Quoted texts are the objectors’ statements.
“Whether or not the unborn child is less human than the mother is relative. Imagine: a pregnant woman is told that only one can live (either her or the baby). If I were her, I would definitely prioritize my life (because I am most definitely human) and not the life of the unborn child (because his or her humanity is still debatable).”
Debatable? By whom? Haven’t you read the Constitution (even America’s)? What if some scientists debate over whether you are human or not, will you not protest for your life?
Let me remind (or rather educate) you that slaves were once treated as sub-humans. Does it mean that they are really sub-humans?
Do you know the word “conceive”? It is the beginning of something. Human conception is the beginning of human life. Is that debatable? How come?
“It is not an established scientific fact [that what’s in the womb is human]. If it was, the whole abortion debate would be over. But it’s not.”
That is so naive a statement. DNA is already discovered and explored by microbiology but Darwin debates are still not over (although in reality, Darwin’s theory is already debunked).
“I do not believe it is a child because it cannot function as an individual.”
So, dysfunctional people are not human? Zygotes and embryos are not parts of a woman’s body. They function on their own as their DNAs guide them. That’s a scientific fact.
“I believe that abortion is an option until the first trimester is over.”
Now it shows that you just don’t support contraception but also abortion. Let me inform you that abortion propagandists also started as pro-contraception and “anti-abortion”, then they gradually show their faces as advocates of first-tri abortion, then second-tri. Lastly, they said, “try again”, and pushed women to the limits of their confused consciences, then infanticide was introduced as a “good” thing.
“Conception may mean the beginning of life, but I do not believe it means life itself.”
This one is illogical. If you started a journey, will you say that you are not yet in the journey itself? When will you be – when you’re already at the middle?
This is not about religion, it just happened that you hate religion in your heart, and you believe that science (body of knowledge) and God (source of knowledge) are not compatible. Again, that is illogical.
“I determine my morality based on the following:
a. it doesn’t hurt other people
b. it is legal”
a. Who will determine whether you are hurt or not? You? Why would everybody believe you? If you are hurt, how come they feel the opposite while they are doing to you the things they want?
b. Legality came after morality. Murder is immoral even if it would become legal. You may say that it hurts others. Then again, who will determine who is hurt? Once more, consider the case of slaves.
“Passing this bill satisfies both.”
Wrong. It hurts many people and it is unconstitutional. Don’t you hear people saying, “Ouch” or you are deaf? Do you think there will be forums like this if nobody’s hurt?
“Lastly, I’m a lesbian and this bill obviously shouldn’t affect me.”
Not when rape becomes legalized; not when men – who has freedom to choose – choose to disrespect you as a result of the doctrines that this bill is attempting to brainwash everybody with; not when the State already adopted your basis of morality.
“LOOK AROUND, do people have enough discipline? We cannot control people anymore. We need to be practical. If the church doesn’t want contraception, so let them explain harder to the church-goers. But technically, we all have the freedom of choice. RH BILL IS A BIG STEP TO DEVELOPMENT.”
We cannot control people anymore? So what do you suggest, that if we cannot beat them, we join them?
Why will the Church shut its Teacher-mouth regarding a proposal that violates its members’ conscience, then explain “harder” why it is opposed to it afterward? Is that the way you apply your idea of practicality?
Freedom of choice is not a technical thing, it is inherent and innate. We all have that, so everybody should use it. But to use OUR tax money against our will, that is a grave violation of that freedom.
This is very simple — so simple that it is always ignored. You have your choice and you will always have it. If you want condoms, wear as many as you want; if you want pills, take as many as you want, no one will hinder you. Now, who do you want to buy them for you? The government? Will Noynoy and the congressmen buy it for you? Good for you if they will. Unfortunately, they will not. So, you need to buy it for yourself, which is just right. You want it, buy it — and buy a lot of it. The choice is always yours.
well then there you go, let’s filter out all methods/medicines and allow only those that act before conception, let’s make all ‘contraceptives that in some cases act as abortifacients’ illegal.
Yes, that could be one. But tax issue is another. No more babies will die from these contraceptives-abortificients but all true Catholics will still be violated if the government will use their tax pesos for contraceptive purposes. So another filtration will be made — between Catholic taxes and non-Catholic taxes.
Employers should also be filtered — those who are willing to supply contraceptives to their employees and those who are not.
Health care providers should also be classified into two — those who believe they can conscientiously do a contraceptive procedure like vasectomy and tubal ligation, and those who interpret this as a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.
Family organizations and associations should also be consulted first as mandated by the Constitution.
Section 21 of the bill should be entirely re-drafted because this is anti-democracy.
But then again, are these suggestions practicable? I don’t think so. PPF will not allow it; Lucile Packard will not allow it; PLCPD will not allow it, and so Edcel Lagman.
Hindi nakikialam ang Simbahan sa gawain ng pamahalaan, wala itong opisina o opisyal na impluwensya sa anumang sangay ng gobyerno; ang pinapakialaman ng Simbahan ay ang kapakanan ng mamamayan at ito ay kanyang moral na responsibilidad. Ang RH bill ang nakikialam sa gawain ng Simbahan.
“…forming attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, interpersonal relationships, affection, intimacy and gender roles. It also includes developing the necessary skills do be able to distinguish between facts and myths on sex and sexuality; and critically evaluate. and discuss the moral, religious, social and cultural dimensions of related sensitive issues such as contraception and abortion.” (Sec. 4h)
“Attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behavior…” (Sec. 12c)
“In the elementary level, reproductive health education shall focus, among others, on values formation.” (Sec. 12j).
These are duties of the Church and not of the State.
‘self-mastery’ would include the right to make your own choice. so if you take away someone’s right to choose, you take away their ‘self-mastery’, wouldn’t you think so?
Self mastery is “the conscious control of one’s behaviour”; it is going beyond one’s instincts and recognizing personhood — not letting the animal decide.
The right to make one’s choice, on the other hand, can make you choose not to master yourself.
Besides, in this country, everybody has his choice; he should be responsible about it, however.
“problem is, not all people are like you..self master”
So the solution is to remain slaves? With your statement, you are approving that to take away self-mastery is to take away humanity but you still want to present another option. Aside from being human, do we have another option? What is that? To be animals? What you’re really saying is that not all human beings can be humans.
“only people with access to right education can do that”
Only people with access to right education can be human? Hmmm…you have a point there, but if I am not mistaken, you are referring to scholastic education, which in reality is not really helping us that much when it comes to self-mastery or being human. Academic schools teach us academic skills, of course. Values education comes from home and church. It’s ironic that the RH bill even wants to snatch these right and duty from them – another reason why it should not be passed as a law. You don’t need lots of money to have morality. You can’t buy one anyway. Or else, I assume that you’re suggesting poor and uneducated people are automatically immoral or slave or not human.
“what is the solution to our growing problem of over population…?”
What is overpopulation, by the way? Who are the sources of that concept? Have you proven its existence? Can you show us the proof? Rather, it is because of its popularity that it became “true”. “If the US say it, it must be true!” In any problem, the first step is to prove that the problem exists. Now, if you will say that the country’s economic poverty is the proof of overpopulation, then the conclusion is wrong. A country is not poor because there are many people, and it is not rich because there are few people.
Think of this. If you are working 20 hours a day, would it automatically make you rich? No. Wage rate is a factor. Environment is a factor. Expenditure is a factor. Attitude towards money is a factor. And if you are being robbed everyday, will your P1-million-per-month income make you rich? Many in this country (and in other countries) are poor because some are too rich; because no one wants to be his brother’s keeper. (Now, don’t take the word “no one” literally.) If the wealth of the country is distributed with proper equation, nobody should be hungry. You might say, “Well, that’s a good dream that cannot come true.” Yes, it will not come true because instead of addressing the real problems, we choose to blame the issue to other things such as population and lack of resources, for the sake of convenience. If we are really looking for the true solution, the best thing is to open a table for suggestions, instead of ignoring everyone else and proposing family-related policies, violating the rights of families and family associations / organizations, and disrespecting the Law of the Land. Edcel Lagman and company’s behavior is surely not the answer, and is actually a very bad example.
the church has been preaching abstinence and self-disciple and whatever for decades now.
still, the statistics of premarital pregnancies and induced abortions are rising each year.
it clearly implies that the church’s methods are not working.
It clearly shows that only few heed the Church’s teachings, and thus the consequences. Are Americans sexually responsible? Is it not a fact that despite the general acceptance of contraception in that country, abortion is just an everyday thing? It even legalized abortion after legalizing contraception.
“If you cannot control yourself, the government’s gotta give you options.”
If you cannot control your kids from fighting, will you give them the option to use boxing gloves and fight each other to death? Will you also suggest that prostitution be legalized if rapists cannot control themselves like what they propose in South Africa? So, self-control is just an option now?
Haven’t you heard yet the saying, “Your freedom ends where my nose begins”?
Premarital is not immoral. It is immoral because that is what the Church wants you to say.
Wrong. It’s not the Church who determines which is right and which is wrong. Your teacher did not taught you that 1+1 is 2 just because he/she wants it to be the answer. Truth is objective and nobody can change it. The Church is a teacher and she relays (not determines) the truth. It is Jesus who says that fornication violates God. Well, I think you’re not a Christian that is why you don’t know it, but you should know better when it comes to respect, simply because you are human. You don’t want your wife or daughter or mother being used by other people (multiple in number, if sex outside of marriage is not wrong) for their selfish carnal pleasure. If premarital sex is fine, then extramarital and promiscuity is fine. If promiscuity is fine, then pornography is fine. If pornography is fine, the sex education with practical exams (e.g. petting, necking, intercourse, same-sex, and even pervert sexual acts) are fine. It would also follow that incest is fine, that child abuse is fine, and rape is fine. It’s ringing a bell. Doesn’t it the one being promoted by Planned Parenthood Federation — “Sexual Freedom”?
Now, is it just the Church? You say that premarital sex is not immoral because that is what you want it to be. Sorry, but it can’t be.
“another factor lang po ang over population!”
Ganito lang yan kasimple: Ang mga normal na tao at may sapat na gulang ay may kapasidad na gumawa hindi lamang para sa ikabubuhay ng sarili kundi ng mga umaasa sa kanila, tulad ng anak, asawa, at matatandang magulang. Kapag sinabi kong matatanda, ang tinutukoy ko ay yung mga wala na talagang kakayahan. Ang tawag sa mga taong nagtatrabaho ay workforce — ito ang bumubuhay sa isang bansa dahil dito nagmumula ang perang pinamamahalaan ng gobyerno. Kung maliit ang workforce, mababa ang production, mababa ang national income. Ngayon, ano ang isang bahagi ng buhay ng tao ang hindi maiiwasan, at laging makakaapekto sa pagliit ng bilang ng mga manggagawa? Ang sagot: pagtanda. Bawat segundo ay tumatanda ang tao, at hindi ito mapipigilan. Para maging matibay ang ekonomiya ng isang bansa, ang populasyon ng tao ay dapat na maging hugis tatsulok. Nasa bandang itaas ang matatanda at nasa pundasyon ang mga manggagawa at ang mga magiging manggagawa pa lang. Ibig sabihin, dapat laging mas marami ang mga kabataan at malalakas kaysa matatanda. Kung magiging 2 o 3 lang ang anak sa lahat ng pamilya, mabilis na darating ang araw na pabaligtad na ang ating tatsulok — mas marami na ang nasa itaas (matatanda at mahihina) kaysa mga nasa ibaba (manggagawa). Ganito na halos ang sitwasyon sa ibang bansa gaya ng Canada at Germany kaya ngayon ay nababahala na sila. Narinig nyo na siguro ang katakot-takot na privileges na ibinibigay ng pamahalaang Canada para sa malalaking pamilya! Kung kakaunti ang ipinapanganak, mas mabilis dadami ang mga pakakainin at aalagaan hanggang sa mamatay. Kung nasa gitna tayo ng tatsulok, ilang taon lang ay nasa itaas na rin tayo. Kung wala tayong sapat na kapalit, unti-unting uuga at babagsak ang pundasyon natin dahil mas mabigat ang mga nasa itaas. Simple lang, di ba? Naniniwala kasi tayo sa Estados Unidos na kailangan nating magbawas ng tao, gayung kitang-kita na ginagawa nila ito dahil natatakot sila para sa kanilang sariling seguridad, tulad ng takot ng Ehipto noong panahon ni Moises kung kaya pinapatay nya ang mga lalaking Israelitang sanggol. Hindi ba’t milyon-milyong sanggol din ang pinapatay ng America bawat taon? Ito ba ang bansa at kultura na pwede nating pagkatiwalaan? Ang nakakalungkot ay sa kabila ng harap-harapang katotohanang ito ay mas pinili pa rin natin maniwala sa mga taong pinaglalaruan lang tayo sa kanilang mga daliri.
“alam ko namang yung kurapsyon [ay dahilan ng kahirapan]!”
Halos wala nang pag-uusapan kung ganun. Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap. Hindi ba’t kaya pinagkakaguluhan natin ang populasyon ngayon ay dahil ito ang itinuturong sanhi ng kahirapan? Pero alam natin kung ano ang sanhi ng kahirapan, at ito ang dapat nating solusyunan.
“pero ang ponto ko ay kung kontrolado natin ang papolasyon maiibsan ang food shortage, criminal rate at ang uneployment!”
Ang pagkontrol sa dami ng anak ay responsibilidad ng mga magulang at hindi ng Estado. Ito ay isang bagay na halos walang kinalaman sa gobyerno. Kinikilala ng Saligang Batas ang karapatan ng mga magulang na magbuo ng pamilya ayon sa kanilang sariling paniniwala at relihiyosong disposisyon. Kung disiplinado ang mag-asawa at ang bawat indibidwal, hindi kailanman magiging totoo ang overpopulation. Isa pa, ang overpopulation ay isa lamang pabayang teyorya (Malthusian scare) na sinamantala ng mga propagandista para sa makasariling pakinabang.
Kahit isang bilyon ang budget mo sa isang araw, kung nanakawin lang din ito sa isang araw, wala itong silbi. Kahit patayin lahat ng tao sa bansa, kung ang yaman ay nasa bibig ng mga buwaya, hindi pa rin ito pakikinabangan ng mga iilang natirang buhay — patuloy pa rin silang magugutom.
“at isa pa dahil marami tayo kinakailangan na competative tayo for survival.”
Mga hayop lang ang nagkukumpetensya sa pagkain. Tayo ay mga tao na gumagawa ng sistema upang pamahalaan ang pangkalahatang kayamanan. Ang kawalan ng hanapbuhay ng iba ay hindi dahil marami na ang nag-aagawan sa iisang trabaho kundi dahil hindi sapat ang umiiral na sistema para mabigyang pansin ang lahat ng mamamayan.
i mean, it’s clear that many catholics are against this bill, but then a great percentage of catholics do support it too. so do we have to filter those out too?
That’s where the impracticality becomes more evident. Majority of Catholics are non-practicing ones. They always have a choice, though, whether to be with the Church or to go against the Church. If ever, this filtering thing becomes possible, they can always choose to be counted as one with those who want their taxes to be used for contraceptive purposes.
no matter. ultimately, wouldn’t it be the individual’s choice? i mean yeah let’s say my employer hands out a box of condoms, the bill doesn’t really state that i will be prosecuted if i don’t use it, right?
No, you miss it. Individuals always have the choice to use or not use whatever are being offered them, but the word “choice” is not for their employers.
“All Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers. In establishments or enterprises where there are no CBAs or where the employees are unorganized, the employer shall have the same obligation.” (Section 17)
The RH bill would even punish “Any employer who shall fail to comply with his obligation under Section 17…” (Section 21c)
You are missing something here.
You said: “…the proposed House Bill is not imposed on every Filipino citizen as a mandatory practice to be put into practice.”
I say: Contraception is not mandatory and it will not be. That’s off the question. It’s not even worth a mention. What you have missed is that tax is mandatory and this bill will be getting our tax money to buy contraceptives. In that sense, are we not obliged to do things that are against our will?
You said: “…it simply legalizes the use of certain reproductive methods for those who would want to avail of them and sanctions those health care service providers who would refuse to extend the necessary means or offer the corresponding services to those who would ask for them (cfr. RH Section 21).”
I say: First of, we are talking about contraceptive methods, not reproductive methods. Second, the bill does not intend to legalize the use of contraceptives; it is not illegal in the first place. What it wants is to allocate a budget for contraceptive drugs, devices, and services. The bill is all about budgets, by the way. Third, section 21 does not concern only the health care providers but anyone who will go against the intentions of the bill. When they say anyone, they mean anyone.
You said: “The RH Bill in many places respects freedom of choice and of conscience of single individuals.”
I say: You are implying that the bill respects freedom of choice and of conscience in some aspects but not in every aspect, and that you are okay with it. So, disrespect is sometimes acceptable? Let me inform you that the proponents of this bill does not know the meaning of respect (as you should have noticed), so they don’t know how to show it in any way. When they drafted the proposal, what they have in mind is money and not respect.
You said: “…the number and spacing of children are left to the sound judgment of parents and couples based on their personal conviction and religious beliefs.”
I say: The bill explicitly said that, “In the elementary level, reproductive health education shall focus, among others, on values formation,” and that “Reproductive Health Education curriculum shall cover (c.) Attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual health.” Values education and religious beliefs go hand in hand. You cannot accept both “contraceptive values” from the school and Catholic morality from the Church and from the parents. Your quote and my quote both came from the same document which hypocritically contradicts itself and deliberately deceives the reader.
You have quoted: “…provided that all conscientious objections of health care service providers based on religious grounds shall be respected.”
I quote: “Provided, further, That the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider…” If you really understand what you are reading, you will see the obvious contradiction of these two adjacent clauses. If you don’t want to cheat because you believe that it is wrong, would you be blameless if you ask somebody else to do it in your stead? Did you say the bill respects conscience?
The bill, as a whole, is nonsense. It tries to disguise its wickedness through the help of some acceptable proposals, which in reality are unnecessary ones. Basically, the proposal can be divided into two parts: evil ideas that must not be passed as a law, and benign ideas (which they hypocritically proposed) that should not be mixed with this bill. The strategy is cunning but unfortunately (or fortunately), the intent is very obvious.
“God did not get angry because Onan spilled his semen, but because he was selfish enough not to give his sister-in-law a child.”
Did I hear you say the word “selfish”? Isn’t this the same word that we are trying to point out? But you are always missing the point.
#53 – “It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally engage to conjugal infidelity or may lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrumental good of selfish achievement of pleasure, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.”
#68 – “Enemy’s version of sex is selfish, emotionally dangerous, and bad for humanity. The enemy offers an answer to this too, and led souls to avoid consequences by offering widespread contraception and abortion.”
#106 – “You don’t want your wife or daughter or mother being used by other people (multiple in number, if sex outside of marriage is not wrong) for their selfish carnal pleasure.” [my previous comment]
All this time, you haven’t had a clue that what we’re really talking about here is selfishness. You have even recourse to exegetes and the point is already right in front your nose, but you still missed it.
“mag parami kasi dalawa lang sila noon.Eh ngayon 6 Billiona na mahigit and the earth resources is not growing its even dwindling. Wag nating kalimutan na sinabi rin ng Panginoon kay Adam and Eve “subdue the earth” – meaning we should control it, not destroy it by overcrowding. Controlling the earth means make it sustainable for us. How can we sustain our existence if there not enough resources to feed us due to over population?”
Subdue means to manage within limits, it does not mean to contracept. At hindi bilang ng tao ang tinutukoy ng salitang ito kundi ang tao mismo – ang kanyang mga limitasyon. Hindi dapat maging abusado ang lahi ng tao. To manage your children does not necessarily mean to manage the number of your children, but to introduce discipline, moderation, and self-mastery.
Una, hindi sinasabi ng Simbahan na wag i-manage ang populasyon. Ang sinasabi niya ay maging bukas sa buhay. Kasabay nito, ipinapaalala niya na tungkulin ng mga magulang na bigyan ng sapat na edukasyon at pagpapalaki ang mga ipinagkatiwala ng Diyos. Ibig sabihin, kung sa palagay ng mag-asawa ay hindi nila kayang gampanan ang pagiging magulang sa maraming anak, kailangan nilang makipag-cooperate sa kalikasang pantao na ibinigay sa kanila ng Diyos.
Pangalawa, kahit ano pang sabihin ng US, ng ibang mga bansa, at ng mga taga-sunod nina Malthus, Darwin, at Sanger, matagal nang bumagsak ang alamat ng overpopulation.
Pangatlo, hindi sinabi ng Diyos na magpakarami dahil dadalwa pa lang ang tao noon. Kahit 10 milyon na sila noon, mananatili pa rin na pagpapala ang fertility at hindi ito kailanman magiging sumpa gaya ng turing dito ng marami ngayon. Kung susukatin mo ang mundo (o kahit ang Pilipinas lang), malayong-malayo ito sa sinasabing pagkapuno. Isang malaking pandaraya ang pagpapakita ng larawan ng isang siksikan na lugar na para bang ganito ang sitwasyon sa buong bansa. Ito ay isang intensyonal na panlilinlang. Ang ipinapakita nila ay mga urban area kung saan ang lahat ay nagsisiksikan dahil sa maling akala na dito may buhay. Ang sinabi ng Diyos ay hindi lamang magpakarami kundi punuin ang daigdig. Kahit sa panahon na mamamatay na ang mga kaapu-apuhan ng henerasyong ito, imposibleng mapuno ang mundo o kahit ang Pilipinas lang. Pero hindi ibig sabihin ay maaaring balewalain ng mga magulang ang pagpaplano tungkol sa pagsisilang; mananatili pa rin basehan ang kanilang kakayahang bigyan ng marangal na buhay at edukasyon ang kanilang mga anak.
Pang-apat, hindi totoo na kulang sa kayamanan ang mundo at ang ating bansa. Hanggat may mga taong namumuhay sa kalabisan, lagi itong mangangahulugan na ang dahilan ng kakulangan ng iba ay ang hindi balanseng pagamit ng yaman ng bansa.