By Gil Cabacungan
Philippine Daily Inquirer
The country’s family planning program is in peril after the United Nations sounded off its plan to cut back its aid to the government’s population control program.
Iloilo Rep. Janette Garin said that she was informed that the UN would abandon its $1 million birth control program in the Philippines starting next year due to lack of funding from members.
Garin said that the fund was used to bankroll the use of injectable drugs to prevent pregnancy in three months or the distribution of birth control pills especially to those who just gave birth.
The vice chair of the House committee on health said that this has made the passage of the Reproductive Health bill more urgent to ensure sustained funding for family planning programs.
Without this regular UN-funded program to poor Filipinos, Garin feared that the Philippines could experience a spike in its population growth rate recently pegged at 2.4 percent per annum.
----------
Whether people admit it or not, and no matter how much sugar-coating is done to it, the U.N.-advocated program which is so-called the "Reproductive Health" program is basically a world population reduction program. And whether people will like it or not, according to U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton (in her own words during a foreign policy hearing in their legislative house), "...Reproductive Health includes access to abortion..."
Passing our own "watered down" version of the U.N.-advocated RH bill in our country ("watered down" because abortion is not yet included in the birth control options to be legalized and offered) is merely the first step, because it has been proven time and again, as are the cases in many poor countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, that for a reproductive health program to be really effective within its program time frame and within the limitations of its budget, the option of abortion must be included.
Please see: World Abortion Policies
How can we be sure that our own country's proposed RH Bill will someday not lead to the granting of access to abortion? Is this part of the deal of the $343M grant the United States government has granted the Philippines during President Noynoy's first foreign mission with the world leaders at the United Nations? May we know the truth about this? FOI please?
Here are some relevant and significant information:
National Security Study Memorandum 200
But reducing the population of the world's poor is not that easy to accomplish as some so-called world experts may have thought. In fact many of these so-called experts are now even advocating another radical way of achieving their objective. Genocide! And of course to be carried out subtly through seemingly harmless products such as food, drinks, and medicines, and to be administered or delivered through food aids, medical aids, and in some forms of disease prevention measures through vaccinations. As the world's poor innocently and unsuspectingly take these "disguised substances" into their body system, either they will become sterile for the rest of their life, or their life expectancy is greatly reduced, or they will have both of those subtly intended adverse effects.
* * * * *
Global Overpopulation: The Making Of A Myth:
Here is another animated video on overpopulation myth:
* * * * *
Reduction of Birth Rate or Birth-Control? Whatever people may call it, one good way to achieve Birth-Control is to practice Self-Control. "Plan bago yugyugan." Or in other words, Family Planning. At "Kung didiskarte, maging responsable." Or in other words, Responsible Parenthood.
Talking about Family Planning and Responsible Parenthood. I am agreeable to the idea of managing birth rate for the sake of economic betterment with the aim of improving the standard of living of the population, no question about that. In fact some of the so-called "pro RH bill" might be surprised to know that many of the so-called "anti RH bill" are advocating Family Planning and Responsible Parenthood -- but in the true sense of the advocacy and in the right way, and not in the way that the U.N. is desperately advocating. The disagreement, I think, is not much in the objective or purpose but is more in the ways or means of achieving that goal. (If only there are "real" options such that both the Church and the State could agree, then there would be no significant obstacles in the legislation and implementation of laws on the objectives of Family Planning & Responsible Parenthood.)
While there are many points of disagreement, yet did you know that there are in fact some few points of possible agreement between the RH bill's proponents and some of those who are opposing the bill? One such point is the use of the Natural Family Planning method (NFP). Another is sex education for children provided there are agreements in the curiculum and in the age bracket.
But sad to say that the government seems to be subscribing to the United Nations' shotgun approach to World Population and is sold out to this so-called "solution" by [blindly] embracing the concept of Population Reduction.
* * * * *
Just because countries are implementing the U.N.-advocated version of the Reproductive Health program does not mean that the program will work for every country. In fact if you take a look at the record of the poor countries which implented birth-control programs for the past two or three decades, you will be shocked to discover of the very low success rate that these countries have attained with respect to their goal of achieving a better standard of living for the majority of their people.
Not everything in the Reproductive Health bill is wrong. But what makes the entirety of it wrong is that it combines into one bill both the population control program and the mother & child health care program that's been well promoted and talked about. This is where the seeming trickery of the United Nation's euphemism comes in. For it to have high global acceptability, they marketed it as a "Reproductive Health" program to conceal the inclusion of abortion in its original agenda because majority of the nations in the U.N. General Assembly did not agree to the idea of including access to abortion in the program.
Here is one video that might be of interest:
The Hijacked Agenda of the Nations in the U.N. General Assembly
* * * * *
Base on the data shown below (please see the link provided below), wherever there is considerable presence of Christianity, abortion is either illegal or rare. And the reason perhaps is obvious. When it comes to rare cases of birth that involves life and death situation for both the mother and the baby, Christians uphold the principle of what is known as "double effect." And these are isolated cases and do not count as to the category of legalized abortion due to unwanted pregnancy.
If according to Secretary Hillary Clinton's frank acknowledgment (please see my posted video above) that, "...Reproductive Health includes access to abortion...", then why do you think that the U.N.-advocated true version of the euphemistically called Reproductive Health program should include access to abortion and is made legal in many European countries as well as in the U.S.A.? It is because, let me repeat, that time and again, it has been proven in many countries which tried implenting contraceptive-only method of population control that without abortion the success of the program with respect to the global goal of improving the standard of living of the people is not that effective as they had thought.
See: Abortion Policies in Europe
* * * * *
Here is one article that might be relevant to the topic on abortion and notice how euphemism has been used also to attempt conceal the particular crime of murdering the unborn child.
There are demands worldwide for a procedure to reduce twins to a single pregnancy and it has grown steadily. “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy” is one of the most twisted thinking that justifies the killing of the unborn, and the people opting for this procedure try to evade moral responsibility by calling the procedure a “reduction.” But the procedure so dishonestly called “reduction” is really not about mere “meddling.” It is murder. --Article Quote
See Article: "Reduction" Goes Beyond Meddling to Murder
* * * * *
And here is an article on the Principle of Double-Effect that is also relevant to the topic on abortion where rare difficult childbirth cases involve life and death situation of both the mother and the unborn child.
See Article: Double Effect Principle and Borderline Situations
Philippine Daily Inquirer
The country’s family planning program is in peril after the United Nations sounded off its plan to cut back its aid to the government’s population control program.
Iloilo Rep. Janette Garin said that she was informed that the UN would abandon its $1 million birth control program in the Philippines starting next year due to lack of funding from members.
Garin said that the fund was used to bankroll the use of injectable drugs to prevent pregnancy in three months or the distribution of birth control pills especially to those who just gave birth.
The vice chair of the House committee on health said that this has made the passage of the Reproductive Health bill more urgent to ensure sustained funding for family planning programs.
Without this regular UN-funded program to poor Filipinos, Garin feared that the Philippines could experience a spike in its population growth rate recently pegged at 2.4 percent per annum.
----------
Whether people admit it or not, and no matter how much sugar-coating is done to it, the U.N.-advocated program which is so-called the "Reproductive Health" program is basically a world population reduction program. And whether people will like it or not, according to U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton (in her own words during a foreign policy hearing in their legislative house), "...Reproductive Health includes access to abortion..."
Passing our own "watered down" version of the U.N.-advocated RH bill in our country ("watered down" because abortion is not yet included in the birth control options to be legalized and offered) is merely the first step, because it has been proven time and again, as are the cases in many poor countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, that for a reproductive health program to be really effective within its program time frame and within the limitations of its budget, the option of abortion must be included.
Please see: World Abortion Policies
How can we be sure that our own country's proposed RH Bill will someday not lead to the granting of access to abortion? Is this part of the deal of the $343M grant the United States government has granted the Philippines during President Noynoy's first foreign mission with the world leaders at the United Nations? May we know the truth about this? FOI please?
Here are some relevant and significant information:
National Security Study Memorandum 200
But reducing the population of the world's poor is not that easy to accomplish as some so-called world experts may have thought. In fact many of these so-called experts are now even advocating another radical way of achieving their objective. Genocide! And of course to be carried out subtly through seemingly harmless products such as food, drinks, and medicines, and to be administered or delivered through food aids, medical aids, and in some forms of disease prevention measures through vaccinations. As the world's poor innocently and unsuspectingly take these "disguised substances" into their body system, either they will become sterile for the rest of their life, or their life expectancy is greatly reduced, or they will have both of those subtly intended adverse effects.
* * * * *
Global Overpopulation: The Making Of A Myth:
Here is another animated video on overpopulation myth:
* * * * *
Reduction of Birth Rate or Birth-Control? Whatever people may call it, one good way to achieve Birth-Control is to practice Self-Control. "Plan bago yugyugan." Or in other words, Family Planning. At "Kung didiskarte, maging responsable." Or in other words, Responsible Parenthood.
Talking about Family Planning and Responsible Parenthood. I am agreeable to the idea of managing birth rate for the sake of economic betterment with the aim of improving the standard of living of the population, no question about that. In fact some of the so-called "pro RH bill" might be surprised to know that many of the so-called "anti RH bill" are advocating Family Planning and Responsible Parenthood -- but in the true sense of the advocacy and in the right way, and not in the way that the U.N. is desperately advocating. The disagreement, I think, is not much in the objective or purpose but is more in the ways or means of achieving that goal. (If only there are "real" options such that both the Church and the State could agree, then there would be no significant obstacles in the legislation and implementation of laws on the objectives of Family Planning & Responsible Parenthood.)
While there are many points of disagreement, yet did you know that there are in fact some few points of possible agreement between the RH bill's proponents and some of those who are opposing the bill? One such point is the use of the Natural Family Planning method (NFP). Another is sex education for children provided there are agreements in the curiculum and in the age bracket.
But sad to say that the government seems to be subscribing to the United Nations' shotgun approach to World Population and is sold out to this so-called "solution" by [blindly] embracing the concept of Population Reduction.
* * * * *
Just because countries are implementing the U.N.-advocated version of the Reproductive Health program does not mean that the program will work for every country. In fact if you take a look at the record of the poor countries which implented birth-control programs for the past two or three decades, you will be shocked to discover of the very low success rate that these countries have attained with respect to their goal of achieving a better standard of living for the majority of their people.
Not everything in the Reproductive Health bill is wrong. But what makes the entirety of it wrong is that it combines into one bill both the population control program and the mother & child health care program that's been well promoted and talked about. This is where the seeming trickery of the United Nation's euphemism comes in. For it to have high global acceptability, they marketed it as a "Reproductive Health" program to conceal the inclusion of abortion in its original agenda because majority of the nations in the U.N. General Assembly did not agree to the idea of including access to abortion in the program.
Here is one video that might be of interest:
The Hijacked Agenda of the Nations in the U.N. General Assembly
* * * * *
Base on the data shown below (please see the link provided below), wherever there is considerable presence of Christianity, abortion is either illegal or rare. And the reason perhaps is obvious. When it comes to rare cases of birth that involves life and death situation for both the mother and the baby, Christians uphold the principle of what is known as "double effect." And these are isolated cases and do not count as to the category of legalized abortion due to unwanted pregnancy.
If according to Secretary Hillary Clinton's frank acknowledgment (please see my posted video above) that, "...Reproductive Health includes access to abortion...", then why do you think that the U.N.-advocated true version of the euphemistically called Reproductive Health program should include access to abortion and is made legal in many European countries as well as in the U.S.A.? It is because, let me repeat, that time and again, it has been proven in many countries which tried implenting contraceptive-only method of population control that without abortion the success of the program with respect to the global goal of improving the standard of living of the people is not that effective as they had thought.
See: Abortion Policies in Europe
* * * * *
Here is one article that might be relevant to the topic on abortion and notice how euphemism has been used also to attempt conceal the particular crime of murdering the unborn child.
There are demands worldwide for a procedure to reduce twins to a single pregnancy and it has grown steadily. “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy” is one of the most twisted thinking that justifies the killing of the unborn, and the people opting for this procedure try to evade moral responsibility by calling the procedure a “reduction.” But the procedure so dishonestly called “reduction” is really not about mere “meddling.” It is murder. --Article Quote
See Article: "Reduction" Goes Beyond Meddling to Murder
* * * * *
And here is an article on the Principle of Double-Effect that is also relevant to the topic on abortion where rare difficult childbirth cases involve life and death situation of both the mother and the unborn child.
See Article: Double Effect Principle and Borderline Situations
