[Update on January 25, 2009 by DJB: The Comment Thread for this post is still open. Your thoughts and insights are warmly welcome! You may also email me at rizalist@gmail.com]
From Law Professor Atty. ALAN F. PAGUIA comes a legal opposition to the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 4503) being debated in Congress. Paguia argues from fundamental Constitutional principles.
Five Points on Reproductive Health Bill
by Atty. Alan F. Paguia1. Under the Preamble of the Constitution, the general objective of the Philippine legal system is “to build a just and HUMANE SOCIETY”. Such humaneness includes both the born and the unborn. Therefore, it would not be humane for Congress to promote the use of contraceptives since it is directed against the life of the unborn.
2. The life of the unborn constitutes the process of PROCREATION. It has its alpha and omega.
3. Procreation begins with the SEXUAL ACT. It ends when the unborn is born. Under Article 41 of the Civil Code, the unborn is considered BORN if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother’s womb. Why is the sexual act the alpha of procreation? Because without it, generally speaking, NO sperm would enter the female body. If no sperm enters the female body, conception becomes a physical impossibility. Therefore, procreation or reproduction begins with the sexual act and ends with the complete separation of the unborn from the mother’s womb. It follows that any discussion on procreation or reproduction – to be complete – must include the sexual act.
4. Under the Constitution, the FAMILY is the foundation of the nation, and MARRIAGE is the foundation of the family. These are the foundations of responsible parenthood. Clearly, marriage LEGITIMIZES the sexual act between the husband and the wife (Art. XV). In other words, under the Constitution, any sexual act outside marriage is ILLEGITIMATE or IMMORAL.
5. May Congress properly pass a law that would make the life of the unborn a physical impossibility? NO. It would be unconstitutional as it would violate the “guidelines for legislation” set out in Article II of the Constitution (Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792; Kilosbayan v. Morato, 246 SCRA 540; Tañada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18).
Thoughts and caveats, anyone?
Popularity: 7% [?]
Hang on there Nashman! You see what the lawmakers supporting the bill have to do: walk a tightrope!
They have to take the middling position: for contraception, against abortion.
That is a difficult position to defend and persuade on the Congress.
DJB, why is ‘for contraception, against abortion’ a ‘difficult position to defend and persuade on the Congress’?
Honestly DJB I also don’t see why it’s so difficult.
If there is no conception, there is nothing to abort. We don’t even have to talk about abortion at all. I personally am against non-therapeutic abortion.
But yes, I see how it is difficult to explain what and when conception starts to those Catholic-educated Tongressmen.
if i recall correctly my readings on the concom debates, DJB, proviso 12(b) was inserted specifically by those opposing abortion.
It is difficult because the BEST arguments for birth control are also the BEST arguments for abortion. In fact, the WORST arguments for abortion are better than the BEST arguments for birth control.
Jester,
Section 12 establishes the State’s Principles when dealing with family, pregnant mothers, unborn babies, parents and youth.
In Section 12[c], the charter speaks of parents and youth possessing “natural and primary rights and duties” in support of which the govt pledges what is clearly SECONDARY support. The State, unquestionably gives parents a kind of “presumption of regularity” in running the “basic autonomous unit of society”–the family. It cannot interfere except in exceptional circumstances. Typically and as a general rule, the State does not own or is responsible for what happens to any specific family, since it has general responsibilities to ALL families.
Now regarding Section 12[b] which establishes “equal protection” to the life of the mother and the life of the unborn. I think it is easy to fall prey to a misconception that the Law considers mother and baby as possessing “separate but equal” lives from the moment of conception. As Paguia quotes it in the Civil code, until born alive upon complete separation from the mother, there are no two separate persons being protected equally. That the “life of the mother” and “the life of the unborn” must receive “equal protection” from the State, does not make the two equal in some metaphysical sense. Or does it?
There are two interesting areas to think about: the role of the State v. the role of the Individual and basic human rights like the right to reproduce, the “copyright” we own over our own genomes and to control our physical destiny.
……can you give me some reasons why we as a christian people against about the reproductive health bill..????
……it is part of our research………that is why i need the reasons about it………
….i hope tou can healp me on that,,.,.,.,.,
who says the filipino people are christian?
we are a republic. religion is of no consequence.
that is, unless you want to consider muslims, et al of our country non-filipinos.
DV Mae,
If you consider yourself to be a Christian, do you not also feel obligated to obey the Christian Church’s teachings on contraception and birth control?
What is the basis of your counting yourself Christian, if not Christian obedience?
I know that religions have been LAX of late, (a tendency I’ve tried to encourage in them!), but it can’t be THAT lax, can it?
Huh?
Maybe you can enumerate the (1) best arguments for abortion, (2) worst arguments for abortion, (3) best arguments for contraception, (4) worst arguments for contraception…for me to understand what you mean by the above.
AN OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESS ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILLS
Your Honor,
I am a concerned Filipino citizen, and I do oppose any legislative measure that promulgates reproductive health a.k.a promotion of modern contraceptives in Philippine society.
I am aware that you may just dismiss this e-mail as coming from an ordinary citizen, but I am hoping against all hope that you will consider what I have to say.
I am a Catholic, and I am an advocate of Pro-Life. I understood the importance of life and love because I have undergone a past without it. I am a person with same-sex attractions, a former homosexual if you may put it that way. I have been through a life of sexual promiscuity and intense emotional dependencies, and I have done homosexual practices in an unsafe and already promiscuous society. I have been deep into the homosexual lifestyle looking for love and thought I was enjoying life – but I was wrong. Life literally was drawn from me through my sexual conduct and I was not finding true love anywhere. Only when I found the strength from Above to finally stop having sex did I find truth, life and love. Chaste friendships is what I needed. I came back to life after that dark past.
The reproductive health bills and the promotion of modern contraceptives has no other ultimate end but the sexual liberation of society. Promoting ‘safer sex’ invites the Filipino to explore the immense possibilities of perverting the sexual faculty of man without the responsibilities that accompany it. And why not? Mass communications has already laid the seedbed for promiscuity thanks to the glaring use of pornography in advertising (with gigantic billboards), glossy magazines, cheap tabloids, primetime television and “indie films”. And there is no legislative measure passed against such violation of censorship – labeling everything as “a work of art” or “entertainment”. I have learned the homosexual lifestyle through pornographic materials, and no one has placed their foot down on the industry of pornography even just for the sake of the future generations. And the solution that you present to us? – Bring in the condoms and IUD’s and pills for
our parents (and our kids) to have ‘safe sex’.
These are the three points that I hope you will consider:
*************************************************************************************************
1. There is no such thing as SAFE SEX
Condoms do not protect against HIV-AIDS and other viruses that carry sexually transmitted diseases since these viruses are more “filtrating” (able to pass through) than sperms.
IUD’s are floated in the uterus of the woman that kills any ovum that wants to attach itself to the placenta (there are cases wherein the ovum survives the IUD but when the growing fetus comes across the IUD, it kills the baby in the womb.
Pills are known to carry ingredients that cause breast cancer and other related diseases.
Unsuccessful contraception leads to abortion – that is why modern contraceptive methods are abortifacients. Contraception does not prevent conception 100%. When contraceptives fail, what do we do? When contraceptives bring in congenital defects on a “failed contraception” unborn child, what do we do? When the law proposes a two-child policy and failed contraception comes, what do we do? For population control fanatics, it means killing the “stubborn piece of flesh” in the mother’s womb – abortion.
“Safe sex” does not provide a “safer society” either. Do you believe that using government funds to provide condoms and contraceptives to the public will lessen incidents of sexual crimes? Does not the law entice and promote sex outside the sanctity of marriage in whatever form? Incest, rape, fornication, teenage pregnancy or prostitution, early sexualization in children – will all the more be hidden when the women-victims are prevented from conceiving. After all, does the law state that only married couples are to use contraceptives? Are we encouraging our young people to have sex? Are we saying that our youth are not capable of controlling their sexual appetites that we rather give them condoms so they could have “safe sex”?
*************************************************************************************************
2. Population control is not the answer to Poverty
Most countries view people as a natural resource. There is potential in every human person. Why is it that we will start treating new born babies as “liabilities” and not as “assets”? Because most of them are born in poor families? Is it not the responsibility of the government to train its people to become productive citizens of the land?
When things get tough, we can easily point fingers at the poor. But what does the poor have? Nothing. And that is why we throw the blame at the growing population of the poor just because they have nothing – because we have taught them nothing about how to be productive citizens of the land – because we give dole outs to them and especially prey on them during elections using guns, goons and gold to get their votes. And then we blame them for knowing nothing, for doing nothing, for being nothing.
The root cause of poverty lies in our very backyard – corruption. And it is easier to cut off the population than to cut off corruption. But corruption is the main cause why vital services to the poor are not being met, why countless children of the poor are left uneducated or under-educated, why opportunities are not being offered (except for dole-outs) to the poor to enable them to stand on their own and make themselves productive for the sake of their families and their land.
Gawad Kalinga gives us a glimpse of the answer to poverty. Let us rather be on the field as concerned citizens (if not legislators), helping our brothers and sisters get rid of their “slum mentality” and enabling them to learn the tricks of different trades (education, housing, livelihood, health, community development) that will enable them to be independent.
Or is it because we want them to remain dependent? And helpless? And so throw the blame on their growing population and their irresponsible parenthood?
Instilling proper values to the poor takes time and effort and needless to say – sweat and blood. Proper values like becoming good spouses and parents and citizens of the country through discipline, honesty, integrity. But we’d rather give them condoms instead – no sacrifice, and a “little” kickback money from international pharmaceutical companies and international organizations that promotes contraception and population control.
*************************************************************************************************
3. Countries that promoted contraceptives are now reaping the side effects
Have you ever heard of “birth dearth”? How the countries of developed nations that have adopted the contraceptive policy years ago are now undergoing lower birth rates? Have you noticed why many Filipinos are being hired abroad as nurses and care givers because of their aging population? How families are now being prioritized for immigration because of the lack of families in the developed countries? People are the nation’s pride and greatest resource. Yet some nations are now missing its mark on population. They are losing their people.
Cases of AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases are growing in enormous proportions in countries that have adopted the contraceptive stand. “In 1984 Thailand had 112 cases of AIDS, the Philippines had 135 cases. In 2003, after Thailand embraced the 100% Condom Use Program they had 750,000 cases of AIDS, versus the Philippines having only 1,935 cases.” (The Case Against Condoms by Dr. Brian Clowes – HLI).
Are we to follow their path? Are we dumb to follow a path that was traveled by others and have failed?
Just because other countries have adopted such a policy doesn’t mean we have to follow suit.
Or are we inclined to do such just because international policies demands we do it, otherwise loans and financial help will not come? Are we to sacrifice our people just because big companies that support the contraceptive industry where we get financial help are requiring us to do so?
Are we not independent enough to think about the good of our own people without the influences of outside forces? Are we to just blindly follow their lead to the destruction of the family and of our worth as a Filipino nation? Are we still to think about the myths of “population explosion” when the people of all the “rich” nations are now “getting old” without their next generation to sustain them?
——————————-
Again, I am just an ordinary citizen concerned about the legislative measures that your good office would want to pursue.
More than a moral issue, this is an issue of loyalty and trust towards the Filipino people.
I have presented some points for your consideration as objectively as possible, though I may not be able hide my sentiments since this is also a personal issue for me as a Filipino and as a man of God.
I am praying for your utmost openness to the points I have raised, and I pray that you will also pray for whatever may be your decision on the reproductive health bills.
Remember that as a legislator, you are accountable not only to the Filipino people but to God.
God bless and guard your heart.
In Christ,
Rolando delos Reyes II
Courage Philippines
http://www.couragerc.net
our country is over-populated. in controlling birth rates, we can be more responsible with the next generation. having a big family is a big responsibility and also very hard to manage especially if the provider is only earning little. with smaller families, the family’s income can be just right.
there are a lot of incidents of abortion. it is because of “unwnted pregnancies”. if we only used contraceptives then we won’t be killing those unborn children.
in this millenium, we are not contented with just having our “needs”. we also need our “wants”. so basically speaking that our “wants” is already part of our “needs”. we can’t have our “wants” if there are no excess in our budget.
the reproductive health bill helps us in our financial stability if only we could follow it. this only became a law because majority of filipinos are not following this tips.
mga skwater kasi anak ng anak. nagkalat na mga skwater sa buong bansa. they mass produce robbers, thieves, rapists, killers and other forms of bad breeding. wala kasi pinagaralan mga ‘to. anak lang kasi ng anak pero walang pang-gastos.
gusto pa ba natn padamihin ang mga ‘to??
Japan contolled their families to only have two children. look at them now. their only problem then was they don’t have enough children to replace them. this problem is so small because any couple can make babies. because if this law, their country became richer and more advanced.
Roland de los Reyes,
A lying church is a dying church. I cannot imagine a more wicked thing being done by propagandists of the Roman Catholic Church than to spread deadly disinformation, such as the already exposed falsehoods about condoms being no protection against sexually transmitted diseases, like AIDS.
roland said:
the jester-in-exile asks:
how did roland pass his high school chem and bio subjects?
djb,the church had been “dying” since, or before, the attempted extermination of the early christians by the roman empire. it has survive countless upheavals both from within and without. i believe the church will forever endure regardless of the actions by its human instrumentalities and leaders.
Indeed Bencard! Evil will be with us forever because Men have always mistaken themselves for God (and He lets them, just for the fun of it.) In the case in point, men, women and children are dying from HIV/Aids because some Cardinal got a monkey up his brain and made stuff up. That’s what endures–is pride and vanity of the Men in Skirts.
P.S. to HB 5043 – reproductive health bill?
It challenges reflection that a lawyer, instead of a doctor, is the chief architect and single strong advocate of House Bill 5043 which actually consolidated into one, House Bills 17, 812, 2753 and 3920 in this 14th Congress. The simple idea of gender equality easily permits room for women proponents themselves, in either House or Senate, to be the mouthpiece as well as the voice behind such a now controversial bill that is met with so much opposition from not few traditional groups – not Rep. Edcel Lagman – unless otherwise no other proponent from the female species is available. Women issues are the exclusive domain of women, or so I thought?
Offhand, HB 5043 pretentiously placed reproductive health, responsible parenthood, and population development under its policy framework. Good. But, let us be reminded that a single legislative measure such as HB 5043 that carries more than three subject matters is actually violative of “overloading”. Bottomline, that is the way professors of law teaching on “How a Bill becomes a Law” always teach us. Where will HB 5043 all transport us to? Such a would-be law that prohibits and in fact penalizes any health care service provider who refuses to perform medically-safe reproductive health care services in the absence of spousal consent or authorization is revolting. What is this?
Boldly, the bill claims the policy is anchored on the rationale of sustainable development with a manageable population of healthy, educated and productive citizens. Truly, this carries some kind of racist bias against those otherwise unhealthy, uneducated, and unproductive in our realpolitik. Is this Hitler’s idea of a “super race”? What about China with approximately two billion population that has managed equitably well without compromising its position as the next economic superpower? I say as anecdotal the sweet claim of a population management stratagem of a two-child policy. The proponent himself has more than two of his own, doesn’t he?
If we have higher population than any developing country in the world, it is a blessing especially so that all developing countries, no exception, are now suffering from a graying population and are now in search of manpower to replace their aging manpower base. Where then do they have to import human capital? Where will they recruit the Industrial Reserve Army but from the Philippines? Have we as much as forget that OFW remittances of our fellow Filipinos buoys up an otherwise fledging economy? The next generation of overseas workers to fill the great demand of manpower from the global market has to be born now – beyond the two-child limit. This kind of thinking might run counter to the bill’s claim that manpower is the principal asset of every country.
If there will be a universal access to quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information, this means that a whole range of options is at anybody’s disposal. Studies have already validated that reproductive health care as practiced in the more developed societies already negative impacted upon the home, family life, career, social milieu, culture, and society as a whole. It has been shown that women committed suicides. It has been shown that the incidence of broken families rose. It has been shown that children from broken homes are what triggered dramatic rise in the crime statistical chart. As divorces multiply, broken homes multiply just as well. Medically, a lot of these so-called contraceptive pills are not safe and just how many pills are manufactured in a minute and at what cost?
Shotgun approach has been the design of HB 5043 – it will kill all birds that took flight – adults, adolescents, children – without distinction. It sounds crazy for the bill to claim that women seeking care from post-abortion complications shall be treated and consoled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner without being guilty of doing abortion in the unseen process. This kind of intended access opens the door wide to a lot of other possibilities in need of reproductive health care attention, not to be excluded, would be abortion itself at its initial stage. To give people the freedom to decide, if, when and how often to have a satisfying and safe sex life, as claimed, tears at the very moral fabric of our social existence.
What then constitute as reproductive health-related problems that the bill aims to prevent and avoid, reason for a full range of options? Openly enough, the bill espouses making available all methods and techniques to prevent unwanted, unplanned, and mistimed pregnancies but what exactly are these? Pregnancies – whether or not wanted, planned, or timed – are pregnancies. Any act or means to be sought to prevent it should be called as what? It would not be abortion, would it? Whoever invented these labels without any scientific basis ought to be a murderer?
It is noticeable how a proviso has been carried that would, in effect, expand the coverage of the National Health Insurance Program or NHIP especially to many poor and marginalized women to include a full range of reproductive health care services and supplies as health insurance benefits. Will money be inserted in another else’s pocket? How much in State subsidies will be infused into a supposed-to-be existing program or agency, again and again?
Rider or not to a proposed bill, the creation of a Board of Commissioners of POPCOM (or Population Commission) of 14 heads of agencies plus 3 representatives from the private sector ought to be the subject matter of another and separate bill yet to be proposed and filed in Congress considering that when a board meets, honoraria are given. At the very least, their appointment by the President for a term of 3 years means that some people get to be employed, first and second, time. Even the Department of Agriculture and the Commission on Higher Education will be members thereof make for Ripleys.
Again, more midwives or skilled attendants need to be employed in every municipality or city based on some ideal ratio. More qualified personnel in each city or province will have to be employed in hospitals to provide emergency obstetric care, again, based on ideal ratio of say one such hospital for every 500,000 population. How good indeed that indigent patients will be covered by PhilHealth insurance benefits for hospital services related to family planning? Again, are we putting money in another else’s pocket?
Another apparent caveat of the proposed HB 5043 is the fact that every congressional district will be provided a van for Mobile Health Care Service from their PDAF but it is not stated too clear if this means an additional budget to their PDAF. A mandatory health reproductive education will be required of those from Grade V to Fourth Year High School. Will parents agree to this law? Inserting 10% additional increase in the honoraria of barangay health workers is truly an inducement. Will not barangay captains or mayors agree to this scheme and its pecuniary benefits?
From where I stand, readers of HB 5043 can read with caution the corpus of purely statistical data in the explanatory note of the bill from which it based its goal to erect a law that is always met with extreme opposition from those thought to become its beneficiaries as well as to its intended victims. In the end, adults, adolescents, and children that the bill purports to help will be the true victims of a law that is easy enough to approve given that it has “strings attached” to it. Not remotely, some laws really self-destruct as soon as they get implemented and this proposed measure shall be one of them. Since coins will be dropped in the vendo machine, many legislators might tend to stamp their own approval of HB 5043, irrespective of dictates of conscience – and so be it.
(Email to: nielsky_2003@yahoo.com or text to: 09164985265)
Reproductive health bill
There appears to be three major points of view from which to approach the controversial reproductive health bill now pending with the House of Representatives for plenary deliberations, namely: legal, moral, and scientific. This is so since, the proposed legislative measure once enacted into law will affect society writ large. In short, there are many stakeholders by differing institutional concerns. It then becomes difficult to erect a tripod to hold the issue that has carried so much weight.
There are those who think, once legislated, HB 812 or the proposed Reproductive Health Care Act of 2008 will in fact set the stage for other anti-life laws or so-called D.E.A.T.H. bills (acronym for death, euthanasia, abortion, two-child policy, and homosexuality). The problem that has been viciously overlooked in our legislative mill is the fact that legislators themselves violate the rule that a bill should have only one subject matter. Truth is, HB 812 may have to be broken up into separate bills and for that matter into separate laws. An evolving culture of “aquarium legislation” is tantamount to a constitutional violation of the legislative process.
Up until today, there is a serious opposition to a reproductive health bill in whatever form or substance it comes simply because there are such groups or organizations that are against it. For instance, the CBCP is against it and for that matter other like-minded Catholic sub-groups. True enough, from the time it was first filed in the past Congresses, the bill already experienced a string of failures – to be passed into law – owing to provisions that are questionable legally, morally, and scientifically. It can be said that again, this proposed HB 812 may go through another rough sailing unless it can be railroaded in Congress and Senate.
One theory stands in defense of the bill which claims it is necessary in order to curb population growth which is now pegged at 86 million Filipinos as well as for the sake of limited resources such as rice. But the myth of this Malthusian fear has already been settled long ago and it does not anymore hold water. Why a ‘zero population growth’ as that which was a matter of policy in the whole of the United States and Europe? If we consider the earnings being remitted into our country from OFWs as the single factor that buoys up our fledging if pale economy, then we should have no reason to argue against this bill. That ‘zero population policy’ practiced by countries in the First Bloc now reached the irreversible scenario of a graying population that depletes their respective economies in heavy state subsidies. Is it then a boon or bane?
The National Academy of Science and Technology supports reproductive health bill. The Catholic Church or the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines does not. There are pro-life advocates versus pro-choice advocates. This camp says it involves no abortion, another camp says otherwise. This group claims contraceptives to be abortifacient, another such group claims it is not so. Within the legal community, a wedge divides their sentiments as to whether it is against the Divine Law to allow any room of choice toward abortion or to some extent euthanasia. Cases of abortion do sometimes involve “life-boat ethics” – that Catch 22 of having to choose which person to save – the unborn babe or the mother. There are issues at every loop, claims at every turn, and cries in every direction the bill takes – for or against.
Moralists, legalists, scientists follow their own lines of thinking that are parallel unto one another – no lines intersect. There is where the problem lies. Is it then possible to weave from various strands or threads a beautiful tapestry of the proposed bill? Has it become time to curb population growth or corruption? Incidentally, the Secretary of Health announced that an initial amount of P150 billion as start-up fund is intended for this project in terms of the “infrastructure” to get it going. Fact is, some P2 billion will be so allocated just for condoms or like medicines or drugs. Is this the reason that politicians as legislators incessantly lobby for the reproductive health bill to be legislated into law?
My good friend, lawyer Jo Imbong, legal counsel of CBCP really thinks it is unconstitutional in that it violates Article XVI, Section 9 as well as Article XIII, Section 14 of the Constitution. My former boss, Rep. Rene Velarde of Buhay Party-List is strongly against it in furtherance of the pro-life advocacy of the party which made it number 1 in the election chart overturning Bayan. Other well-meaning personages are against the idea of an abortion, first and foremost. Proponents of the bill however, argue that none of it is contemplated. But that can be mere lip service to sweet-talk us all to believe the proposed law will not violate any of the provisions of the Constitution in so far as the unborn, children, mothers, women, and marginalized are concerned. Nor can it be claimed that the reproductive health bill stands on solid ground when in fact, it stands on an ice floe that would soon melt at the heat of debate and crumble to the bottom.
At the end of the day, the proposed measure ought to be restudied very carefully beyond the prevailing points of view. A recent study of the UP School of Economics tended to have oversimplified it as one of a situation that placed the various stakeholders between a hard Church and a soft State. It went on to state that the RH bill is in fact pro-poor, pro-life, and pro-family. We sure have all different sense on the matter but honestly, I have only one misgiving in the provisions of the bill that would – by any number and extent – accommodate, in effect, post-abortion cases as part of the whole program. Thus, for the proponent to honestly claim there is no such abortion in cases where there would clearly be, crystal clear enough – is simply begging the question.
Thanks for a thoughtful pair of comments, Primer. My motto is: I learn the most from those who disagree with me. I have a number of caveats though on your points:
One, Lawmakers need not be bankers to pass banking laws, nor farmers to legislate on agriculture. Indeed, since laws apply to every aspect of society, we cannot expect the authors of laws to be practitioners in the fields being addressed. It would be unreasonable to challenge reflection over the fact that the RH bill has not been authored by a doctor.
Two, this is likewise unreasonable:
. Since it takes a man and woman to make a child, reproduction is clearly the domain of both sexes. This position is one poisonous root of the problem, don’t you think on a second reflection?
Three, reproductive health, parenthood and population management do not really represent separate legislative subjects since each is clearly an integral aspect of the others. One can hardly address reproduction without considering what it certainly leads to: parenthood, which occupation has much to say about population management since it is parents who must make the awesome choice to increase the numbers of the race.
Four, you say:
But abortion is the intentional termination of a viable human pregnancy. Contraception, by definition is the prevention of a pregnancy from even starting. Therefore how can it be abortion if there is no pregnancy to begin with? This is a most illogical leap that you have made.
Five, How does it come to be “bold Hitlerian racist bias to desire that our population be healthy and productive?? The constitution itself is full of such idealism, as is every patriotic and altruistic citizen, of any country, including Germany.
Six, You cite studies that purport to show how deleterious an effect the availability of birth control has on families. Care to produce the links to these studies? The most prosperous countries happen to have the lowest birth rates, and so I doubt your claims not because wealth equals happiness, but because these countries are not noticeably less happy than the squalor, oppression, poverty and dysfunctional families that the Catholic Church rules over with its wicked and destructive beliefs.
May I point out a provision in the House Bill 5043 that everyone should oppose, no matter where you are on this issue. It is in Section 21, Prohibited Acts:
e) Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.
With the concomitant penalties (up to 6 months imprisonment, 50,000 pesos fine, or both.)
This is a scary provision and has no place in any bill presented before Congress. First, who is to determine what ‘malicious disinformation’ is? It’s so… Marcos. If this provision passes as is, we can expect all bills to have this provision. AN ACT POSTPONING ELECTIONS OF 2010 AND GRANTING EMERGENCY POWERS TO THE PRESIDENT, with this ‘malicious disinformation’ provision is enough to give one nightmares. If any of the sponsors of the bill are reading FV, please take this odious provision out. Disinformation is fought with information, not threats.
I agree Jeg. But I can’t blame some people for being pissed at the outright lies that so-called religious people are capable of disseminating on television and the Press–with the full cognizance and permission of the Catholic Church. It’s disgusting, but you are absolutely right that only information and not coercion can possibly work to combat such silliness as that condoms allow the HIV virus to pass and infect users. Or that contraception is tantamount to abortion.
valuable input, jeg. that provision should be excised.
(i’m still very amused over the pagunuran comment — will work up a reply soon.)
the issue on the use of contraceptives is not about religion.it is about the reality that is happening to the Phils. right now.
So, Rowena, you mean you’re pro reproductive health bill?
TO ALL OF YOU:
I’m just a student now and were going to have a debate in school on Friday about this reproductive health bill. and were assigned to stand as the opposing side of this proposition. As i have read all your comments I am now confuse about what is right or wrong.
Yes, it’s quite confusing, minami. Since you are in the opposition, I suggest you take a look at Catholic bloggers like this one. It would also help if you take a look at sparks’s response to it here, then go build your case from there. Although you could try to offer a case based on Catholic theology, I suggest you dont neglect constitutionality issues as well: Does this bill encroach on the religious freedom of Catholics? Does it encroach upon free speech? That sort of thing. Good luck. And you did well to visit Filipino Voices. Tell your classmates.
huhuhu monami same problem tayo…im a nursing student and studying in a catholic private school… i have a religion subject so i have to make my own point of view regarding this reproductive health bill,the thing is,as a student nurse ofcourse we studied about this contraceptives and etc,but we are a christians here so i am also confused…actually for me,im more on pro-life but we are all aware about poverty right? is there any way How to solve this problem??? comments please…
Contraceptives cannot prevent abortion. The promotion of contraceptives can actually open doors to legalize abortion in the country, because they aren’t 100% effective. And with the irresponsibility contraception breeds (read: sexual freedom), it’s more likely “unwanted” pregnancies would increase instead of decrease (not to mention STDs). Where do the words “family” “marriage” and “parenthood” fit in this sort of culture?
@Elvira and Minami: you might want to watch Demographic winter. It’s a very good documentary on the myth of overpopulation, and the panel of experts come from diverse backgrounds (demographers, economists…). This film provides an argument against the RH bill that is not tied to Catholicism. :D
So much has been said about the matter, but after reading some of the comments in different posts here related to the RH bill, I haven’t seen anything pertaining to two specific points that are worth considering:
* It is the contraceptive attitude that is crucial here, the mindset behind the use of drugs and devices that are designed to prevent the possibility of conception. It’s a clear “no” to the possibility of having a child as a result of sex.
To understand the connection between abortion and contraception, one may consider this attitude. Why have some people said that contraception may lead to abortion? I can’t be sure about the rationale behind everyone’s words but here’s my take on it:
where contraception is accepted and actively promoted, abortion cannot be far behind. Why is that? Because the contraceptive attitude is already at work. It’s a definite “no” to children; we don’t want a baby, we will not have a baby…how ever one may express this sentiment and whatever the reasons may be. Hence, what will happen if contraception fails? When a couple clearly does not hold a welcoming attitude toward a baby, what is the next step? Getting rid of it, of course. I’m not saying that this is what every couple in such a situation will do; it’s the promotion of the contraceptive mentality that I’m driving at (which HB 5043 is doing).
We can see that this mentality is prevalent in some Western countries, where contraception has been more or less accepted in the mainstream as part of their way of life. When such an attitude is held toward human life, it is not surprising that when things don’t go their way (e.g. one gets pregnant when it wasn’t part of her/their plan), they turn to the next step — to get rid of the baby. Is this the path that we Filipinos aspire to take? That a contraceptive attitude be sown (frankly, this is already happening) and flourish (this, we can still do something about) in our society, especially among our youth, the hope of our nation? This will be advantageous to some industry players — manufacturers of oral contraceptives, condoms, those who perform surgical abortions, etc. who stand to make a mint out of this. But I believe we have more faith in ourselves and in our people than that. (If we don’t, then maybe we ought to raise the bar)
I apologize for the long comment so I’ll just keep my second main point brief :-)
I wanted to point out, too, that you’ve been mentioning abortion in many instances here; I take it what you have in mind only is surgical abortion (the procedure performed by a person, be it a medical doctor, a “hilot” etc.). However, there is such a thing as chemical abortion as well, which is what happens whenever a birth control pill fails in its primary components of preventing ovulation (“breakthrough ovulation) and fertilization. When the fertilized ovum (a newly formed human being) is prevented from implanting — which is a “safety net” component of some (I won’t say “all” because I’m not sure if every kind of oral contraceptive is designed with this third function) — it then dies. In essence, this happens many times with the mother not even knowing that she had a baby who just didn’t survive — and perhaps because she was on the Pill.
By the way, I hope Minami & Elvira both have fruitful and substantial debates in their classes tomorrow. Good luck!
i’m seeing slippery slopes.
1. Ano ba talaga ang pangunahing layunin ng HB 5043? Di ba population control o ang mas bagong terminong population management? Itinataguyod ng may-akda na ang problema ng kahirapan ng bansang Pilipnas ay nag-uugat sa over-population kaya ang solusyon ay population control, samantalang ang bansa ay number one sa corruption. Ang mahirap sa mga pinunong bayan at opisyal ng gobyerno natin tayong mga mahihirap ang sinisisi sa problemang kanilang nilikha. Sila naman ang may kagagawan ng corruption sa bansa natin tapos ngayon sasabihin ang ang ugat ng kahirapan ay ang maraming mamamayan.
di ba lohikal lang na kung ano ang problema o ugat ng problema ang siyang dapat tugunan o lapatan ng lunas? Kung corruption, kapabayaan at kapalpakan ng pamahalaan ang pinagmumulan ng kahirapan, lohikal lang na iyun ang lutasin. Ang masaklap sa HB 5043, tayong mga mamamayan ang sinisisi.
2. sinasabi ninyo at binabanggit sa Constitution na natural and primary right ang pagmamagulang at pagtatayo ng pamilya, at tungkulin ng Estado na pangalagaan at ipagtanggol ito. bakit ngayon pinakikialaman ng HB 5043 ang ideal na bilang ng anak, mandatory sex education, pamamaraan ng pagkokontrol ng panganganak at may kaparusahan pa ang di-umayon?
3. Ayon sa depinisyon ng reproductive health ay para magkaroon ng “safe and satisfying sex life”. ano ba ang layunin ng sexual act? Procreation? Pagpapahayag ng pag-ibig o pagmamahal sa pagitan ng mag-asawa o magkapareha (para sa mas liberal? Pagpapasarap? Mapapansin na ang lahat ng nabanggit na layunin ay puro positibong kategorya. Sa kabilang banda, ang “safe” o para maging “safe” ay nangangahulugan ng pagbabadya ng kapahamakan o kamatayan. Kung positibong phenomenon ang sex bakit kailangan ma-ingat? Okay sasabihin ninyong may STI/STD na dulot ng sex. Hindi kaya ang STI/STD ay nature’s way nang pagsasabi na mali ang makipag-sex kahit kanino at sinasabing isa lang ang dapat ang partner o asawa. May pagkakataon bang nagkasakit ng STI/STD ang tapat na mag-asawa? Wala yata akong alam na nagkasakit ng STD ang mag-asawang tapat sa isa’t isa. Nakipag-sex na ba kayo sa asawa ninyo, tapos nagkasakit ng STD? Magaganap lang ito kung isa sa inyo ay nakipag-sex sa ibang tao.
Ang pagbubuntis ba ay isang negatibong pangyayari sa buhay ng babae? o ang pagiging ama ng lalaki ay negatibong pangyayari? Kung iresponsable siguro, negatibong pangyayari, pero sa isang responsableng lalaki o babae, positibo ito. Kung magkagayon, ang pagiging safe sex ay para sa mga iresponsable. Ang paggamit ba ang contraceptive o safe sex ay magiging responsable ang isang lalaki o babae? Ang usapin ay ang iresponsabilidad, samantalang ang solusyon ay contraceptives. parang malayo yata ang dalawa. (slippery slope?)
3. “Satisfying sex life” Satisfaction o happiness ay isang subjective phenomena. Paano ngayon maapektuhan ng isang social act ang subjective phenomena na happiness? I maybe healthy but not happy or satisfied. halimbawa, tumigil akong uminom dahil pinagbawal sa akin ng doktor, hindi ibig sabihin na happy ako. Maaring happy ako kung umiinom ako. Paano yun, gustong tiyakin ng HB 5043 na magkaroon ako ng satisfying sex life, pwede ko bang ihabla ang asawa ko kapag hindi ako sexually satisfied?
4. Gayundin ang pagtatakda ng “ideal family size” na dalawang anak. Ano ang kahulugan at implikasyon ng ideal dito? Ideal sa anong konteksto at pamantayan o panuntunan? Sino ang nagtatakda? Isang subjective category na ginagawang batas. Pwede ba yun? Ang pagkakaalam ko ang batas ay dapat malinaw at ispesipiko. Sabi ni Lagman, wala naman daw itong parusa at hindi sapilitan. Kung magkagayon, bakit niya nilagay pa sa HB? Ano ang gusto niyang palabasin? Marahil ito ang gusto niyang total fertility rate ng bansa, ibig sabihin, walang ideal dito kundi population control lang ito. Ideal siya sa konteksto ng population control. Hindi kaya pakikialam ito ng Estado sa natural and primary right ng parents na ginagarantiyahan ng Constitution.
5. Palagi na lang pinag-uusapan ang paggamit ng contraceptives at abortion. Ewan ko, conclusive na ba ang pag-aaral sa direct correlation ng contraceptive prevalence at abortion? Sangayon kina Lagman, directly proportional ang dalawa. Kung totoo ito, bakit sa USA na kung saan ay 9 out of 10 babaeng reproductive age ang gumagamit ng contraceptive pero 1.5 M ang abortion kada taon? Kapansin-pansin din na sa ilang mga bansang may mataas na contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR) ay may mataas din ang abortion rate o legal ang abortion o habang tumataas ang CPR tumataas din ang abortion rate. Sa kabilang banda, may mga bansa ding inversely proportional ang dalawa. So hindi conclusive at maling sabihin na ito nga ang katotohanan sa relasyon ng dalawa.
6. Basahin nyo ang contraceptive guide ng US FDA, halos lahat ng contraceptive drugs at devices ay hindi nag-prevent ng STI/STD liban sa condom. Gayundin, ang condom ay hindi epektibo sa HPV. Hindi po Simbahang Katoliko nagsabi nito, US FDA po.
7. Bakit ang Simbahang Katoliko ang palaging pinagbibintangan ng pagtutol sa RH Bill? Nakatutuwa o nakalulungkot isipin na kapag tutol sa RH bill at moral ang batayan, mabilis ang pagtatatak ng relihiyosong doktrina ang dahilan o propagandista ng relihiyon. Hindi ba maaring mangyari na may parehong pagtingin ang isang atheist at relihiyoso sa isang sosyal na usapin? Bakit pareho ang pagtingin ng katoliko sa barbaric nature ng Kapitalismo sa sinabi ni Lenin na ang kapitalismo ay barbaric dahil kalikasan nito ang pagkamal ng tubo na sumasalanta sa kapakanan ng mga manggagawa. Binansagan ba si Lenin bilang propagandista ng Katoliko?
Magkagayon, ako marahil ay pagbibintangan ding propagandista ng Simbahan. Kawawa naman ang Simbahang Katoliko.
8. Sa konteksto naman ng limitadong rekurso o resources ng bansa,ang usapin ay paano gagamitin
ito. Ibibili ba ng contraceptives ang P 2 billon o ipantatayo ng mga bagong silid-aralan, ibibili ng mga libro, o iuupa ng mga bagong guro o ibibili ng ascorbic acid, gamot sa TB, malaria control, subsidyo sa mga mahihirap na may sakit, o tutugunan ang 10 nangungunang sakit o sanhi ng kamatayan ng kababaihan (para sa inyong kaalaman, wala sa top 10 causes of morbidity and mortality ang maternal death?
9. Wala namang batas na nagbabawal sa babae na gumamit ng contraceptives. Ano pa ang gustong gawin ng HB 5043? Available naman sa market. Sabi nila para raw magkaroon ng contraceptives ang mahihirap. Kung may pambili ng gin o pangtong-it ang mahirap di may pambili rin sila ng condom. Sangayon mismo sa family planning survey ng NSO, 9 out of 10 ay handang bumili ng kanyang supply ng contraceptives. Bakit gagastos ang gobyerno ng bilyong piso para magpakasarap sa sex ang mga iresponsableng mahihirap na ito? Dapat turuan ng gobyerno ang mga mahihirap na mga teknikal na kaalaman at kasanayan para magkaroon ng hanapbuhay at lumikha ng mga oportunidad para magkahanap-buhay.
10. Sangayon sa liberal kapitalistang doktrina, hindi dapat makialam ang gobyerno sa pamilihan. Bakit nakikialam ngayon ang gobyerno sa merkado ng contraceptives? Dagdag pa, hindi naman welfare State ang porma ng pamamahala ng Pilipinas, bakit ngayon isusubsidyo ang pagkikipag-sex ng mga tao? Bakit hindi isubsidyo ng gobyerno ang pagsasaka ng mga magsasaka lalo na ngayong napakataas ng presyo ng mga farm inputs at mababa ang farm gate price ng mga produktong agrikultura lalo nang palay.
Ako po’y simpleng tao lang at nagtatanong lang po.
DJB said: “But abortion is the intentional termination of a viable human pregnancy. Contraception, by definition is the prevention of a pregnancy from even starting. Therefore how can it be abortion if there is no pregnancy to begin with?”
You seem to forget that many “contraceptives” are actually ABORTIFACIENTS. Hormonal contraceptives like the Pill, mini-pill, Depo-provera and Norplant, for example, work mainly by preventing ovulation, as well as making movement of the sperm more difficult. But this does not work all the time. There is such a thing as “breakthrough” ovulation and this can happen between 2%-10% of the time for the Pill, and as high as 40% of the time for estrogen-only contraceptives. In case of breakthrough ovulation a woman who has sex can get pregnant (if the sperm fertilizes the egg, which DOES happen sometimes despite the contraceptive action). The Philippine Constitution recognizes that the fertilized egg is a human life and worthy of protection. But these hormonal contraceptives also have a “backup”. They also work by affecting the uterine wall so that it prevents the fertilized ovum — which is already a human being — from implanting in the uterus. With nowhere to implant, the fertilized egg is eventually destroyed, resulting in an EARLY CHEMICAL ABORTION.
The IUD also has the same abortifacient “backup” function.
One may think that the chances of “breakthrough” pregnancy and consequent abortifascient action to occur only rarely. It is estimated that this can happen perhaps once in every 88 menstrual cycles. Assuming 12 cycles a year, that would mean around every 7-8 years per woman. But we must also remember that if there were 88 women using contraceptives, then this abortifacient action would occur around once every menstrual cycle for at one of those 88 women.
Now there are MILLIONS of women using hormonal contraceptives all over the world. HB 5043 would encourage hundreds of thousands more (if not a few million more) Filipinas to use such contraceptive methods. This will therefore result in tens of thousands of chemical abortions each year.
It is pretty clear then that HB 5043, by financing and encouraging the use of abortifacients, violates Article II, Section 12 of the Philippine Constitution.
seriously, manny.
i for one have not forgotten the distinction between abortifacient and non-abortifacient methods of contraception. HB5043 encourages the promotion of contraceptives, and does not specifically encourage the use of abortifacient methods of contraception.
are condoms abortifacient? are diaphragms abortifacient? are spermicidal jellies abortifacient?
this kind of lumping together all contraceptive methods as abortifacient is plain and simple intellectual laziness. or stupidity. take your pick. better yet, read blackshama’s post on that fallacy you just used.
furthermore, on preventing ovulation.
ovulation = producing egg.
contraception by preventing ovulation = no egg produced.
if no egg is produced, no egg can be fertilized.
if no egg is fertilized, there is no zygote.
if there is no zygote, there is no fetus.
if there is no fetus, there can be no abortion.
to borrow benign0′s catchphrase, it’s simple, really.
Jester said: i for one have not forgotten the distinction between abortifacient and non-abortifacient methods of contraception. HB5043 encourages the promotion of contraceptives, and does not specifically encourage the use of abortifacient methods of contraception.
You are quite MISINFORMED</b.. HB 5043 explicitly promotes the IUD and certain hormonal contraceptives (like the Pill). These are ABORTIFACIENT. Read the Bill.
And I NEVER lumped ALL contraceptives as abortifascient. Read and understand what was written before making such ignorant statements. It is YOU who are intellectually lazy and/or stupid.
As for your “ovulation equation” above, you seem to have forgotten about breakthrough ovulation. No IUD or hormonal contraceptive prevents ovulation 100% of the time. Therefore, at times a woman CAN conceive. This totally sinks your “simple” equation above.
When a woman has sex during breakthrough ovulation (which happens 2-10% of the time for the Pill, and up to 40% of the time for the progestin-only pill), she can conceive. This is when the abortifacient function of these contraceptives comes into use. That is why despite such a high breakthrough ovulation rate, the detected pregnancy rate is low. There are chemical abortions taking place.
uh-huh.
so if the words IUD and pills were taken out of the bill, you will withdraw your objection on it’s alleged unconstitutionality?
reading the bill does not give me the impression that it encourages only those methods that you claim to be abortifacient, by the way.
that said, if these are taken off the list, and non-abortifacient artificial methods are promoted, will you have any opposition to the bill?
Jester said: reading the bill does not give me the impression that it encourages only those methods that you claim to be abortifacient, by the way.
I never that it encourages ONLY those methods. Like I said, READ and UNDERSTAND what has been posted. Try it.
In answer to your second question: No, I will not withdraw my opposition to the Bill because the Bill has many other provisions that are unacceptable.
The Bill’s language is such that these abortifacient contraceptives will be promoted anyway. It needs a total overhaul so that it EXPLICITLY forbids the use of abortifacients. That, of course, will gut the Bill and keep some of its supporters from making monry off such devices and methods. So it’s not likely to happen.
The Bill also has a COERCIVE provision that forces doctors and health workers to dispense such contraceptives or engage in procedures that they may deem morally objectionable. Such conscientious objectors must either dispense the devices or carry out the procedures, or they must refer the person who wants them to someone else who will do the deed. So, they are forced to directly engage in the act or participate in its fulfillment. This I find unconscionable.
The Bill is also premised on a false assumption: that the country is overpopulated; or that population growth causes or exacerbates poverty. These are MYTHS. The Bill perpetuates such myths, and this I find intellectually offensive.
Manny,
Just for completeness, do you also consider condoms and diaphragms to be “abortifacients”?
Since abortion is tantamount to murder, would you support increasing the prison penalty for the crime of abortion? (right now it is only six years in jail even though there are said to be 800,000 abortions per year in the Philippines, according to WHO).
How about Catholic politicians who support the Reproductive Health Bill. Do you support excommunicating them? Or can they just carry on as if?
Q1: No, those specific devices are NOT abortifacients. An increase in the general usage of artificial contraceptives, however, is linked to an increase in abortions. Even the abortion industry admits as much.
Q2 and Q3: You asked those other questions on my blog. I answered them there.
I think your number of abortions is wrong. The pro-abortion Guttmacher institute puts the number at around half that (but that does not count abortions caused by general use of abortifacient contraceptives for population control).
When RH bill becomes a law
When the latest SWS survey indicated that seven of every 10 respondents do favor the reproductive health bill, chances are, CBCP is correct in thinking that indeed there ought to be money circulating around from a foreign lobby group, this despite SWS’ claim that the survey is of its own initiative and therefore not a commissioned one in particular. True or false, it is all beyond us. Polling circuits can sometimes do push-polling job at every turn, anyway.
One bishop is reported to have said that polling circuits are into this mode – they issue some kind of mind-conditioning surveys with the end in view of influencing how people accept or reject the RH bill. It remains of doubtful validity whether or not the findings are reflective – at least beyond being merely a statistical trend – of how the population looks at the proposed reproductive health bill. It will always be valid to ask whether the respondents have the capacity to understand how they reply to the questionnaires.
Suppose that in fact, HB 5043 was unanimously approved at the House of Representatives when Members voted today on Third and Final Reading. Consider further that when transmitted to the Senate, it was likewise approved through a counterpart Senate bill and that in a subsequent bicameral conference, this 14th Congress would in fact have approved the bill for PGMA’s final signature and approval. Ergo, we have a new law.
What would the days be after today when the law would have been firmly erected to govern the lives of families, married couples, parents, women, children, adults? What will schools, churches, hospitals do? What will be the evolving new moral order? What kind of sociological phenomenon will evolve among the population that will be affected with the new law? Will not an unfolding scheme and scene be invasive of our psyche? Whose economic holiday will it all be? Will drugstores be the first beneficiary? Will new clinics open to accommodate post-abortion cases? Will doctors have more patients that they ever thought there will be?
Truly, contraceptive pills will flood the market to the extent that perhaps, young girls can buy them at the nearest sari-sari store in much the same way that young boys can buy every kind of condom from every nearby outlet that perhaps, even cigarette vendors may have to sell condoms as they sell candies and cigarettes in the streets. Pharmaceuticals will produce millions of contraceptive pills per day as they would sell like hot potato. Industries into the sale of silicone or rubber as a raw material will experience a boom. Beauty parlors might even have to sell condoms, pills as well if not in fact have services for IUDS, whatever.
The intellectual culture in all educational settings, be them – in the campuses of elementary schools, high schools, colleges or universities – will dramatically adopt to certain changes brought about by what the law can permit or allow, more than what it cannot permit or disallow. There will be changing attitudes and beliefs that will indicate themselves in changed behavioral patterns from as early as children in their Grade III or Grade IV levels. They shall be exposed to a kind of compulsory sex education.
By making condoms or pills very much available from every outlet, students in high school will have little to worry about getting into teen-age or pre-marital sex since the law has opened the door wide open for so-called ‘freedom of choice’. This simply means that children have the right over their bodies and this literally enough, includes that right to have an abortion in case they somehow get pregnant and they know their parents would not approve of it. Young boys feel safe and therefore think they can engage in teen-age sex with anyone in the opposite sex comforted with the thought that in using condoms, they don’t have to get the girls impregnated.
What then will be the resulting moral norm in so far as their young lives are concerned? What about other young couples, women who also would like to have a piece of the action? With pills, even married women can comfortably make love with men other than their husbands, can’t they? Or so with men with some packs of condom in their pockets? Who would fear sex with anyone when the law would have opened wide so-called “freedom of choice”? The RH bill has successfully blurred the traditional notion on when pregnancy begins. It has successfully blurred the traditional notion on when human life begins. How can the law pretend to think that the fetus in the mother’s womb may not yet be a human being?
Even the field of medical science has been invaded by pseudo-theories of pregnancy or conception. Even the thin moral fabric of our existence has been torn with a kind of attitude that the law will want to popularize. Even the rubric of our traditional social orientation has been altered. USA did not transform itself into a better union, did it? Nor did Europe? Now, RP is the citadel of Christianity, supposed-to-be, but if this law be erected, what would it leave us to? A new “world war” has just been launched and our nation is under attack. From our parishes to the Papacy, are we still afforded with strong moral moorings so that we don’t have to go astray?
A whole compendium of literature has already been documented proving how this contemporary social orientation has destroyed the homes, families, marriages, youth, children, women, parents. Are we here to let this happen to our own national domain? The first five years after the law is erected, futuristic wise, will tell just how bad we have gone with the RH bill enacted into law. Then and there will the framers, lobbyists, apologists, beneficiaries, patrons of the bill will realize that in the next generation of children – their very own – have just become the victims. So for a few pounds of money, why risk a future? Without risk of being wrong, the embryo is a human being!
From what I can see in the online forums, part of the strategy in getting HB 5043 passed is a constant, brutal attack on the Catholic Church. This takes the form of insults hurled against priests, blanket accusations of sexual abuse and violations against the vow of celibacy, sexist claims that men should never make any decisions concerning reproduction, and all sorts of illogical arguments.
The idea is to frame it as a religion-against-the-people’s-will battle. This is, of course, why new surveys like that of the SWS are coming out with lopsided results. An analysis of the flawed SDWS survey can be found here. Let me quote a part of it:
In fact, all the questions are subtly slanted in FAVOR of HB 5043. NONE of them really acknowledge the controversial nature of the issues raised against the Bill. They only mention “family planning”, “reproductive health”, “responsible parenthood”, etc. which are all GOOD and POSITIVE things. Even the assertion about contraceptives being considered as abortions was botched because of a built-in factual error.
If the Bill passes and contraceptive use becomes widespread, we will then see ever-growing numbers of contraceptive failure cases. More women will astart clamoring for some “remedy” when their beloved contraceptives fail to “protect” them all the time. Then we will see more abortions and call for legalized abortion!
This shouldn’t surprise anyone. This is exactly what has happened in other countries.
Perhaps you would like to supply some kind of proof (such as links to authoritative studies or reports) that sustain your assertion that contraception will lead to more abortion and not less.
Take for example this US New Report that abortion in the US, where contraception was invented in modern times, is the lowest it has ever been in living memory!
The position you take is illogical and contrary to evidence–just as your blind faith is!
i still support the reproductive health bill…
Filipinos, ITS TIME TO MOVE FORWARD!!!
if you think about our situation now,
the ever growing problem on waste
(which i think is one of the results of over population), we will soon find ourselves burried in the mountains of thrash we’ve made…
and how about the over populated classrooms…do you think there is effective education in there?
duh?
mabuti na lang sana kung ung bigger part ng population are those people na matalino, productive, matiyaga, at masipag.. pero hindi eh… mas bigger part yung may low IQ, yung may
parents na walang kakayahang magpaaral ng marami nilang anak..
climate change na… kailangan natin iadapt ang isipan natin..
hoy pinoy!! gising!!
im a christian…open minded.. and i support the reproductive health bill..
to dean jorge bacobo…— you’re brilliant!!
[quote]1. Ano ba talaga ang pangunahing layunin ng HB 5043? Di ba population control o ang mas bagong terminong population management? Itinataguyod ng may-akda na ang problema ng kahirapan ng bansang Pilipnas ay nag-uugat sa over-population kaya ang solusyon ay population control, samantalang ang bansa ay number one sa corruption. Ang mahirap sa mga pinunong bayan at opisyal ng gobyerno natin tayong mga mahihirap ang sinisisi sa problemang kanilang nilikha. Sila naman ang may kagagawan ng corruption sa bansa natin tapos ngayon sasabihin ang ang ugat ng kahirapan ay ang maraming mamamayan.
di ba lohikal lang na kung ano ang problema o ugat ng problema ang siyang dapat tugunan o lapatan ng lunas? Kung corruption, kapabayaan at kapalpakan ng pamahalaan ang pinagmumulan ng kahirapan, lohikal lang na iyun ang lutasin. Ang masaklap sa HB 5043, tayong mga mamamayan ang sinisisi.[/quote]
Poverty is a complex, multi-faceted issue and can be approached in many ways. But I bet nowhere in the minds of the authors of the bill that overpopulation is THE ONLY root and cause of poverty. Overpopulation is just one of the many aspect of poverty, and so is corruption. It is not directly related to overpopulation, hence should be addressed in other ways and (can)not be used as an argument against the RH bill.
[quote]2. sinasabi ninyo at binabanggit sa Constitution na natural and primary right ang pagmamagulang at pagtatayo ng pamilya, at tungkulin ng Estado na pangalagaan at ipagtanggol ito. bakit ngayon pinakikialaman ng HB 5043 ang ideal na bilang ng anak, mandatory sex education, pamamaraan ng pagkokontrol ng panganganak at may kaparusahan pa ang di-umayon?[/quote]
Nowhere in the bill that allows the State to dicate how many children do any couples want to have (see Sec. 16 of the RH bill). Also, nowhere in the bill that says that the State shall compel anyone to use contraception. The police will not barge into any couple’s room to require them to use condom if they have already many kids. The bill seeks to educate the people on the health aspect of reproduction and to make available all related information, services, methods, devices to THOSE WHO THINK THEY NEED IT.
[quote]Ang pagbubuntis ba ay isang negatibong pangyayari sa buhay ng babae? o ang pagiging ama ng lalaki ay negatibong pangyayari? Kung iresponsable siguro, negatibong pangyayari, pero sa isang responsableng lalaki o babae, positibo ito. Kung magkagayon, ang pagiging safe sex ay para sa mga iresponsable. Ang paggamit ba ang contraceptive o safe sex ay magiging responsable ang isang lalaki o babae? Ang usapin ay ang iresponsabilidad, samantalang ang solusyon ay contraceptives. parang malayo yata ang dalawa. (slippery slope?)[/quote]
Pregnancy can be a negative event in one’s life (but importantly to the child being conceived) if he/she cannot give the child a decent future based on his/her capabilities now. If you are a minimum wage earner and you already have 6 or more children, do you think you still would want to have another baby? If yes, don’t you think that the additional baby will give you more financial worries in the future?
The issue of a person’s responsibility, or lack thereof, stems back to his upbringing from childhood, the values he adopted from his family, school, religion, etc. A law that will educate the people about their reproductive health and WILL MAKE THEM DECIDE THEMSELVES what to do with theirs has nothing to do with a person’s responsibleness.
oops! I forgot that quote tags doesn’t work
It has gotten higher — the likelihood for the passing of the R/H bill. Reason — foreign ministries (in particular the conservative ministries and churches from USA) are reducing their involvement in the conservative agenda items in the Philippines. And the reason for this — the financial crisis. Many US ministries have dropped support for international missions while strengthening their domestic ministries (in particular, hiring more marriage counselors).
“The moment that household finances become unbearable, the marriage is the next thing to break,” a New Life Anointed Minister said.
Many congregations are sponsoring financial workshops and economic summits.
DJB,
sorry to say that abortion in the US is linked to Black Genocide.
“In America today, almost as many African-American children are aborted as are born.
A black baby is three times more likely to be murdered in the womb than a white baby.
Since 1973, abortion has reduced the black population by over 25 percent.
Twice as many African-Americans have died from abortion than have died from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.
Every three days, more African-Americans are killed by abortion than have been killed by the Ku Klux Klan in its entire history.
Planned Parenthood operates the nation’s largest chain of abortion clinics and almost 80 percent of its facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.
About 13 percent of American women are black, but they submit to over 35 percent of the abortions.
Black people have traditionally been strong Christians, but they have been duped by the Democrat party who promised to take care of them – but the compromise was their support of abortion. ”
Change we can believe in?