FAMILY PLANNING

There was a wise man who once said there is nothing new under the sun. My dad and mom used to say to me it’s a different dress, but it’s the same old mess. All of the arguments to support a particular position are rearranged so that they look different, but at their root they are the same old worn out arguments. Ask them to come up with something different and they fail at every turn.

It seems that what works best is never a part of the solution to a given problem. It is thrown out as unworkable. It is never proposed in public policy because it is God’s idea and not man’s. An editorial from the Kansas City Star complains about President Bush’s policy which does not allow foreign aid to go for contraception. The main reason is that no tax dollars are allowed to be expended for abortions.

The Kansas City Star editorial title is to End politics and teach family planning. What this editorial’s main point is that President Bush is causing the deaths of thousands of women and babies in foreign lands by not providing contraceptives to them. The way that the President is doing this is by not providing taxpayer funds from going to the United Nations Population Fund.

The editorial writer presupposes that an increasing population in foreign lands is a problem. The guise is used of thousands of women and babies dying every year to try and make his point. What the writer is saying is that the President’s policies are inhumane and that he is a compassionate individual who is interested in the welfare of these women and babies in foreign countries.

If only these women could get hold of contraceptives provided by U.S. taxpayers money, then they and their babies would not die. The women would not die because of poor maternal health and the babies would be prevented being born, so the alleged problem would immediately disappear and you and me could rest easy at night knowing that we were compassionate in our duty by preventing the birth of these children.

What the editorial writer did not consider in this article (because it does not fit into his agenda nor is he capable of considering it) is there is an alternative to contraceptives. The writer wants to teach family planning. Whose responsibility is it to teach family planning? Is it the U.S. Government’s responsibility? Is it the United Nation’s Population Fund?

What is a family and what is family planning? The Bible says that we are to be fruitful and multiply which means to have children. This, of course, has to be fulfilled within the proper context that God has established. Thus, a family begins with marriage of a man and a woman. From this union, they may or may not have children. The decision to have children is an individual decision, not a governmental one.

Ultimately, this editorial’s underlying rationale is to take away the freedom of reproducing of the poor. This was Margaret Sanger’s (founder of Planned Parenthood) position. It is called eugenics. Eugenics is selective breeding. China’s reported one-child policy is an example of eugenics. This is a loss of freedom for the individual as the government decides who will and who will not have children.

Within marriage and since men do not get pregnant and are able to work without restraint, the man can get a job and provide for his new family. This allows the new mother to be able to take care of this new baby unrestrained. For this type of arrangement, how much taxpayer’s money is expended? In fact, taxpayer money is increased by taxes withheld from the man’s paycheck. So far we are in a net gain situation.

This is the best family planning model available. It has been working for six thousand years and will continue to work effectively throughout the rest of history. One proposal the editorial writer will never mention as a workable policy is teaching abstinence until marriage.

Whose responsibility is it to teach abstinence? The answer is it is a threefold effort. First, the family has the responsibility of teaching abstinence and enforcing it. I have always said that parents are the best form of birth control. Second, the church must proclaim with one voice that its abstinence until marriage in its teaching. Finally, the civil government is to pass laws that favor marriage and punish fornication.

This threefold approach will encourage the true family planning model. Providing contraceptives to women in foreign lands is teaching them that they do not have to follow the model. Promiscuity is encouraged with the use of contraceptives. The editorial writer wants us to look at his presumed compassion for women and babies but the intent and the end results are two different things.

The advocated proposal of providing of our taxpayer money to the United Nations Population Fund will end up exacerbating the problem rather than solving it. The reason for this is simple. Instead of these women in foreign countries, learning to control themselves, they are taught that if they take a pill that there will be no consequences to their actions. You can fool man but God will not be mocked.