The proposed reproductive health (RH, for short) is a step toward modernity – the level of acceptance of which has yet to be validated using certain community standards. It is now pending in both chambers of Congress for deliberation and debate onward to its eventual approval or demise – depending on the voting mood – or the tyranny of the majority. Once passed into law, it sure will have to crush all traditional moral barriers laid in its path.
Advances in the area of IT technology, to include audio-video recordings, flow with the currents of fast-paced modernization. In general, it changed our usual ways of doing things in very dramatic pace. Who wouldn’t be tempted to film a sex act – light, sound, and all – with a tiny gadget like a digital camera or a high-end cell phone? All facets of human life, after all, can be stored electronically and in entirely awesome volume – photos, videos, texts, et cetera. So who would not love to carry electronic gadgets easy on their pockets – to document an ongoing scene, hear an ongoing conversation – all may be turning points to change mankind’s future?
The gadgets that make sex videos are the very same instruments to national survival. And with the RH bill, matters relative to – sex, pregnancy, population, morality – are but effectively relaxed. Once the bill becomes law, we are introduced to a regime that allows the flood of information and full access to a widening variety of natural or modern family planning methods. And logically, the filming of sex videos in infinite number will form part of the territory.
By then, Senate-driven investigations will fall flat in its face precisely because the law, in fact, prescribes an ‘enabling environment where women and couples have the freedom of choice on the mode of family planning they want based on needs, personal convictions or religious beliefs’. Since so-called reproductive health rights may well include all other sexual rights, whatever couples, partners, or individuals want to do with their own bodies may be beyond prescription. The emerging moral order consequent to the enactment of this RH bill would be beyond legislation.
Contrary to claim, RH bill shakes the moral foundation of the family under the guise of having empowered individuals to choose the course or decisions they wish to carry out. Contrary to claim, RH bill may in fact encourage individuals the vicious use of contraceptives under the guise that these are essential medicines. Contrary to claim, RH bill will not address the problem of population and poverty as these have already become social givens.
Truth is, population increases at a rate of 2% or we have an increase in population of 2 million more people ever year. The two-child policy enshrined in the RH bill is simply normative and therefore the State is yet to come up with a ‘zero population control’ strategy’ if it aims to really control population as the precondition to effectively resolve the problem of mass poverty. But then again, poverty is more multi-faceted than one ordinary thinks.
There is grave doubt whether any reproductive health focus could succeed in the immediate future given that our population programs and policies leave much to be desired. The RH bill alone does not appear to seriously address concerns in reproductive health as it should affect society writ large. Can this government really do the job?
From where I stand, the RH bill is only intended to break the old moral order.
The government’s performance in the area of public health alone is found wanting. Can it really provide the services, products, and care that individuals would be seeking from a legislated program from across the general population?
As soon as the rate of unwanted pregnancies from the general population increased from say, to 30%, it necessarily follows that more government funded reproductive health care systems must be able to absorb the shock.
From where I stand, the government is left with no option but to in fact increase its number of abortion clinics throughout the country preparatory to the final legalization of abortion.
Popularity: 2% [?]
The RH Bill AND sex videos. What the F*ck?
“From where I stand, the government is left with no option but to in fact increase its number of abortion clinics throughout the country preparatory to the final legalization of abortion.”
what abortion? the RH has nothing on abortion.
Old morality movements scare me. New morality movements scare me. I subscribe to the morality of enlightened individualism, where free choice is bound only by decency and compassion. No single religion’s God, no church, no government owns my soul. They are of man and men. God is More than them. I strive to break free from the confinement of man’s smallness, represented by senseless and unkind rules wherein one man seeks to master another . . .
man or woman.
No tm, Benign0 duuuuude. . . .
Joe
Truly, man or woman is ‘the master’ of himself or herself.
The decisions couples or partners carry out are like a double-edged sword with potential for harm as with potential for safety.
RH bill is one such. Besides, where will government get all the money to make contraceptives available to all those who need? Who will subsidize all the services that would be made accessible to all seeking clients?
From where I sit, it is not for a foreign entity to hold this nation hostage, as if it were. Oh this, ICPD thing carries with it the carrot except we feel like we are the rabbits.
P3 billion was allocated in the 2008 GAA. Now that doesn’t seem so large given the P1.41 trillion budget this year right? At least the money will go to Filipino citizens.
What? You have no objections to the P320 billion this government paid to our international creditors just in the last four months? Debts incurred without consent of neither you nor I? Foreign entities holding us hostage indeed!!!!!
Oh well, you can pore over the budget this year and see where we can spend our taxes more prudently. Certainly not in public health. And reproductive health is a tiny portion of that.
As for exotic ideas from overseas….let is dispense with everything the United Nations has ever cooked up, shall we? Such as…the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Can you name a few more?
Why are you down on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and all things “UN”?
I view the UN as 50/50 in its undertakings. Half constructive, half not so very worthwhile.
Without knowing, I would have guessed you would favor the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so I was surprised by the sharp condemnation.
Joe
Joe America,
Cripes. I was being sarcastic. :-/
Ahhh, I was sleeping. So sorry.
Joe
So your premise is that the RH bill will promote the proliferation and production of sex videos?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Wait, wait, wait, is your argument that, since government (in your opinion) can’t provide comprehensive public health services, they shouldn’t provide it at all?
Indeed, the whole piece is sloppily argued, and presented without any supporting evidence whatsoever. You argue that the RH Bill –
a) will protect/encourage the creation of sex videos
b) will have NO impact on population SLASH poverty (interesting how Primer elides the distinction between the two)
c) will be pointless because of (b) (I’m glad that Primer has NO say at all in the public health sector, because his proposed solution to the inability of PGH to provide complete health services would be presumably to close it down!)
d) will, also because of (b), herald the opening of NEW abortion mills throughout the country
This is the sloppiest article I’ve ever read on Filipinovoices. Congratulations, a golf clap for you!
Dude, you nailed Primer way too much here. You should’ve give him a little wiggle room, so that he’d answer.
We are now in an Age, where Technologies are now running away fast
from any Laws you can formulate. People uses these Technologies
for Sensual Pleasures. Some Enterprising Perverts use these Technologies for profit.
Where can we go from here?
Jon,
I see little risk that your idea may be be driven to where you want it go. Find it unbelievable?
Mickey,
Again, I see little risk that your idea may be driven to where you want it go. Catch why?
I am against RH and I think that the single best inducement why they are lobbying for it is the ‘economic package’ that comes with it with a very measly government counterpart.
You may begin to believe this – abortion clinics will be aplenty once the law is enacted. If you don’t see that, that is your problem.
Oh you say you play golf, you must have handicaps?
Jon,
Thanks for worrying. Sloppy blogs here are aplenty.
Folks, you’re not much of a competition, either.
Primer,
Well, I don’t think RH will lead to more sex scandals, because the recent videos are ANTI-RH!
Let me expound:
a) In none of the videos can Hayden Kho be seen wearing a condom
b) Hayden Kho thus had unprotected sex with multiple partners
Both points oppose the tenets of good reproductive health, and will be discouraged under the RH Bill program!
Abortion is still illegal in this country. The RH bill does not change that. Doh.
The RH bill will hopefully decrease the almost 1 million abortion cases annually by making family planning commodities widely available for those who need them. Coupled also with sexuality education that will teach young people about the responsibilities of parenthood.
huh? why would there be abortion clinics after this is enacted?
how can you say that?
ayayay, I smell another bloodbath coming :lol:
Without seeing how the maiden blog may read, I know that micketic blogs are micketic – just that.
Post yours and I’ll friends to read.
Please to English translation?
*snicker*
jon,
You don’t have to heap on the nuances of how the screen captures the words you register on the keyboard.
Okay – “I’ll ask friends to read”. Jon, we all know who you are. Wag na.
Not perfectly true jon – one may be taking pills. Go on?
Refer to point b. That’s it.
seriously, how can this bill increase abortion clinics? we should corrupt this mis-perception ASAP.
To hardcore conservatives, there is no disambiguation between contraception and abortion. Contraception is abortion. This is perhaps (I could only guess) Primer’s point.
dang, based on natural contraception methods, i have aborted hundreds of millions :lol:
really? surely you mean abortifacient drugs right? not condoms.
not even the most closed-mined would call condoms abortion. i would like to see an example of anyone who thinks that way.
also, he said abortion clinics, which is different.
well primer? what do you mean?
this is important; we need to clear this up ASAP.
the church says using condoms is abortion.
Just read the bill Gabby – in your own time.
huh? it doesn’t say abortion is legal. it doesnt fund “abortion clinics”
this is important primer. this is wrong information that you are spreading, and it doesn’t add to the discussion at all.
I’ve read the RH bill in its entirety and in no place did I see abortion being legalized. In fact, it constantly asserts that abortion (as defined by the extraction of a fetus at any point during the pregnancy) will remain illegal.
Please cite specific sections therein that mentions
a.) The legalization of abortion
b.) The setting up and funding of abortion clinics
exactly jon.
i can handle opinions. what i can’t handle is MISREPRESENTATION of facts.
this is VERY important primer.
Correct me if am wrong, perhaps Primer is not presenting facts, but presenting implications.
Primer is implying that legalization of abortion will follow once the RH Bill is approved. Possibly, a later amendment that defines conditions when and when not abortion is applicable.
And when amended RH bill takes effect, government medical centers can possibly provide abortion services as a form of contraception. This in turn will serve as a signal for private practitioner to provide abortion as well.
@bong
i love how we are “interpreting” primer… geez, this isn’t scripture… he can/should say what he wants to say.
Oblique attitudes had been habit-forming.
If I criticize tasio, jon defends him. At another turn, when I criticize tasio, mike defends him. Why not leave tasio alone? That is not to say that when carlio labels me ‘idiot’ (which more reflects him anyway), tasio did second the motion, as if it were – call me the same label (which more reflects him anyway).
So now I know this is the kind of English construction you will be more comfortable with.
A single word missing in a blog, destroyed the whole blog altogether – for want of a word. This is funny, and the last laugh is mine. The dudes just kept on echoing and re-echoing what each one wants to say in a kind of ’round robin’.
So your conclusion is that people are ganging up on you, and you’re a victim?
Boo hoo hoo.
You made a fundamental mistake, and when everyone pointed it out, you’re the winner?
LOL!
You’re a very, very entertaining person, at the very least.
Bong,
That could have been the kind of comment that should have been elicited by the blog had folks abandon the ‘cult of personality’.
Truth is, RH bill lays the predicate for yet another bill toward legalization of abortion as reflected in some case studies.
By the way, whoever said that no other abortion has been implied in the bill is grossly mistaken. For instance, tell me, what exactly would be the whole range of so-called “post-abortion complications”? Please don’t answer if you are not a doctor.
FIRST, and very important, this is what you said: “From where I stand, the government is left with no option but to in fact increase its number of abortion clinics throughout the country preparatory to the final legalization of abortion.”
the bill does NOT increase the number of abortion clinics, and IS NOT preparatory for the final legalization of abortion.
PLEASE write down the paragraph that SAYS so…
WHAT does this mean: “Truth is, RH bill lays the predicate for yet another bill toward legalization of abortion as reflected in some case studies.”
predicate? paano? there are no words in the bill that says this.
SECOND: the relevant passage of post-abortion complications:
“While nothing in this Act changes the law on abortion, as abortion remains a crime and is punishable, the government shall ensure that women seeking care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner.”
Do we need to “interpret” this paragraph?
This is VERY important.
The gov does NOT have ABORTION CLINICS. This BILL does NOT advocate abortion. This Bill reiterates the BAN on ABORTION.
I want to ask that you change the text of your post. it is wrong. it is misleading.
please. for truth’s sake.
Lays the predicate? Case studies?
Cite your sources!
Where did you get this?
Cite your sources!
why you people even bother is beyond me…
my concern is the part on abortion. this is just wrong. the truth matter to me a great deal.
i can handle that he thinks the RH bill is immoral. opinions are fine on a blog. But to say that it abets abortion is plain WRONG.
I will repeat this question until I get a clear answer, because it merits a clear answer:
I’ve read the RH bill in its entirety and in no place did I see abortion being legalized. In fact, it constantly asserts that abortion (as defined by the extraction of a fetus at any point during the pregnancy) will remain illegal.
Please cite specific sections therein that mentions
a.) The legalization of abortion
b.) The setting up and funding of abortion clinics
Primer Pagunuran,
Tamad ka ba’ng basahin ang HB 5043? Ilang pahina lang naman. Halleeeeeeeer.
Klaro nga nakalagay bawal ang abortion.
Nakalagay din di dapat pagkaitan ng serbisyo medikal ang mga babaeng pumunta ng Quiapo at bumili ng pamparegla. Kasi nga ngayon may nagaganap na abortion sa Pilipinas. Halleeeeeeeeeeeeeeer.
*katok kato* Tao pooooooooooooo.
I’ve noticed the blogs, this week not too good on Primer. My heart’s for him.
Gabby,
You had gone at great lengths to press me for an answer even while you must have realized that I embrace the contrary view.
How can I do justice to that plea – tell me how? It is hard to be focused, when right to left, somebody else is sort of pulling the rug from under my feet. Jon is playful as a child but his mind is yet to overcome a few things.
Thanks bert for some real concern if you feel I am in a brawl with gangsters or ‘defenders of the faith’. Accept my thanks.
Alright gabby, it is best for us to google a lot, don’t we? There are books to read, the text itself must be read to better understand the RH bill.
The RH bill’s import is real broad on the matter of reproductive health care. This broadness in fact opens the door for closely related possibilities as we can read from many available case studies where the government implement programs as they impact upon women from the cross-section of society.
As soon as disparities occur, the future points to the possibility of more abortions taking place, in abortion clinics that may be operating legally or illegally.
Please try to read from the Guttmacher Policy Review some of the points I am trying to drive at.
Link to said Review, please?
OK.
1) first, and this is VERY IMPORTANT — i am talking about your original blog post. even under the assumption that the bill will fail in its stated goal, it is still WRONG to write: “From where I stand, the government is left with no option but to in fact increase its number of abortion clinics throughout the country preparatory to the final legalization of abortion.”
Why?
because there are no govt abortion clinics, let alone is there the possibility of increasing them. The bill also reiterates the ban on abortions as national policy.
at least acknowledge that! And write a postscript in your orig blog post recognizing these things.
Why? Because its the TRUTH.
2) And this is less important, because you can have whatever opinions you want to have… i’ll say it anyway:
What you really want to say is that you are SPECULATING that one day abortion will be legal because of a more lax attitude about birth control.
is this correct? is this what this means: “This broadness in fact opens the door for closely related possibilities as we can read from many available case studies…”
if so, you need to SAY THAT. the key word here is SPECULATION because the bill itself will not legalize abortion.
in other words, you are speculating that being lax on RH is CAUSALLY linked to a more liberal abortion policy.
That is a STRONG claim. Hence, you need to ARGUE. Why is your speculation legitimate?
It is NOT enough to name drop an organization’s case studies. The Guttmacher institute publishes HUNDREDS of policy papers annually, all saying various things.
Because your speculation involves such as strong claim, you cant just name-drop an organization.
at the very least, link to a SPECIFIC PAPER (or name the authors and title) that supports your position.
OTHERWISE, you are just saying, “hey, abortion COULD be legal”… then again, if all we are doing is speculating, then maybe it WONT be legal…
Engot talaga itong Primer no ‘to. Eto ba’ng study na to ng Guttmacher ang binabanggit mo?
Basahin mo nga mabuti. Sinasabi lang d’yan na may abortion na nga na nagaganap sa Pilipinas, RH bill o no RH bill. At ang dahilan ay walang access sa family planning methods ang mga babae. Ergo, para mabawasan ang abortion, kailangan magkaron ng access sa family planning. Halleeeeeeeeeeeer.
Eh di ganito na lang:
Please quote the Guttmacher review and point out which paragraphs/sections therein prove the points you mention.
Ang hirap hirap debatihin eh. Kapag pina-quote mo kung san niya nakuha yung sinabi niya hindi naman kayang gawin.
@primer
sadly, this bill has been overtaken by events.
i understand you are against the bill. thats fine.
i really do think that describing the contents of the bill correctly is important. i would hope that is important to you also.