yes it may not be the solution to our population problem. having said that, this bill is a big first step in addressing our population growth.i think education is the key and this bill is pushing in that direction. killing the unborn for health reason – i.e. if the mother’s life is at risk- although a very hard decision on the parents part is not inhuman IMHO.
True education is a real answer to any problem, but RH bill is not about education but miseducation. What it wants to impart are wrong information that would serve to satisfy eugenicists, and would profit the contraceptive and abortion industry. Planned Parenthood’s 3.5 billion taxpayers’ dollars just since 1987 is the most crystal proof of this. And where do they use it? For education, supposed to be; but they are using it to kill babies instead. Do American protesters win? No! The government is on the side of PPF and PPF backs up Obama in particular. Now, don’t give me that naive answer that we are not America. Almost the whole world is America. Look at yourself and tell me that you are not America.
Now, the last statement is very prone to dilemma, I understand that. But let me disillusion everyone who believes as you do: THE UNBORN CHILD IS NOT LESS HUMAN THAN THE MOTHER. To actively kill the unborn for the sake of the mother is absolutely wrong. It is like saying that the child is less important. No one is less important.
Obviously you did not read the entire bill. It clearly states that abortion will remain a crime, but caring for women who underwent post abortion will be given in a humane and compassionate way. This bill shows that the country is headed in a progressive way in enforcing the rights of women. Actually, not only women, but couples and all individuals who want to have better access to information for family planning which does not limit to the “ineffective rhythm method” but to other methods/devices for birth control. This bill will ensure the prevention of widespread STDs and infanticide for the marginalized groups.
No, the RH bill does not “clearly” state that abortion will remain a crime. Besides, it does not have the power to decide whether it will remain a crime; only a change in the Constitution can make that. Instead, it just recognizes the “status of abortion” in the Philippine law. Actually, the line, “as abortion remains a crime and is punishable,” is deceptive. It conditions the mind of the readers that the bill confirms the absolute criminality of abortion, while it does not and it cannot. The purpose is to make it look like an anti-abortion bill. In reality, the law on abortion “may” change; it just needs a charter change. One of the problems with just reading the text of HB5043 is that it would be more difficult to see the intentions of those who “really” wrote it and what are the influences behind it.
Do we really need to have an additional law in order for the health care providers to be humane and compassionate? Do we need another bill just to have the government give enough budget for the facilities needed to treat post-abortion complications? And where is the right of women placed in the bill? Who really profits from condom, the pill, IUDs and other contraceptives? Is it not those men who cannot master their flesh and those who look at their wives as if they are sex gadgets — objects of pleasure?
Furthermore, what do women experience just to give inordinate pleasure to their husbands (or to men)? Answer: the side effects and risks of contraceptives which the RH bill obviously and commonsensically does not mention. Have you still not heard about the significant number of side effects of OCPs? How about the link between condom use and pre-eclampsia? It just happened that I was a medical transcriptionist, and obstetrics and gynecology is not very foreign to me. Now, please decide: with the pleasure that men get and the risks that women suffer (or at least have the possibility to suffer), where is the women’s right placed in the RH bill?
But one of those things that puzzle me the most is the concept of STD protection. These are my questions:  How absolute is the protection that condom use gives to prevent STDs? Of course, it is not 100% even if it is used 100% correct. Why would a law encourage people to risk their health just to have sex? What it suggests is that man should accept that self-mastery is a fantasy. “Why suffer no-sex even when you are sick if you can protect yourself and others by using condom?” Is it not the idea? Okay, let us assume that it is impossible for human to control sexual urge, what do you think will happen to him if his/her whole body are already blisters and ulcers, can he still have sex? Will he die if he cannot? Will they design a whole body condom for him? This bill pushes people to degrade themselves instead of helping them recognize their true dignity as person.  And why, why, why do the proponents of this bill propose that condom use will protect couples from infecting each other? Where would the infection come from? Why would your husband or your wife be infected by STDs if you are not sick? Some fools might say, “It is just for protection.” You would protect yourself from your partner because you think there might be a possibility that you both do not know that he/she is infected? Come on! That is so, so, so insensitive! If you want to be sure that the person you will marry is not sick, is it not wise to have a checkup before the wedding instead of throwing away money to the trash bin together with semen when you are already married? If this was done and both of you were proven healthy, why would you need to protect yourselves from STDs? Those billions of peso that the government will use to satisfy men’s carnal and irresponsible desires can surely create livelihood and dignified life for the citizens instead. Even unholy fathers know what to give to a child if he/she is asking for a fish or an egg. If your child asks of these from you, will you give him condom or pill instead? I will not. But can good character, industry, self-mastery, and generosity help a family? It can and it will.
RH bill is proposing a wrong solution to a real problem. Why? Because its proponents do not recognize the real issues. In the Philippines, projects mean corruption. That is true from the executive down to the barangay level. Why give billions of taxpayers’ money to this unnecessary, destructive, and corruption-prone proposal?
Do we still need to discuss the other parts of the text? I already read the bill way back its first publication on http://jlp-law.com, and I still repeatedly read it. I even proofread and corrected my copy, which all of the online sources I saw do not (or at least failed to notice the errors). The principle of the bill applies to the whole document; that is to say, the intentions of those who wrote it are clear in every word that was used through the entire script. And what is this principle? DECEPTION. Representative Edcel Lagman can help us prove that. The congressman insists that “fertilization of the ovum is not the same or synonymous to conception.” The purpose of the claim is to prove that RH bill does not violate Article II Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, which says, “The State shall protect human life from the moment of conception.” Again, I am not a doctor but I am not medically illiterate either. And besides, this is not the only part of the Constitution that RH bill attempts to violate.
catholic church’s double standard – use conscience on election but do not use conscience on RH Bill 5043
apparently, the catholic church is asking its faithful to use their conscience on some things but find it okay that its faithful do not use their conscience on others.
You are wrong! To say to your children that they “should” not be involved with prostitutes or in prostitution does not mean you are not respecting their conscience; or else, it would be wrong to teach your children what you believe is right. Your way of thinking, like many so-called Catholics, is anti-Church. You are looking through a tainted glass when it comes to the Church’s declarations or some clergies’ opinion. All you are looking for is what would be wrong. Saying, “it’s not moral to vote for people who support the reproductive health bill,” is not dictatorial but didactic. Following one’s conscience is not equal to deciding without guidance. The Church is the teacher on morality for Christians, and it is very mindless to say that it does not respect conscience when it teaches what should be deemed good or evil. It is as if you are saying that if a teacher told her students to study on their own, she should be respectful enough not to say that the last letter on the English alphabet is Z. Those people who are hostile to the Church are always bound to miss the point when it comes to morality and even logic.
Bello was also wrong when he says that the Church blackmails some candidates. The Church, as a mother, rightfully warns her children (the candidates) that if they want the people’s support, they should do what is right; and it is her moral responsibility to warn the rest of her children (the voters) to choose who is in the right and avoid those who publicly promote principles that are deemed immoral. Actually, Bello was wrong in all of his arguments and that should not be a surprise because he is looking in a different direction, and as I said through a tainted glass.
how come the CBCP if not the priests (not all) lecturing us on family planning & stuffs regarding married life were in fact they dont experienced a single second of husband-wife everyday life, im just curious.Why would we listen to them on issues specifically the RH bill were the proponents are in a no win situation against them. Its non-sense to argue with them coz they pretend to be always RIGHT with regards to family matters as though they did something to uplift poverty in RP…
First of all, CBCP is composed of priests, although they have laity co-workers, so the “if not the priests” phrase is not appropriate for the argument. Second, it is one of the “jobs” of the priests to lecture (as the term you use) about family planning and stuff regarding married life, not because they themselves are married but because as workers of Christ, they were given the task to teach and remind every Christian about the principles and sacramental meaning of marriage. You do not have to be a fly to be an expert about flies. You do not have to be a baby again to know what a baby feels or wants. You do not have to be a woman to understand the value of motherhood. I myself, when I was a radio show host in our community, gave solicited advises to everybody — fathers, mothers, students, out of school youth, security guards, employees, and many others — although I am not in the same state of life. We are talking about principles and experience, but experience does not mean that you are the one who undergoes the situation. An experienced health care provider, for example, does not need to have a cancer to specialize in it, because if that is the case, they should be a patient who has had every kind of disease first before they can be a doctor. The argument that “they (the priests) don’t experienced a single second of husband-wife everyday life,” is ignorant and overhasty. Priests, as we call them, are fathers and they give advises to couples (husbands and wives) both from principles and experience. I am not a priest but I know it. Besides, do I have to be one to understand? It is true the proponents of RH bill are in a no-win situation, but not just against them. All true Catholics are against the RH bill. You might say, “Survey results show that many Catholic women are in favor of contraception,” but I will say it again: all true Catholics are against the RH bill. Anti-HB5043 comments in the title “RH Bill No. 5043 Full Text” in this site might give you a clue.
“…as though they did something to uplift poverty in RP.” You need more studying than talking. The priests, the bishops, and the whole Church always contribute a very significant development not only in the Philippines but in every country. And when I say “development”, it includes livelihood, but most of all, a sense of purpose in life and an energy to do everything that everybody needs to do. Think of this: What will you do with a billion pesos if you no longer find meaning in your existence? Conversely, you will have the potential to earn a billion if you know why you are here.
In fact, we are facing socio economic crisis, food shortagae, global warming, crimes etc… it is because of what kind of goverment we have. There are things which are misinterpreted like issues on reproductive health bill. Yes I really agree of using contraceptives as long as it could help the couple to satisfy their needs as partner. There is no wrong about it, in fact overpopulation can hinder the socio-economic advancement of a country. If you are going to take a glance to the China’s program on population control, Chinese gov’t had One Child Policy…that is the better way to control and limit the problem on population.
Just for additional information:
China’s population is 1.3 billion
Philippine population is 94 million
Which one is much larger and which one is richer?
According to the data, does larger population mean poorer economy?
As per NSO, the estimated population of the country in 2040 is 141.6 million. If that is true, then even after 30 years from now, China’s population today is still several millions larger, and yet they are much richer.
How would you defy logic and math?
“Contraceptives do not have life-threatening side effects.”
…to say that contraceptives do not have life-threatening side effects is devious. All side effects are never life threatening but it does not mean that contraceptives cannot be life threatening. It has numbers of complications which include the following:
* Blood clot in the legs, lungs, heart or brain
* High blood pressure
* Liver tumors
These are not side effects but rather worse than that.
what is the rate of occurrence of these? very minimal.
Oh, sorry, I forgot to add breast cancer.
Well, WHO has reported that the pill is carcinogenic. Do we have to “risk” the health and the life of women for the pleasure of men? I thought I heard the proponents that the bill is pro-women. How?
Should a guy tell a girl to swim in a river where periodical presence of crocodiles were reported just to get him his favorite shrimp, and then say, “Don’t worry, most of the time, they are not there”? Would it have a bearing if the occurrence of wives being killed by crocs are “very minimal”?
contraceptives are okay as long as its with good conscience.
Good intention is not always the same with good conscience. That is why there is a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, or as St. Bernard said, “Hell is full of good intentions or desires.” Human cannibals in a cannibalistic culture do not think that what they do is wrong, but it is. Not all criminals perceive themselves as criminals, but they are. Many abortionists honestly believe that they do not sin, but they do. A good conscience is shaped by a good moral foundation, not just by good intentions.
“Did you actually read the Bible? Only once did God say be fruitful and multiply.”
Wrong. “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28); “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1); “As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it” (Genesis 9:7). What’s ironic is your question: “Did you actually read the Bible?” If you read all the 73 books of the Bible, how come you missed some parts of the first?
“Look at the meaning of ‘rule’ it means manage, if we can’t manage what we create, we’re disobeying God.”
Right. I would recommend my title: “Kung Mahal Ninyo Sila…Magplano” regarding this point. But let me leave a short line here. Using contraceptives does not in anyway imply true management. It is like drinking liquors everyday and taking a liver supplement “to be safe”. That is irresponsible. To rule also means to become master of something. Now, how to be a good ruler? The answer: rule yourself first. Be your own master. Be not a slave of carnal desires. You are a Bible reader, right? Using contraceptives shows that you want physical satisfaction here and now but does not want extra responsibility. Again, rule yourself. If you want birth spacing (which every couple should practice), you should learn sex spacing. Even dogs and other animals do not copulate everyday. “If we can’t manage what we (or rather HE) create, we’re disobeying God.” Did you hear that?
“God actually says that if your spouse wants sex, you should give it.”
I do not think so. Paul actually said, “Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time.” Did Paul contradict himself by using “except” and “mutual” on the same line? No. Whatever the reason is; may it be for prayer, birth spacing, or self-discipline, Paul is saying that you can actually refuse (in a positive manner) your spouse especially if you have a prior agreement. Your body is your spouse’s but it is not his/her slave. Even prostitutes refuse because of preference. A wife or a husband is much more dignified than a prostitute when it comes to sex.
RH Bill cannot solve all our problems, but it will help many.
“RH Bill cannot solve all our problems,” it would add up to it.
1987 Constitution: No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.<< If ever the bill be passed, and it compromises the exercise Catholic faith, would it then be unconstitutional?
RH bill does not give a damn whether one is a Catholic or someone who believes that contraceptive use is immoral and that there should not be a contraceptive sex education for elementary and high school students; every citizen is under the law. Whoever resists shall be punished.
Questions about the constitutionality of the proposal are just being shrugged by the proponents.
you grossly misrepresent the punitive provisions of the RH Bill. the RH bill DOES NOT punish citizens at all, it only gives citizens the freedom to choose which method best suits them.
Okay, the last comment may be gross; let me give details to compensate. But let me make it clear first that doctors are citizens, and you already admitted somewhere that they can be punished. If the bill does punish doctors, and doctors are citizens, then “the RH bill DOES punish citizens”.
“…it only gives citizens the freedom to choose which method best suits them.” If that is the case, what is section 22 for?
Okay, let me give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you are trying to say that the bill would not punish private citizens. But still, it is not accurate. [Here is the detail that I promised.] Section 21e will punish “any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.” Any includes all, right? It is the opposite of what you have just said. Now, how would you define malicious in this context? And what is disinformation?
“…it only gives citizens the freedom to choose…” Don’t you have a freedom to choose? I do. I do not need a law to give me that freedom; it is innate to me. The government did not and could not give it to me. In the context of contraceptive use, does the present government prohibits anyone to contracept? No. So there is no prohibition to lift up by a bill.
the bill is not dictatorial nor is it punitive. the whole intend behind the bill is to provide its citizens the complete resources and knowledge to make an informed choice but it does leave the final decisions on individuals and couples.
Dictatorial? Punitive? Of course not! It will just punish all those who would not adhere to it. The parents, the children, the doctors, the teachers, and all the individuals that will say what we are saying now. It will just use Catholic taxes to promote anti-Catholic practices. Well, what should I call that? Punishment? Yes, true, it may not be. But it is stealing. Stealing means getting or using something without the consent of the owner. Have I applied the definition accurately?
Regarding the intention to provide resources to make an informed choice, it does not appear to be like that. RH bill advertises contraception. It discredits natural family planning, although of course it does not say that explicitly. Besides, if the proponents trust NFP, will they still promote artificial family planning, which aside from being dangerous, requires billions of pesos? Is that what we call wise spending?
“You need to understand what the RH Bill is trying to do.”
I completely agree. When you said RH bill is neither dictatorial nor punitive, it appeared that you do not understand even just the 21st section of the bill.
“The RH Bill intends to level the playing field.”
I beg to disagree. It has no intention to promote both methods. As I have already said somewhere, it discredits NFP because first of all, it requires true discipline, and because there is no money in it. The very famous “traditional” and “modern” comparison is one of the more obvious proof of the word game that the contraceptive industry is playing.
To deceive people is what RH bill tries to do.
section 21 sanctions health providers who do not provide health services as defined by the bill. what is wrong with that? that is much like the law we have where hospitals will be sanctioned if they violate the law on accepting patients to give them health services for whatever reason.
You have written the point but have actually missed it. Why would you need another law if one already exists?
With the question, “What’s wrong with that,” I would give you a picture. If you are a doctor, and it is against your personal belief to kill a baby, is it right for the government to punish you for not killing one? We all know the answer, no need for you to respond. Now, this is the real scenario: Many health care providers, especially Catholics and those who respect their Hippocratic oath, believe that it is morally wrong to use contraceptives, but even more to prescribe an emergency pill because it is abortifacient. (Where was emergency pill mentioned in the bill? It is for you to see.) These are the doctors that the bill will punish. What do you call that now? Anti-conscience. What’s right with that?
the parents themselves, specially those coming from the poor want to control births or at least space them properly. this bill is responding to the needs of the people. arroyo and the bishops are putting up barriers to satisfy the people’s needs.
Birth control would take self control. Sounds unfair? If you cannot control yourself, how would you control and discipline your children? How would you be loyal to your marriage? How would you master your desires?
Does responsibility mean condom, pill, IUD, diaphragm, emergency pill, or injectables? In what wisdom book will you find that? Responsibility means self mastery. Arroyo and the bishops are not putting up barriers for the people to develop that virtue.
There are scientific and mathematical basis having two children are ideal. It is not imposed but is recommended.
What’s the formula? On the other hand, there is eugenic and American influence in this so-called ideal. Actually, it is purely American.
“Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S.
Security and Overseas Interests” That is the long title of USA’s bible — the NSSM 200. US is threatened by the growing population of some countries, just like Egypt was of Israel’s. Security is also the main factor of the depopulation attempt of Egypt against Israel; thus, the no-male policy. NSSM 200 says, “Our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two-child family on the average), by about the year 2000.” The students will also be brainwashed, just like in a socialist government, that the number 2 is the perfect number: “That AID stimulate specific efforts to develop means of educating children of elementary school age to the ideal of the two-child family.” Sex education for elementary students; sounds familiar? Besides, Edcel Lagman is not the true writer of the proposal.
where is the deception there?
deception is where govt health providers are prohibited to promote modern methods of contraception while promoting the more risky traditional methods of contraception.
You are proving my point again; but then again, you are still missing it. Proponents say that RH bill promotes both methods, but instead of using the terms “natural family planning” and “artificial family planning”, they use the term “modern” in favor of the latter to imply that NFP is primitive and “more risky”, as you — yes, you have pointed out. Is that the way to promote something? And who says NFP is risky? And what does “risky” mean? Actually, WHO said that Billing’s ovulation method is 99% effective. And who’s WHO? I assume you know. I would add, NFP has no side effects and it is free. Will you buy a bottled water that is not 100% clean, and has been reported as a cause of diarrhea to some individuals, if you already have a source of perfectly pure, healthy, and free water? What’s behind the contraceptives craze? Is it on sale?
Now, in what way are the artificial contraceptives “modern”? It can only be called so because it is contemporary but all the concepts are just the same hundreds and thousands years ago. To honestly believe that this is new is ignorance.
couples should be allowed to make the most use of what modern medicine has to offer. they should be allowed to make a choice on their own – between modern methods of contraception or traditional methods of contraception.
Should be allowed to make a choice? Are they not? We are, as far as I know. Now wait, we are not talking about modern medicine. We are not curing any disease here. What prevents pregnancy is not a medicine but a contraceptive; and it is in no way modern. On the other hand, to call something as “traditional” to imply lesser effectiveness is not really promoting it, but discrediting it. And for the information of everybody, BOM is in fact far more modern than artificial contraceptives. And mind you also, it is not like what Edcel Lagman claims as a contraceptive method. It does not frustrate conception.
it is modern medicine, that cannot be disputed. and the modern methods of contraception are far more effective than the old ways of contraception.
Medicine – something that treats, prevents or alleviates the symptoms of disease.
We are talking about pregnancy; is it a disease? Am I less informed than you when it comes to obstetrics and gynecology? It just happened that I was trained to be a medical transcriptionist and it was actually my job. Again, “what prevents pregnancy is not a medicine but a contraceptive.”
Who said it cannot be disputed? You just need to read encyclopedias (or even Wikipedia) to have information about that. Haven’t you heard about marbles inside a camel’s uterus, or about sterilization potion? Even Christianity was not yet born when these concepts were used.
And are you better than the World Health Organization?
yes the bill talks about punishment but it does so on those government officials who will not follow the law.
this blog should ban you from posting here if you continue to misrepresent facts.
Whow! Does section 21e said that it would punish just government officials? I thought what I saw are: any health care service provider, whether public or private (21a), any public official (21b), any employer (21c), and any person (21d, 21e). Don’t you think you are the one who misrepresents facts? Where in the proposal does it say that it is about government officials only? Can you point it out?
If you judged that I am misrepresenting HB 5043, then section 21e might sentence me “to an imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine ranging from Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court” (Section 22). There is another penalty for the public officials who you say are the only punishable persons here: “An offender who is a public officer or employee shall suffer the accessory penalty of dismissal from the government service.”
Haven’t I given you the facts? Have you on your part?
Any – one, some, every or all without specification
arroyo as unilaterally imposed here religious beliefs on the whole country by allowing only old but high risk methods of contraception and ignoring modern medicine and science.
Again, I should repeat that if an agent’s main purpose is to prevent pregnancy, it is not a medicine but a contraceptive.
Regarding efficacy, maybe I should share one article with you: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm. I could also recommend a book if you want.
You are actually representing the stand of RH bill against (not regarding) NFP. You are helping to show that the bill is not true to its words when it comes to the promotion of both natural and artificial methods.
aquino has been supportive of this bill. finally, married couples and specially women will be given the freedom to choose the method that suits them best.
Haven’t you heard the news? Didn’t you watch the first press conference that was called by Noynoy after his proclamation as the new president-elect? And he was right when he said, “Para na akong sirang plaka,” because he already said his recent position regarding this in many occasions. And this is what he always say: “Ang Estado ay may tungkuling sabihin sa mga magulang, ‘May responsibilidad kayo sa lahat ng anak na ipapasok ninyo dito sa mundong ito.’” (The State has a duty to say to the parents, “You have a responsibility to all the children that you bring into this world,”) and in one occasion I heard him said, “…sila [ang mga magulang] ang dapat tumugon sa pangangailangan ng kanilang pamilya.” It is not the duty of the State to provide condoms when the citizens are (almost) dying of hunger, or else Jesus will tell them in the end, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me CONDOMS, I was thirsty and you gave me PILLS.” I thought Filipinos are familiar with the Chinese proverb that says, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” This is the duty of the State. Let me give you a clue: Give a man some pills and they would have sex the whole day. Teach a man to contracept and he will be irresponsible and miserable for a lifetime.
Para na rin akong sirang plaka, but I would still repeat, the State could not give married couples (neither the men nor the women) the freedom to choose, because it has no power to give or to take freedom. I for one have the freedom that is innate to me; I am not sure if you are aware of yours. Are you at the mercy of the government?
Now, regarding this claim that “Aquino has been supportive of this bill,” I would quote Mr. President-elect verbatim: “I purposely did not sign because I have questions about certain provisions of the RH bill.” In an ABS-CBN report, he said, “There are provisions that I cannot support. I was mistakenly labeled as co-author [of the bill].” Yes, in 2009 he gave his all-out support to the bill when he said, “I don’t care if the Catholic Church will abandon me because of my support for the reproductive health bill.” But it is 2010 now, things have already changed.
“I have been on the pill for over a decade and I didn’t have sex all day. I also know that I am a very responsible person.”
My first question is were you given the pills for over a decade? I am not trying to imply that taking the pill transforms a woman into an irresponsible person. There is no component in the substance that affects the sense of responsibility. It is the combination of the person’s situation (e.g. poverty), current moral disposition (e.g. indifferent), and the solution offered (e.g. easy way out) that really affect the attitude. Take for example an exam that is very well known to be almost impossible to pass. Will the majority of students who has a very low moral standard choose to take the “risk” of failing the exam than to take advantage of the leak that is being offered them for free? And will these students be responsible the next seconds or the next decades of their lives if they took the offer? You yourself might have a good intention for preventing pregnancy (besides, everybody have good intentions about something), and I assume that you took responsibility for this, just like what I have quoted from Noynoy: “…sila [ang mga magulang] ang dapat tumugon sa pangangailangan ng kanilang pamilya,” but you are not the majority. If someone wants to contracept, he/she has the freedom to do so, but to demand from the government some supplies of pills and condoms like a spoiled brat who demands for a thing (or an action) that the parents do not have the duty to give, is very wrong. Furthermore, the parents or the government who will give in or encourage this attitude is more than wrong.
“The whole day” doesn’t necessarily mean the whole day, just like “all” may sometimes mean “some”. It is a way of speaking that gives emphasis to the point and makes it easier to remember. The phrase refers to the attitude where abuse means limitation, limitation means moderation, and moderation means abstinence. One concrete example is the expression, “Sige, kaya pa,” wherever that applies. When somebody say, “You are doing nothing but to eat all day long,” it does not literally mean you are just eating the whole day. It just means you are being abusive of your body and of the opportunity. In today’s way of thinking, how do people know their limitation? Kapag hindi na kaya. It is not anymore we who actively set the limitation according to what is really moderate; we (not literally WE) just “know” when it is time to stop. Even boars know when to stop eating. Again, this argument is not about people who know they are exempted and really are exempted.
Last point: If you teach 100 men to fish, you will never be sure that the same 100 men will use the knowledge to feed themselves. Some of them might go back to begging for fish, stealing fish, or even resort to a fishy job. However, it does not mean that the phrase, “you feed him for a lifetime,” is no longer true. You have still done your part of feeding them but they do not want to eat what you have given. Using the same argument in the opposite situation, a government who will give supplies of contraceptives to those who want to contracept will still be the main contributor to the possible misery that they might or might not (for some reason) end up to. That is because just like the exam and the spoiled brat scenarios, they are encouraging an irresponsible attitude as opposed to what they claim.
“It isn’t selfish if women want to prioritize their career.”
I agree…that is if the person is really not selfish. Being a career woman itself is not worthy of the accusation. In fact, even altruism can be a mask of greed or selfishness. My point is whether you are a teacher, a call center associate, a lawyer, a janitor, a fastfood service crew, or a full-time mother, selfishness and self-donation will still apply. It is really about the person and not the job.
“How come no one accuses men of this?”
Because there is no such thing as career men as it applies to women. Having a culture that is rooted in Christian perception of the relation between sexuality and functions, Filipinos generally accept that men are providers. For a man to have a “career” such as being an employee or a businessman is not just common but is normal; even obligatory. There is of course an exemption. It is not always applicable for a man to be an employee or a business person, but it is still the norm. To accuse a man of being selfish because he has a job is nonsense.
“…you don’t even need to be a celebrity to be a mom and be sexy at the same time.”
Let us settle first to a more acceptable definition of terms. When you say “hot” you mean “sexy” as it appears here. Besides, even dictionaries recognize the word as related to sex. When you say “sexy”, that denotes tending to arouse sexual desire or interest. Now, here is the confusing part: some women say that they want to look sexy and they mean what they say, but there are those who say they want to look sexy or hot but they do not mean (as they say) to arouse sexual desire. That is going against the norm. Angelina Jolie, Halle Berry, and Jessica Alba are some of the best examples of hot/sexy women..that is they tend to arouse sexual desire. That is why I always object when I hear parents proudly praise a child by exclaiming, “Wow, sexy!” Should a child be sexy? Now, going back to the issue, should a married woman be sexy…that is sexually desirable for everybody’s eyes? If yes, why?
“…mommies are so hot right now…So you can’t accuse women of not wanting kids because they’re vain.”
I do not agree with the conclusion. Eventual social acceptance of an idea does not change its nature. Abortion for example remains evil in America even if Americans accept it. Cheating in exams is still wrong even if it is common. Angelina Jolie, Halle Berry, Jessica Alba, and even hundreds of celebrities and/or “hot mommies” cannot change a thing when it comes to the rightness and wrongness of a concept. But then again, I am not accusing anybody of wrongdoing for being both hot and a mommy at the same time.
Now, one more word that is very much acceptable but should not be: VAIN – having an exaggerated sense of self-importance. Why are we not scandalized by the casual use of the term as if it is a good trait? That is the power of mind conditioning. That is the fruit of Californication. Here I should agree with the Red Hot Chili Pepper that “everybody’s been there and I don’t mean on vacation.” All of us (almost) are into this, and we no longer know where this influence comes from, whether there is wrong with it, and whether we can still get out of it. I should also mention the line before it, saying that it was “born and raised by those who praise control of population.” Even Hollywood superstars themselves recognize the facts.
I will leave the rest of the arguments to those who want to object. What I could say on my part at this moment is that I do not see anything wrong with a woman who does not want to have kids, but I would not encourage contraception.
God created Eve to be Adam’s partner; He didn’t say, “Oh, Adam, you need to be a father so I’ll make you something that can give you kids.”
Now, this is a very complicated issue, especially if we are not walking on the same ground. But since Adam was mentioned, I should break the news that although it is said in the Bible (not a reference book for history) that Adam was created first, God’s obvious reason for making him a man is so that he could co-create with Him. And God does not intend to create hundreds, thousands, or even millions, but as many as the stars in the sky and as the sands on the seashore. Is it a form of God’s vanity? No. It is his overflowing love. He wants to create multitudes of souls for heaven, that is for life.
Through God’s gesture, he actually said to Adam, “You need to be a father.” And as Adam was made man, Eve was made woman. One is a male human being and the other a female human being. Both have the dignity of a human but the words male and female connote differences in functions — those are what we call complementary differences. Some may not agree but the Bible implies that Eve was made from and for Adam as Adam was made for God. The female was made for the male, although that conclusion does not conform with what some naive people claim that every man has a woman destined for him, romantically speaking. It only means that all of a woman’s components, from anatomy to physiology to psychology, are designed to complement the man’s. It does not make a man more of a “bida” and the woman a sidekick. You cannot make a functional aquarium if you do not have either the glass or the element that will seal it together such as a glass glue. Neither the glass alone nor the glue alone can make an aquarium even if the glue was made for the glass.
“Women weren’t created to become just childbearers–it’s one of the wonderful things we can do but our purpose is not limited to that!”
I agree. There should be woman inventors, woman politicians, woman lawyers, woman doctors, woman soldiers, etc. That is because as women, they will contribute to the feminine benefits of those functions. However, the truth still remains that women were mainly designed to be mothers, although they have different callings; just as men were designed to be fathers although they have different callings. God is wise. He would not remove genitals just because one is not called to become a mother or a father. We have one design and that is the fruit of God’s wisdom. What we will be in the future depends on God’s calling and our answer to that call. What comes to mind as a very great example is the computer. It is mainly designed for computing tasks but now we can use it as a word processor, a television, a video player, a radio, a mailer, a communication device, and many more…even as an alarm clock.
the world health organization endorses modern methods of contraception.
That’s the point. The World Health Organization promotes artificial methods, that is why it cannot be accused of bias when it issues reports in favor of NFP, and also about the pill being carcinogenic.
i hope you’ll agree with me on this, married couples who belong to the lowest of lower class experienced happiness only when they have sex as if its their pastime, thats why expecting baby after baby is just an ordinary thing, can we just let them go on with the NFP method? do you think it will work?
I understand where you are coming from. I agree that many of the lower class people, especially those who are unemployed, were bound to make sex as pastime because they have no reason to be busy. Actually, that might be true to all groups and classes. That is because being addicted with sex is multifactorial. But then again, the word “addicted” implies a negative state of being. Why? Because it is negative. It is not normal, though it is common, to treat as thus because even commonsense tells us that it is not healthy to be “too” engaged in sexual activities as if there is nothing more for you to do. Responsible citizenship, responsible parenthood, and responsible manhood are not equal to imbalance in any aspect of life.
It is not right for the government to promote liver supplement on the ground that there is nothing anymore that it can do to help alcohol addicts; or to promote lungs supplement because the people cannot be educated about cigarette smoking. The problem is the citizens’ state of life and way of thinking; it is not right to ignore the true issue and to engage in a wrong solution instead. A sober parent would not say to his/her kids, “Okay, dahil tamad kayong mag-aral at nakasanayan nyo nang mangopya, basta huwag na lang kayo magpahuli.” Contraceptive culture plainly says, “Have fun, be wild, don’t think about health and balance, and do whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want…JUST DON’T GET PREGNANT. In this culture, diving into sex frenzy is completely understandable but being pregnant is irresponsible. Isang malaking iskandalo at “imoralidad” ang pagkabuntis nang walang lalaking maipakilala, pero hindi imoral o nakakahiya ang makipagtalik sa hindi asawa (premarital and casual sex). We have individual and social attitude problem but instead of rectifying the issues, what many of us want to do is to give way to the attitude and just avoid the consequence. Remember the former DOH Secretary Juan Flavier proudly reported that he has given condoms to male OFWs? To think that there is no law like HB 5043 that led to that action of the government, what more can the government do if it is already legalized? What DOH has done then is undoubtedly anti-Constitution, anti-family, anti-dignity, and morally evil. I want to repeat, it is illegal, and yet it was done with heads high. Just come to think what would happen if it is legal?
Education, livelihood, and moral way of life are the solutions to the issue of poverty, not contraception.
If animals can be trained, it is a shame that humans cannot. Where is the high intelligence that we boast about?
the RH Bill seeks to correct the current imbalance where only traditional methods of contraception are promoted and modern methods of contraception ignored.
All of the arguments here are already answered in this same thread. You can watch all TV ads and research through other media in the Philippines and you will find which method have a really dominant promotion and patronage.
The issue of efficacy was already tackled.
Everything has already been answered and are just running round in circle.
I should agree with Noynoy when he said, “Korapsyon ang problema, kahirapan ang resulta,” although it is still the Filipino attitude that is the root of all these problems.