I have now been in 57 states. I think I have one left to go." - Barack Obama

  3. #3

    Default

    Really? This is just some christian ranting about how abortion and gay marriages are bad. I see this on PF at least once a day.
    "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it."- American Philosopher George Santayana

  4. Default

    So God is your argument against abortion?

    Well my deity is perfectly ok with abortion and with women controlling their reproductive organs. I don't believe in your false and hateful deity at all. So, so much for that.

  5. Likes Bowerbird liked this post
  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pasithea View Post
    So God is your argument against abortion?

    Well my deity is perfectly ok with abortion and with women controlling their reproductive organs. I don't believe in your false and hateful deity at all. So, so much for that.
    There would be no need for abortion if women could control their reproductive organs.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Michael View Post
    There would be no need for abortion if women could control their reproductive organs.
    Women can control their reproductive organs, they can choose when or whether to have sex, and they can choose whether or not to be pregnant. Abortion gives them that control with certainty, whereas birth control sometimes fails. That choice belongs to the individual woman, if it is not a choice you need to make, stay out of it.
    We could learn a lot from crayons:
    some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, some have weird names, and all are different colors....but they all exist very nicely in the same box. --Unknown

    Lewis Wolpert –The older people get, the older they believe 'old' to be.

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Michael View Post
    There would be no need for abortion if women could control their reproductive organs.
    I agree. If women had the ability to to turn off their ovaries when they didn't need them, and turn them on when they do, abortion would hardly ever be necessary.
    Last edited by Junkieturtle; Aug 10 2012 at 05:06 AM.
    "The whole "us verses them/right verses left" mentality is childish; leave that crap in the sporting arena and understand that political discussions are no place for torrid, angry argument, rather rational dialogue whereby we may deepen and hone our own beliefs. Anyone declaring "liberalism" or "conservatism" as finite terms distinguishing absolute morality is grossly misguided and closed minded. They're just words; and we're just people. Political positions aren't sports teams." - TitoSparks

  9. Likes CatholicCrusader, OKgrannie, Pasithea liked this post
  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Junkieturtle View Post
    I agree. If women had the ability to to turn off their ovaries when they didn't need them, and turn them on when they do, abortion would hardly ever be necessary.
    Haha exactly what I was thinking. xD

  11. #9
    usa us indiana
    Location: Indianapolis, IN
    Posts: 1,585
    Blog Entries: 3

    Default

    Meanwhile, the actual Dr. Martin Luther King was a big admirer of Margaret Sanger and her birth control programs.

    Pro-lifers, does this mean MLK was out to exterminate the black race? How else do you explain his attitude?
    Last edited by mamooth; Aug 15 2012 at 11:18 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. The Moral Clarity of Occupy Wall Street
    By Lady Luna in forum Current Events
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: Oct 17 2011, 05:57 AM
  2. Replies: 21
    Last Post: Oct 14 2011, 05:11 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sep 13 2011, 09:38 AM
  4. The twins disaster
    By Allegiance in forum Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sep 11 2011, 04:46 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks