Catholics Can Support The RH Bill In Good Conscience – Ateneo Professors’ Position Paper RH Bill 5043

read more on this here:

read other posts in this blog on this topic here:  http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/category/rh-bill-5043/

———–

CATHOLICS CAN SUPPORT THE RH BILL IN GOOD CONSCIENCE

(Position paper on the Reproductive Health Bill by individual faculty* of the Ateneo de Manila University)

(Note: The opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of other faculty. Neither do they represent the official position of the Ateneo de Manila University nor the Society of Jesus.)

We, individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University, call for the immediate passage of House Bill 5043 on “Reproductive Health and Population Development” (hereafter RH Bill) in Congress. After examining it in the light of Philippine social realities, and informed by our Christian faith, we have reached the conclusion that our country urgently needs a comprehensive and integrated policy on reproductive health and population development, as provided by the RH Bill. We also believe that the provisions of the bill adhere to core principles of Catholic social teaching: the sanctity of human life, the dignity of the human person, the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable, integral human development, human rights, and the primacy of conscience.

Catholic social theology since Vatican II has evolved, on the one hand, from the emphasis on order, social cohesiveness, the acceptance of some inequality, and obedience to authorityto the recognition, on the other, of the centrality of the human person, and the concomitant need for human freedom, equality, and participation (Pacem in Terris 1963, Octogesima Adveniens 1971). In the same way that Vatican II was a council for aggiornamento (renewal) for the universal Church, so too did the 1991 Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP-II) aim at the renewal of the Church in the Philippines. After a month of collectively studying and praying to discern the “signs of the times,” PCP-II declared: “As we approach the year 2000, Christ bids this communityourselves, the laity, religious and clergy of the Catholic Church in the Philippinesto be a Church of the Poor” (PCP-II Acts, no. 96).
As Catholics and Filipinos, we share the hope and mission of building a Church of the Poor. We are thus deeply disturbed and saddened by calls made by some members of the Catholic Church to reject a proposed legislation that promises to improve the wellbeing of Filipino families, especially the lives of women, children, adolescents, and the poor. Being a “Church of the Poor” urges us to be with and listen to the poor, so that their “joys and hopes… griefs and anxieties” become ours as well (Gaudium et Spes 1965, no. 1). We therefore ask those who denounce the RH Bill as “pro-abortion,” “anti-life,” “anti-women,” “anti-poor,” and “immoral” to consider the economic and social conditions of our people, as borne out by empirical evidence, and to recognize that the bill is, in fact, “pro-life,” “pro-women,” and “propoor.”

The Realities of Women and Their Children

No woman should die giving life. Yet, in the Philippines, 10 women die every 24 hours from almost entirely preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth (POPCOM 2000). Our maternal mortality rate continues to be staggeringly high, at 162 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births (National Statistics Office (NSO), 2006 Family Planning Survey (FPS)). More lives would certainly be saved if all women had access to good prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care.

The reality, however, is that 3 out of 10 Filipino women do not have the recommended number of prenatal care visits (at least 4); and 6 out of 10 women still deliver at home, where they rarely have access to a skilled birth attendant, or to quality obstetric services in case complications arise (NSO and ORC Macro 2004, 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS)). Moreover, because a woman’s life and wellbeing are inextricably linked to that of her child’s, it is not surprising that the country’s infant mortality and under-five mortality ratios remain also worrisome: for every 1,000 live births, 24 children die before they reach the age of one, and 32 children die before they reach the age of five (NSO, 2006 FPS).

Aside from poor maternal care, our alarming maternal mortality rate also stems from the high incidence of induced abortions. The silence on this topic shrouds the tragedy of many Filipino women who have resorted to it in desperation. An estimated 473,400 women had induced abortions in 2000, translating to an abortion rate of 27 abortions per 1,000 women aged 14-44, and an abortion ratio of 18 abortions per 100 pregnancies (Juarez, Cabigon, Singh and Hussain 2005). Abortion not only terminates the life of an unborn child but also imperils the life of the mother, especially if performed in unsafe clandestine clinics by untrained personnel, or induced by the woman herself, as is the case of poor women who cannot afford a surgical abortion, or the services of a traditional practitioner (hilot). Of the nearly half a million women who had abortions in 2000, 79,000, or 17 percent, wound up in hospitals as a result of abortion complications (ibid.). Induced abortions accounted for 12 percent of all maternal deaths in the Philippines in 1994 (ibid.), and is the fourth leading cause of maternal deaths.

Studies show that the majority of women who go for an abortion are married or in a consensual union (91%), the mother of three or more children (57%), and poor (68%) (Juarez, Cabigon, and Singh 2005). For these women, terminating a pregnancy is an anguished choice they make in the face of severe contraints. When women who had attempted an abortion were asked their reasons for doing so, their top three responses were: they could not afford the economic cost of raising another child (72%); their pregnancy occurred too soon after the last one (57%); and they already have enough children (54%). One in ten women (13%) who had attempted an abortion revealed that this was because her pregnancy resulted from forced sex (ibid.). Thus, for these women, abortion has become a family planning method, in the absence of information on and access to any reliable means to prevent an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. The fact is, our women are having more children than they desire, as seen in the gap between desired fertility (2.5 children) and actual fertility (3.5 children), implying a significant unmet need for reproductive health services (NSO and ORC Macro 2004, 2003 NDHS)

The importance of family planning to the lives of women and their children cannot be emphasized enough. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA n.d.) asserts that women’s access to effective contraception would avert 30 percent of maternal deaths, 90 percent of abortion-related deaths and disabilities, and 20 percent of child deaths. In the Philippines, however, women sorely lack adequate access to integrated reproductive health services. This stems mainly from an inconsistent national population policy which has always been dependent on the incumbent leader. For example, studies have pointed out that former President Fidel V. Ramos and then Health Secretary Juan Flavier showed strong support for family planning initiatives. In contrast, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appears to have an incoherent national population policy, because while she recognizes the need to reduce the country’s population growth rate, on the one hand, she relegates the responsibility of crafting, funding, and implementing population and reproductive health programs to local government units (LGUs), on the other. Thus, we are witness to uneven reproductive health and family planning policies and programs across LGUs: Whereas Aurora and the Mountain province, and Davao, Marikina, and Quezon Cities have put in place commendable RH policies and programs, a metropolitan city like Manila teeming with informal settlers had banned modern artificial methods of family planning under the administration of Mayor Joselito Atienza.

From the foregoing, it is easy to understand why the contraceptive prevalence rate of the Philippines is only 50.6 percent (NSO, 2006 FPS). This means that only a little over half of married women use any family planning (FP) method, whether traditional FP (14.8%), modern natural or NFP (0.2%), or modern artificial FP (35.6%). And yet an overwhelming majority of Filipinos (92%) believe that it is important to manage fertility and plan their family, and most (89%) say that the government should provide budgetary support for modern artificial methods of family planning, including the pill, intra-uterine devices (IUDs), condoms, ligation, and vasectomy (Pulse Asia, 2007 Ulat ng Bayan survey on family planning). In another survey, the majority (55%) of respondents said that they are willing to pay for the family planning method of their choice (Social Weather Stations, 2004 survey on family planning).

The evidence is clear: Our women lack reproductive health care, including information on and access to family planning methods of their choice. Births that are too frequent and spaced too closely take a delibitating toll on their health, so that many of them die during pregnancy or at childbirth. Some of them, despairing over yet another pregnancy, seek an abortion, from which they also dieand along with them, their unborn child too.

The sanctity of human life and the dignity of the human person
The Catholic Church proclaims that every human person is created in the image and likeness of God, as well as redeemed by Christ. Therefore, each person’s life and dignity is sacred and must be respected. “Every violation of the personal dignity of the human being cries out in vengeance to God and is an offense against the creator of the individual,” according to Christifideles Laici (1988, no. 37). Indeed, we should measure every institution by whether it threatens or enhances the life and dignity of the human personwhether that individual is a woman agonizing over her ninth pregnancy, or an unborn child in a mother’s womb.

The RH Bill as pro-life and pro-women
We support the RH Bill because it protects life and promotes the wellbeing of families, especially of women and their children. Contrary to what its detractors say, the RH Bill is not “pro-abortion,” “anti-life,” or “anti-women.” With “respect for life” as one of its guiding principles (sec. 2), the bill unequivocally states that it does not seek to “change the law on abortion, as abortion remains a crime and is punishable” (sec. 3.m). It can be argued, in fact, that in guaranteeing information on and access to “medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality” natural and modern family planning methods (sec. 2), the bill seeks “to prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies” (sec. 5.k)the main cause of induced abortions. The RH Bill is also pro-life and pro-women because it aims to reduce our maternal
mortality rate, currently so high (at 162 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births) that the government has admitted that it is unlikely to meet the Millennium Development Goal target of bringing it down by three-fourths (to 52 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births) by 2015 (NEDA and UNCT 2007). For example, section 6 of the bill enjoins every city and municipality to endeavor “to employ adequate number of midwives or other skilled attendants to achieve a minimum ratio of one (1) for every one hundred fifty (150) deliveries per year.” Section 7 instructs each province and city to seek to establish, for every 500,000 population, “at least one (1) hospital for comprehensive emergency obstetric care and four (4) hospitals for basic emergency obstetric care.” Section 8 mandates “all LGUs, national and local government hospitals, and other public health units [to] conduct maternal death review.”

Moreover, the RH Bill’s definition of “reproductive health care” goes beyond the provision of natural and modern family planning information and services, to include a wide array of other services (sec. 4.g). These include: maternal, infant, and child health and nutrition; promotion of breastfeeding; prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications; adolescent and youth health; sexual and reproductive health education for couples and the youth; prevention and management of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmittable infections (STIs); treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers and other gynecological conditions; fertility interventions; elimination of violence against women; and male involvement and participation in reproductive health. We therefore ask, How then can the RH Bill be violative of human life and dignity?

To reiterate, because reproductive health is central to women’s overall health, fundamental aspects of women’s wellbeing are compromised when reproductive health is ignored. The conditions under which choices are made are as important as the actual content of women’s choices: the right to choose is meaningful only if women have real power to choose.

The Conditions of Poor Families

Poverty is a multi-faceted phenomenon caused by inter-related factors: the weak and boom-and-bust cycle of economic growth; inequities in the distribution of income and assets and in the access to social services; bad governance and corruption; the lack of priority accorded to agriculture including agrarian reform; the limited coverage of safety nets and targeted poverty reduction programs; and armed conflict. However, there is no question that poverty in the Philippines is exacerbated by our rapid population growth (Alonzo et al. 2004, Pernia et al. 2008), which, at 2.04 percent, is one of the highest in Asia. A close association exists between our country’s chronic poverty and rapid population growth, as the latter diminishes overall economic growth and blights the prospects of poverty reduction. Curbing our population growth rate is thus a requisite of sound economic policy and effective poverty reduction strategy, and needs to be undertaken with the same vigor we would exert in fighting corruption, improving governance, or redistributing resources.

Turning once again to the conditions of our people, surveys have established the strong association between household size and poverty incidence. Women aged 40-49 in the poorest quintile bear twice as many children, at six children per woman, compared to an average of three children for women in the richest quintile (NSO and ORC Macro 2004, 2003 NDHS). The same pattern is seen when one considers the woman’s educational background: women aged 40-49 with no education (invariably because they are extremely poor) give birth to an average of 6.1 children, whereas women with college or higher education have three children on average (ibid.)

The sad fact is, whereas women in the richest quintile, who have three children on average, are able to achieve their desired number of children (2.7 children), the poorest do not. Women in the lowest quintile, who bear an average of six children, have at least two children more than their ideal number (3.5). The inability of women in the poorest quintile to achieve the number of children they want stems from their high unmet need for family planning, which, at 26.7 percent, is more than twice as high as the unmet need of women in the richest quintile, at 12.3 percent (ibid.).

In addition, studies have noted an inverse relationship between family size and household wellbeing. In particular, an increase in family size is accompanied by a decrease in per capita income, a decrease in per capita savings, and a decrease in per capita expenditures on education and health. Applying standard statistical techniques to indicators of household wellbeing in the 2002 Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS), Orbeta (2005) notes that small families with four members enjoy twice as much income per capita, at P18,429 per annum, compared to large families with nine or more members, at P8,935. Annual savings per capita also declines from P2,950 for a four-member household, to P1,236 for a nine or more-member household.

Expenditures on education and health are good indicators of a family’s investment on the wellbeing of its members. Based on the 2002 APIS, small households with four members spend 2 ½ times more on the education of each child in school, at P1,787 per student, compared to large households with nine or more members, where annual education expenditure per student is only P682. Similarly, four-member households spend nearly thrice as much on the health of each member, at P438, in contrast to nine or more-member households, where annual health expenditure per capita is only P150. These figures reveal that as household size increases, a family needs to spread its resources more thinly, thus investing less on the education and health of each member. This has deleterious consequences on human capital and income-earning potential (Orbeta 2005).

Moreover, as family size increases, school attendance of its members drops. The proportion of school-age members 6 to 24 years old who attend school declines from 67.9 percent for four-member households, to 65.6 percent for nine or more-member households (2002 APIS survey, cited in Orbeta 2005). The prevalence of child labor is also associated with household size. Working children’s families tend to be larger (7-11 members) than those of nonworking children (2-5 members) (Del Rosario and Bonga 2000).

In summary, poor households typically have more children than they aspired to have, as a result of a high unmet need for family planning. A large family size strains a poor family’s capacity to earn, save, and provide education and health care for its members. This diminishes children’s human capital and income-earning potential, and explains why poverty tends to be transmitted and perpetuated from one generation to the next.

The preferential option for the poor and integral human development
Scripture teaches us that God has a special concern for the poor and vulnerable. Similarly, the Church calls on all of us, followers of Christ, who was himself poor, to take on this preferential option for the poor and vulnerable. This is eloquently expressed in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium (1964): “Just as Christ carried out the work of redemption in poverty and oppression, so the Church is called to follow the same path…. [T]he Church encompasses with her love all those who are afflicted by human misery and she recognizes in those who are poor and who suffer, the image of her poor and suffering founder. She does all in her power to relieve their need and in them she strives to serve Christ” (no. 8).

Embracing the preferential option for the poor asks us to look at the world from the perspective of the poor, and create conditions for them to be heard, defended against injustices, and provided opportunities for their empowerment and attainment of the fullness of human life. An interrelated principle of Catholic social teaching is that of integral human development, which asserts that the whole person, and every person in society, must be allowed to develop to his or her full potential. As Pope Paul VI says in Populorum Progressio (1967): “Development cannot be limited to mere economic growth. In order to be authentic, it must be complete: integral, that is, it has to promote the good of every man and of the whole man” (no. 14). This is imperative because “[i]n God’s plan, every man is born to seek fulfillment…. At birth, a human being possesses certain aptitudes and abilities in germinal form, and these qualities are to be cultivated so they may bear fruit” (no. 15).

The RH Bill as pro-poor
We therefore support the RH Bill because we believe that it will help the poor develop and expand their capabilities, so as to lead more worthwhile lives befitting their dignity and destiny as human beings. It is unconscionable that while the richest in our society are able to attain the number of children that they desire and can support, the poorest, on the other hand, are left struggling to break the chain of intergenerational poverty caused partly by a large family size that impairs their capacity to feed, educate, and take care of their children.

The RH Bill has a number of provisions that are explicitly pro-poor, such as section 11 mandating each Congressional District to undertake the “acquisition, operation and maintenance” of “a van to be known as the Mobile Health Care Service (MHCS) to deliver care, goods and services to its constituents, more particularly to the poor and needy [italics ours], as well as disseminate knowledge and information on reproductive health.” However, we would like to focus our attention on the pro-poor benefits offered by section 1, which states that “[t]he State… guarantees universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health care services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information thereon even as it prioritizes the needs of women and children, among other underprivileged sectors [italics ours].”

In relation to the above, section 8 of the RH bill defines contraceptives as essential medicines, in recognition that family planning reduces the incidence of maternal and infant mortality. By placing “hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other allied reproductive health products and supplies” under the category of “essential medicines and supplies,” they shall thus be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national and local hospitals and other government health units. Moreover, section 9 of the bill guarantees hospital-based family planning for contraceptive methods requiring hospital services. These include tubal ligation, vasectomy, and intrauterine device insertion, which shall be made available in all national and local government hospitals. For “indigent patients,” these services “shall be fully covered by PhilHealth insurance and/or government financial assistance.”

Treating contraceptives as essential medicines and guaranteeing hospital-based family planning will make family planning products, supplies, and procedures available at all national and local government hospitals. This is a decidedly pro-poor measure, in view of the fact that the majority (58.1%) of Filipinos who use modern artificial family planning methods rely on the government for their supply of contraceptives (NSO, 2006 FPS). Thus, by expanding Filipinos’ access to the family planning method (whether modern NFP or modern artificial FP, “with no bias for either”) that is best suited to their needs and personal convictions, the RH Bill has the real potential to make safe and reliable family planning available to all Filipinos, and not only to the 50.6 percent practicing it in one way or another (ibid.). This becomes more important in light of the government’s acknowledgment that it has a “low probability” of meeting the Millennium Development Goal target of raising the country’s contraceptive prevalence rate from 50.6 percent in 2006 to 80 percent in 2015 (NEDA and UNCT 2007).

To recapitulate, the RH Bill does not only safeguard life by seeking to avert abortions and maternal and infant deaths. It also promotes quality of life, by enabling couples, especially the poor, to bring into the world only the number of children they believe they can care for and nurture to become healthy and productive members of our society.

The Situation of Our Youth

As parents and guardians of our 15.1 million youth aged 15-24 (Ericta 2003), our greatest challenge is to provide them a safe and nurturing environment where they can study and learn, forge friendships, develop their innate talents, and be guided into responsible citizenship. It might therefore cause us some shock and sadness to know that our youth are increasingly becoming involved in sexual risk-taking behavior. This includes premarital sex and unprotected sex, which may result in unintended pregnancy, or in contracting HIV-AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Comparing data from the Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality surveys of 1994 (YAFSS2) and 2002 (YAFSS 3) involving youth aged 15-24 reveals that the prevalence of premarital sexual activity increased by 5.6 percentage points, from 17.8 percent in 1994 to 23.4 percent in 2002. Even more dramatic was the change over time among youth who said that they have friends who have engaged in premarital sex. In 1994, only 42.5 percent of the youth claimed that they have sexually-experienced unmarried friends. Eight years later in 2002, more than half (53.8%) reported having such friends (Marquez and Galban 2004, citing the University of the Philippines Population Institute (UPPI) and the Demographic Research and Development Foundation (DRDF), 1994 YAFSS 2 and 2002 YAFSS 3).

The 2002 YAFS survey also shows that 11.8 percent of the youth had their first sexual encounter within the ages of 15 to 19, compared to only 8.1 percent in 1994 (Raymundo and Cruz 2003, citing the 1994 YAFSS 2 and 2002 YAFSS 3). Moreover, the average age for the first sexual encounter of the youth declined from 18 years in 1994, to 17.5 years in 2002. Thus, it appears that more of our youth are getting initated into sex at increasingly younger ages.

What is particularly worrisome is how the majority of our youth who have had premarital sex did not intend to do so during their first sexual encounter. Of the youth who have had premarital sex, only 43 percent wanted their first sexual experience to happen. The rest of the 57 percent either said that they did not plan for their sexual encounter to occur but went along with it anyway (55%), or revealed that their first sexual experience happened against their will, which is tantamount to rape (2%) (POPCOM and UNFPA 2003, citing the 2002 YAFSS 3). Because the first premarital sex act is usually unplanned, it is typically unprotected. Nearly four in five (79%) youth who have had premarital sex did not use a contraceptive during their first sexual experience, compared to only one in five (21%) who did. Comparatively, protection was higher among the males (27.5%) than the females (14.8%), rendering the latter extremely vulnerable to unplanned pregnancy (Raymundo and Cruz 2003, citing the 2002 YAFSS 3).

Even more alarming is how the youth continue to fail to use any form of contraception in their subsequent sexual encounters. Of the sexually-active unmarried youth, three in four (75.1%) did not have any protection during their most recent premarital sex act, as against only one in four (24.9%) who did (Raymundo and Cruz 2003, citing the 2002 YAFSS 3). The reasons mentioned by the youth in 2002 for not using contraceptives, in declining order of importance, are: lack of knowledge on contraception; the belief that contraception is either wrong (against one’s religion) or dangerous to one’s health; objection of the partner; and the view that sex is not fun with contraception. And yet when female respondents who had already engaged in sex were asked in the 1994 YAFS survey if they were willing and prepared to become parents, an overwhelming 94 percent of them said that they were not (POPCOM 2002, citing the 1994 YAFSS 2).

From the foregoing, it is apparent that much of our youth’s risky sexual behavior stems from their lack of knowledge on sex. Although 70 percent of our youth are aware that a woman could get pregnant only after she begins menstruation, the vast majority (80%) of young females do not know the fertile period of their menstrual cycle. Close to half of our youth are unaware that it is possible for a woman to get pregnant after only one sexual encounter (POPCOM and UNFPA 2003). In addition, our youth have many misconceptions about HIV-AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), such as: AIDS is curable (72.7%); AIDS is a punishment from God meted on people who had sex outside of marriage (35.1%); and AIDS is contracted only by those who have multiple sex partners (27.8%) (Laguna 2004, citing the 2002 YAFSS 3). Our youth’s increased sexual activity, notwithstanding their insufficient understanding of reproductive health and their sexual rights and responsibilities, can lead to adverse outcomes, such as unwanted pregnancy and contracting sexually transmitted diseases. The life script of a female who had early sex is invariably written as a plot of early marriage, aborted schooling, curtailed work opportunities, frequent pregnancies, and sometimes separation, abortions, and even early death. The 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey reveals that 26 percent of young women aged 15-24 years have begun childbearing, of whom 8 percent are teenagers aged 15-19 years. Many pregnancies among females in the 15-24 age bracket are unintended, resulting in abortions for some. Based on a 2004 nationwide survey of married and unmarried women aged 15-49, 46 percent of abortion attempts occur among young women, of which 30 percent are attempted by women aged 20-24, and 16 percent by teenagers aged 15-19 (Juarez, Cabigon, and Singh 2005).

Moreover, because early pregnancies are high-risk cases, many young women and adolescents die in pregnancy, at birth, or shortly after birth. Young women including teenage mothers accounted for 25.4 percent of the total 1,833 maternal deaths reported in 2004, of which 18.4 percent were deaths of young mothers aged 20-24; 6.6 percent, adolescent mothers 15-19 years old; and 0.4 percent, teenage mothers under 15 (NSO 2004). In addition, almost a third, or 30.4 percent, of the total 10,351 fetal deaths recorded in 2005 were experienced by young women 24 years old and below, of whom 22.8 percent were aged 20-24, 7.6 percent were 15-19 years old, and 0.01 percent were under 15 (NSO 2005).

From whom should our young people learn about reproductive health, sexuality, and responsible sexual behavior? Socialization agents such as the family, peer group, church, religion and the media are crucial to the youth’s development, as they impart the values and norms of behavior acceptable to one’s society. However, officials of the Catholic Church have strongly opposed the inclusion of sex education in the curriculum of public schools, arguing that doing so would arouse young people’s curiosity about sex, encourage them to try premarital sex, and promote their promiscuity.

It is important to note that as early as 1972, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) already had a module for sex education in elementary and high school called Population Education (POPED). Over the years, this module has been revised to adapt to changing times. However, in 2006, Catholic bishops assailed the introduction of a new module on adolescent reproductive health being developed by the Department of Education (DepEd), causing the Arroyo administration to back off from its trial run of the revised RH module. The Catholic Church has consistently maintained that the instruction of sex and sexuality to children should be the primary responsibility of the family, and of parents, in particular.

While it would certainly be ideal for families and parents to be their children’s most important source of information on sex and sexuality, this is hardly the case. Studies show that children are not very comfortable talking to their parents about itand vice versa. Based on the Catholics can support the RH Bill in good conscience: Position paper on the RH Bill 10 2002 Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality survey, only 15.7 percent of the youth aged 15-24 freely talk about sex at home with their family (Marquez and Galban 2004, citing the 2002 YAFSS 3). And if sex is even discussed by parents with their children, it is usually to admonish the latter not to do “it.” However, young people need to raise their questions and feelings about sex and their sexuality. If they are ill at ease doing this with their parents or other family members, they then turn to their peers, who are not the most reliable sources of information on sex, even as a considerable number of them engage in it. In addition, the youth seek information on sex from the media, which has been described as young people’s “surrogate parents.” The 2002 YAFS survey reveals that the youth learn about sex from pornographic materials. The majority (55%) of the youth have viewed x-rated films, whereas 39 percent have accessed pornographic reading materials (POPCOM and UNFPA 2003, citing the 2002 YAFSS 3).

In sum, although our youth are having their sexual debut at increasingly younger ages, they do so bereft of sufficient knowledge on reproductive health, particularly the consequences of early and unprotected sex. Curious and eager to know more about sex, they seek information from unreliable sources like their peers and pornographic materials, unable as they are to get that from socialization agents like their family or school. Worse, some of them learn about sex from actual experience, without fully knowing how one could get pregnant or contract sexually transmitted diseases. Access to accurate and appropriate information and services on many aspects of sexual behavior, reproductive health, and sexuality is thus needed by our adolescents and youth, in light of increasingly risky sexual behavior among a significant number of them.

The right to be informed
Recent Catholic social theology has recognized the centrality of the human person, and, relatedly, has declared the “identification and proclamation of human rights [as] one of the most significant attempts to respond effectively to the inescapable demands of human dignity” (Dignitatis Humanae 1965, no. 1). Pope John XXIII, in Pacem in Terris (1963), was the first to articulate a set of human rights, foremost of which is the “right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularlly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services” (no. 11).

One human right that has received abundant attention in Catholic social teachings is the right to be informed and to form opinions. The Second Vatican Council and the popes since Pope John XXIII have all stressed this right to information as essential for the individual and for society in general. In Pacem in Terris (1963), Pope John XXIII says, “[Man] has a right to freedom in investigating the truth” (no. 12). Similar to Pacem in Terris, the Second Vatican Council, in its document, Gaudium et Spes (1965), identifies a set of rights as necessary for a truly human life, including “the right to education… to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one’s own conscience… and to rightful freedom even in matters religious” (no. 26). Pope John Paul II, in Centesimus Annus (1991), likewise calls attention to “the right to develop one’s intelligence and freedom in seeking and knowing the truth” (no. 47).

The RH Bill as supportive of the youth’s right to information
Being educators, we are in favor of the RH Bill’s intent to offer “age-appropriate reproductive health education” to our children and youth. We affirm that this is key to providing young people the information and values they would need, not only to take care of their reproductive and sexual health, but also to arrive at sound and responsible decisions regarding their sexuality, sexual behavior, and family life, whether now or in the future.

In asserting the need for reproductive health education in schools, we are not negating the primary role of parents in educating their children on sex. We believe that families should provide the environment where children can raise their questions, feelings, and needs regarding sex. However, we also recognize that such discussions, in reality, rarely happen, with only, at best, one in five of the youth (15.7%) saying that they can talk about sex at home (2002 YAFSS 3). Given this, reproductive health education in schools becomes all the more imperative.

We share neither the view nor the fear that discussing sex in schools will make adolescents prurient and promiscuous. Rather, we trust that our youth have the capacity to make intelligent and value-driven choices regarding their sexuality and sexual behavior. As teachers, we believe that knowledge is empowering, and thus uphold our youth’s right to information and education on sex and reproductive health. We would like to empower them to make responsible decisions now and in the future, first by providing them correct and sufficient information on reproductive and sexual health, and second, by helping them identify, articulate, and deal with their issues and sentiments regarding sex and their sexuality.

An examination of section 12 of the RH Bill shows that reproductive health education, as envisioned, will promote values espoused by Philippine society in general, and Catholicism, in particular. “Responsible sexuality” (sec. 12.i.) and “abstinence before marriage” (sec. 12.g)and not sexual promiscuitywill be encouraged, even as RH education seeks to create opportunities for young people to air out their “attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual health” (sec. 12.c). Respect for the sanctity of life will be stressed by the RH education’s “proscription [against abortion]” and lessons on the “hazards of abortion” (sec.12.d). “Responsible parenthood” (sec. 12.e), another key Filipino value, will likewise be emphasized, through, among others, discussions on the “use and application of natural family planning methods to promote reproductive health, achieve desired family size and prevent unwanted, unplanned and mistimed pregnancies” (sec. 12.f).

And who can argue against the need to instill in our children the value of “reproductive health care” (sec. 12.b), or the importance of their “reproductive health and sexual rights” (sec. 12.a)? Will our youth not benefit from being taught about the “prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other STIs/STDs, prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer and other gynecological disorders” (sec. 12.h)? Will our young women not become more prepared for motherhood as a result of being educated on “maternal, peri-natal and post-natal education, care and services” (sec. 12.j)? And in case we are worried that our children in elementary school will be taught sex lessons beyond the grasp of their tender minds, we can lay our fears to rest. The RH Bill provides for “age-appropriate reproductive health education” starting from Grade Five up to Fourth Year High School, to be taught by “adequately trained teachers.” This implies that preteeners will study only such topics as the parts of the reproductive system, and proper hygiene and care of one’s body.

In sum, we believe that by upholding our youth’s right to information and education on reproductive health, we are contributing to their development into adults who will exercise their reproductive health and sexual rights, and plan their future families, with great responsibility. We close with this reassuring quote from the United Nations Population Fund: “It has been repeatedly shown that sex education leads to responsible behaviour, higher levels of abstinence, later initiation of sexuality, higher use of contraception, and fewer sexual partners. These good effects are even greater when the parents can talk honestly with their children as well” (UNFPA 2008).

A Call of Conscience: Catholics in Support of the RH Bill

After studying the provisions of House Bill 5043 in the light of the realities of Filipino women, poor families, and our youth, we, individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University, speaking for ourselves and not for the University, have come to conclude that the Philippines urgently needs a national policy on reproductive health and population development. We therefore strongly support the RH Bill’s immediate passage in Congress.

We further believe that it is possible for Catholics like ourselves to support HB 5043 in good conscience, even as we recognize, with some anguish, that our view contradicts the position held by some of our fellow Catholics, including our bishops. We are aware that they have denounced it as “pro-abortion,” “anti-life,” “anti-women,” “anti-poor,” and “immoral.” However, our reason, informed by our faith, has led us to believe and say otherwise.

We assert that RH Bill is pro-life, pro-women, pro-poor, pro-youth, and pro-informed choice. By giving couples, and especially women, information on and access to “medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality” family planning methods (whether modern natural or modern artificial), the RH Bill seeks to avert unwanted, unplanned, and mistimed pregnancies, which are the root cause of induced abortions. In that sense, the bill is not only pro-life but also pro-women, because it helps them to plan the number and spacing of their children, so as not to experience frequent and closely-spaced pregnancies that take a toll on their health and wellbeing. Moreover, the RH Bill seeks to improve maternal and infant health by enjoining cities and municipalities to provide an adequate number of skilled birth attendants as well as hospitals rendering comprehensive emergency obstetric care.

HB 5043 is pro-poor because it makes contraceptives (including those requiring hospital services) more accessible and cheaper for Filipinos, especially for the poorest 20 percent, who have the highest unmet need for family planning (26.7%), and 2.5 children more than they desire and are able to feed, clothe, and send to school. The bill is also pro-youth, because it seeks to provide our young people the information and values they would need in taking care of their reproductive health, and in making responsible decisions regarding their sexuality, sexual behavior, and future family life.

Furthermore, the RH Bill is pro-informed choice. In seeking to promote both modern natural and modern artificial methods of family planning (with “no bias for either”), HB 5043 recognizes that couples, especially women, have the right to choose the family planning method that they consider to be the safest and most effective for them, provided that these are legally permissible. Although natural family planning (NFP), which the Catholic Church promotes, offers many benefits, it is important to realize that pursuing an NFP-only population policy will be a disservice, if not a grave injustice, to women and couples for whom NFP simply cannot work. We are thinking of women who find it impossible to predict their infertile periods; or couples who see each other on an irregular basis; or women who are trapped in abusive relationships with men who demand sex anytime they want it. Why is it morally wrong for such women and couplesand even others not encompassed by the above situationsto use a modern artificial family planning method that has been pronounced safe and non-abortifacient by health authorities, if their discernment of their particular situation has led them to conclude that such a method will enable them to fulfill the demands of marital love and responsible parenthood?

At his trial, Thomas More stressed the sacredness of conscience when he said: “[I]n things touching conscience, every true and good subject is more bound to have respect to his said conscience and to his soul than to any other thing in all the world besides.” Catholic social teachings similarly recognize the primacy of the well-formed conscience over wooden compliance to directives from political and religious authorities. Gaudium et Spes (1965) tells us: “In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged” (no. 16).

We respect the consciences of our bishops when they promote natural family planning as the only moral means of contraception, in adherence to Humanae Vitae (1968), which teaches that married couples who want to control and space births should “take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile” (no. 16). In turn, we ask our bishops to respect the one in three (35.6%) married Filipino women who, in their “most secret core and sancturary” or conscience, have decided that their and their family’s interests would best be served by using a modern artificial means of contraception. Is it not possible that these women and their spouses were obeying their well-informed and well-formed consciences when they opted to use an artificial contraceptive?

We therefore ask our bishops and fellow Catholics not to block the passage of HB 5043, which promotes women’s and couples’ access to the full range of safe, legal, and effective modern natural and modern artificial family planning methods, from which they can choose the one most suitable to their needs and personal and religious convictions. To campaign against the bill is to deny our people, especially our women, many other benefits, such as maternal and child health and nutrition; promotion of breastfeeding; adolescent and youth health; reproductive health education; prevention and management of gynecological conditions; and provision of information and services addressing the reproductive health needs of marginalized sectors, among others. In pursuit of the common good, or the “sum total of social conditions which allow people… to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” (Gaudium et Spes 1965, no. 26), we call on the Catholic Church to let the RH Bill pass in Congress, and to consider forging a principled collaboration with the government in the promotion of natural family planning which Humanae Vitae deems morally acceptable, and in the formation of consciences with emphasis on the value of responsible sex and parenthood.

To our fellow Catholics who, in good conscience, have come to conclude, as we have, that we need a reproductive health law: we ask you to declare your support for HB 5043.

Finally, we call on our legislators in Congress and in the Senate to pass the RH Bill. Doing so upholds the constitutional right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions; honors our commitments to international covenants; and promotes the reproductive health and reproductive rights of Filipinos, especially of those who are most marginalized on this issueour women, poor families, and youth.

15 October 2008

References
Alonzo, Ruperto P., Arsenio M. Balisacan, Dante B. Canlas, Joseph J. Capuno, Ramon L. Clarete, Rolando A. Danao, Emmanuel S. de Dios, Benjamin E. Diokno, Emmanuel F. Esguerra, Raul V. Fabella, Ma. Socorro Gochoco-Bautista, Aleli P. Kraft, Felipe M. Medalla, Nimfa F. Mendoza, Solita C. Monsod, Cayetano W. Paderanga, Jr., Ernesto M. Pernia, Stella A. Quimbo, Gerardo P. Sicat, Orville C. Solon, Edita A. Tan, and Gwendolyn R. Tecson. 2004 (Dec.). Population and poverty: The real score. University of the Philippines School of Economics (UPSE) Discussion Paper No. 0415.

Del Rosario, Rosario, and Melinda A. Bonga. 2000. Child labor in the Philippines: A review of selected studies and policy papers. Manila: University of the Philippines, Australian Agency for International Development, and United Nations Children’s Fund.

Ericta, Carmelita. 2003. The Filipino youth: A statistical profile. Paper presented at the 5th National Social Science Congress, Diliman, Quezon City, 15-17 May 2003.

Juarez, Cabigon, and Singh. 2005. Unwanted pregnancies in the Philippines: The route to induced abortion and health consequences. Paper presented at the 25th International Union for the Scientific Study of Population General Conference, Tours, France, 18-23 July 2005.

________, Cabigon, Singh and Hussain 2005. The incidence of induced abortion in the Philippines: Current level and recent trends. International Family Planning Perspectives 31 (3) (September): 140-149.

Laguna, Elma P. 2004. Knowledge of HIV/AIDS and unsafe sex practices among Filipino youth. Paper presented at 2004 Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Boston, Massachusetts, 1-3 April 2004.

Marquez and Galban. 2004. Getting hotter, going wilder?: Changes in sexual risk-taking behavior among Filipino youth. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Philippine Studies, Leiden, The Netherlands, 16-19 June 2004.

National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and the United Nations Country Team (UNCT). 2007. Philippines midterm progress report on the Millennium Development Goals. Philippines: NEDA.

National Statistics Office (NSO). 2003. 2002 Annual poverty indicators survey: Final report. Manila, Philippines: [NSO].

________. 2004. Number of maternal deaths by age group and cause of death: 2004. Available at http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/2004/md0402.htm; Internet; accessed 28 September 2008.

________. 2005. Number and percent distribution of fetal deaths by legitimacy status and age group: 2005. Available at http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/2005/fd0501.htm; Internet; accessed 28 September 2008.

________. 2007. Prevalence rate for modern methods unchanged at 36 percent (Results from the 2006 Family Planning Survey). Available at http://www.census.gov.ph/ data/ pressrelease/2007/pr0730tx.html; Internet; accessed 19 September 2008.

________ and ORC Macro. 2004. Philippines national demographic and health survey 2003. Manila, Philippines: NSO, and Calverton, Maryland: ORC Macro.

Orbeta, Jr. Aniceto C. 2005. Poverty, vulnerability and family size: Evidence from the Philippines. ADB Discussion Paper No. 29 (June).

Pernia, Ernesto M. Stella Alabastro-Quimbo, Maria Joy V. Abrenica, Ruperto P. Alonzo, Agustin L. Arcenas, Arsenio M. Balisacan, Dante B. Canlas, Joseph J. Capuno, Ramon L. Clarete, Rolando A. Danao, Emmanuel S. de Dios, Aleli dela Paz-Kraft, Benjamin E. Diokno, Emmanuel F. Esguerra, Raul V. Fabella, Maria Socorro Gochoco-Bautista, Teresa J. Ho, Felipe M. Medalla, Maria Nimfa F. Mendoza, Solita C. Monsod, Toby Melissa C. Monsod, Fidelina Natividad-Carlos, Cayetano W. Paderanga, Gerardo P. Sicat, Orville C. Solon, Edita A. Tan, and Gwendolyn R. Tecson. 2008 (11 Aug.). Population, Poverty, Politics and the Reproductive Health Bill. University of the Philippines School of Economics.

Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. 2004. Compendium of the social doctrine of the Church. Intramuros, Manila: Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, and Makati, Metro Manila: Word & Life Publications.

Population Commission (POPCOM). 2000. State of the Philippine population report, 1st issue: Time to act: Needs, options, decisions. Philippines, Mandaluyong City: POPCOM.

________. 2002. Philippines Country Report: Fifth Asian and Pacific Population Conference. Held in Bangkok, Thailand, 11-17 December 2002. Philippines, Mandaluyong City: POPCOM.

________ and United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). 2003. State of the Philippine population report, 2nd issue: Making choices, building voices. Philippines, Mandaluyong City: POPCOM and UNFPA

Pulse Asia. 2007. March 2007 Ulat ng Bayan survey media release on family planning. Available at http://pulseasia.com.ph/pulseasia/story.asp?id=545; Internet; accessed 25 September 2008.

Raymundo, Corazon M. and Grace T. Cruz. 2003. Dangerous connections: Substance abuse and sex among adolescents. Philippine Population Review 2 (1) (Jan. – Dec.): 23-42.

Social Weather Stations. 2005 (24 Feb.). SWS 4th Quarter 2004 survey report on family planning for the Department of Health (DOH). Available at http://www.sws.or.ph; Internet; accessed 25 September 2008.

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). n.d. No woman should die giving life. Facts and Figures 1.

________. 2008. Adolescent sexuality. Available at http://www.unfpa.org/intercenter/reprights/ self.htm;Internet; accessed 28 September 2008.

University of the Philippines Population Institute (UPPI) and the Demographic Research and Development Foundation (DRDF).1994. Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality survey 2 (YAFSS 2).

________. 2002. Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality survey 2 (YAFSS 3).

Vatican official website (for accessing Catholic social doctrine).

* Marita Castro Guevara (Department of Interdisciplinary Studies), Raymond B. Aguas (Department of Theology), Liane Peña Alampay (Department of Psychology), Fernando T. Aldaba (Department of Economics), Remmon E. Barbaza (Department of Philosophy), Manuel B. Dy, Jr. (Department of Philosophy), Elizabeth Uy Eviota (Department of Sociology-Anthropology), Roberto O. Guevara (Department of Theology), Anne Marie A. Karaos (Department of Sociology-Anthropology), Michael J. Liberatore (Department of Theology), Liza L. Lim (Department of Sociology-Anthropology), Cristina Jayme Montiel (Department of Psychology), Mary Racelis (Department of Sociology-Anthropology), and Agustin Martin G. Rodriguez (Department of Philosophy)

  1. blue lagoons
    March 1, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    this position paper of some ateneo professors is nothing but a distorted messianic kind of attitude hereby leading to egoistic and intellectual arrogance.they sound like a prophet of doom when they presented the studies and data on population etc.etc.,is it really the truth? please read and discern also other relevant data on this.and look what the hell they are saying that their position is consistent to the teachings of God..this is horrible!as if they are now the authority in faith and morals.and to make things worst they also used some official teachings of the church to validate their stand.another horrible mistake.the issue here is UNITY WITH THE STAND OF THE CHURCH!!now if you (theology professors)knows your theology very well why issued this paper?you are using and doing theology not consistent to the official teachings of the church.shame on you.enough of your distorted theological knowledge.you sound more of a devil’s advocate than bearers of truth in this issue.instead use your knowledge of theology for the good of the church for the greater glory of God.your’s is a manifestation of a disorted conscience..

    • gilbert quiqui
      June 22, 2010 at 1:03 pm

      a more informed and critical evaluation of the RH Bill by these faculty members of Ateneo is more open to progressive discussion than a downright, “argumentum ad baculum” condemnation of the bill

    • gg
      October 7, 2010 at 11:10 pm

      blue lagoons :
      as if they are now the authority in faith and morals.

      Actually, if you will look at the list of authors of this paper, 3 are professors from the THEOLOGY department, and 3 are from the PHILOSOPHY department. Yes, they ARE an AUTHORITY on faith and morals.

      • Wilberg
        October 7, 2010 at 11:33 pm

        Professors of Theology and Philosophy are not necessarily authorities on faith and morals. Only the Magesterium of the Church has the absolute authority, and whether 3, 300, or 3000, theologians are simply in error once they stray from the teaching authority of the Church.

      • October 8, 2010 at 12:33 am

        Yes, they are professors of Theology and Philosophy, BUT, like Wilberg has said, only the Magisterium of the Church and the Pope have complete authority on Faith and Morals because their wisdom stems from Christ and are infallible. The lay are not infallible and may have different interpretations of our Faith and its morals, just like the Protestants.

        Here’s my point of view:
        Our country’s problem has always been CORRUPTION. One point of this bill is to lessen the poor’s pains and sufferings, especially the mothers who do not have enough medical attendance and support for their children. But why lessen the poor, when we can just slim down all those well-pampered men and use their “pampering money” to train nurses – special nurses who specialize in supporting these needy mothers in childbirth and the care for their babies? We need more jobs too, right?

        This is just one point out of many more to contradict this RH Bill.

        The bill focuses on helping those in need of family planning, how about a bill focusing on a larger union in our nation? One where there is no “Triangle” with the majority of the population at the bottom of it; instead, there is a circle encompassing a heart.

        Please blot out the title “CATHOLICS CAN SUPPORT THE RH BILL IN GOOD CONSCIENCE”…

        BECAUSE CATHOLICS CANNOT SUPPORT THE RH BILL WITHOUT DENYING THEIR FAITH.

        • Darwin the Great
          February 4, 2011 at 1:36 pm

          what the? the pope is infallible? even the second vatican council declared that the pope is not infallible!

          • Alexander the Great
            May 4, 2011 at 11:33 am

            Sorry, but the 2nd vatican council never said that the pope is NOT infallible

      • tomprober
        May 23, 2011 at 8:54 pm

        For a catholic, the authority on faith and morals is the church not the ateneo professors. These supposed to be intelligent people are deceiving themselves if they claim to be catholics and yet support the RH bill which the church condemns. They better found another church where they exercise authority on faith and morals. I suggest the name of their church as “church of ateneo professors”. I assume many of their students will follow them. But they should be prepared for the words of Christ in the end “I never knew you. Depart from me you workers of evil.

      • Raffy
        August 5, 2012 at 9:45 pm

        And so what if they are theology and philiosophy professors? The Pope was a Theology professor…not to mention published internationally, even before he became Pope. Peter Kreeft is a BC philosopher with over 50 fifty books already published. Scott Hahn, another Theology professor, also with dozens of published works. What do all these people have in common? They are against the RH Bill. Peter Kreeft and a group of BC philosophers even sent a letter refuting the bill.

        How can anyone say the a Catholic can support the bill in good conscience when the Catholic Church has explicitly stated that it is contrary to what she teaches? Common sense.

      • Joanne
        August 17, 2012 at 5:27 pm

        i beg to disagree. When there is conflict on how the teachings of the church is interpreted, the honor of having a FINAL say on the church’s teachings lie in the bishops and the pope – not 3 Ateneo teachers on theology & 3 from philosophy.

    • genesociety
      December 2, 2010 at 6:56 pm

      who is arrogant? (:

    • January 14, 2011 at 8:11 am

      “..why issued this paper”, “Now if you (theology professors) knows your theology very well..” AHAHAHAHAH you need to brush up on your verb tense you ingrate. Why don’t you quit your job and go jump off a cliff so you can join your Jewish Zombie God in your Jewish Zombie Heaven, christfaggot

      • blue lagoons
        May 14, 2011 at 10:15 pm

        null@
        here you are in your semantics and rules of grammar.you have to understand the meaning and do not dwell on simply the correct usage.if you understand it well=it is an act of unbecoming being a teacher of catholic faith=a contradiction!!by the way what is wrong about it?you dont know what you are talking about..

    • modern man
      May 13, 2011 at 2:02 am

      What is more immoral? Making people lives better in alternative way or letting people live in misery and sufferings when in fact there are options in minimizing it?

      • Joanne
        August 17, 2012 at 5:30 pm

        Making people’s lives better without dividing the nation & using alternatives that does not promise more sources of misery & suffering. There is no ONE answer to our problems, there are several alternatives. In fact, some of the most pressing problems can be solved WITHOUT the RH Bill. It is not the only pill, there are better alternatives – cheaper & can equally work.

    • renemjr
      June 4, 2011 at 1:03 pm

      So Ateneo has this brood of vipers too?
      The Pharisees have come to life through them and haunt us again. They were the intellectuals in the time of Jesus Christ… and today too.
      This piece of literature is more egoistic than theological, more intellectual than moral, more pedantic than pedagogical.

      God bless them too

  2. Lyra Dietrich
    September 7, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    I have read this article extensively, and i am very interested in this issue. I have done numerous projects and research on this topic and i am very supportive of RH Bill 5043. The Philippines as a nation is in desperate need for birth control. It is a serious injustice for women to be denied these health needs. Women are dying and risking their lives all over the Philippines because resources are denied. Especially the poor.
    I have recently moved to Manila, and i attend Ateneo De Manila.
    I have been trying to get myself involved in this issue.
    I want to immerse myself in fighting for this bill to be passed.
    Although im not sure how to start, and i dont know many people in my community who know much about this bill.

    Please i would greatly appreciate it if anyone could appoint me to someone who is involved with this bill.
    I am very willing to volunteer my time, or simply have a conversation about this issue.

    Thank you very much
    Lyra Dietrich

    • September 7, 2009 at 8:52 pm

      i suggest you talk to one of the professors to get some contacts.

      also, you can try PLCPD (philippine legislator’s committee on population and development foundation, inc.) that group is one of the movers of the RH bill. visit this site: http://plcpd.org.ph/

      also, you can become an author in this blog and write bout the RH bill and your experiences in moving it forward.

    • Anj P.
      November 7, 2010 at 11:22 pm

      Oh wow!! I’m so proud I know this girl. And I’m reading this article about a year later, so it’s obvious what’s happened to the bill in the meantime. What irks me most about this process is how people are either pushing or resisting the bill en masse, without taking it apart and seeing what bits we can all work with. I’m sure a compromise can be reached that way, but again, we’re subject to certain realities.
      For one thing, who really takes time to dissect issues or philosophize? Average people just want to trust that something is all good or all bad, so you have to give them options that are already cross-referenced, clarified, and simplified. Second, any budge in the church’s stance threatens the image they have that justifies the demand for unwavering support. Thank God for the religious leaders that understand how to appeal to both rationality and faith-principle, but fundamentalists make a lot more noise and are thus more likely to be listened to.

      • Joanne
        August 17, 2012 at 5:47 pm

        We took time to dissect the RH bill and all its subsequent revisions. And primarily because of comments & criticism, it looks less threatening than before BUT still not as helpful to the Filipino community in general as it boasts to achieve. There are those intellectuals, who also use intellect and research-based data, who still think that the RH bill, in its present form, should not be passed.

        And it is not fair to label people as ‘fundamentalists’ or whatever names we call them simply because you have not defined what it means to be a fundamentalist & you are in danger of misclassifying these people. Similarly, it is not healthy to look at “reproductive health” as something that is very positive when its operational definition is also vague.

    • Salvador Del Mundo
      February 7, 2011 at 4:02 pm

      are u speaking in behalf of what nation, Dietrich is not a native Filipino?

  3. Lyra Dietrich
    September 8, 2009 at 9:27 am

    Thank you very much for the response to my post.
    I will email some of the professors and also contact PLCPD.
    Greatly appreciated!

    And i will consider becoming an author on this blog once i get more involved in the issue, and have stories to contribute.
    Again thank you very much for the support.

    Lyra

    • September 8, 2009 at 9:42 am

      you are welcome. RH Bill 5043 is a cause we support very strongly. (read special section devoted to it here: http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/reproductive-health-bill-5043/)

      there is a quite a number of groups with varrying orientations who are supporting RH Bill 5043. PLCPD works on the legislation part. there are other NGOs and cause-oriented groups who are also supportive, like for example RHAN and Gabriela.

      you might want to look at the long list and join the group where you are most comfortable with and where your particular skills and experience would be most put to use.

      the internet is another area of work that you might want to consider, thus the invitation for you to become an author in this blog. a key challenge to the passage of the RH Bill is that of influencing the legislators to table it, discuss it and pass it. the internet is one way to exert that influence.

      good luck and thank you for your support.

  4. September 14, 2009 at 9:37 am

    A groundbreaking statement from faculty members of the Jesuit university. Salamat!
    Lots of Pinoy friends here in the States and there in suburban Manila share FaceBook, so I’ll post a link to this there.
    I hope and plan to live in the Philippines and my wife’s family is there, so I really care about it becoming a better world. HB 5043 addresses a fundamental need for change where the Philippines is suffering decades behind other countries. Let’s spread the word and talk about it and pray for its passage.

    • September 14, 2009 at 10:01 am

      unfortunately the philippine congress is not pre-disposed to pass this. in fact, it has been many years where the phil congress has done everything and anything it can do to prevent this from passing. they have erected all sorts of barriers to keep it from passing.

  5. September 18, 2009 at 2:13 pm

    “…the phil congress has done everything and anything it can do to prevent this from passing.”

    The entire Congress? What are the interest groups?
    Some congressman is sponsoring the bill.

    The benefits are clear. Overpopulation adds to the problems of poverty. Families cannot afford education for one or two children because they have to feed seven or eight. Without education, the poverty cycle continues. With education, families have more to spend and the Philippine economy can grow as the quality of life improves. As populations become more stable, the work force becomes educated, and problems such as transportation are resolved, businesses become more willing to invest in the Philippines. Reference India and China.
    Do some Congressmen and women understand this and support the bill?
    Why would they want to block it, other than out of deference to Catholic doctrine?

    • September 18, 2009 at 2:28 pm

      the lower house is controlled by the ruling party, that means by president gloria macapagal arroyo. arroyo is posturing herself to be a devout catholic and has decided to satisfy the wishes of the catholic church. the bishops and other catholic-based groups are operating within congress operating to stop its passage. of late, they have used parliamentary procedures to block even the discussion of the bill. this has been up for discussion in congress for many years now.

      arroyo has even watered down the health department’s efforts at promoting modern methods of contraception. government hospitals under arroyo has stopped promoting modern methods of contraception and promotes only the catholic church backed natural methods.

      government hospitals and clinics used to give free condoms and pills to women, that has been stopped by arroyo. these pills and condoms were in fact free, they are paid for by USAID funds.

      the irony or hypocrisy of it all is that president arroyo herself has admitted she used the pill when she was of reproductive age. she has benefited from it before but now disallows filipinas to benefit from it.

      • Joanne
        August 17, 2012 at 5:58 pm

        People do change & realize that there is no need for free contraceptives to be provided free to people.

        Why is it that when a politician supports the catholic church position, she/he will be labeled as satisfying the wishes of the the catholic church; but when certain groups support the wishes of USAID and groups promoting contraceptives and abortion, it is just well and right?

        hypocrisy?

        look at the data about condom effectiveness; condoms are like egg shells, they are permeable depending on the size of the particle. an average pore of condom is larger than the size of the sperm & other microorganisms that can cause sexually transmitted diseases. and what would we distribute in the Philippines? will we be getting the most expensive & best type of condom for distribution? how many are we going to distribute to ‘couples’ who want to have sex but does not want to have the responsibility of having a child? what are the regulations about giving these to teenagers (who by the way have so called ‘reproductive rights’ of using condoms & contraceptives even without consent from parents) to lessen teenage pregnancy?

  6. Mel Manalo
    November 7, 2009 at 11:23 pm

    good day,
    i only came across this site from the recent article in the inquirer about the the UN committee’s position to pass the bill. it said that congress will again table it. but i am not confident that it will be passed before the next elections (but i hope i am wrong).
    In such a case, then the hope is that next Congress would have a lot more legislators who are supportive. So i am writing to ask if there is a way that you can come up with a list of would be re-electionists who were either for or against (particularly those who resorted to trapoistic delaying tactics during the deliberations – i hate their guts!!) the bill. Voters would need to know their respective congressional candidates’ position on this. I would help spread it around the various internet fora if you have or can come up with this list. thanks for your time.

    • November 8, 2009 at 8:01 am

      this is a good idea. will try to get a list and post it here.

      the bill has not been put to a vote so we do not know for sure who are for the bill and who aren’t. both sides claim they have a growing number of suipporters. generally speaking, though, members of the ruling/admin party are against the RH Bill by order of the gloria macapagal arroyo.

      will see if we can get a list here. thanks.

  7. Mel Manalo
    November 8, 2009 at 11:52 pm

    thanks for your reply. i only had the idea when i read the UN newsstory, so i will also try to get in touch with Ms.Elizabeth Angsioco who started the online petition with RHAN. She may also be able to help with this.

    Goodluck to us.

    • November 9, 2009 at 12:02 am

      i am sure RHAN will be able to help on this one. i have contacted people i know from PLCPD to ask their help.

      you have a good idea here, we should make a big effort on it. will certainly publish the names in this blog.

      we launched a similar campaign on con-ass. check this out, click here: a call to pinoy blogs and bloggers to link blogs on Con-Ass HR 1109 (http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/a-call-to-pinoy-bloggers-to-link-blogs-on-hr-1109/)

      we will be posting the names of the congressmen who voted for con-ass in this blog to ask its readers NOT to vote them in the 2010 election.

      we will do the same for those against HR 5043.

  8. ringo
    November 10, 2009 at 11:03 am

    i head the social studies dept of an up-scale private catholic school in makati and we are planning to host a forum for teachers to discuss the RH bill. Although most of the Social Studies teachers are for it, communicating the same stand to the whole faculty becomes difficult as our school is a strong supporter of CEAP. what do you think should we do? and how do we get over this dilemma? thanks.

  9. December 16, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    The arguments of this faculty are based on data and statistics. This sounds very convincing, as it would reflect the sentiments of the filipino families and the youth in particular.
    I am concerned of the youth. By trying your best to promote that RH Bill 5043 is good for them because it prevents them from those dangers of unwanted pregnancies and early death, you do not address the issue why youth are increasingly into pre-marital sex. Thus the issue of unwanted pregnancy and early death cannot just be solved through RH5043.
    The supporters of the bill think naively. They only suppose skin-deep solutions to the problem which is deeper – moral decadence in the life of youth today.
    By promoting the bill 5043, you are, as if, condoning this moral problem of promiscuity in the youth, as long as they are safe.
    And to mention that informed choice is the key to these arguments! Well, a grade five student does not have the informed choice yet, nor do 4th year high school students. What is the point in setting the age 18 and below as minors, if parents would have to respect the decision of their children to engage in sex as long as they are ‘informed’. It seems that this individual faculty in Ateneo forgot their basic catechism on the sacredness of sex and marriage. The problem of ‘informed-choice’ in youth is that, it would be more abused than properly used. To be informed is one, to be educated in our Christian faith is another. Informed choice becomes problematic when Christian moral principles are not founded well. Pre-marital sex and sound Christian morality run opposite to each other.
    For those who lobby for the approval of this bill, teach your grade five kids the basic Christian faith and morals first, as you are called to do by virtue of your baptism. By doing this, you do not need to support this bill 5043, which is politically laden and ill-motivated. Thereby, your kids will never or will try their best by conscience not to engage in teen sex even if you assure them it’s safe.

    • wydsupportgroup
      December 18, 2009 at 2:29 pm

      i fully agree w/u, fr.!

      • Frank Santos
        October 4, 2010 at 11:37 am

        But isn’t moral decadence your failure Father, and that of the Church.

        The State is simply trying to repair the damage.

        Check your logic.

        • Salvador Del Mundo
          February 7, 2011 at 4:04 pm

          How can the government repair the damage if even himself can’t do anything to repair himself?

        • Joanne
          August 17, 2012 at 6:07 pm

          No, it is not simply the failure of the church. You cannot blame it simply on the church. If you look at the micro & macro environment of a person (Bronfenbrenner’s theory), church is but one factor influencing a person. The family, friends, school & media are part of the shaping of an individual’s values more than the church. With today’s generation, the media seems more influential especially for teenagers. So, please, don’t blame solely the church for such failure. It can only do so much – if parents do not go to mass, if parents do not understand their catholic doctrine and put it to action; if media is teaching otherwise -where would the children learn? one hour attending the mass and not being open to the ideas of the church can hardly educate a youth on its teachings. In schools, these catholic teachings may be incorporated, but as you can see, there are still those even in Catholic schools who, because of other influences, would still interpret the church laws differently. Case in point, is this position paper by selected Ateneo teachers.

          By the way, it is more balanced to post the total number of Ateneo teachers vis-a-vis those teachers who submitted this position paper.

    • gg
      October 6, 2010 at 10:49 pm

      Every action is an individual choice. Promiscuity is an individual choice. The reality today is that the youth is exposed to sex at a very young age. If your argument Father is that children shouldn’t be taught about sex because that would condone it, then they should not be allowed to watch TV or read magazines. Even without the RH bill, promiscuity is already a problem. And what’s worse, it results in many unwanted teenage pregnancies and the consequent abortions. Not only is this horrible in itself, but it also endangers the life of these kids.

      • Wilberg
        October 8, 2010 at 12:08 am

        “If your argument Father is that children shouldn’t be taught about sex because that would condone it, then they should not be allowed to watch TV or read magazines.”

        Sexuality is not something to be afraid of. I am guiding my 4-year-old daughter when she is asking about sex organs and pregnancy — and that is education. However, the point here is that we should not disrupt or interfere with the natural growth, curiosity, and learning of these minors but rather guide them through. Sex education, as proposed in the RH bill, is very psychologically disruptive and morally harmful. It would give them a premature sexual exposure that will just make them more curious than satiated. Your suggestion that children should not be allowed to watch TV or read magazines is useful if you know when to apply it. I have TV rules at home. I assume that you are familiar with the “Parental Guidance” reminder on TV shows that implies managing a child’s exposure to a particular show is up to the parents — not to the children.

        “Even without the RH bill, promiscuity is already a problem.”

        I always here that argument. My question, though, is will the bill lessen that promiscuity? Or you’re saying that we can do nothing anymore about our children’s behavior, and that we should rather give them condoms and pills than try to shape their values?

        I might not believe if you will tell me that you are a parent.

        • SaintPhilippic
          April 20, 2011 at 11:08 am

          I am not a parent.. but as a student. I was promiscuous, we never talked about SEX education at home. so as a result I express and explore by myself. I think its a pity that I have to do so. But it would have been better if a good program was implemented in school that could teach us a wholesome and truthful view about sexuality.
          being curious doesnt mean you become promiscuous… its okey to be curious given info is available from the right source.

        • Joanne
          August 17, 2012 at 6:11 pm

          Yes, parents should really be more participative about what your children should read!! parents should learn how to talk about sex and sexuality to children!! You should know better about your child than any other person or school!! This is what the many families/parents want – sex education must be brought back as a responsibility to the Parents. Let us have Parent Education on how to talk about sex to our kids across ages.

    • Wilberg
      October 7, 2010 at 11:42 pm

      I agree.

    • SaintPhilippic
      April 20, 2011 at 11:01 am

      i dont see anything BAD to teaching sex education in the classroom because it is better teaching it inside the classroom than talking about it in private among gradeschool friends and making alot of mis conceptions. I dont see why you judge RH bill as iLL-motivated. spreading awareness is NOT telling them to have sex.. lol. IF you tell them, having sex early in life is not a good thing and should only be practiced by married couple then that gives them knowledge that sex is sacred as it need you to get married to perform them. If the culture this promotes is a culture that informs children SEX is to be avoided until marriage then I dont see this to be a bad bill.

  10. RH Bill Supporter
    January 6, 2010 at 9:09 am

    “”In such a case, then the hope is that next Congress would have a lot more legislators who are supportive. So i am writing to ask if there is a way that you can come up with a list of would be re-electionists who were either for or against (particularly those who resorted to trapoistic delaying tactics during the deliberations – i hate their guts!!) the bill. Voters would need to know their respective congressional candidates’ position on this. I would help spread it around the various internet fora if you have or can come up with this list. thanks candacy for your time.””

    This is very interesting. Thanks to WAWAM i am now interning at PLCPD and am working on a project as we speak in collection data for the upcoming 2010 Philippine elections for 1st and 2nd term legislators who will most likely be re-elected and their standpoint on RH.
    Along with upcoming candidates who will replace the 3rd term congressmen and women and their projected stand point on RHBill 5043.

    Im not sure if this information can be published on the internet, although I will talk to my PLCPD colleagues about this, and see how we can get this information out in order to inform voters.

    Also I would be interested in starting something in Ateneo. I know that this might be controversial, although It would be great if we could organize pamphlets or handouts with this information in order for upcoming voters to be informed about this bill, weather they are for or against. If anyone that attends Ateneo, or alumni that post on this blog would be interesting in meeting up and organizing such a thing, please contact me, so we can team up!

    Thanks!

    • MelManalo
      January 7, 2010 at 1:45 am

      thanks for your good efforts on this and wish you well. i will await for the list that you can come up withh and am more than than willing to help spread it through the net. good luck

    • marina
      January 7, 2010 at 9:00 am

      this sounds great. count me in – i will also help out in publishing the information in the internet. we need projects like this to help our voters and the country.

  11. January 6, 2010 at 9:45 am

    RH Bill Supporter :

    “”In such a case, then the hope is that next Congress would have a lot more legislators who are supportive. So i am writing to ask if there is a way that you can come up with a list of would be re-electionists who were either for or against (particularly those who resorted to trapoistic delaying tactics during the deliberations – i hate their guts!!) the bill. Voters would need to know their respective congressional candidates’ position on this. I would help spread it around the various internet fora if you have or can come up with this list. thanks candacy for your time.””

    This is very interesting. Thanks to WAWAM i am now interning at PLCPD and am working on a project as we speak in collection data for the upcoming 2010 Philippine elections for 1st and 2nd term legislators who will most likely be re-elected and their standpoint on RH.
    Along with upcoming candidates who will replace the 3rd term congressmen and women and their projected stand point on RHBill 5043.

    Im not sure if this information can be published on the internet, although I will talk to my PLCPD colleagues about this, and see how we can get this information out in order to inform voters.

    Also I would be interested in starting something in Ateneo. I know that this might be controversial, although It would be great if we could organize pamphlets or handouts with this information in order for upcoming voters to be informed about this bill, weather they are for or against. If anyone that attends Ateneo, or alumni that post on this blog would be interesting in meeting up and organizing such a thing, please contact me, so we can team up!

    Thanks!

    i am glad you have found a place at PLCPD. it’s a very good group and very committed. more power to you and the PLCPD.

    i am glad you are working on the list you are referring to. once you have completed it, please send it to us and we will publish it in this blog. for sure PLCPD will want it publicized and their media bureau can have it released to traditional media.

    this blog has a special section on the RH BIll, we will publish it here and in the main pages.

    i am sure there are ateneo alumni and students who read this blog. but i would suggest you go to this other blog of ours where there many ateneans go to due to the work we did for amiel alcantara, the grade school student who was killed in a car accident at the ateneo grade school. click here: http://wawam.wordpress.com/

    i have sent you an invitation to become an author in this blog and that other blog we have. it would be nice if you can on your own post your work and your thoughts in both blogs. i have sent the invite to the email address you registered here. if you want me to send the invite to another email address, please send me an email here: wawam.email@gmail.com (you might NOT want your email address published publicly here.)

    i also know someone who has been very much involved in reproductive health issues, an ateneo alumnus who i am sure will be willing to help out. i will connect him with you.

    perhaps this new congress will be more receptive to the RH Bill. thank you so much for your work and your interest.

    warm regards,

    ~wawam~

  12. RH Bill Supporter
    January 9, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    To WAWAM, Marina, MelManalo,
    Thanks for the support lets keep in contact and get voters informed on this important issue!!!
    Wawam, it would be lovely if you could connect with me with this ateneo alumni, It would be lovely to get something organized in order to get this information out! Lets Brainstorm!

    It would be really great to get the youth involved in this issue, considering they are the next generation that will be raising families. If we could get this information out to youth voters,
    (in order to encourage people to be informed voters ) we could really try and make a difference.
    Specifically with who ends up in office. The more people pro-RH in office the higher the chance this bill will be passed.
    TARA!

  13. DDO
    January 20, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    I recently came across this site and I agree with Blue Lagoons and Fr. Wilbert’s sentiment. Our problem is that we operate from a “disease model” rather that a “wellness model”. Because of this, all our solutions are artificial. Take a pill, cut something, tie something, insert something and you will be fine. Becasue of this we now look at being pregnant, a God-given gift, like a disease. How far have we sunk!

    We have excluded the God-given dignity of a human being. We forget we are mind, body and spirit, one cannot be excluded and compartmentalized from the other. Your body is your mind and spirit’s vessel and when you feel you’re smarter than God and try to monkey around with His work of art; that is the height of arrogance. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no survey can change that.

    The RH Bill is anti-life, anti-poor and anti-human, anti-God. It’s motherhood provisions like pre and post natal care and natal deaths, can very well be integrated in more comprehensive health bills that include other illnesses that kill more of our citizens ie: heart disease.

    The NFP (Billings Ovulation Method) has a more than 99.5% success rate in postponing
    pregnancy and a more than 98% success rate, believe it or not, in choosing the sex of a couple’s child. This is real couple empowerment! In China, 32% of couples who were thought to be infertile were able to have children because of BOM. This is truly a gift from God.

    The NFP-BOM is not so much a method as it is a lifestyle. It allows the couple to be human and not like cattle to be fed, injected and cut open like “dumb-driven cattle.” For me it is inhuman and callous even to consider artificial means as an option. Artificial contraceptives have documented serious and sometimes fatal side-effects and we may be unknowingly adding to our women’s plight rather that alleviating it.

    I urge you to read John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.” This catechesis and “Humanae Vitae” will help us realize that we are meant to create life and not prevent it. Our bodies point to something beyond ourselves. Sex is a foreshadowing of our ultimate mystical union with the Father. We must use this as our fulcrum, our center and not the world however compelling it may present its case. We still have a Christian choice.

    There is a genius behind our bodies. Did you know that a woman is potentially pregnant for a maximum of 7 days in a normal 28 day cycle. There is a 11-16 day period where a married couple may do the marital act everyday without the fear of unplanned pregnancies. The genius is that a woman produces cervical mucus that plugs her cervix thereby preventing her from conceiving for 11-16 days.

    With this truly empowering knowledge, artificial contraception has no place in a truly human society. Perhaps from this perspective we can operate from a preventive and informed “wellness model” rather than a knee-jerk, artificial and potentially fatal “disease model.”

    If you want to be truly compassionate then let us push for a “wellness model” rather than a “disease model” which sadly the RH Bill is. It is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” which de-humanizes. To support the RH Bill is to be dismissive of the poor and disadvantaged. To educate them from a “wellness model” is to understand their plight and walk with them as brethren rather than treating them like “dumb driven cattle,” shame on us if we continue on this path.

    God bless you all.

  14. February 6, 2010 at 9:32 am

    what is the height of arrogance is not to use medical knowledge and advancement. I don’t know if DDO still use fire stove to cook his meals. I don’t know if he doesn’t go to a dentist or doctor to fix his body’s problem. I don’t know if he doesn’t take any medicine at all!
    as it is said you can legislate a bill based on religious doctrine alone, it should be in rhyme with the reality of times

    • Wilberg
      October 8, 2010 at 12:27 am

      Nobody says that medical knowledge and advancement is a show of arrogance. You are accusing someone of doing what he has not done, and then you have started your arguments from there. Bad practice. The issue is about dignity, limitation, and being human. Furthermore, not all knowledge are good. Assisted suicide requires medical knowledge. Embryonic stem cell research that kills embryo is medical knowledge. It is very naive to think that new discoveries automatically mean “advancement”. Besides, there’s nothing new in these contraceptives.

  15. February 6, 2010 at 9:33 am

    I mean can not legislate

  16. ddo
    February 6, 2010 at 11:21 pm

    Read my comment again Jorge, I think you skimmed over it and answered flippantly with your biases and not your brain. My point Jorge is that there is an alternative which is thoroughly scientific (NFP-BOM) and humane.

    Yes the problems are very real but the RH Bill is not the answer. The Reproductive Health Bill alone is a misnomer. In one of the provisions they labeled artificial contraceptives as “essential medicines.” Artificial contraceptives, in no way shape or form, maintains much less improves a woman’s health. Far from it as it exposes her to its horrible side effects ie: cancer, thrombosis, sterility and even death. It inhibits and kills life due to the abortifacient effects of the pill, so the terms “medicine” and “health” do not belong in the same universe as the twisted RH Bill. It is a legal sleight-of-hand to use universally acceptable words like “medicine” and “health”. Let us not allow this malicious move to trick us.

    There is a province in the Philippines, (name escapes me at the moment) that has achieved a laudable zero (0) infant and maternal mortality. Its leaders redirected the funds it already had and coupled with political will and sound fiscal management they were able to improve their pre and post natal care capabilities and achieve their health goals sans RH Bill. So you see, when you really look at it, the RH Bill is superfluous.

    The rightness and wrongness of an act is not subject to surveys, statistics or the actions of the perceived majority. If we try to be, as you said “in rhyme with the reality of the times”, then our morals and ethics would be constanly shifting always relative to the times.

    On this shaky moral ground, we never make a stand. We bend and get caught up with the veneer of compassion when really it is not true compassion but another compromise we make to the god of relativism.

    Funny the way you used the term “fix” because that is really what we are doing to our women as well as our men. We are fixing them, specially the poor, when we interfere with their fertility so there will be less poor people. Statistically it would look good if there are less poor people, never mind the social, human, moral and economic cost. In good concience, I don’t like to pay for that.

    True science and medicine undergirds religion because it sees the human being as a person and not just a body or a statistic. Humane legislation must have this inherent spirit of respect for the human being as a person. That his or her body points to a reality grater and beyond itself. This ethos is much more powerful than any science, medicine or law can ever hope to aspire. I pray and desire this same ethos not just for our lawmakers but for everyone.

    In Africa, the UN flooded the continent with condoms to control AIDS which has reached epidemic proportions. The number of AIDS cases did not decrease as they had hoped. Upon further study, they realized that inspite of the free contraceptive (condoms) no one used them. One respondent said it succinctly when he said “Why would I eat candy with a wrapper still on?”

    It turns out there was wide spread kidnap raping, casual sex, adultery and overall breakdown in morals not to mention law and order. Aside from the obvious breakdown in law and order there was a breakdown in morality there was something wrong with the peoples ethos.

    In Uganda, the president attacked the problem of AIDS not by flooding his people with free contraceptives but by appealing to their ethos. He gave the hard facts to his people and told them they will have to make sacrifices like abstaining if they want to control the AIDS epidemic. The poeple responded. The result was a drastic drop in the AIDS cases in that country.

    When you treat your people as human beings and appeal to their humanity, they will usually come through for you because you respected them as persons. Nothing like a heart to heart talk to change a nation.

    Someone said “Nothing worthwhile is ever easy.” That is so true but there is the power from the transcending union with Christ that is given as grace to the faithful.

    A wise priest once said “The Catholic church is not with the times because it is beyond the times.”

    Amen to that.

  17. February 7, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    ddo :

    Read my comment again Jorge, I think you skimmed over it and answered flippantly with your biases and not your brain. My point Jorge is that there is an alternative which is thoroughly scientific (NFP-BOM) and humane.

    Yes the problems are very real but the RH Bill is not the answer. The Reproductive Health Bill alone is a misnomer. In one of the provisions they labeled artificial contraceptives as “essential medicines.” Artificial contraceptives, in no way shape or form, maintains much less improves a woman’s health. Far from it as it exposes her to its horrible side effects ie: cancer, thrombosis, sterility and even death. It inhibits and kills life due to the abortifacient effects of the pill, so the terms “medicine” and “health” do not belong in the same universe as the twisted RH Bill. It is a legal sleight-of-hand to use universally acceptable words like “medicine” and “health”. Let us not allow this malicious move to trick us.

    they are essential medicines in the sense that the people need them as much as the other essential medicines. this classification will also make sure these medicines are made available to the people all the time.

    there is a lot of medical science and hundreds of studies conducted that shows the side-effects you mention are very minimal. all medicines are basically chemicals, all hacve side effects but not most of the medicines available to people have side-effects that are negligible and can be tolerated by most people, thus these are safe meds. that is the samme thing as for example the pill. but just like any othe meidicine, the pill has several versions and the OB can help any patient find the proper pill for the person.

    • ddo
      February 10, 2010 at 1:01 am

      Problem is they still have side effects for the woman. In the fifties, DDT was touted to be the miracle pesticide. It was considered safe, cheap and effective. They even sprayed the damn chemical on kids. Now we know better and DDT is banned for this kind of use today after countless cases of it’s side effects were discovered.

      Knowing what we now know about artificial contraception and its side effects is proof enough that it is bad for women. Ofcourse they can choose to take it if they want to buy it themselves. But to legislate it’s use is callous to it’s dangers to our women, no matter how small it may seem to you.

      • gg
        October 6, 2010 at 10:57 pm

        Are you a woman and have you ever experienced taking oral contraceptives? Do you know anyone who has?

        I’m a woman and I HAVE experienced taking pills. I experienced no short-term negative side effects. In fact, it noticeably decreased my monthly menstrual pains.

        Studies on its supposed negative side effects are inconclusive either way. Supporters of birth control pills may not know if it will cause cancer in the future, but NEITHER DO YOU.

        Besides, artificial contraception is not limited to OCs. Condoms, for one. And if the guy has an issue with “eating candy with the wrapper on,” there are intrauterine devices available.

        • Wilberg
          October 8, 2010 at 12:39 am

          “Do you know anyone who has?”

          I do — and not just one.

          Miss Woman, you are not the womankind. Side-effects are not assumptions of researchers, they are results of tests that involve a time frame and a number of subjects. Meaning, there are women who actually experience these side-effects.

  18. February 7, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    DDO :

    I recently came across this site and I agree with Blue Lagoons and Fr. Wilbert’s sentiment. Our problem is that we operate from a “disease model” rather that a “wellness model”. Because of this, all our solutions are artificial. Take a pill, cut something, tie something, insert something and you will be fine. Becasue of this we now look at being pregnant, a God-given gift, like a disease. How far have we sunk!

    having a child is God’s gift, but the decision to have a child is something every married couple makes. the RH Bill provides married couples a choice on what method they will adapt while deciding when to have a child.

  19. Bungangkahoy
    February 7, 2010 at 10:41 pm

    Proponents of H.B, 5043 “Reproductive Health” bill always cite that that the Philippines is over-populated at 90+ million people to rationalize their support for artificial birth control. But is the country really overpopulated? And the implication is that our country is poor because of that 90+ million figure.

    Population figures are meaningless if we don’t take into consideration the area where that figure lives. For example, what does it mean that Japan has 128 million people? Or that the U.S.A. has 300 million?

    Let’s take a look at a sample of Wikipedia’s listing of countries according to population DENSITY, or the number of people in every square kilometer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density), Fegruary 7, 2010:

    Rank — Country — People/Sq.Km.
    1 — Macau — 18,534
    2 — Monaco — 16,923
    3 — Singapore — 7,022
    4 — Hong Kong — 6,348
    =====
    43 — Philippines — 307
    =====
    129 — Ethiopia — 71

    Compared to the thousands of the top 4 most-densely populated countries, the Philippines at 307 is hardly “over-populated”.

    And what about the overpopulation=poverty myth? The top 4 countries are so RICH! Macau is Asia’s playground for billionaires, streets choked with Rolls Royces. Monaco is summer capital to Europe’s kings, princes, dukes and other royalty. No need to say anything about Singapore and Hong Kong.

    These top 4 countries are so small and have no natural resources to brag about but yet so rich. So is the Philippines poor because there are “too many” Filipinos and that we have no natural resources? Look at Ethiopia in Africa. If less people means more wealth to be shared, Ethiopia should be at the top of the list, instead of being one of the world’s poorest.

    Some people may argue that the top 4 are rich because they are small and easy to manage in spite their large population. So let’s look at huge China with its 1.3 BILLION. It is the fastest growing economy in the world, predicted to overtake the U.S.A. very soon, and even now lends money to the U.S.A.!

    Right within our own country, compare the population-to-wealth ratio of Sequijor, Cebu and Manila. Obviously, the more population, the better off the place.

    Now guess what is our country’s biggest dollar earner? It’s our Overseas Foreign Workers – human life.

    Clearly, life is God’s GIFT and a nation’s WEALTH!

    So what is causing our poverty?

    RIIIGHT! CORRUPTION! And the guilty ones hide their sins by blaming us the people for having too many children! What if by a miracle, our population is cut in half a year from now, will our country start getting richer if corruption is still there?

    Hmmm…

    • February 8, 2010 at 1:21 pm

      the philippines’ birth rate is one of the highest in the world. based on research, filipinos put the desired number of children at 2.7 children (average) but in reality, they have 3.7 children. that is one too many. the country’s population from the current 90M will double in our lifetime, in fact sooner than we can can expect.

      those are grim statistics from a country that continue to be third world.

      • ddo
        February 10, 2010 at 12:33 am

        What makes us Third World is if we hang on to the Malthusian fear that there won’t be enough resources. We are looking at this problem from the wrong end. We have to educate the people and come out with a preventive rather than a band aid solution like the RH bill.

        Cong. Roilo Golez once said that he was glad his parents had six children when they did, if not, he would not have been born if they decided to have only 3 children. It is more than just lessening the amount of people. It is improving their self worth as persons and not merely being anal about the statistics. If you plot the trend of average live birth per woman, in the 1960s-70s it was seven. In the 80s to the 90s it was 5. Now it is, as you said, 3.7. My statistics may vary little but I am sure the birth rate has been going down through the decades.

        There is a social cost to having a low birth rate. Countries like France, Japan and other developed countries who have a birth rate of 2/woman (the replacement rate), less 2/woman or negative birth rate are faced with Social Security catatrophe were there is no new workforce coming in to help fund the aging retirees who are depedent on their retirement pension to live.

        The social Security structure must be a pyramid shape to be healthy and viable with the older population at the top of the pyramid and the younger members supporting the middle and base.

        With a low birth rate, the pyramid will be inverted with the number of aging retirees outnumbering the younger members. An inverted pyramid is never stable. Can you live with that social catastrophe?

        Following the RH Bill’s Malthusian line of thinking, we will just find a way to control the number of old people to solve this problem. Will just make a suicide pill that old people who have stopped receiving their pension to live can take, give it for free ofcourse, and that will solve that problem. What do you think wawam?

        • Twin-Skies
          February 10, 2010 at 9:32 am

          What you fail to mention is that whether Japan’s low birth rate is specifically due to their own RH program.

          There are other possible factors that can contribute to their dilemma, such as lack of government support for raising children, lack of living space, or even their near-fanatical work ethic.

          • ddo
            February 13, 2010 at 12:02 am

            The cause of their low birth rate is due to the use of artificial contraception (80% by condom because the Japan Medical Association fear the side effects of the pill). The reason for contraception is beside the point and I do not know why you even brought it up because it is irrelevant. The fact they are contracepting is slowly but surely pushing them to the edge of a social crisis. The European Union has a 1.4/woman well below the replacement ratio of 2.1/woman. That is why Sweden is now incentivicing having babies by giving parents paid vacation for a year. Sweden knows something most of do not know yet. Our neighbor Singapore is in the same boat that is why years back, Premier Lee Kuan Yu organized this love cruises (a love boat cruise, pun intended) for professionals in the hope that they would hook up and start having babies. It did not work and he was severely criticized for it. But I think he realized the looming social crisis hence his rather unorthodox solution.

            • Twin-Skies
              February 13, 2010 at 8:49 am

              May I trouble you for a link to the report from the Japan Medical Association?

              I’m most interested in seeing the numbers myself :)

              • ddo
                February 14, 2010 at 11:12 pm
                • Twin-Skies
                  February 15, 2010 at 9:02 am

                  Much obliged for the copy. I do have some issues with this study, however:

                  1. The abstract clearly explained is meant to delve into why the Japanese have a strong preference for condom use. At least based on the abstract, does not go as far as to explicitly connect their condom use with their population decline.

                  2. This study is dated 1981 – it’s almost 30 years old. I’m no expert, but if I would imagine there is a considerable difference in the Japanese’s outlook on contraceptive use. Surely there must be a more updated study, and one that directly links condoms with their population :(

                  I’m afraid I still disagree with your assertion regarding the effects of contraceptive use on our population.

                  Still, thank you for sharing a copy of the report – at least I now know we can keep our disagreements civil :)

  20. Twin-Skies
    February 8, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    @wawam

    Well-said.

    @Bungangkah

    A profound use of the Gish Gallop :)

  21. Twin-Skies
    February 8, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    @Bungangkah

    If you’re going to use a reference, wikipedia does not count as a credible source. Would you be kind enough to source to an actual study showing the statistics you claim.

    Secondly, you failed to mention the sheer landmass that China has to work with, and to whom most of its wealth goes. Chances are most of its rural population still live well below the poverty line, with widespread corruption being prevalent in the provinces. One reason you will not hear of such stories that often is due to the tightly monitored state media.

    As for your assertion:

    “What if by a miracle, our population is cut in half a year from now, will our country start getting richer if corruption is still there?”

    It depends on many factors, and I think it would be unwise to think of population reduction as being some cure-all. It is not.

  22. antenna1
    February 13, 2010 at 10:34 am

    we should not be blind to these:

    > the country is poor. it can hardly support all of its citizens to have a decent life of 3 full meals a day and a regular job for all its citizens. in fact most of its citizens cannot have 3 full meals a day and most do not have regular jobs.

    > with finite incomes, number of children impacts the quality of life parents can provide their children. there are other factors but this is a key component.

    > there are many ways to help these families. one is to improve the income side. the other is to help the families keep the number of children in practical and smart levels. any help on both will definitely go a long way.

    the rh bill is one that does the above.

  23. Mon
    February 13, 2010 at 8:48 pm

    Pretty interesting conversation you guys have been having. Pwede makisali? Hehe.

    @wawam: You cited that Filipinos’ desired # of children is 2.7 as their desired birthrate, but that it’s actually 3.7? Would you be so kind as to supply the reference that you used? And for what year? According to the CIA,(www.cia.gov), it’s 3.27 for 2009. I know that sounds negligible, but based on DDO’s claims that our population growth has been steadily declining, then maybe just maybe this is further proof of that?

    If the # of children per family really is declining, then is that factored in when you computed that our population will double in our lifetime? Because if this is true then we can’t factor in that we’ll have the same birthrate all throughout, if, historically-speaking, it’s on the decline.

    Thanks!

    • February 13, 2010 at 9:59 pm

      desired vs actual number of children comes from the NDHS.

      the philippine population doubling within our lifetime if the birth rate is not arrested is a projection widely accepted by govt agencies and planning groups. here though is a quote:

      Based on the 2000-2007 trends, the population of the country is now said to be growing at 2.04 percent annually. At this growth rate the country’s population can double in 34 years to 177.2 million. We are now 12th in the world in population size. With the world’s population just growing by 1.2 percent, we can be sure to move our ranking in population size higher in 34 years.

      http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/opinion/view/20080718-149226/Population-labels

  24. Mon
    February 14, 2010 at 11:37 am

    Thanks wawam! I really appreciate this.

    However… this doesn’t seem to take into consideration that the current Philippine population growth rate is steadily decreasing (which supports DDO’s assertions) since, according to the quote:

    Based on the 2000-2007 trends, the population of the country is now said to be growing at 2.04 percent annually. At this growth rate the country’s population can double in 34 years to 177.2 million.

    This projection assumes that our growth rate will always be pegged at 2.04%; it doesn’t matter if it’s 1 year from now, 10 years from now, or even 34 years from now! But, if DDO’s assertions hold true, this shouldn’t be the case. According to http://www.cia.gov, our population growth rate for 2009 is 1.957%. That means it already decreased from 2.04 (which, according to the quote, seems to be the average for 2000-2007… and the NSO website also states that for the period from 1995-2000 our growth rate was 2.36 so again, it seems to be decreasing). The 2009 Philippines in Figures factbook of the NSO goes on to state that their projected growth rates for 2005-2010, 2010-2015 and 2015-2020 are 1.95%, 1.82% and 1.64% respectively.

    It’s unrealistic to assume that the growth rate will remain the same all throughout. This doesn’t mean that families are becoming smaller and smaller, it just means that as the population increases, its 2.04% will always denote a bigger and bigger number! 1% of 100 is not the same as 1% of 150, for example. And the NSO also seems to be saying that families are growing smaller and smaller, as the total fertility rate of 3.18 for the period of 2007-2010 is set to decrease to 2.76 come 2015-2020.

    This just goes to show that it’s premature to conclude that the population will double in 34 years. And if you happen to be a government agency, a planning group, or a journalist, it’s downright irresponsible to say that, as readily available data and basic statistics can refute that easily. It could be misleading to the public and it might lead to a false sense of urgency. I’m not saying that the current decrease in the population growth rate is already sustainable enough without the RH bill; that’s still subject to debate. I’m just saying that we need to be critical of the data that’s being put out there! It doesn’t matter what side of the RH fence you happen to find yourself in, figures are figures and you shouldn’t manipulate it to your advantage. The public should not be scared into agreeing with the RH bill, and vice versa.

  25. ddo
    February 16, 2010 at 9:27 pm

    Twin-Skies :
    Hmm, may I recommend this commentary written by Fr. John Carroll, S.J.
    I see far more credibility in his argument, since he has worked in the Payatas area for years, and has done considerable study on RP’s population issues.
    http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100209-252097/Enough-of-demographic-terrorism-Lets-talk
    And btw, I suggest you read up on Ayn Rand before you post anything further from fdvb’s blog. FB is a hardcore Randian, and their line of thinking has long been discredited by the policymakers and scholars.

    I am encouraged by Fr. Carroll’s closing; “And yet I see reason for hope, based more on Christian faith than on objective analysis of the situation.” God bless him. Although the church is offering alternatives like NFP-Billings Ovulation Method.

    It has a 99% plus success rate among the riles settlers in Metro Manila and our Muslim brothers in Mindanao. It also has 99.7% success rate in China. Best of all, it is free, has no side effects and is thoroughly scientific. This is now taught in Pre-Cana or Pre-marriage Seminars for couples preparing for marriage in most if not all diocese.

    The church has missions to depressed areas where women listen with wide eyes as they realize they have a humane and Christian choice in the NFP-BOM. I have been fortunate in witnessing their awe at the gift of their bodies. They swear off artificial contraception feeling liberated from its inhumane and deadly shackles.

    So I disagree with Fr. Carrol because the church is not exactly sitting on its hands when he says it offers no alternatives. There are even NGOs like WOOMB who tirelessly promote this humane and empowering method.

    Would you like “causational data”? Perhaps you should just go to one such mission and see for yourself. Reading is one thing, to see and feel is entirely different. Something your mind cannot wrap around.

    The government will push artificial contraception because there is no money to be made in NFP-BOM. A former health worker admitted pushing a.c. and NFP was never presented as an option in real situations.

    With regards to Japan. Sushi! Love it!

    • February 16, 2010 at 9:32 pm

      arroyo’s government has disallowed the distribution and even education and information efforts on modern methods of contraception (artificial), it now pormotes only natural methods.

      public health centers used to give condoms, IUDs and pills for free to people. these were donated for free by USAID until the arroyo administration stopped it.

  26. Twin-Skies
    February 16, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    ddo :

    Twin-Skies :
    Hmm, may I recommend this commentary written by Fr. John Carroll, S.J.
    I see far more credibility in his argument, since he has worked in the Payatas area for years, and has done considerable study on RP’s population issues.
    http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100209-252097/Enough-of-demographic-terrorism-Lets-talk
    And btw, I suggest you read up on Ayn Rand before you post anything further from fdvb’s blog. FB is a hardcore Randian, and their line of thinking has long been discredited by the policymakers and scholars.

    I am encouraged by Fr. Carroll’s closing; “And yet I see reason for hope, based more on Christian faith than on objective analysis of the situation.” God bless him. Although the church is offering alternatives like NFP-Billings Ovulation Method.
    It has a 99% plus success rate among the riles settlers in Metro Manila and our Muslim brothers in Mindanao. It also has 99.7% success rate in China. Best of all, it is free, has no side effects and is thoroughly scientific. This is now taught in Pre-Cana or Pre-marriage Seminars for couples preparing for marriage in most if not all diocese.
    The church has missions to depressed areas where women listen with wide eyes as they realize they have a humane and Christian choice in the NFP-BOM. I have been fortunate in witnessing their awe at the gift of their bodies. They swear off artificial contraception feeling liberated from its inhumane and deadly shackles.
    So I disagree with Fr. Carrol because the church is not exactly sitting on its hands when he says it offers no alternatives. There are even NGOs like WOOMB who tirelessly promote this humane and empowering method.
    Would you like “causational data”? Perhaps you should just go to one such mission and see for yourself. Reading is one thing, to see and feel is entirely different. Something your mind cannot wrap around.
    The government will push artificial contraception because there is no money to be made in NFP-BOM. A former health worker admitted pushing a.c. and NFP was never presented as an option in real situations.
    With regards to Japan. Sushi! Love it!

    I have nothing against the church teaching its constituents to use an NFP-only policy on population control. My issue is that when they vehemently oppose any form of contraception, regardless of the consequences.

    You say it is “inhumane” to teach about artificial contraception, and yet what about women with unwanted pregnancies, and those who are victims of rape. Is it not inhumane as well to force them to carry a baby they did not want just because the church considers it “morally” wrong to use condoms or any other contraceptive?

    What is also inhumane is forcing somebody to bring a child into this world when they can scarcely feed of nurture them. Isn’t it also inhumane to force a young couple to carry a child to term, only to let their offspring starve to death?

    Speaking of NFP, you are right, it does work 99 percent of the time.

    …assuming that people engage in no sexual activity whatsoever, which is going to well-nigh impossible. Several studies have already confirmed that programs that use an NFP-only approach to sex education have backfired miserably, as is the case of Texas, when they implemented such a policy in 1995.

    http://law.onecle.com/texas/education/28.004.00.html

    According to the state’s own health department, the program has only been successful in tripling increasing teen pregnancies and STD infection rates from 1999 to 2008. This trend between abstinence-only education and pregancy rates was further solidified by a recent report by the Guttmacher Institute think tank organization

    http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/hivstd/stats/pdf/surv_2008.pdf

    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20100127-249720/US-teen-pregnancy-rate-up-for-first-time-since-1990study

    Furthermore, the American Medical Association was also very vocal in stressing that abstinence-only did not work to help prevent teen pregnancies:

    http://www.empowher.com/news/herarticle/2009/07/05/ama-report-finds-abstinence-only-sex-ed-doesnt-work?page=0,0

    As far as I’m concerned, imposing an NFP-only policy for sex education is like telling me that the best way not to get into a car accident is not to drive a car, or that the best way not to drown is not to swim.

    On a last note, my personal issue with the church is this: I am not even a Catholic – who the hell gives them the right to tell me or other non-catholics what they should do with their sex lives? And more importantly, why should we be taking sex advice from celibates in the first place?

    It’s like getting tips on good steak from a Vegan.

    • ddo
      February 20, 2010 at 9:26 pm

      “I have nothing against the church teaching its constituents to use an NFP-only policy on population control. My issue is that when they vehemently oppose any form of contraception, regardless of the consequences.”

      The church is being consistent with its teaching. The issue is why does government have to legislate and spend on these unsafe drugs and methods? It is money that can be better spent to more pressing problems like better health services and education.

      When we go against the created and creative order there will be dis-ease and dis-order. When man seeks to interfere with the very natural processes in a woman, there will be consequences not only physically but also in the way we see each other as persons. Everything becomes subjective and relative.

      Our culture has done a lot in reducing our personhood into sections. Society has reduced woman into body parts ie: booty, pu_ _ _, t_ _ s its all around in our songs and other media. Reduced to mere sections, it is easy to rationalize almost anything ang everything. Nothing is sacred anymore because we feel we are not beholden to a higher creative order. We are accountable to ourselves and that is it.

      “You say it is “inhumane” to teach about artificial contraception, and yet what about women with unwanted pregnancies, and those who are victims of rape. Is it not inhumane as well to force them to carry a baby they did not want just because the church considers it “morally” wrong to use condoms or any other contraceptive?”

      You are flailing here T.S. Why are you blaming everything on the church especially the victims of rape. Do you have “causational data” on the number of rape victims who got pregnant? I believe here you are broadly hinting on abortion otherwise we should outlaw rapists who do not wear condoms.

      “What is also inhumane is forcing somebody to bring a child into this world when they can scarcely feed of nurture them. Isn’t it also inhumane to force a young couple to carry a child to term, only to let their offspring starve to death?”

      Again, do you have any “causational data” for your claim? Do you have data on children starving to death becasue their parents are not able to feed them? I would be interested in seeing it if you have it. I think you are genuinely concerned with the quality of life of the children as I am and everyone else. But to hinge our hope for this children on a piece of latex rubber, plastic or pill is pitiful if we are to be compassionate people. Even our hopes have been segmented and reduced to the implements of artificial contraception.

      “On a last note, my personal issue with the church is this: I am not even a Catholic – who the hell gives them the right to tell me or other non-catholics what they should do with their sex lives? And more importantly, why should we be taking sex advice from celibates in the first place? It’s like getting tips on good steak from a Vegan.”

      Classic retort. Well maybe with the way non-catholics and catholics alike have abused sex and segmented and isolated its real purpose to pleasure by itself, then maybe you should think of being a Vegan? The steak you are eating might not be that good as you think. Is that a sex advice or a vocation advice?

      Last thought. I am surprised at they way they have coined the term “safe sex” for promoting condom use for disease prevention and unwanted pregnancies. This gift from God had a twofold purpose; unitive and procreative. It is an outrage the way they have juxtaposed the life-giving, sacred quality of sex and put it along the same dread line as a disease. And that is why the RH Bill is skewed because it operates along the same philosophy.

      • February 20, 2010 at 9:29 pm

        The church is being consistent with its teaching. The issue is why does government have to legislate and spend on these unsafe drugs and methods?

        decades of medical and scientific research points out modern methods of contraception are safe and no more unsafe than aspirin. these methofs being unsafe is just one of the mud slinging the catholic hcurch perpertuates. they are all lies. ironincal that the church itself is prone to telling a lie on this issue.

        • ddo
          February 21, 2010 at 9:28 pm

          Aspirin? Your giving Aspirin a bad name when you make that comparison. I leave it to you to read up on the risks of a.i. on WHO and the England Journal of Medicine.

          • ddo
            February 21, 2010 at 9:34 pm

            New England Journal of Medicine that is.

          • February 21, 2010 at 10:43 pm

            all medicines have side effects. they are chemicals our bodies take in, they will always have side effects. the question is if these medicines have side effects that our body can tolerate or if the medical benefits outweigh the risks of side effects. the key here is when you take a medicine, it is best you consult a doctor first. the doctor can also monitor the side effects on your body and he is the best person to decide if you need to stop taking the med or replace it with something that your body can tolerate.

            that is the same principle on pills, IUDs and injectibles. when you consult a doctor, the doctor will prescribe one to the patient that suits the patient best. the doctor will also monitor the reaction of the patient’s body to the pill, IUD or injectible. if the patient can tolerate the side effects and the benefits outweigh the side effects, then the doctor will allow the patient to proceed with it.

            modern methods of contraception have been proven over decades of medical and scientific research that they are safe and effective. many countries and millions of patients all over the world take them. do not believe the lies the CBCP puts out on these methods.

            • ddo
              February 27, 2010 at 9:04 am

              That is the line of pharmaceutical companies your pushing. I don’t think we can compromise the health of our women with that kind of attitude. These pharmaceutical companies are in this for one thing and for one thing only, PROFIT. They are driven by no altruistic vision. They answer to no one except their shareholders and not to a higher moral or divine authority.

              I’m sorry but I cannot in good conscience even pretend to agree with you. Anything that halts life or inteferes with a woman’s creative, life giving processes has repercussions more frightening than what we can ever imagine because you are re-programming a dvinely written program so to speak.

              Women have fertile and infertile days for a reason. She has her period once a month for a reason. We were created man and woman for a reason. We are gendered purposefully and lovingly for a reason. Even if you are not catholic or even christian, and perhaps just a mild, benign environmentalist you will see this connection more evident in our environment.

              When man interferes and dumps on the environment, there will be repercussions. We are already feeling it in the global warming effects we are reaping now. In the same way, when we dump on our bodies these artificial contraceptives or “pretty poisons” (like Snow White’s apple) of the RH bill, we will reap a physical, social and moral whirlwind where we may never recover from.

              We cannot afford to be cavalier about this because the cost is just to great. There is another way which hinges on the truth and that Wawam is what the church is putting out.

  27. Mon
    February 17, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    @DDO: Could you please supply us a link to the data that you presented (NFP 99%+ success rate with the riles settlers + Muslims in Mindanao, and 99.7% in China). If the studies done turn out to be just as credible as the ones Twin-Skies presented in the States, then perhaps some other factor (or factors) is in play here. Perhaps NFP (and by extension, abstinence programs for teens and unmarried individuals) only works when certain conditions (cultural differences, process used in presenting and implementing NFP, willingness of respondents to participate, target demographics, etc.) are met. But the numbers you have presented are staggering and impressive, and if that is indeed the case, then perhaps NFP does have some muscles to flex, given the right circumstances and approach.

    I allude to cultural differences here because NFP might find it hard to get a foothold in the States, given its sex-saturated and generally more permissive cultural climate when compared to China, for example, or perhaps even here.

    Twin-Skies: The scenario you presented (unwanted pregnancy/rape case) is a touchy subject because you now talk about abortion. The converse could also be asked, “is it morally right to end a life because it is socially and circumstantially expedient to do so?” or with regard to the rape example, “because it is unwanted?” Remember that the church’s stand is that life begins at conception, and this is invariably where they will base their response on. I agree with you that the mother would be in a very unenviable position, and it is difficult for one not to remain unsympathetic to her plight. She is in a very unjust situation, and she is also the victim here. I do believe, however, there are just some lines we cannot and should not cross in order to remedy a particular situation, and taking an innocent life is one of them. The scenarios seem to imply that the mother, if she does choose to abort, would indeed be well-off without the child. That would be the case if the only thing we would be looking at is the economic contribution having/not having a child would have. A human person’s value cannot simply be narrowed down to his economic output, and whether or not his/her existence impinges on another person’s convenience is not grounds for termination in my book. The danger here is when we view the child as a mere obstacle that needs to be traversed rather than a good. Let’s not forget that the “baby” conceived out of an unwanted pregnancy or rape is as much the woman’s child as the father’s as this ilustrates.

    • Twin-Skies
      February 17, 2010 at 4:54 pm

      Much obliged for the link :)

      With regards to abortion:

      I find late-term abortions to be a horrid thing, and I am personally against them.
      But, I also understand that in certain circumstances, the pregnancy poses a real danger to the life of the mother. In such circumstances, I strongly believe that such decisions should ultimately be left up to the pregnant woman.

      “The scenarios seem to imply that the mother, if she does choose to abort, would indeed be well-off without the child. That would be the case if the only thing we would be looking at is the economic contribution having/not having a child would have. A human person’s value cannot simply be narrowed down to his economic output, and whether or not his/her existence impinges on another person’s convenience is not grounds for termination in my book. The danger here is when we view the child as a mere obstacle that needs to be traversed rather than a good.””

      You’re assuming that every parent who decides to undergo an abortion is looking at this from a strictly economic perspective, let alone a matter of convenience. It is not,as stated by the the conclusion of the very same study you posted:

      “Our results indicate that over 25% of women who have had pregnancy losses feel they need professional help. Aborted women appear to require more and more sophisticated grief counselling than those who suffer other types of pregnancy loss. They should not be neglected just because many professionals think the loss of an unborn child through termination is of little consequence.”

      If I may add, isn’t it ironic that you claim you claim that a child should not be treated as a commodity, and yet in doing so it results in telling the woman what to do with her body, as if she has no choice on the matter. She isn’t a commodity either.

      “The danger here is when we view the child as a mere obstacle that needs to be traversed rather than a good.”

      The “Would you abort ?” card. Unless you exhibit some degree of clairvoyance or have the ability to time travel, who’s to say whether the child turns “Good” or “Bad”?

      Please get me a copy of a Sports Almanac while you’re in the future btw :)

      “Let’s not forget that the “baby” conceived out of an unwanted pregnancy or rape is as much the woman’s child as the father’s as this illustrates.”

      But it’s not the father who has to carry the child to term, who has to endure 9 months of pain (if she chooses). The way I see it, in the end, it’s still her body, and she every right to make the decision on what to do next.

      And furthermore, HB 5043 was explicit in saying it also considered abortion illegal, so the matter of abortion in the Philippines is a non-issue, at least for now.

    • ddo
      February 20, 2010 at 8:08 pm

      Mon: Sorry for the delay in my response. The sites you may refer to are: http://www.woomb.org & and http://www.irh.com
      There are links you can go to that explain BOM, SDM and other NFP methods.

      Best.

      • Mon
        February 21, 2010 at 12:03 pm

        Thanks ddo. I’ll take a look at them as soon as I can :)

  28. Mon
    February 17, 2010 at 11:12 pm

    Nice touch with the Back to the Future insert, haha! :) Know where I can get a flux capacitor? It doesn’t have to be in a DeLorean, I think my Toyota will do just fine :)

    “I find late-term abortions to be a horrid thing, and I am personally against them.”

    I agree with you on this one. It is horrid. However, what causes the distinction between the horridness of late-term abortions with abortions employed earlier on? Where (and more specifically, when) do we draw the line and say that this kind of abortion is permissible and this is unacceptable? If life does start with conception then abortion, whether it’s late term or very early on, is already a termination of human life and thus equally abhorrent. (yes, the RH bill considers abortion illegal… but it also leaves the door open for abortifacient use, which does make abortion far from being a non-issue)

    We are all free to decide what we want to do with our bodies, I agree. But even this right has its limits. Here in the Philippines, for example, prostitution, or selling your body for sex, is illegal. Taking drugs, too. Yes, we can choose to do these but we should be prepared to face the consequences as mandated by law (but given the laxity of law enforcement in this country, maybe it still is a reasonable risk haha. just kidding). Anyway, add to that the fact that the life being formed in the womb is distinct in its individuality and thus does not constitute simply being a part of a woman’s body.

    The study shows that women do feel pangs of pain and (quite possibly) regret because of having had an abortion. Now, a woman who chose to do so (or even more importantly, was forced to do so) because of economic reasons (they can’t support the baby, etc.), or due to other reasons that I admit I might have overlooked, still feels deeply affected by this because of the failure to consider just how much of a loss the abortion of a child really is. When I wrote that the baby is as much the woman’s child as the father’s, I was trying to explain that the mother’s relationship with her unborn child is something that cannot be reduced to economic (or whatever else) terms, and justifying an abortion on these grounds is incomplete at best. More often than not the feelings of loss and even guilt (the study cites women feeling guilty for having been complicit in the act) sets in after the abortion… when it’s already too late.

    “Unless you exhibit some degree of clairvoyance or have the ability to time travel, who’s to say whether the child turns “Good” or “Bad”?”

    Unfortunately I am not clairvoyant. But I think you misread my earlier arguments. I am in no way saying that aborting a baby hinges on the baby’s future goodness or, er, um, …badness? I think everyone is entitled to a shot at life.

    I don’t think I’ll be needing a sports almanac, but I appreciate the suggestion. Now, if I’m betting on horse races though… Naaah. :)

  29. Twin-Skies
    February 18, 2010 at 8:51 am

    Mon :
    Nice touch with the Back to the Future insert, haha!
    The study shows that women do feel pangs of pain and (quite possibly) regret because of having had an abortion. Now, a woman who chose to do so (or even more importantly, was forced to do so) because of economic reasons (they can’t support the baby, etc.), or due to other reasons that I admit I might have overlooked, still feels deeply affected by this because of the failure to consider just how much of a loss the abortion of a child really is. When I wrote that the baby is as much the woman’s child as the father’s, I was trying to explain that the mother’s relationship with her unborn child is something that cannot be reduced to economic (or whatever else) terms, and justifying an abortion on these grounds is incomplete at best. More often than not the feelings of loss and even guilt (the study cites women feeling guilty for having been complicit in the act) sets in after the abortion… when it’s already too late.

    I’m not going to get into the murky details of when “human life” begins, given that even medical experts are still arguing over this detail. For that reason, my emphasis is on the mother’s rights, because regardless of the argument as to when a fetus becomes human, the woman involved is very much human, and it’s her rights that are in question. Of course there’s the option of adopting the child, but that’s an entirely different topic.

    As for the parent having an abortion due to economic reasons, it’s never that simple.

    For one, what if the mother truly doesn’t have the mental or emotional capacity to raise a child? Raising a kid is no small matter (ask your parents), and if they do a terrible job at it, there’s the likelihood their kid ends up becoming a hindrance, or even a danger to society. Just look at our crime statistics, and see how many of the robberies are committed by teens and young adults, and the social demographic they belong to.

    Nor do I think that it’s fickle to base their judgement on simple economics. If two people had the same income, it’s quite obvious that the person who has more mouths to feed at home will have less leeway on where they can spend their money, such as sending their kids off to a proper school. Now when it gets to the point that the parents cannot send their kids to school at all due to lack of funds, what kind of future do you think they will have prepared for their kids?

  30. Mon
    February 19, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Since the issue of when life begins is so murky, and, as you’ve stated, inconclusive, to some (although I still maintain that conception would be the most logical place for it to happen), wouldn’t it be wiser to err on the side of caution then? Because if there just so happens to be human life, then that individual’s right to live would far outweigh any present and potential consequences there may be to the mother. As far as I know, most abortions are being done for reasons other than to save the mother’s life. Rights aren’t limitless. For example, our right to free speech ends when slander and libel begins.

    The reason I presented that study was to demonstrate that a good percentage of mothers (and perhaps even both parents) have feelings of regret for having had an abortion. There’s a certain sense of finality to it: try as they may, they can never bring their child back. I’ve encountered lots of moms who regret aborting their babies, but as far as I can remember, I’ve never encountered someone with a child who regrets not having had her child aborted when she had the chance. Again, the value of the child (as opposed to the value of not having the child) was something that, perhaps, they did not consider; and if they only did, then maybe they wouldn’t have gone through with the procedure in the first place.

    And yes, 4 kids do eat up a bigger portion of the household income than, let’s say, 2. But if we’re only concerned about having more disposable income, then, why choose to have kids in the first place? If 2’s ok, then surely, 1 kid or no kid at all would mean even more disposable income, right? And if a family’s OK with having 2 terminated pregnancies so 2 of the 4 could get a chance to go to college, then why choose those 2 in particular? What gave the remaining 2 more rights to exist than the ones who were aborted?

    And I don’t think we can justify abortion by appealing to the probability of the children becoming hindrances in the future. There’s a lot of “ifs” there. I’m not clairvoyant, and I don’t think you are too. :) Let’s assume that statistics show 95% of kids from a particular social demographic grow up to become delinquents. By that logic, you’re already condemning to non-existence the 5% who won’t become delinquents. There’s a reason for “innocent until proven guilty.” Hmm… that also sounds eerily like pre-crime in Minority Report.

    I did find the time to read the article, and I found it to be very well-written and passionate in what it stands for. Thank you for the link! :) Although I do agree that women are frequently subjected to a double standard in our society and unjustly so, I still disagree with most of the points the author raised. Her justification of the birth control bill in the last paragraph, for example. Appealing to the supposed benefits of the pill cannot be grounds to justify its existence; just because something does lead to favorable effects (and this is far from being proven conclusive too… the other side would raise just as many reasons why it doesn’t) still does not prove its being right or wrong. Euthanasia would lead to a lot of favorable effects for society as well, economically-speaking… and I hope you agree with me when I say that it’s wrong.

    Oh, and another thing, I think attributing the “collective contribution of recent generations of women to the wellness and development of the world” all because women are contracepting is a tad too much. :)

  31. Twin-Skies
    February 19, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Mon :
    Since the issue of when life begins is so murky, and, as you’ve stated, inconclusive, to some (although I still maintain that conception would be the most logical place for it to happen), wouldn’t it be wiser to err on the side of caution then? Because if there just so happens to be human life, then that individual’s right to live would far outweigh any present and potential consequences there may be to the mother.

    My problem is if we follow that logic to its full conclusion, then shouldn’t women who miscarry be charged with manslaughter, since their bodies, whether intentionally or not, terminated the life of an unborn fetus, since we classify them as human beings?

    The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology also recently published a recent study indicating that caffeine consumption can also double the chance of a woman suffering a miscarriage.

    http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(07)02025-X/abstract

    Given we don’t know which woman may unwittingly be aborting their fetus with their next cup of coffee, wouldn’t it make sense to ban caffeine outright, “just to be on the safe side?”

    As to life beginning at conception, I have to disagree.

    A fertilized egg is nothing more than a cluster of tissue. It has not formed a heart, a central nervous system, let alone a consciousness. While it may have human DNA, it’s no more a “human being” than my skin is. And we don’t grieve for
    dead epidermal tissue now, do we? :)

    Rights aren’t limitless. For example, our right to free speech ends when slander and libel begins.

    Keep in mind that the mother has as much right as the child. The reason I stay hands off on the matter of deciding on abortions (despite my personal disagreement) is that I would be railroading the rights of the woman to what she decides for her body.

    The reason I presented that study was to demonstrate that a good percentage of mothers (and perhaps even both parents) have feelings of regret for having had an abortion. There’s a certain sense of finality to it: try as they may, they can never bring their child back. I’ve encountered lots of moms who regret aborting their babies, but as far as I can remember, I’ve never encountered someone with a child who regrets not having had her child aborted when she had the chance. Again, the value of the child (as opposed to the value of not having the child) was something that, perhaps, they did not consider; and if they only did, then maybe they wouldn’t have gone through with the procedure in the first place.
    And yes, 4 kids do eat up a bigger portion of the household income than, let’s say, 2. But if we’re only concerned about having more disposable income, then, why choose to have kids in the first place? If 2’s ok, then surely, 1 kid or no kid at all would mean even more disposable income, right? And if a family’s OK with having 2 terminated pregnancies so 2 of the 4 could get a chance to go to college, then why choose those 2 in particular? What gave the remaining 2 more rights to exist than the ones who were aborted?
    And I don’t think we can justify abortion by appealing to the probability of the children becoming hindrances in the future. There’s a lot of “ifs” there. I’m not clairvoyant, and I don’t think you are too.

    Aren’t these among the issues that the RH Bill is aimed to resolve to begin with? I thought the whole point of the bill is to educate people on the matter of their sex lives to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which can result in abortions.

    As to the dilemma of a family aborting two kids and keeping the other two, it will really depend on their personal motivations, so I reserve my judgment on the scenario you painted.

    Let’s assume that statistics show 95% of kids from a particular social demographic grow up to become delinquents. By that logic, you’re already condemning to non-existence the 5% who won’t become delinquents. There’s a reason for “innocent until proven guilty.” Hmm… that also sounds eerily like pre-crime in Minority Report.

    It seems didn’t explain my argument earlier properly. My bad :(

    My point isn’t about the “probability” of how many kids grow up into delinquents or the like – there are far too many unseen factors that can affect their growth after all. My issue is with anti-abortionists who claim to be all about defending the life of the unborn, and yet don’t seem to care when the child IS born, and is forced into a life of poverty, starvation and abuse.

    I did find the time to read the article, and I found it to be very well-written and passionate in what it stands for. Thank you for the link! Although I do agree that women are frequently subjected to a double standard in our society and unjustly so, I still disagree with most of the points the author raised. Her justification of the birth control bill in the last paragraph, for example. Appealing to the supposed benefits of the pill cannot be grounds to justify its existence; just because something does lead to favorable effects (and this is far from being proven conclusive too… the other side would raise just as many reasons why it doesn’t) still does not prove its being right or wrong. Euthanasia would lead to a lot of favorable effects for society as well, economically-speaking… and I hope you agree with me when I say that it’s wrong.

    Glad you enjoyed it, although if you’re going to state your opinion, I think it’s better if you answer her blog post directly. It is her argument after all, and she’ll be more than willing to reply.

  32. Mon
    February 20, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    “My problem is if we follow that logic to its full conclusion, then shouldn’t women who miscarry be charged with manslaughter, since their bodies, whether intentionally or not, terminated the life of an unborn fetus, since we classify them as human beings?”

    I have to admit that this take on miscarriages never crossed my mind. Thank you very much. This just goes to show that divergent viewpoints do help in broadening horizons. :)

    The main difference between murder and manslaughter is the presence of malice (according to my World Book encyclopedia). Malice could be defined as the intent to kill: the purpose of the defendant is to kill the victim. Voluntary manslaughter involves the killing of a person done in a heated moment and usually at the provocation of the victim, and that moment is not enough to justify self-defense (i.e. being in a fight with the victim without intending to kill the victim that consequently results in the victim’s death). I don’t see how this could be applied to the miscarriages, so I guess you’re referring to involuntary manslaughter.

    Involuntary manslaughter (or manslaughter by negligence)is death that results while the offender is engaged in some wrongful act (unintentionally killing someone while robbing a bank) or an act that can be termed as grossly or criminally negligent (killing someone while recklessly speeding, or if a doctor negligently fails to do something in an operation that goes wrong).

    Miscarriages do not fall under these categories. If it’s a spontaneous miscarriage, then we can assume that the woman wasn’t engaged in anything criminal or negligent to induce that miscarriage. That wouldn’t be the woman’s fault. Now, the coffee case you presented has some problems to it. First, the study states that high coffee consumption increases the risk for miscarriages. There’s a big difference between “increasing the risk” and “causing.” For this reason, a mother who is an avid coffee drinker cannot be prosecuted for manslaughter because the coffee can not be proven to be the cause for her miscarriage. When she miscarries, can we conclusively say, without a doubt, that it was due to the coffee?

    EXAMPLE: Riding a scooter increases the risk of dying in an accident (compared to being in a car). If there is manslaughter there, it should be because of speeding, or swerving, etc., not because the person was on a scooter.

    I must admit that that’s not a perfect example. I’m just trying to highlight the difference between “increasing the risk” and “causing.”

    And I’m sorry, but I don’t get why we should ban coffee totally. For one, what about non-pregnant women, and men in general? It’s like saying we should ban peanuts because it’s bad and could be fatal for people who are allergic to them. And if you’re simply trying to show that coffee and abortion are similar in this regard, then I think you’re mistaken. Abortion DIRECTLY CAUSES the termination of the baby. Coffee doesn’t.

    “A fertilized egg is nothing more than a cluster of tissue. It has not formed a heart, a central nervous system, let alone a consciousness. While it may have human DNA, it’s no more a “human being” than my skin is. And we don’t grieve for
    dead epidermal tissue now, do we?”

    A heart, a central nervous system, and consciousness do not constitute a person. Just because we are missing organs does not make us any less a person than someone with all of them (unless we’re dead, obviously). A person in a coma is, arguably, without a consciousness. Does that mean that once we are in a coma, we can, arguably, lose all the rights accorded to a human being? From the moment of conception, those “cluster of tissues” are already geared to develop into a baby, which is geared to develop into a toddler, which is geared to develop into a teenager, which is geared to develop into an adult. As such, it is the first stage of a human being’s life cycle. As far as I know, skin cells don’t develop into people; they don’t even come close. And just as a baby isn’t considered to be less human than a fully-grown adult, a zygote or an embryo or a fetus shouldn’t as well.

    I get what you’re saying about people opposed to abortion. Perhaps the outrage stems from the fact that you don’t consider abortion the termination of life, whereas we do. And if you were on this side of the fence, and you view every act of abortion as the willful execution of a life, then perhaps you’ll understand why. And also, just because some people are born under unfortunate circumstances doesn’t mean that they should have been aborted. That’s not the way to address poverty. If terminating lives is the way to end poverty, then perhaps we should kill off all born babies. That would be abominable, and from a pro-lifer’s perspective (that the unborn is a living human being), there’s not really a lot separating that and aborting babies of poor families.

    That doesn’t mean that the majority of us are unconcerned. It just means that we don’t agree with the solutions you are presenting. We just don’t see it as inhumane to allow a child to live for the sole reason that the family is poor. And also, that’s not the only reason why women abort, nor is it the predominant one. The #1 cause for abortions is still the want to postpone or stop childbearing, as seen here. Socioeconomic concerns are #2. I’m not saying that that makes this reason irrelevant. In fact, it goes to show that there still is a considerable portion of women who rate this as their main reason. I’m not trying to belittle this; I’m merely trying to put the issue into perspective. Poor people are not the only ones who engage in abortion. Life needs to be defended at all socioeconomic levels.

    I do admit that there are pro-lifers who are so overzealous that they appear obnoxious and unconcerned to others, with a holier-than-thou attitude that a lot of people find annoying. I agree, viable and realistic solutions to the problem should be presented, and poverty is something that needs to be addressed. I just don’t agree that abortion should be one of them.

  33. Mon
    February 20, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    Oh and I do agree that the woman has as much rights as the child. The issue here is about which rights we should be prioritizing, and I still contend that the right to live carries a lot of weight. It’s not about railroading rights. Our right to free speech can be “suspended” (in a manner of speaking…) or put to the sidelines if we already start slandering and defaming people.

    In the same token, it’s absurd to believe that we can justify killing the mother so the child can live the way he/she wants.

    It’s not about one having more rights than the other.

  34. Twin-Skies
    February 20, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    Mon :
    Involuntary manslaughter (or manslaughter by negligence)is death that results while the offender is engaged in some wrongful act (unintentionally killing someone while robbing a bank) or an act that can be termed as grossly or criminally negligent (killing someone while recklessly speeding, or if a doctor negligently fails to do something in an operation that goes wrong).
    Miscarriages do not fall under these categories. If it’s a spontaneous miscarriage, then we can assume that the woman wasn’t engaged in anything criminal or negligent to induce that miscarriage. That wouldn’t be the woman’s fault.

    Fair enough, but in either cases of manslaughter or murder, the accused is still going to get jail time, don’t they? Regardless if the fetus was aborted intentionally or accidentally, then shouldn’t we jail the mom in either case then?

    Now, the coffee case you presented has some problems to it. First, the study states that high coffee consumption increases the risk for miscarriages. There’s a big difference between “increasing the risk” and “causing.” For this reason, a mother who is an avid coffee drinker cannot be prosecuted for manslaughter because the coffee can not be proven to be the cause for her miscarriage. When she miscarries, can we conclusively say, without a doubt, that it was due to the coffee?

    Actually, it can be proven via a proper medical checkup whether the caffeine did have a hand in causing the woman to have a miscarriage .

    And if you’re simply trying to show that coffee and abortion are similar in this regard, then I think you’re mistaken. Abortion DIRECTLY CAUSES the termination of the baby. Coffee doesn’t.

    I thought we were talking miscarriages. I have yet to hear of a mother murdering their potential child with one too many cups of Café Macchiato 

    A heart, a central nervous system, and consciousness do not constitute a person. Just because we are missing organs does not make us any less a person than someone with all of them (unless we’re dead, obviously). A person in a coma is, arguably, without a consciousness. Does that mean that once we are in a coma, we can, arguably, lose all the rights accorded to a human being? From the moment of conception, those “cluster of tissues” are already geared to develop into a baby, which is geared to develop into a toddler, which is geared to develop into a teenager, which is geared to develop into an adult. As such, it is the first stage of a human being’s life cycle. As far as I know, skin cells don’t develop into people; they don’t even come close. And just as a baby isn’t considered to be less human than a fully-grown adult, a zygote or an embryo or a fetus shouldn’t as well.

    As for the matter of comas, I can’t really comment on the specifics since I’m not a doctor.

    I will however point out one scenario that has happened, and has caused controversy: Would it be murder to intentionally cut off life support to somebody who is only alive because of medical equipment? This is one possibility, and if you’re going to use an analogy between comas and an uborn fetus, this is the closest you’ll get.

    Up until a certain point of development, a fetus can’t survive outside the mother’s womb, much like how a vegetative person may only be surviving due to life support. And once again, cutting off life support for a loved one is strictly a personal matter between them and their immediate family, much like an abortion is the personal choice of a woman.

    Try to impose a moral high ground on somebody else’s family when it’s not your business, and you get a fiasco like the Schiavo case.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo

    I get what you’re saying about people opposed to abortion. Perhaps the outrage stems from the fact that you don’t consider abortion the termination of life, whereas we do. And if you were on this side of the fence, and you view every act of abortion as the willful execution of a life, then perhaps you’ll understand why. And also, just because some people are born under unfortunate circumstances doesn’t mean that they should have been aborted. That’s not the way to address poverty. If terminating lives is the way to end poverty, then perhaps we should kill off all born babies. That would be abominable, and from a pro-lifer’s perspective (that the unborn is a living human being), there’s not really a lot separating that and aborting babies of poor families.
    That doesn’t mean that the majority of us are unconcerned. It just means that we don’t agree with the solutions you are presenting. We just don’t see it as inhumane to allow a child to live for the sole reason that the family is poor. And also, that’s not the only reason why women abort, nor is it the predominant one. The #1 cause for abortions is still the want to postpone or stop childbearing, as seen here. Socioeconomic concerns are #2. I’m not saying that that makes this reason irrelevant. In fact, it goes to show that there still is a considerable portion of women who rate this as their main reason. I’m not trying to belittle this; I’m merely trying to put the issue into perspective. Poor people are not the only ones who engage in abortion. Life needs to be defended at all socioeconomic levels.
    I do admit that there are pro-lifers who are so overzealous that they appear obnoxious and unconcerned to others, with a holier-than-thou attitude that a lot of people find annoying. I agree, viable and realistic solutions to the problem should be presented, and poverty is something that needs to be addressed. I just don’t agree that abortion should be one of them.

    First off, I never said that that abortions are a cure-all for poverty. It should exist within a system of measures and solutions that are supposed to contribute to an overall plan to help balance the population and economic gain. The aggressive advocacy of proven sex education and reproductive health care programs should be at the forefront of these solutions, as well as an emphasis on pre and post-natal care.

    And as I have already pointed out more than once, the bill itself classifies abortions as illegal, so it’s a non-issue.

    And on a more personal opinion, while I disagree with abortions, I do think that we should at least consider it for long-term plans. You render it illegal, and all you’re going to create is an underground industry of illegal clinics run by doctors and medical staff of questionable credibility, unhindered by sanctioned professional standards.

  35. Mon
    February 21, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    “Fair enough, but in either cases of manslaughter or murder, the accused is still going to get jail time, don’t they? Regardless if the fetus was aborted intentionally or accidentally, then shouldn’t we jail the mom in either case then?”

    I think we shouldn’t be too preoccupied with the possible penalties that could be imposed on the act. Penalties like jail time and amount of bail are simply legal constructs that a particular society deems appropriate for a specific offense. Hey, the code of Hammurabi sentences a housebuilder to death if he doesn’t build a house properly and it collapses and kills someone. That’s involuntary manslaughter in today’s society, but I don’t think we’d resort to executing the engineer or the architect nowadays. :)

    And even in today’s society, mitigating circumstances could lessen the penalty of the offense such as murder or manslaughter. It doesn’t take away the fact that a life was lost and that that’s a bad thing. Not everyone who is sentenced for murder gets the death penalty (or life imprisonment in the Philippines… another example of penalties not entirely dependent on the gravity of the crime but on what society prescribes).

    Now should the women be penalized? I don’t think so. For one, we both agree that abortion is a sensitive issue, and society needs to be sensitive to the plight of women. There are other factors that are in play here that would lessen moral culpability (beliefs on when personhood happens, the woman’s social circumstances that make having a child difficult, etc, etc.). Jailing women will not accomplish anything, and this is not what we’re fighting for.

    Not what about those who run abortion clinics and perform these procedures on women? Now there’s a case to made for putting them in jail.

    Regarding the medical checkup for determining if coffee caused a miscarriage, can you be more specific? What kind of checkup would that entail? As far as I know, we can’t. And even if we can detect if someone was caffeinated to a high degree when a miscarriage happened, we still can’t say if that was the reason for the miscarriage. What about all those mothers who survived a miscarriage even if they were consuming a high intake of coffee, as the study reported? If you examined them using the medical checkup you mentioned, the caffeine levels in their body would probably rate high too… but their baby survived. So no, we can’t prove that it’s the cause.

    And just FYI, another article says that other caffeinated beverages do not have the same effect on the mother/baby, so maybe it’s not caffeine after all but something else in coffee. So maybe checking for caffeine levels in the body is irrelevant. :)

    As for personhood, I still maintain that it’s dangerous to purport that personhood is something determined by something external to the individual, or by what an individual possesses or doesn’t possess, or what an individual can or cannot do. If we adhere to that, then we’re opening ourselves up to disastrous conclusions. Persons with extreme disabilities (whether at birth or acquired later on) that render them incapable of even the most basic tasks can be categorized as non-persons, then. And just because someone depends on another to survive does not make him a non-person as well. A newborn baby also cannot survive on his own, cannot feed himself without external help as well. Hey, up to a certain age we’re still dependent on others! A premature infant that needs to be in an incubator is also like someone on life support. Being independent and in-charge of our faculties do not make us people. The Schiavo case is controversial because of the type of life support that was removed. Her feeding tube was removed, and that means that they were allowing her to starve to death, which is pretty inhumane.

    “Try to impose a moral high ground on somebody else’s family when it’s not your business, and you get a fiasco like the Schiavo case.”

    But not speaking out is an injustice as well. Morality is not relative.

    “And as I have already pointed out more than once, the bill itself classifies abortions as illegal, so it’s a non-issue.”

    Abortifacients are abortion-inducing, and since they’re covered as contraceptives, that makes it an issue. It is also highly contentious that increased contraceptive use can lead to a decrease in abortion.

    “You render it illegal, and all you’re going to create is an underground industry of illegal clinics run by doctors and medical staff of questionable credibility, unhindered by sanctioned professional standards.”

    By that logic we should attempt to legalize jueteng again! Lots of good Bingo-2-ball did to us. Or maybe legalize prostitution, or drug use. Now, if abortion is made illegal, then it’s up to the government to enforce the law. Them not being able to do it effectively does not mean the law’s irrelevant. The law must be enforced, and those who violate it should be put to task for their crime.

    • ddo
      February 21, 2010 at 9:33 pm

      Mon: Incisive. I agree 100%.

    • Twin-Skies
      February 23, 2010 at 9:01 am

      Let me get this straight – you claim that a miscarriage or an abortion is a life lost, and yet we should not criminalize the mother for being responsible? Even in the event of “accidental” deaths such as automobile manslaughter, the accused is still jailed, so why shouldn’t we jail a mother for the accidental death of a human being when she has a miscarriage?

      As absurd as this may sound, it IS being motioned as a law:

      http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/02/19/utah-passes-bill-that-charges-women-for-illegal-abortion-or-miscarriage

      Nevermind that the mother is suffering emotionally from the abortion – she should be jailed for her crime, yes? After all, we still jail errant motorists and the causes of other accidents despite their emotional distress. We shouldn’t give any special favors.

      As for you coffee article, I can’t make any comments since you linked to a lifestyle article.I would appreciate it if you presented a link to the study itself.

      As for personhood, I still maintain that it’s dangerous to purport that personhood is something determined by something external to the individual, or by what an individual possesses or doesn’t possess, or what an individual can or cannot do. If we adhere to that, then we’re opening ourselves up to disastrous conclusions. Persons with extreme disabilities (whether at birth or acquired later on) that render them incapable of even the most basic tasks can be categorized as non-persons, then. And just because someone depends on another to survive does not make him a non-person as well. A newborn baby also cannot survive on his own, cannot feed himself without external help as well. Hey, up to a certain age we’re still dependent on others! A premature infant that needs to be in an incubator is also like someone on life support. Being independent and in-charge of our faculties do not make us people. The Schiavo case is controversial because of the type of life support that was removed. Her feeding tube was removed, and that means that they were allowing her to starve to death, which is pretty inhumane.

      There is a big difference between someone who cannot survive outside the use of artificial life support, and somebody with a permanent, and yet livable disability.

      The situation of an amputee is an entirely different matter from that of a vegetable, who has no brain activity save for their basic functions. Of course there’s the off chance we can transplant their brains to a more robust body (http://www.gamerdna.com/uimage/E4wqGic/large/dreadnought-jpg.jpg) although that’s not feasible quite yet :(

      As for the Schiavo case, here is my question to to you: If the loved one simply cannot financially support the hospital costs of keeping their permanently vegetative kin alive, and there is no medical means of reviving them, isn’t it just as inhumane to force them to keep paying even if it will ruin their life?

      This decision should be one done by the subject’s closest of kin – and I’d imagine you’d prefer to keep it that way when something similar happens to your family or to mine.

      By that logic we should attempt to legalize jueteng again! Lots of good Bingo-2-ball did to us. Or maybe legalize prostitution, or drug use. Now, if abortion is made illegal, then it’s up to the government to enforce the law. Them not being able to do it effectively does not mean the law’s irrelevant. The law must be enforced, and those who violate it should be put to task for their crime.

      Interesting. Abortion = jueteng = drug use?

      How does one leap from one to the other? This classifies as a slippery slope argument until you can explain how one dominoes into the other.

      As for the matter of abortions, I found this recent blog post by a mother on her stance on the matter. Not exactly hard data, but it makes good food for thought :D

      http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/02/22/why-im-getting-an-abortion/

      • ddo
        February 27, 2010 at 9:26 am

        @Twin Skies:

        I read this poor womans blog and saw her video. Inspite or the brave, non-chalant front she is desperately and shakily trying to put up for her decision to abort her child, she is wracked with fear and guilt. It really shows.

        She had the abotion because her IUD failed. This does not exactly help the case of artificial contraceptives does it? The use of artificial contraception leads to abortion. I think that is the real food for thought there.

        Her reasons for the abortion is born out of fear and perhaps because her son has special needs. She could not take the pain of childbirth much less face the prospect of another child with special needs.

        Planned Parenthood (America’s abortionist and largest a.c. provider) plays on that fear. Just a thought: Could Planned Parenthood be a secret distributor for pharmaceutical companies that produce artificial contraceptives? Hmmm.

        Poor woman. Poor womanhood.

  36. Estipona ng Davao
    February 22, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    In regards to abortion,whether it is one week or late term,it is murder.I witnessed a lot of women who had done abortion,they suffered emotionally and a lot of psychosomatic illness bothering these women.The relationship between husband and wife is shattered,they constantly fight each other,even on trivial matters.Between lovers(outside of marriage),they will suffered the same.It will affect even their source of income or work.Women suffered insomia and low esteem.
    Why?Because they commit murder.Murder has spiritual curses .These spiritual curses will start to manifest in their lives.Slowly or even abruptly these curses will ruin their lives Unless they repent and ask forgiveness to their babies and to God.

    • Twin-Skies
      February 23, 2010 at 9:20 am

      Estipona ng Davao :
      In regards to abortion,whether it is one week or late term,it is murder.I witnessed a lot of women who had done abortion,they suffered emotionally and a lot of psychosomatic illness bothering these women.The relationship between husband and wife is shattered,they constantly fight each other,even on trivial matters.Between lovers(outside of marriage),they will suffered the same.It will affect even their source of income or work.Women suffered insomia and low esteem.

      So you also believe that the couple will be haunted by the malevolent spirits of the dead fetuses (Tiyanak) if they don’t turn to Jeebus for help?
      Why?Because they commit murder.Murder has spiritual curses .These spiritual curses will start to manifest in their lives.Slowly or even abruptly these curses will ruin their lives Unless they repent and ask forgiveness to their babies and to God.

      • Twin-Skies
        February 23, 2010 at 9:22 am

        So do you also believe that these couples will be harassed by the malevolent spirits of their dead fetuses (Tiyanaks) if they don’t turn to Jeebus?

        • Estipona ng Davao
          February 23, 2010 at 7:03 pm

          Twin-skies,this blog is about RH 5043.Please lets discuss about the issue.
          If you want close encounters try go to JCTD in plaridel ,bulacan or JA1 in batangas.You will see firsthand.Also look for JCTD in youtube ,you will see some.

  37. Mon
    February 23, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    I’m sorry for linking to a lifestyle piece, that was all I was able to find last week. Here’s the actual study. I hope it proves most useful. :)

    “Let me get this straight – you claim that a miscarriage or an abortion is a life lost, and yet we should not criminalize the mother for being responsible? Even in the event of “accidental” deaths such as automobile manslaughter, the accused is still jailed, so why shouldn’t we jail a mother for the accidental death of a human being when she has a miscarriage?”

    Short answer – yes. We should not criminalize the mother. And thanks for that article. I too share your disdain with what those lawmakers in Utah have done, and I sure hope it doesn’t take into effect.

    “Nevermind that the mother is suffering emotionally from the abortion – she should be jailed for her crime, yes? After all, we still jail errant motorists and the causes of other accidents despite their emotional distress. We shouldn’t give any special favors.”

    In this case I think we should. In the US, prior to the legalization of abortion in 1973, no woman was ever prosecuted for having had an abortion; I think that’s the case in the Philippines too. And it’s probably because the law, and rightfully so, should not allow itself to be entangled in the legalities of terms that it fails to render true justice. It’s comforting to know that, in some instances, our law has a heart. :) Would it be just to send the mother to jail knowing the special circumstance that she is in? And with regard to miscarriages (whether induced or not), shouldn’t the law also take heed of the fact that the mother and the child are inextricably linked and thus one’s actions greatly affect the other to an extent that can’t be found in other person-to-person relationships? These special circumstances are at the heart of the matter.

    That doesn’t mean the mother isn’t guilty of anything. Far from it. The law has to serve the public’s best interests, and jailing the mother won’t do that. What will jailing the mother accomplish? Jailing an errant motorist can be justified because he’d be considered a public menace; a danger on the streets. The mother hardly fits that bill.

    And no — just because the mother isn’t jailed does not mean that abortion isn’t murder, too. And yes, a life is lost, and it is murder…so the person we should run after is the abortionist.

    I am not talking about amputees when I referred to people with “extreme disabilities that render them incapable of even the most basic tasks.” I am talking about people precisely like Terri Schiavo, or people with advanced stages of cancer, people in a coma, severe strokes, brain injuries, etc… in other words, people that have lost all capability to be active and socially productive and are at the complete mercy of others in order to survive.

    The Schiavo case is particularly interesting because it started out as a family affair – the husband versus the parents. So, even if it’s a family thing, it can go out of hand and disagreements do occur. Life support can be discontinued if it’s already an extraordinary measure that’s keeping the person alive (advanced medicines and machines, and these can rack up one’s hospital bill in no time), so a family with limited financial means can, in good conscience, remove a person from this kind of treatment, and allow the disease/condition to run its course. But no one should be denied the normal care and concern that every human being is entitled to. That includes food and water. That was what was removed. So instead of Terri dying because of her condition, she died because of dehydration/starvation, and that’s pretty horrifying.

    “How does one leap from one to the other? This classifies as a slippery slope argument until you can explain how one dominoes into the other.”

    I’m sorry if it was unclear. I’m not saying that one leads to the other, or that they’re connected to each other in some way. I was reacting to what you mentioned about how legalizing abortion would only spawn an underground abortion industry. My take on it is that lots of activities have underground activities (i.e. drug use, prostitution), but we still don’t legalize them because the acts in themelves are wrong, plain and simple. Should we legalize drug use so we can curtail the spread of this underground industry? Or prostitution? Drug use, whether legal or not, is still wrong; abortion, whether legal or not, is still wrong.

  38. Mon
    February 23, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    Thanks for the blog post too. :D That’s a very relevant blog post especially since our debate started out as a scuffle about the RH bill, which grew into something else, haha :)

    So what’s your take on the position that contraceptive use actually increases the incidences of abortion? In that blog, she found herself in that predicament because her IUD failed.

  39. Estipona ng Davao
    February 23, 2010 at 7:21 pm

    I agree that abortion should be criminalize.It will create a deterrent against illicit sex,teenage pregnancy and irresponsible parents.The respondents must be charge with murder.Include the,couple and the abortionist and other people who acted as accessories in the commission of the crime.The crime must be elevated to 6 to 10 years of imprisonment.It will make married couples to have sex with all the preparation and enough foresight before they do it.If there are complications in the pregenancy that requires abortion it must get court order to permit it.
    Furthermore make prostituition illegal and other sex related industries also illegal.
    But what we are discussing here are only symptoms of spiritual corruption and degradation of morality in our society.I suggest the congress should review its laws to eradicate laws that promote sexual immorality.And must of all the laws must be properly and consistently enforce.

  40. Estipona ng Davao
    February 23, 2010 at 8:00 pm

    As a suggestion,the married couples should have a good and solid relationship with God.They must be God -fearing and responsible.In this way their lives is guided by the eternal laws of God,Lord Jesus Christ.Their decision to have children is always consistent on God’s laws.
    But the problem nowadays,sex is always promoted,encourage and sell as a commodity.
    Tri-media are part to blame on this trend.Pre-marital sex is encourage among teenagers and unmarried couples.From books to advertising,sex is marketed. The sanctity of sex for married couples was degraded.Plus the children witness how their parents,relatives and neighbors behave blantantly showing their sexual immorality.Instead people will be ashamed of sexual immorality,they encourage others that it is okey and fashionable.
    RH 5043 address the symptoms of unwanted pregnancy,illegitimate children,STD and sexual immorality BUT THE ROOT CAUSE IS SPIRITUAL CORRUPTION AND MORAL DEGRADATION.
    THIS IS WHERE WE SHOULD ADDDRESS THE PROBLEM.

    • February 23, 2010 at 8:40 pm

      you should ask villanueva to withdraw from running for the presidency, since he will lose anyway and instead focus his talents and efforts at addressing the problems you have identified. he is a pastor, that is one of the things he can do.

  41. Estipona ng Davao
    February 24, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    Bro.Eddie’s candidacy is a calling between him and God.We supported him for we believe on his advocacies , platforms and godly character.Comparing him to other candidates with the exception of gordon and perlas,had questionable characters and motives(especially on estrada).In our country’s condition ,we need more than track record and good intentions.We need God’s intervening power to resolve these maladies.These maladies are symptoms of spiritual corruption and moral degradation.
    The cause of these spiritual corruption is idolatry(worship of statues and images).If you read Romans 1:18-32,the cause of spiritual corruption is the worship of idols,images and even the cause of homosexuality and lesbianism. Idolatry degrades and corrupts the mind and spirit of man.Instead worshipping God in spirit and in truth,man worship lies and falsehood for he bows and pray to piece of wood,stone or metal or paper. Can piece of wood hears,speaks or breathes?No.It has no power even to move itself . God commanded us to worship His Holy Name and praise the works of His hands.In Isaiah 66:1,God’s throne is in heaven and the earth His footstool,can you contain God’s glory in a piece of wood,metal or stone?No.His glory is greater than this universe.Read also Deuteronomy chapter 4-6.The downfall of Israel from Solomon to Zedekiah is caused by idolatry.In Rev.21:7-8,God will judge who practices,falsehood,idolatry,sexual immorality,vile and unbelieving to the lake of fire.
    I think we should go back to issue of RH 5043.

  42. February 27, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    ddo :

    @Twin Skies:

    I read this poor womans blog and saw her video. Inspite or the brave, non-chalant front she is desperately and shakily trying to put up for her decision to abort her child, she is wracked with fear and guilt. It really shows.

    She had the abotion because her IUD failed. This does not exactly help the case of artificial contraceptives does it? The use of artificial contraception leads to abortion. I think that is the real food for thought there.

    Her reasons for the abortion is born out of fear and perhaps because her son has special needs. She could not take the pain of childbirth much less face the prospect of another child with special needs.

    Planned Parenthood (America’s abortionist and largest a.c. provider) plays on that fear. Just a thought: Could Planned Parenthood be a secret distributor for pharmaceutical companies that produce artificial contraceptives? Hmmm.

    Poor woman. Poor womanhood.

    what is the incidence of failed modern method contraception to total? what % are the failed compared to total who use them?

    i have also read a lot of stories of how modern contraception has been successful, just a few of the millions of women who have successfully used them, not to mention thousands of medical and scientific research that prove them to be highly effective.

    i have also read research done on a national scale on how not using any contraception method and some the use of natural methods have resulted to very many unwanted pregnancies.

    there is also a lot of data that says most filipinas want to use modern methods of contraception but do not have the money for them and do not have enough knowledge.

    a significantly large proportion of women, including catholics want to use modern methods.

    it is this kind of unsubstantiated scare tactics and demonizing of modern methods that breeds ignorance. shame on you for using this kind of dshonesty and misinformation.

  43. ddo
    February 28, 2010 at 1:42 am

    @Wawam:

    Careful, don’t blow a gasket. It was Angie (girl on video) who said her IUD failed that is why she got the abortion, not me. I could just tell that she anguished over her decision.

    “there is also a lot of data that says most filipinas want to use modern methods of contraception but do not have the money for them and do not have enough knowledge.”

    I would like to see how the questions were framed on the study you are referring to otherwise if it is the same as the questions here in the survey in this site then it is patently manipulative. Read the questions and tell me if those are not a leading question. It says nothing about the side effects of a.c. It’s all good because its “low cost” and it involves “responsible parenthood”. Talk about dishonesty and misinformation.

    Food for Thought—Allow me to quote from the RH Bill:

    “RH Bill SEC. 16. Ideal Family Size. – The State shall assist couples, parents and individuals to achieve their desired family size within the context of responsible parenthood for sustainable development and encourage them to have two children as the ideal family size. Attaining the ideal family size is neither mandatory nor compulsory. No punitive action shall be imposed on parents having more than two children.”

    Please consider — Fr: “What’s wrong with the RH Bill?” by Kit Tatad

    “Its (the RH Bill) declared objective of population reduction conforms to the global population policy launched by U.S. National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 in 1974, under the title IMPLICATIONS OF WORLDWIDE POPULATION GROWTH FOR U.S. SECURITY AND OVERSEAS INTERESTS. It targeted the Philippines, along with India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Columbia.”

    “NSSM 2000, also known as The Kissinger Report, called for a two-child family worldwide by the year 2000, using universal contraception and abortion. “No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion,” the Report said. In 1974, NSSM 200 estimated thirty million abortions worldwide. The annual rate has doubled since.”

    The Philippines is also a signatory to CEDAW (the Convention of the Elimination of all forms of Discrimation Against Women). Recently this CEDAW was pressuring Chile to decriminalize abortion. This CEDAW has a compliance monitoring mechanism for all signatory countries.

    It would appear this RH Bill is in bed with some very strange bedfellows. And we are getting modernly screwed for it. Shame on you for…never mind.

    • February 28, 2010 at 12:07 pm

      the quotes you cited has nothing to do with your efforts to demonize modern methods of contraception.

      there are many ridiculous posts in this blog but i think your post goes beyond eidiculous, it is actually a stupid statement.

      She had the abotion because her IUD failed. This does not exactly help the case of artificial contraceptives does it? The use of artificial contraception leads to abortion. I think that is the real food for thought there.

      “the use of artificial contraception leads to abortion”?

      there are many who use modern methods of contraception – many use condoms, millions use them over decades across continents. millions who use them all over the world have committed abortion? many also use the pill and IUD, they also had abortions? the most popular pill user in the country is gloria macapagal arroyo – has she had an abortion?

      come on – that goes over and beyond being illogical and hysterically stupid statement. there are not enough words invented to describe your irresponsible statement.

      i have over the years read many false information, idiotic assertions and irresponsible statements on this issue given by the catholic church and anti-RH bill proponents but yours take the cake for now, yours will probably land in the top 5 most stupid anti-modern methods statement.

      It was Angie (girl on video) who said her IUD failed that is why she got the abortion, not me. I could just tell that she anguished over her decision.

      but it was you who very irresponsibly and completeley incorrect in conclusing the use of modern methods lead to abortions. a sweeping generalization totally empty oflogic and sense.

      you read about a story of a single woman who is agonizing about aborting her baby because her IUD failed and the conclusion you make is the use of modern methods of contraception lead to abortion?

  44. February 28, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    ddo :

    @Wawam:

    Careful, don’t blow a gasket. It was Angie (girl on video) who said her IUD failed that is why she got the abortion, not me. I could just tell that she anguished over her decision.

    “there is also a lot of data that says most filipinas want to use modern methods of contraception but do not have the money for them and do not have enough knowledge.”

    I would like to see how the questions were framed on the study you are referring to otherwise if it is the same as the questions here in the survey in this site then it is patently manipulative. Read the questions and tell me if those are not a leading question. It says nothing about the side effects of a.c. It’s all good because its “low cost” and it involves “responsible parenthood”. Talk about dishonesty and misinformation.

    Food for Thought—Allow me to quote from the RH Bill:

    “RH Bill SEC. 16. Ideal Family Size. – The State shall assist couples, parents and individuals to achieve their desired family size within the context of responsible parenthood for sustainable development and encourage them to have two children as the ideal family size. Attaining the ideal family size is neither mandatory nor compulsory. No punitive action shall be imposed on parents having more than two children.”

    Please consider — Fr: “What’s wrong with the RH Bill?” by Kit Tatad

    “Its (the RH Bill) declared objective of population reduction conforms to the global population policy launched by U.S. National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 in 1974, under the title IMPLICATIONS OF WORLDWIDE POPULATION GROWTH FOR U.S. SECURITY AND OVERSEAS INTERESTS. It targeted the Philippines, along with India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Columbia.”

    “NSSM 2000, also known as The Kissinger Report, called for a two-child family worldwide by the year 2000, using universal contraception and abortion. “No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion,” the Report said. In 1974, NSSM 200 estimated thirty million abortions worldwide. The annual rate has doubled since.”

    The Philippines is also a signatory to CEDAW (the Convention of the Elimination of all forms of Discrimation Against Women). Recently this CEDAW was pressuring Chile to decriminalize abortion. This CEDAW has a compliance monitoring mechanism for all signatory countries.

    It would appear this RH Bill is in bed with some very strange bedfellows. And we are getting modernly screwed for it. Shame on you for…never mind.

    you have to be kidding!??? who listens to kit tatad on these matters? kit tatad has for years spewed the same kind of misinformation on this issue and NONE of the points he raised are ever taken seriously by anyone.

    the RH BIll is clear in intent and action – you need to stop imagining things and words that are not there but only exist in your mind. it’s ridiculous that you base your objection on the RH Bill on words and intent that are not in the bill itself but only in your mind. stop using invisible words to argue against the RH Bill.

  45. February 28, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    ddo
    It says nothing about the side effects of a.c. It’s all good because its “low cost” and it involves “responsible parenthood”. Talk about dishonesty and misinformation.

    where is the dishonesty and misinformation there? so far it is your post that is full of dishonesty and mmisinformation.

    like i said in my previous post, all medicines these being chemicals have side effects even aspirin. but medical science and rigorous testing and research allow these medicines to be used by patients if the side effects are minimal, are tolerated by the bodies of patients, rarely occurs and its benefits far outweigh the risk of side effects.

    the bill says it will pursue only safe modern methods of contraception.

    do not make it cound like if a medicine has a sife effect, it will kill and harmm all the patients who take them. by the way, i have not really read anywhere and i do not think it exist that a male who used a condom ewer died because of its use.

  46. February 28, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    ddo :

    @Wawam:

    Careful, don’t blow a gasket. It was Angie (girl on video) who said her IUD failed that is why she got the abortion, not me. I could just tell that she anguished over her decision.

    “there is also a lot of data that says most filipinas want to use modern methods of contraception but do not have the money for them and do not have enough knowledge.”

    I would like to see how the questions were framed on the study you are referring to otherwise if it is the same as the questions here in the survey in this site then it is patently manipulative. Read the questions and tell me if those are not a leading question.

    you are like the presidentiables and their supporters who are suffering in the polls – when the presidentiable is dowon at the bottom, the presidentiable and their supporters all of a sudden question the methodology and the reasearch agency.

    these studies i refer to are commissioned by local and international NGOs with the participaation of governmment agencies like the DOH and POPCOM. these NGOs and government agencies are not idiots and will fool themselves by formulating unfair questions. not to mention the fact that the research agencies themselves will not allow sloppy work.

  47. February 28, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    ddo :

    @Twin Skies:

    I read this poor womans blog and saw her video. Inspite or the brave, non-chalant front she is desperately and shakily trying to put up for her decision to abort her child, she is wracked with fear and guilt. It really shows.

    She had the abotion because her IUD failed. This does not exactly help the case of artificial contraceptives does it? The use of artificial contraception leads to abortion. I think that is the real food for thought there.

    Her reasons for the abortion is born out of fear and perhaps because her son has special needs. She could not take the pain of childbirth much less face the prospect of another child with special needs.

    Planned Parenthood (America’s abortionist and largest a.c. provider) plays on that fear. Just a thought: Could Planned Parenthood be a secret distributor for pharmaceutical companies that produce artificial contraceptives? Hmmm.

    Poor woman. Poor womanhood.

    this woman is thnking of abortion because of her own fears, not a result of the use of the IUD.

    it is incorrect to say the use of modern methods of contraception. you yourself said it – it is her fear.

    this is totally incorrect, irreponsible and totally wrong:

    The use of artificial contraception leads to abortion.

  48. February 28, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    ddo :

    It has a 99% plus success rate among the riles settlers in Metro Manila and our Muslim brothers in Mindanao. It also has 99.7% success rate in China. Best of all, it is free, has no side effects and is thoroughly scientific. This is now taught in Pre-Cana or Pre-marriage Seminars for couples preparing for marriage in most if not all diocese.

    99% plus success rate on NFP? what is the basis for this statemment? what is the source of the data?

    not even having the need to look at the data — tell us what % of women who are irregular in their menstruation. these numbers are in the double digits. NFP will NOT work for women who have irregular menstruation. or are you saying 99% plus of women have regular menstruation?

    • ddo
      February 28, 2010 at 4:38 pm

      Read about it especially the Billings Ovulation Method. 32% of couples in China who thought they were infertile were able to conceive by applying it. So you see the Method is cognizant of that issue because it works for conception as well as postponement of it. The Method is throughly scientific and I urge you to read up on it before you pass judgement: http://www.woomb.org & and http://www.irh.com

      • February 28, 2010 at 6:53 pm

        the BOM is not easy to do and it is very complicated. anything that involves mucus from the organ of the woman is not at all easy. you must be male, ask the women you know and ask them about it and they will tell you it is not at all simple. explain this to women and they will immediately tell you it sounds complicated most specially when they actually check their mucus. this method based on data from public health centers has one of the highest rejections from women.

        but regardless of efficacy issues the point is women should be given all the options available to them. it is the duty of the government to educate women on ALL methods available so that they can make an informed choice for themselves. that is what the RH BIll will do.

        it will correct the current situation where the government intentionally isolates promotion, education, information and recommendation only on NFP methods.

        this is probably the only aspect of medicine where this government intentionally keeps its citizens blind and ignorant on modern methods.

        hospitals and doctors promote the latest medicines, tschnology and processes. they will tell you the latest and most modern usually works better. but when it comes to contraception, our govt is promoting the least modern and the highest risk of failure.

        • ddo
          March 1, 2010 at 8:46 am

          @ Wawam:

          If we are to base it on your statistics, then you don’t have anything to worry about do you? People will do what they want to do so. You overestimate the power the church. There is no Catholic vote. You call the church “hysterical” and hypocrites. Maybe you have a stake in this RH Bill, I don’t know.

          Did I lie about DDT? or do you still think its a wonder chemical?

          The church does not want to remove the right of the person to choose. Let’s make that crystal clear Wawam. MMC is already being used and is more popular than NFP. But to legislate and give it out like candy and teach to 10 year olds, that is bordering on state control. And for tax payers to spend for artificial contraceptives instead of spending it on programs that cure real dread diseases (heart disease, malnutrition, diabetes, cancer) is the one that is truly hypocritical and frankly, ridiculous and myopic.

          Now it is called Modern Methods of Contraception (MMC), sounds much nicer than Artificial Contraception I must say. Good job in deodorizing this poison. As for your crazy analogy between ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTION and aspirin, even arsenic and anti-freeze (poisons to humans if you must know) taken in small doses can be tolerated by humans, but the effects are toxic nonetheless.

          ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTION disrespects womanhood and the ability of a woman to truthfully decide in deference to her creator or if she’s an atheist at least with something she can connect with on a personal level, her conscience. Someone wise said Ïf a people put their privileges before their principles, they are bound to lose both.” ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTION are only tools, vastly imperfect tools. Let us not foist this on our people

        • ddo
          March 1, 2010 at 9:15 am

          Complicated? A woman from the riles got it and is practising it. A woman from a poor sitio with barely a gradeschool education got it. The charts look complicated but they are not. I had the same reaction when I first looked at it. But really it is simple. It just requires a little more effort than the popping a pill.

          I believe for many the question is conveneience. That is the sticky part. It’s just too damn hard so lets just pop a pill and do whatever we want.

          When we sacrifice safety for convenience what kind of message are we sending?

  49. Estipona ng Davao
    February 28, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    The government should and must provide affordable mobern family planning methods available to all sectors.Let the parents(not the illicit couples) have the options and alternatives they need.The government must educate them all about the methods that are effective and within the budget.Then we educate the married couples on their responsibilities to the society and joy of having children.Educate them that the family is the basic form of the society.The church whether it is catholic or not will educate the couples their responsibility to God on rearing their children but not to force or intimidate the people on what their preferences.The methods used by catholic clergy is foul.
    The Christian churches do not intimidate or coerce the believers regarding on their family affairs.It educated ,preached and teach what God’s will is.They encourage natural family planning but do not force it.Teach the believers to be a part of the ministries.They are encourage to grow spiritually and have a close relation to God.Refocus their time and energy on the ministries.
    Sex should not be the central focus of marriage but rearing a God-fearing and law abiding family.Unfortunately SEX is the biggest commodity being promoted and marketed to all sectors.Everywhere SEX is promoted and encourage. I suggest RH 5043 wiil be expanded to eliminate SEX in the movies ,TV’s ,literature and advertising billboards.RH 5043 only address the symptoms ,not the root cause.

  50. February 28, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    ddo :

    That is the line of pharmaceutical companies your pushing. I don’t think we can compromise the health of our women with that kind of attitude. These pharmaceutical companies are in this for one thing and for one thing only, PROFIT. They are driven by no altruistic vision. They answer to no one except their shareholders and not to a higher moral or divine authority.

    I’m sorry but I cannot in good conscience even pretend to agree with you. Anything that halts life or inteferes with a woman’s creative, life giving processes has repercussions more frightening than what we can ever imagine because you are re-programming a dvinely written program so to speak.

    Women have fertile and infertile days for a reason. She has her period once a month for a reason. We were created man and woman for a reason. We are gendered purposefully and lovingly for a reason. Even if you are not catholic or even christian, and perhaps just a mild, benign environmentalist you will see this connection more evident in our environment.

    When man interferes and dumps on the environment, there will be repercussions. We are already feeling it in the global warming effects we are reaping now. In the same way, when we dump on our bodies these artificial contraceptives or “pretty poisons” (like Snow White’s apple) of the RH bill, we will reap a physical, social and moral whirlwind where we may never recover from.

    We cannot afford to be cavalier about this because the cost is just to great. There is another way which hinges on the truth and that Wawam is what the church is putting out.

    it is the line of modern science and medicine built over centuries of research that has resulted to saving the lives of hundreds of millions of people all over the world across generations upon generations of people. nothing cavalier about it.

    we are also gifted with a mind and heart that has the ability to think for ourselves and take action accordingly. the RH Biill allows the people to exercise those and changes the current situation where only one method is encouraged and promoted by the government. and that is despite the fact that mosrt filipinas are clamoring for modern methods of contraception.

  51. February 28, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    ddo :

    “I have nothing against the church teaching its constituents to use an NFP-only policy on population control. My issue is that when they vehemently oppose any form of contraception, regardless of the consequences.”

    The church is being consistent with its teaching. The issue is why does government have to legislate and spend on these unsafe drugs and methods? It is money that can be better spent to more pressing problems like better health services and education.

    right now, the state promotes only NFP and has stopped promoting and giving information on MMC (modern methods of contraception). the state is stiffling freedom and imposing its religuous beliefs on the people.

    decades of medical research and hundreds of users of MMC says they are safe. the charge of “unsafe drugs annd methods” is nothing but empty hysterical mud-slinging with only one intent – tell a lie.

    the irony of it is that these lies are being committed by the church itself and by supporters who are hypocrites who postures as championing what is right when what they say are lies.

  52. February 28, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    ddo :

    Problem is they still have side effects for the woman. In the fifties, DDT was touted to be the miracle pesticide. It was considered safe, cheap and effective. They even sprayed the damn chemical on kids. Now we know better and DDT is banned for this kind of use today after countless cases of it’s side effects were discovered.

    Knowing what we now know about artificial contraception and its side effects is proof enough that it is bad for women. Ofcourse they can choose to take it if they want to buy it themselves. But to legislate it’s use is callous to it’s dangers to our women, no matter how small it may seem to you.

    it is this kind of hysterical lies that give the church and anti-RH Bill supporters a bad name.

    it is hypocrisy. they claim they stand on moral grounds on their opposition but they use immoral ways and statements to besmirch the RH Bill and propagate lies to create hysterics among the people on modern methods of contraception.

    the RH Bill intends to provide filipinos all the options that are available to them and not just limit it to one. it is hypocrisy to criticize the RH Bill that legislates providing the people all the options while it does not criticize the state now for limiting its efforts only to one, NFP to the exclusion of the other. and yet we have data that says most filipinos want MMC.

    • Estipona ng Davao
      February 28, 2010 at 5:54 pm

      I agree with you Wawam.

  53. February 28, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    for me the catholic church and the anti-RH Bill proponents can disagree with the RH Bill. they can do that based on dogma and preachings and this is Humanae Vitae but it is wrong when they use tactics like demonizing MMC and spreading false and total lies on the safety and efficacy of MMC.

    telling a lie is a sin according to the commandment and yet they commit this sin everytime they talk ill of MMC.

    • ddo
      March 1, 2010 at 9:03 am

      Are you denying there are safety issues with ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTIVES, if you are then you are espousing a lie yourself. Let us not cloud the issue. ACs have side effects. We cannot hide behind numbers and pooh-pooh it because it is small. than is being insensistive.

      • pim
        March 21, 2010 at 11:59 pm

        even aspirin has side effects but do we ban its use?

        • Wilberg
          October 8, 2010 at 1:55 am

          Aspirins cure diseases, OCPs are not even medicine. Wrong comparison.

    • Wilberg
      October 8, 2010 at 1:42 am

      My doctor-instructor, and so our modules, are neutral about contraceptive drugs and devices, but from what I have learned from them, I cannot honestly say that the Church is wrong about these stuff.

  54. March 1, 2010 at 9:02 am

    ddo :

    @ Wawam:

    ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTION disrespects womanhood and the ability of a woman to truthfully decide in deference to her creator or if she’s an atheist at least with something she can connect with on a personal level, her conscience. Someone wise said Ïf a people put their privileges before their principles, they are bound to lose both.” ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTION are only tools, vastly imperfect tools. Let us not foist this on our people

    you talk about conscience and yet opposing RH Bill 5043 means you disallow the woman’s conscience to make its own informed choice on what she can do to her own body. the current situation is that the government hides the facts about MMC, the government restricts the information and witholds it from the people.

    you talk about conscience and yet you post lies and hysterics in this blog about unsubstantiated and unfounded statements like MMC is unsafe; that MMC leads to abortion and natural methods are 99% plus effective when women who have irregular mensturation run in double digits. your conscience distorts facts and peddles lies.

    you tallk about conscience and yet you aim to impose your own religious beliefs on others.

    please spare me these words.

    • Estipona ng Davao
      March 1, 2010 at 11:53 am

      I agree with you Wawam.The catholic clergy and its supporters should not demonize and spread lies on MMC.Plus they intimidate those who supports RH 5043.That is foul and hypocrisy.

      • March 1, 2010 at 12:00 pm

        at one point some priests and bishops even threatened to ex-commmunicate congressmen who support RH BIll 5043. they said they will not give communion to them.

        MMOC is safe for use. ask any OB and that is what they will say about it. some OBs will not prescribe it but not because of safety issues but their religious beliefs. that is fine. not to prescribe it because of religious beliefs is being honest. spreading safety issues which do not exist is telling a lie.

        the government should provide the information on ALL methods, both Traditional Method Of Contraception (natural methods) and Modern Methods Of Contraception (articial methods) and let the patients make an informed choice.

        the problem is right now only TMOC is being promoted by the government and no information on MMOC is given by the government clinics and hospitals.

  55. March 1, 2010 at 9:10 am

    ddo :

    Are you denying there are safety issues with ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTIVES, if you are then you are espousing a lie yourself. Let us not cloud the issue. ACs have side effects. We cannot hide behind numbers and pooh-pooh it because it is small. than is being insensistive.

    there are no safety issues on MMC. these have been proven medically safe by thousands of medical research over decades across the globe. these are widely used in many country and most of the modern world.

    talk to any OB and they will tell you the same thing.

    i never denied MMC have side effects. but as medical science says as i have pointed out – all medicines have side effects. even the aspirin has. but these durgs are allowed for use since the recurrence of these side effects are rare, the side effects are well tolerared by the body and the benefits far outweigh the risks. that thinking is applied to ALL medicines.

    that is why it is important that patients consult doctors whenever they take medication and that includes MMOC (modern methods of contraception).

    RH Bill 5043 intends to correct the current government practice of public health centers not offering even information and guidance on MMOC.

  56. March 1, 2010 at 9:15 am

    ddo :

    @ Wawam:

    If we are to base it on your statistics, then you don’t have anything to worry about do you? People will do what they want to do so. You overestimate the power the church. There is no Catholic vote. You call the church “hysterical” and hypocrites. Maybe you have a stake in this RH Bill, I don’t know.

    Did I lie about DDT? or do you still think its a wonder chemical?

    who is talking about DDT?

    and yes you lied about MMOC (modern methods of contraception) in saying they are unsaf and they lead to abortions. you lied about NFP or TMOC (Traditional Modern Methods Of Contraception) in saying they are 99% plus effective.

    women who are thinking of contraception should consult their OB and these OBs will tell them MMOC are completely safe unlike the lies you peddle here.

  57. March 1, 2010 at 9:17 am

    ddo :

    @ Wawam:

    The church does not want to remove the right of the person to choose.

    yes it does on this issue by blackmailing and threatening those who oppose RH Bill 5043 and for asking the arroyo government NOT to promote and not even to provide information on MMOC (modern methods of contraception) and asking the govt to support only TMOC (traditional methods of contraception or natural methods).

    many of the poor go to public health centers for their health because they do not have money to go to private health providers. not having these information in public health centers effective removes the right of the person to choose.

    Let’s make that crystal clear Wawam. MMC is already being used and is more popular than NFP.

    where do you get this data? you are wrong – the use of MMOC is minimal, more women do NOT use any protection at all while some use “withdrawal” which any doctor will tell you is one of the unsafest method. in fact it is not a method at all. MMOC use is in the minority. the philippines has one of the lowest usage of MMOC in our region.

    But to legislate and give it out like candy and teach to 10 year olds, that is bordering on state control.

    there you go again – another hysterical lie. the RH Bill does not mention and does not intend to give these to minors. in fact the bill is clear – only to adults and married couples.

    you have a penchant for this kind of hysterics. you like to invent things to demonize MMOC.

    i really should ban you from this blog for all the lies you post here. but i am not going to do that as your posts allows me to demonstrate the kind of dishonesty anti-RH Bill proponents peddle.

    i will make you the poster boy of lies of deceit and hysterics.

    And for tax payers to spend for artificial contraceptives instead of spending it on programs that cure real dread diseases (heart disease, malnutrition, diabetes, cancer) is the one that is truly hypocritical and frankly, ridiculous and myopic.

    where is it in the bill that says the funds for these types of health activities will be removed and channeled to the RH Bill.

    another one of the lies you peddle, creating hysteria and misinformation. you keep on bringing up issues and topics that do not exist just to demonize MMOC.

    the people are clamoring for MMOC. 70% of the population support RH Bill 5043. the duty of the government is to serve the people. it needs to support RH Bill 5043.

  58. March 1, 2010 at 9:32 am

    ddo :

    Complicated? A woman from the riles got it and is practising it. A woman from a poor sitio with barely a gradeschool education got it. The charts look complicated but they are not. I had the same reaction when I first looked at it. But really it is simple. It just requires a little more effort than the popping a pill.

    I believe for many the question is conveneience. That is the sticky part. It’s just too damn hard so lets just pop a pill and do whatever we want.

    When we sacrifice safety for convenience what kind of message are we sending?

    are you male or female? if you are male, you cannot understand how this method can be complicated for women and how much this is a turn off for them, specially for filipinas.

    data from the DOH says a very small portion of women use this method, a tiny single digit. fieldwork experience says most women find it complicated.

    this is not just about the chart. i now think you really do not understand how BOM works and what the woman needs to do. the chart is easy to look at, it is how to fill up that chart that is not.

    this is one of the worst methods for filipinas. they reject the method for cultural reasons. this method involves the woman observing the consistency of the mucus that comes from inside her vagina. it may also involve inserting her own finger way down into her vagina on a daily basis. most filipinas find that unacceptable and will refuse to do it for cultural reasons. they find it highly offensive and dirty.

    i do not think you understood how this method works,. if you did, your understanding of the filipina is very poor.

    the point is the government should give its citizens all the methods that are available to them, not just relegate it to one method just because the catholic bishops are blackmailing them to do so.

  59. March 1, 2010 at 9:46 am

    a note :

    by and large, i do not comment on posts made by readers in this blog. opinions are opinions and each person is entitled to it and should be respected for it.

    but i am doing so now as i realize some of the posts on this topic are incorrect, misleading, untruthful and as total lies packaged as facts. it also appears many of these are coming from one poster. i cannot tolerate this and i am correcting each and every post that has those based on what i know on the topic.

    for the women who read these posts, do not take what you read hers as gospel truth, what is best is that you consult your doctor on this matter.

    • ddo
      March 1, 2010 at 12:31 pm

      @ Wawam
      “there you go again – another hysterical lie. the RH Bill does not mention and does not intend to give these to minors. in fact the bill is clear – only to adults and married couples.”

      You misunderstood me. My point was that that sex education will be carried out to age appropriate kids like grade 5 students. I did not mean it would be given to minors.

      “where is it in the bill that says the funds for these types of health activities will be removed and channeled to the RH Bill.”

      There YOU go twisting my words. Never did I mention or imply anything about re-channeling funds away.

      Are you on damage control mode?

  60. ddo
    March 1, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    wawam :
    a note :
    by and large, i do not comment on posts made by readers in this blog. opinions are opinions and each person is entitled to it and should be respected for it.
    but i am doing so now as i realize some of the posts on this topic are incorrect, misleading, untruthful and as total lies packaged as facts. it also appears many of these are coming from one poster. i cannot tolerate this and i am correcting each and every post that has those based on what i know on the topic.
    for the women who read these posts, do not take what you read hers as gospel truth, what is best is that you consult your doctor on this matter.

    When you make this note , You are insulting the intelligence of the women reading your blog. You are treating them like brainless leptons. Clearly your in damage control and you are intimately involved with this RH Bill.

    I had hoped you will just allow the free exchange and allow it to seek its own level, without the threat of banning me. To bad you are emotional so I won’t overstay my welcome.

    Thank you for allowing me this free exchange. If I offended you or any other bloggers I assure you it was not intentional.

    We agree to disagree. In the end we are still filipinos and perhaps our collective good intentions for our country will in the end be good for our people as persons.

    Thank you and God bless.

    • Wilberg
      October 8, 2010 at 1:49 am

      Is that also the reason why some of my comments are suddenly missing? Just asking. :D I am not kidding, though. They are really missing.

  61. March 18, 2010 at 10:22 pm

    I can only hope this bill can be passed and implemented soon.

  62. Abraham V. Llera
    March 30, 2010 at 9:58 pm

    These Ateneans deliberately, freely, and with full knowledge go against the Church’s teaching, and, like all Modernists– whom Pope Pius XI condemned in his Pascendi Dominici Gregis– should be condemned as well for being heretics.

    • March 31, 2010 at 9:07 am

      “should be condemned as well for being heretics.”

      I read somewhere, “do not judge or you too will be judged.” And, “For in the same measure…”

  63. April 20, 2010 at 10:51 pm

    Its clearly that people are in favor of reproductive health, If we listen to CBCP and some priest here wala na talagang pag-asa ang bansa natin. Maski naman mga presidentiables alam nila na ang over population ng Pilipinas ang talagang problema hindi ang corruption. Natatakot lang siguro sila sa CBCP at bakit naman hindi lahat ba naman ng sumuporta sa RH Bill ay tinawag nilang kampon ni Satanas. Mas maganda siguro kung may maii-offer silang solution tulad ng sila na lang magpakain sa mga nagugutom na Pilipino.

  64. Alpine
    April 24, 2010 at 11:22 am

    I’m just struck by the title: “CATHOLICS CAN SUPPORT THE RH BILL IN GOOD CONSCIENCE”. What a bold claim, but quite way out of line. I thought only the Pope (as the representative of Christ on earth – for Catholics) and the Catholic Bishops Conference in a country can make such “claims”? It’s a good thing there’s a disclaimer stating that the opinions expressed in the position paper are by the authors and not by the Society of Jesus or the Ateneo as an institution. This post has generated a very active exchange of opinions, which is good. Hwag lang sana emotional. Reminder lang: at the end of the day, what is morally right is not determined by what is popular. My opinion: if the government, or any group for that matter, wants to carry out a population program, fine, individuals can also do so in their personal capacity; but I don’t think there is a need to legislate it and impose it on others who don’t want it.

  65. stan da man
    April 30, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    I would like to see some statitics that show unwanted pregnancies, etc reduced on countries that have already implemented some form of reproductive health bill, including the US. The forecast sound good, but it does not have meaning until actual results have been presented. Areguments are empty works. What I have heard instead is the exact opposite. More unwanted pregnancies in Brazil. More women dying of STDs and cervical cancer in the US. etc. Please show data that RH bill has done good. Otherwise, it is another junk.

    • Sir
      October 13, 2010 at 6:00 pm

      I agree.

      A study like this would surely outdo, position papers like this.
      It has been said that this bill was based off from internationally recognized human rights standards, so am sure that major countries like the US have bills similar to the RH bill.

      I am not pretty sure if I want the “quality of family life” in the US be replicated here in the Philippines.

  66. Irritated
    July 11, 2010 at 4:28 am

    I find it strange that Men argue about what is good for Women. The Natural method does not work for me as I am not regular and I am pretty sure that not ALL women are regular as clock work too. So where does that leave us irregular cycled chicks? We hormonally imbalanced women-folked? If I recall one of the remedy prescribe is take a pill to regularized your period.

    Checking for mucus will also not work for me as I have to insert my finger to check and even then how will i know if it is the right constituency whatever the heck that is. And to do that everyday?! Perhaps men should try sticking their fingers up their asses to check if they are constipated or not to get an approximation of how that feels for us? I have a hard enough time getting a tampon in. Abstaining works by try telling that to your husband. Perhaps we should say oh honey can you stick a finger in and get a mucus sample? Oh mhm its not thick enough. Sorry no sex dear.

    Perhaps the men here who argue against the RH bill are secretly afraid that the knowledge will ‘free their women? Now that I can decide when I want to have a baby that certainly frees up my options (feel free to imagine what those options are). Perhaps that is what is really bugging those that are against the RH bill? Every side can quote all the facts and logic that they want to present to support their view but it all boils down to really why do you give a damn? And deep down inside are all our reasons REALLY REALLY REALLY altruistic? Or are you really just afraid that the Truth will really set (people/wife/child/insert who) free? It’s kinda like saying Women! You have the power to say No to your Man! and then having your woman use that on you.

    (On an aside: I think this is also why a divorce bill will never be passed on this country- it might finally give those women who have to endure being married to a stupid lout the power to get rid of them. Stupid lout’s ego will never recover and perhaps resort in rage to assert said masculinity. Of course divorce bill will also allow hen peck husbands to get rid of abusing wives. It goes both ways you know but that is another heated topic.)

    I am all for presenting all the available data about the human body, the choices available, what they do, what they don’t do, possible side effects etc and LEAVE THE CHOICE TO THE WOMEN (but if you are in a relationship this is something to be decided by both Men and Women) as to what contraceptive method they want to use. It’s bad enough that not all of us have control with our own bodies. Our society still insists on the Maria Clara ideal. The Mother or the Whore. Our Society and culture is still inherently patriachial that even on things that involve a woman’s body is decided by MEN! And opposed by supposedly ‘celibate’ men too.

    I still know 20 something colleagues who think coke and aspirin together is a good contraceptive. Sure the RH Bill maybe a stop gap thing but we NEED to address one thing at the very least before being able to deal with other issues and factors that plague this country of ours.

    The way some people argue here with regards to the RH bill and shooting it down is like watching an army (Philippines) getting attack on all fronts (by issues one of them overpopulation and resources being strained as one of the issues) and their general (CBCP/Government/Filipino People-take your pick) keeps disregarding any plans brought up to fend off the attackers (bury head in sand) saying no this is flawed no this is flawed too and pretty soon they get overwhelmed with the enemy.

    There is no magic pill, no genie in the lamp that will fix the Philippines’ problems. We can deal with what we have now while we wait for that one great plan that can fix everything (if there is one) but to do nothing while we wait for that perfect plan of action is stupid.

    Bottom line, give us ALL the facts. Point us to resources that we can see for ourselves and confirm THOSE facts. Give us the available choices. Then as a thinking person we will decide what to do with it. We know the stand of the Church. Now let us hear the stand of Science. If the Church is so damn secure they are right then it should be able to stand up to the scrutiny of Science and not throw a hissy fit like a stupid kid every time someone disagrees with them.

    • October 14, 2010 at 8:11 am

      “I find it strange that Men argue about what is good for Women.”

      Are you suggesting that obstetricians should be all women; that woman clients should just have female psychiatrists; that woman patients should be attended only by woman doctors; that girl students should be taught by woman teachers; that a woman priest should be presiding a Mass for women; that woman soldiers should not be handled except by woman commanders; that husbands don’t know what’s good for their wives; and that it is impossible for fathers to guide their girls?

  67. Neigyl R. Noval
    October 3, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    There are good things about this bill. But, there are also bad things in it. However, the bad things prevails–that is the reason why I will present the bad things. You need to have a copy of the RH Bill on sight for you to be guided accordingly.

    Here are the irregularities of the RH Bill. Please read this carefully so that you may be aware of this:

    Section 2. First paragraph: “…respect for life in conformity with internationally recognized human rights standards.”
    –> Why not in conformity with the Philippine standards? Why international? Do we need to follow other countries’ way of population control and reproductive health? Or are we undermined or enslaved by the first world countries? Philippines is known for its good and kind people like being hospitable, which other countries are seeking to learn. We have our own standards.

    Section 2. Third paragraph: “…sustainable human development is better assured with a manageable population of healthy, educated and productive citizens.”
    –> If you love our country, or if you love other people, you will see that this statement may promote euthanasia, divorce, etc. If you don’t see it, seek more of its meaning. It lies beneath the underneath. There will be an unequal distribution of wealth. Don’t you see it?

    Section 3. (a): “In the promotion of reproductive health, there should be no bias for either modern of natural methods of family planning;”
    –> Nothing in this bill that promotes the natural family planning.

    Section 3. (e): “The limited resources of the country cannot be suffered to be spread so thinly to service a burgeoning multitude that makes the allocations grossly inadequate and effectively meaningless.”
    –> Whoa, more money for the rich! If you look at this bill only on its presented purpose and overlooking its effects, then we have a problem. You see? This promotes more wealth for the rich.

    Section 3. (f): “Freedom of informed choice, which is…”
    –> What is meant by informed choice? Does it mean everyone is free to watch x-rated films? How about the kids? How about a demonstration in class? Oh, it’s our choice! We are free to be informed of it. Really?

    Section 3. (g): “While the number and spacing of children are left to the sound judgement of parents and couples based on their personal conviction and religious beliefs…”
    –> This statement is contradicted by Section 10.
    Continued: “…such concerned parents and couples, INCLUDING UNMARRIED INDIVIDUALS, should be granted…”
    –> This includes minors, and lovers not capable of being a parent. This promotes pre-marital sex, non-marital sex, abortion, promiscuity, fornication, incest, etc. Anyway, we are free to do it!
    Continued: “…and should be guided by qualified State workers and professional private practitioners;”
    –> Why are church leaders not included? Why do priests, bishops, nuns, etc not involved?

    Section 3. (j): “Development…that seek to uplift the quality of life of the people, more particularly the poor, the needy and the marginalized;”
    –> What assurance will the poor benefits? Please reflect on this. Is it really for the quality of life?

    Section 3. (l): “Respect for, PROTECTION and FULFILLMENT of REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH RIGHTS…not only the rights and welfare of adult individuals and couples BUT THOSE OF ADOLESCENTS’ AND CHILDREN’S AS WELL;…”
    –> What reproductive health rights for the adolescents and children? Children are included, whose mind are not yet mature enough! This may promote a dirty knowledge about this to the children. Parents will be responsible for this.

    Section 3. (m): “…as abortion remains a crime and is punishable, the government shall ensure the women seeking care for POST-ABORTION COMPLICATIONS shall be treated…and compassionate manner.”
    –> This is again contradicted in Section 10. The bill doesn’t only contradicts the Law of Nature but violates the bill itself as well. Post-abortion complications in this statement is only an admission that abortion really has complications.

    Section 4. “Definition of Terms”
    –> This may not be a big deal but redefining the common understanding of everyone does not need to be defined.

    Section 4. (b): “…which enables couples and INDIVIDUALS to decide freely and responsibly the NUMBER and SPACING OF THEIR CHILDREN…”
    –> “Individuals.” Does this mean that unmarried couples have the right to have children? I’m using my common sense here. You should use yours also.

    Section 4. (c): “Reproductive Health – refers to the state of physical, mental and social well-being…”
    –> Why spiritual and moral well-being not included here?
    Continued: “This implies that PEOPLE are able to have a SATISFYING and SAFE SEX LIFE, that they have the CAPABILITY TO REPRODUCE and the freedom to DECIDE if, WHEN AND HOW OFTEN TO DO SO, provided that these are not against the law.”
    –> Take note of the phrases that are in UPPERCASE. People to have satisfaction includes the youth, unmarried, homosexual, etc. And, they may decide when and how often to do so? How about teenagers doing it every minute on the grassland? It is not against the law as long as no one saw them.

    Section 4. (d): “Reproductive Health Rights – refers to the rights of INDIVIDUALS and couples to DECIDE FREELY AND RESPONSIBLY the number, spacing and timing of their children.”
    –> Again, the ‘individual’ word. Does this bill really promotes population control in which I can decide freely and responsibly the number of children? Suppose I receive great pay, I can raise about 15 children. What a population control. This bill is too vague.

    Section 4. (g): “10. Male involvement and participation in reproductive health.”
    –> Number 1 to 8 of this section may be considered okay. But on 10, how will I be involved and participate with reproductive health? Isn’t it obvious that this refers to sex? Take note that on Section 4 (c) doesn’t include the spiritual well-being.

    Section 4. (h): “…relevant information on all matters relating to the reproductive system its functions and processes and human sexuality…”
    –> This may promote promiscuity in education.
    Continued: “…developing NECESSARY SKILLS to be able to distinguish between facts and myths on sex and sexuality…”
    –> How? Doing actual sexual intercourse in class? What necessary skills? Does it mean the techniques, the positions and the likes? Does it mean the class will have a film showing on pornographic films?

    Section 10: “Contraceptives as ESSENTIAL MEDICINES – hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other allied reproductive health products…shall be considered under the category of ESSENTIAL MEDICINES…”
    –> This is the most interesting part. Contraceptives are now considered as ESSENTIAL MEDICINES–not only an ordinary medicine but an ESSENTIAL medicine. We can buy condoms the same way we buy Biogesic. Teenagers can buy those too at an affordable price. Better advertise it so that small children will learn too and if possible imitate it through experiments and practice for better reproductive health learning and to master the NECESSARY SKILLS as depicted in Section 4, h.

    Section 12. (g): “Abstinence before marriage”
    –> How can this be promoted when the unmarried are allowed to have sex and reproduction (See Section 4)?

    Sections 22 – 27:
    –> If this become a law, people like me who loves humanity will have no choice to obey it. One reason for peoples immorality may be from this law.

    I know you are tired of reading my sharing. That only proves that this Bill has many irregularities. Erase all those above mentioned parts on the Bill, and the Bill may become better for the people and logical.

  68. marvin santos
    October 8, 2010 at 8:52 am

    Fr. Wilbert S. Dianon, SDB :The arguments of this faculty are based on data and statistics. This sounds very convincing, as it would reflect the sentiments of the filipino families and the youth in particular.I am concerned of the youth. By trying your best to promote that RH Bill 5043 is good for them because it prevents them from those dangers of unwanted pregnancies and early death, you do not address the issue why youth are increasingly into pre-marital sex. Thus the issue of unwanted pregnancy and early death cannot just be solved through RH5043.The supporters of the bill think naively. They only suppose skin-deep solutions to the problem which is deeper – moral decadence in the life of youth today.By promoting the bill 5043, you are, as if, condoning this moral problem of promiscuity in the youth, as long as they are safe.And to mention that informed choice is the key to these arguments! Well, a grade five student does not have the informed choice yet, nor do 4th year high school students. What is the point in setting the age 18 and below as minors, if parents would have to respect the decision of their children to engage in sex as long as they are ‘informed’. It seems that this individual faculty in Ateneo forgot their basic catechism on the sacredness of sex and marriage. The problem of ‘informed-choice’ in youth is that, it would be more abused than properly used. To be informed is one, to be educated in our Christian faith is another. Informed choice becomes problematic when Christian moral principles are not founded well. Pre-marital sex and sound Christian morality run opposite to each other.For those who lobby for the approval of this bill, teach your grade five kids the basic Christian faith and morals first, as you are called to do by virtue of your baptism. By doing this, you do not need to support this bill 5043, which is politically laden and ill-motivated. Thereby, your kids will never or will try their best by conscience not to engage in teen sex even if you assure them it’s safe.

    this drives home the point of how important it is for parents to be in touch with their teen children, specially on forming the values they will adapt and follow. ultimately, the decision to have sex for teens is dependent on the value formation they have had. parents are the most influential on value formation.

  69. angie
    October 12, 2010 at 11:18 am

    The poor people need jobs, houses, food and not contraceptives.

  70. Sir
    October 13, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    Sorry to be a little off topic, but has anyone researched about other countries passing a similar bill like this?

    I’d wanna know the true effects of this bill. I mean, better learn from others experience first before learning it the hard way. I mean, I read a comment somewhere stating that sex education was taught to them since highschool but still a lot of his classmates still got pregnant. well if you also look around, a notable amount of nurses at college today still get impregnated. To think they know better than us when it comes to contraception. This is our tax money at stake here!

    I need to study their status, like:
    Economic, Demographic, Cases of unwanted pregnancies, Quality of family (broken/extended), Bills that were passed after this bill to complement it, Crime rates like rape cases, Social growth… etc…

    • October 14, 2010 at 7:55 am

      Even the United States Supreme Court observed that people, “for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate [sexual] relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail” (Planned Parenthood v Casey). What does it mean? That Americans recognize that contraceptive lifestyle eventually leads to and necessitates abortion. Hillary Clinton casually said in an interview that, “We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health and reproductive health includes access to abortion…” And who is pushing the so-called reproductive health in our country? Isn’t it the United States? Again, how do they define reproductive health, and what was the Supreme Court’s observation about the contraceptive lifestyle?

  71. Mon
    October 14, 2010 at 12:33 am

    Since you’re highlighting this position paper released by certain ateneo professors, none of which represent the views of the university nor the Catholic church, then perhaps this paper, which is written by Ateneo’s Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues (one of the authors happens to be Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ one of the top legal minds in the country), will be more enlightening. I feel that it gives a much more balanced appraisal of the RH bill and why, in its current form, it still contains “serious flaws that can lead to violations of human rights and freedom of conscience.”

    Talking Points for Dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill
    http://www.admu.edu.ph/index.php?p=120&type=2&sec=26&aid=9056

    The polarization of Philippine society over the Reproductive Health Bill has been a source of discouragement and discontent among Filipinos. It is unfortunate that the debate has focused only on whether the Bill should be passed or rejected in its present form. Either option would not be good for Filipinos. The Church sees in the proposed Bill serious flaws that can lead to violations of human rights and freedom of conscience. It would not be acceptable to pass it in its present form. Total rejection of the Bill, however, will not change the status quo of high rates of infant mortality, maternal deaths, and abortions. It is a moral imperative that such dehumanizing conditions should not be allowed to continue. What is needed is a third option: critical and constructive engagement. By working together to amend the objectionable provisions of the Bill and retain the provisions that actually improve the lives of Filipinos, both the proponents and opponents of the Bi ll can make a contribution to protection of the dignity of Filipinos and an improvement of their quality of life.

    The following are talking points and proposals for dialogue and negotiation on the objectionable portions of the Bill:

    The Protection of Human Life and the Constitution

    . The Church insists on protection of human life upon fertilization. The question to be answered by the State is if this is the same position it will take regarding the protection of human life.

    . The Philippine Constitution says that the State will protect the life of the unborn upon conception. It is not specified in the Constitution whether conception means fertilization or the implantation of an embryo in the womb. The Constitutional Convention seemed to favor fertilization. The definition of conception will have a bearing whether contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos would be legally allowed or not. This definition of conception in the Constitution must be worked out both by medical and legal experts in order to determine the parameters of what reproductive services can be provided by the Bill.

    Contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos

    . At the center of the controversy regarding abortion and the RH Bill are IUDs and other contraceptive medications and devices that may have the possible effect of preventing the implantation of an embryo, which for the Catholic Church, is considered an abortifacient effect. [Contraceptives without abortifacient effects are treated differently in church teaching. They are forbidden for Catholics but other religious traditions allow them.]

    . Proposal: The State first has to make a clear position whether it considers the prevention of implantation of an embryo as an abortion. If the State takes this position, there must be a careful and scientifically based evaluation of each of the medicines and devices provided by the Bill. Those contraceptive medicines and devices which are determined to have abortifacient effects are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed or not.

    Age Appropriate, Value-Based, Integral Human Sexuality Education

    . The mandatory nature of the sexuality education curriculum proposed by the Bill is a concern for the Church because it would compel Catholic educators to teach parts of the curriculum that may be unacceptable for Catholics. The Church is also concerned that the parents’ right to decide on the education of their children would be denied by such a mandatory curriculum for all schools.

    . Proposal: For the purpose of protecting academic freedom and respecting religious traditions, should not the right of religious schools to write and implement their own sexuality education curriculum according their religious traditions be respected? For public schools and non-religious private schools, an appointed panel of parent representatives, educators, experts in child development and psychology, medical experts, and representatives of religious traditions can write the sexuality education curriculum and the DEPED can monitor the implementation. Parents with children in public schools should have the right to have their children exempted from the sexuality education class if the curriculum is not acceptable to them. The Constitution allows religious instruction in public schools only if the parents consent in writing. Should a similar provision be enacted relative to sexuality education? The Bill must also respect the conscientious objection of individual educators who refuse to teach a sexuality curriculum that violates their religious beliefs.

    Providing Reproductive Health Information and Services for a Multi-Religious Society

    . Even if the majority of the population of the country are Catholics, our democratic system should ensure that public polices are not determined solely by majority vote but also by a careful consideration of the common good of all, including non-Catholics.

    . The Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church rejects any imposition of norms by a majority that is discriminatory of the rights of a minority: (#422) “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups;” (#169): “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.”

    . It is the duty of various religions to teach their faithful and form their consciences about what their religious tradition allows and prohibits with regard to family planning. It is the duty of the government to provide correct and comprehensive information on all non-abortifacient (as defined by law) family planning methods that are available. Consciences will thus be better equipped to make informed choices according to their religious traditions.

    . Proposal: There can be two separate parallel programs for providing information and training, one for NFP and another for artificial methods of family planning (with separate budgets). The separation of the programs will ensure that NFP will get adequate funding and those trainers who wish to teach only NFP for religious reasons will not be forced to teach artificial methods. The conscience of health workers and trainers should be respected. If a Catholic health worker or trainer conscientiously objects to teaching contraception methods, he or she should be allowed to teach only NFP methods.

    Limits to the Anti-Discrimination Provision

    . The current Bill prohibits the refusal of health care services and information based on a patient’s marital status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work. This provision must have parameters. For example, if a doctor refuses to administer an IUD to a minor who requests for it, would that be considered age discrimination?

    . Should the provision apply equally to both in the public and private health care providers or shouldn’t private practitioners have more leeway in practicing their medicine as they see fit?

    Employers’ Responsibility

    . Employers should not be required to provide in their CBAs reproductive health services of their employees. To enforce this requirement would be a violation of the conscience of Catholic employers.

    . Proposal: Such a provision is unnecessary because the general Philhealth medical coverage, which is mandatory for all employees, provides for such reproductive health services upon request of the employee. This allows employers with religious objections to contraceptives or sterilizations to avoid direct formal cooperation in the provision of such family planning methods to their employees.

    Contraception as Essential Medicines in Government Health Centers and Hospitals

    . The Church’s objection to this provision is that it appears to treat pregnancy as a disease.

    . Proposal: The question of whether contraceptives are essential medicines should be resolved by a panel of objective medical experts such as the Philippine Medical Association. What contraceptives actually prevent diseases? It would be helpful to be able to present cases where the use of a contraceptive is a medically indicated treatment for a particular disease or emergency situation. If some contraceptives are ultimately decided as essential or emergency medicines that should be stocked in government health centers and hospitals, no contraceptives with abortifacient effects are to be allowed.

    Freedom of Speech

    . Proposal: The Bill’s provision that penalizes malicious disinformation against the intention and provisions of the Bill should be refined by a clear description of what constitutes “malicious disinformation,” or failing that, the provision should be scrapped.

    Implementing Norms

    . Proposal: The committee to be in-charge of the Bill’s implementing norms should have representatives from major religious traditions to ensure that the rights of people of various faiths would be protected.

    The above proposals are intended to generate constructive and respectful dialogue leading to concrete actions that would correct the RH Bill. It is hoped that the parties involved in the RH debate would move away from hard-line positions and consider negotiations as a more positive step towards working for the good of all Filipinos, with special consideration for the unborn, the youth, women and families in difficult circumstances.

    Finally, we can turn to the following Christian maxim as our guide in our search for answers and solutions regarding the RH Bill: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” For things pertaining to protecting human life and dignity, we need to come to a consensus for the common good; for things that can be left to individual decisions without violating human life and dignity, we need to respect freedom of conscience of every Filipino both Catholics and non-Catholics; in all our discussions, we need to speak and act with charity and understanding as members of the same human family and community.

    DISCLAIMER: Although the authors are priests and Jesuits, we still can’t say that their response is representative of the whole church, no matter how sound their arguments appear to be.

    Although it is clear that they oppose the bill in its present form, they do not just stop with condemning the bill (which a lot of church leaders do) but they explain thoroughly what their concerns are and they even include suggestions on what can be done. A nice way to jumpstart a constructive and meaningful dialogue between the two opposing sides in this debate.

  72. Sir
    October 14, 2010 at 11:36 am

    vanillae :
    Even the United States Supreme Court observed that people, “for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate [sexual] relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail” (Planned Parenthood v Casey). What does it mean? That Americans recognize that contraceptive lifestyle eventually leads to and necessitates abortion. Hillary Clinton casually said in an interview that, “We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health and reproductive health includes access to abortion…” And who is pushing the so-called reproductive health in our country? Isn’t it the United States? Again, how do they define reproductive health, and what was the Supreme Court’s observation about the contraceptive lifestyle?

    vanillae :
    Even the United States Supreme Court observed that people, “for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate [sexual] relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail” (Planned Parenthood v Casey). What does it mean? That Americans recognize that contraceptive lifestyle eventually leads to and necessitates abortion. Hillary Clinton casually said in an interview that, “We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women’s health and reproductive health includes access to abortion…” And who is pushing the so-called reproductive health in our country? Isn’t it the United States? Again, how do they define reproductive health, and what was the Supreme Court’s observation about the contraceptive lifestyle?

    Your words have insight.

    This bill is indeed a product of the contraceptive imperialism which the USA imposes on the third world.

    I see so many intellectuals posting and vying for this bill to be passed. Is it possible that they are being used and they don’t even know it?

    This bill represents a multi billion dollar contract for the contraception and abortion industry. (Well, scratch abortion for now because it is still illegal here.) If this bill is passed, it means a steady demand for contraceptive supplies. Filipino tax money here will be used. Who manufactures these contraceptives? Foreign ones. The local contraceptive industry is not mature enough and will not be able to tend to this national demand (If ever there is one).

    Regardless of your stand on natural or artificial means, your tax money will still be used to buy the artificial ones. Now give me a definition of the freedom this bill is talking about. Regardless of your “freedom” to use it or not, YOUR TAX MONEY as a filipino citizen will still be used. Is that cost effective?

    You can say maybe, because you can always give it to others if you don’t need it, particularly to the poor. Instead of corn meal, we ship them condoms. Instead of antibiotics, we send them IUDs. We feel morally superior for our great act of compassion, while they continue starving and dying.

    Some pro-womens rights individuals, think that their feedom is being suppressed while this RH bill is being scrutinized. Are contraceptives currently banned in this country? No, in fact they can buy and use them IN FREEDOM.

    We are a third world country right? and yet most say we are rich in resources. While middle east have oil, we have precious metals like gold and silver…

    What am I saying?

    Tampakan, General Santos City for example. With an estimated resource totaling to 2.4 billion metric tonnes at a grade of 0.6% copper and 0.2 grams per ton gold, the Tampakan deposit is one of the largest undeveloped copper-gold deposits in the Southeast Asia-Western Pacific region. Experts say the Tampakan mine has the potential to become the largest mine in the country, and the fifth largest copper mine in the world by 2016.

    This is only one of the so many examples of our resources. Yet, why in the world are we still poor? Simple, because the filipino people is ill-equipped and ill-informed. No one knows and no one has the technology capable of cultivating these resources and if we did know, we don’t have a strong market to internationally sell these products.

    Who do we turn to? Foreign technology and foreign market.

    While they do the cultivating and selling for us, they generate revenue at the same time. What share do we get? 0.3%? 0.7%? and that’s from our precious natural resources.

    The Philippines is not poor, we lack the knowledge to cultivate our own resources. I am not paying my taxes to have a politician tell me I should cut down my birth rate because I am poor. I need a politician who can offer me good education and the necessary means to cultivate and sell products myself to the international market. As they say, I need someone to teach me how to fish.

    Why are we allowing foreign countries to continue milking us with our own resources? That is a big question I guess no one can answer.

    To P-Noy, Prove na ang boss mo ay ang pinagsisilbihan mong mga Pilipino, hinde ang mga bussinessmen na nasa 10% ng populasyon.
    There also present loopholes for this bill that can be exploited for greed and corruption, but I trust you are taking care of that for us.

    To those intellectuals who support this bill. Prove that this is not a lie, that there are no beneficiaries hiding in the background laughing and saying “such clueless fools”.

    Show the Filipino people your ROI (return of investment) compared to other options of relieving this country from poverty. Show us, if you can, the numbers and statistics from other countries who passed a similar bill. Grant us this unbiased and informed choice.

  73. Joseph B.
    October 17, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    to those who support RH Bill 5043, kindly read first this article by Janet Smith in this website – http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html before you fully support the passing of this bill. This is also for those who are against RH Bill.

  74. susan
    October 18, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    its good to know that aquino has what it takes to pass the RH Bill – guts and principle, things that arroyo never had.

    • May 13, 2011 at 12:05 pm

      What guts and principles are your talking about? If a man really had guts, he should settle for a partner for life at hindi yung palipat lipat ng pugad, iyan ba ay tamang prinispyo. If one wants to remain single, then he should practice single blessedness and not FORNICATION. Ginagamit lang niya ang mga kababaihan at kung ganun ang kanyang pananaw, walang matinong babae na papatol sa kanya. Hanggang puta lang ang kaya niya siguro.

  75. Em
    November 7, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    I am a taxpayer and I don’t want the tax I pay every year to support the RH Bill. I don’t believe in it because it is only fooling us. It makes us think that we are over populated that’s why we are poor. We are never over populated and we are poor because many people have corrupt practices like cheating, abnormal practices and relations, etc. The use of artificial contraception is an abnormal practice; same sex relations, promiscuity, to name a few. The RH Bill is not solving the right problem. In fact I fear that it will even worsen the already existing problems that we had.

    I admire the courage of those who are against the RH Bill because they are not afraid to suffer just to present and convince us to follow the TRUTH.

  76. red
    November 15, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Response to the 14 Ateneo Professors on their distorted knowledge of conscience.

    http://catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/11/on-14-ateneo-professors-whats-wrong.html

  77. red
    November 15, 2010 at 2:54 pm

    Response to the 14 Ateneo Professors on their distorted notion of conscience.

    http://catholicposition.blogspot.com/2010/11/on-14-ateneo-professors-whats-wrong.html

  78. paul_123@yahoo.com
    January 12, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    TAAMMAAHHHH !!!!!!!!

  79. January 14, 2011 at 8:21 am

    Oh the plight of your society, ever dependent on some stubborn, ancient social structure. Do you and your leaders oppose productivity? If you don’t use contraception, you’re sacrificing more lives (those who suffer from hunger, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and poverty). Would rather kill a person who is already in this world or one who has yet to be born? Think about it Catholics. Catholics- 0
    Agnostics – 1

  80. February 25, 2011 at 10:41 pm

    ANG TOTOONG ISSUE SA LIKOD NG RH BILL AY ANG KAWALAN NG DIGNIDAD SA SARILI! KUNG MAY NATITIRANG TAYONG PAGGALANG SA ATING SARILI, NA TAYO AY MGA TAONG MAY DIGNIDAD AT NILIKHANG KAWANGIS NG DIYOS, MALINAW NA ALAM NATIN KUNG SINO TAYO. TAYO AY TAO, HINDI DIYOS! BAKIT ANG HINDI KO MAINTINDIHAN AY NAGING KAILANGAN NA NG TAO ANG CONTRACEPTIVES? KUNG AYAW MONG MABUNTIS, SIMPLE EH DI WAG KANG MAKIPAGTALIK, DI BA? KUNG AYAW MONG MAGKAROON NG STD, SIMPLE EH DI WAG MONG IBABA ANG SARILI MONG DIGNIDAD NA PUPUNTA KA SA CLUB AT GAGAMIT NG BABAE. SA TOTOO LANG NAKAKATAWA TAYO, GUSTO NATING IPAGTANGGOL ANG KAPAKANAN NG MGA BABAE AT BATA DITO SA ISINUSULONG NA BILL NA ITO PERO SA TOTOO LANG LALO NGANG IBABABA ANG DIGNIDAD NG MGA KABABAIHAN AT BATA NITO KASI PWEDE NA PALA SILANG GAMITIN KASI MAY GAMIT KA NG CONDOM. HINDI KA NA MAGKAKA STD O ANUMANG SAKIT KASI PROTEKTADO KA NG CONTRACEPTIVE. YUN LANG NAMAN ANG NILALAMAN NG ISIP KO. HINDI AKO RESEARCHER PERO MARUNONG NAMAN AKONG MAG ISIP NG MALALIM. SANA MAGNILAY TAYO NG MALALIM UKOL DITO SA BILL NA ITO. KAPAG NAGKAMALI TAYO, BUHAY ANG NAKATAYA DITO…. SALAMAT!

  81. March 8, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    That’s why dear professors, the answer to the problem is;

    * not rh bill but employment & reasonable wages that can support a family’s
    needs to avoid unwanted pregnancies and its effects.

    * government sincerest support on prenatal & medical needs as well as health
    programs both for women & children.

    * quality education opportunities to all, especially to the low income
    earners.

  82. March 8, 2011 at 8:11 pm

    Remember guyz that….. “God’s Truth is absolute, and it doesn’t change with time or popular opinion. God bless…..

  83. Ida
    March 14, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    I strongly believe that FAITH and MORALS go way beyond catholicism. Any statement that claims faith, morals, conscience are lost without adherence to whatever the Catholic Church proclaims promotes INTOLERANCE, misunderstanding and neglect of those who are not catholics. I am sad that the PHL Catholic Church seems to not see this in their actions and proclamations.

    Pass the RH Bill. It is good. Education is good. We all have a right to choose for ourselves.

    It is not intended to damn us all to hell (which is in itself, ridiculous). The PHL Catholic Church should ideally, be confident enough that they (PHL CChurch) have done a good enough job of teaching good catholic morals of chastity, purity, respect for life et al. to not be afraid of the RH Bill.

    If God gave man the grace of FREE WILL, why can’t you (Catholic Church)?

  84. Karl Mark Hernaez
    April 21, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    by 2012, all your world-experience, all your religion, all you science, and the primitive logic applied on the stream, will mean nothing. Nice try though…

  85. Augustus Caesar Guarin
    May 12, 2011 at 11:17 am

    Our Gravest Moral Responsibility
    To Convert the Contraception Mentality

    With all due respect to these Wayward ATeneo fac kindly read the truth:

    by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

    http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Abortion_Euthanasia/Abortion_Euthanasia_009.htm

  86. Augustus Caesar Guarin
    May 12, 2011 at 11:35 am

    I was sitting in O.R.’s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. ‘Norma’, I said to myself, ‘They’re right’. I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that’s a baby! It’s as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth — that’s a baby!

    I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn’t about ‘products of conception’. It wasn’t about ‘missed periods’. It was about children being killed in their mother’s wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion — at any point — was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear.[2]

    Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/norma-mccorvey#ixzz1M6c5dw00

  87. Augustus Caesar Guarin
    May 12, 2011 at 11:42 am

    abortion services is not about poverty or unemployment or women’s health or freedom or free will or right conscience or choice or…. it is in the words of roe or roe vs wade: “It was about children being killed in their mother’s wombs” period.

    So pro RH bill, wake up just as Roe did. Stop misleading the flock, your students in the name of one thing: LUST. If you want to desecrate your marriage by using condoms on your wife or use iud’s on your husbands, like what prostitutes usually do, just go to hell alone. DO NOT INCLUDE PEOPLE WHO WISH TO LIVE A DECENT AND TRULY CHRISTIAN LIVES.

  88. Augustus Caesar Guarin
    May 12, 2011 at 11:50 am

    To the ADMU Faculty:

    If you want to use condoms on your wives like the way you do it to whores so be it. Desecrate your marriage bed alone. Do not include force those people who want decency in their marriage.
    the rh bill is not about woman’s rights or health or choice or population or preferential option for the poor or whatever, it is simply ” children being killed in their mother’s wombs.”

    Now , if you have committed abortion yourselves, kindly go to confession. DO NOT RATIONALIZE YPUR SIBS IN THE NAME OF CONSCIENCE. And do not cover up for the wrongs that you’ve done by making a law out of a pro abortion rh bill.

  89. Augustus Caesar Guarin
    May 12, 2011 at 11:52 am

    Augustus Caesar Guarin :
    To the ADMU Faculty:
    If you want to use condoms on your wives like the way you do it to whores so be it. Desecrate your marriage bed alone. Do not include force those people who want decency in their marriage.
    the rh bill is not about woman’s rights or health or choice or population or preferential option for the poor or whatever, it is simply ” children being killed in their mother’s wombs.”
    Now , if you have committed abortion yourselves, kindly go to confession. DO NOT RATIONALIZE YoUR SINS IN THE NAME OF CONSCIENCE. And do not cover up for the wrongs that you’ve done by making a law out of a pro abortion rh bill.

  90. Augustus Caesar Guarin
  91. May 12, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    The Catholic Church: The Divinely Ordained Protector of Human Life by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
    ” The future of the pro-life movement throughout the world depends on the Roman Catholic Church.”

    “…begin to understand the real issues underlying the wanton murder of over fifty million unborn children every year.”

    ” Until Christianity came into the world, there was only a rampant paganism in the Roman Empire”

    ” the Catholic Church who remains today as the Mother and Teacher of the nations, teaching them that human life is not only a precious possession of man but is sacred because it belongs to God.”

    “…abortion is not only injustice against an unborn human being; it is the desecration of something holy. “

    ” the pro-life movement who are Christians believe they are defending not only the equity of a human person. They are defending the sanctity of human life and the majesty of living God.”

  92. May 12, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    Devastation by the Contraceptive Mentality

    Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae identifies no less than nine devastating effects resulting from the contraceptive mentality.

    I will simply identify these consequences without commenting:

    Conjugal infidelity

    Debasing of all standards of human morality.

    Lowering of respect for women and of woman’s dignity.

    State legislation against human fertility.

    Desecration of the holiness of marital intimacy.

    Breakdown of personal responsibility.

    Cultivation of selfish individuality.

    Destruction of the family as the foundation of civilized society.

    Promotion of an utterly materialistic understanding of human existence.
    Each one of these products of contraceptive ideology would be enough to explain what we see happening in the modern world. This ideology is a self-idolatry that should be called the New Paganism. The old paganism was polytheistic, a belief in many deities – gods and goddesses. The new paganism is monotheistic. There is faith in only one god but this god is the independent and autonomous Ego who is responsible to no one except “Himself”.

    . fr John Hardon

    http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Abortion_Euthanasia/Abortion_Euthanasia_009.htm

  93. May 12, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    Stop listening to Satan, for he is full of lies.

    Abortion and contraception is truly destroying the family.

    MESSAGE #2630 from the Blessed Mother May 18, 2004

    http://abortion-greatest-sin.excerptsofinri.com/2630-bvm-0518-2004.html

  94. May 12, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    ” Do not give in to those leaders who are promoting abortion. Do not go to those doctors who believe in abortion and contraception. They are not listening to God. They are not obeying God’s Commandments. They do not have healing hands, for they are taking part in destroying life.”

    http://abortion-greatest-sin.excerptsofinri.com/2630-bvm-0518-2004.html

  95. blue lagoons
    May 14, 2011 at 9:36 pm

    indeed these ateneo professors are nothing but a disgrace to a catholic academic institution.they badly misinterpreted the formation of conscience and not only that,they also manipulated the moral teachings of the church.is this the way they taught catholic theology?CBCP=our bishops please take a look on this.these persons who are claiming to be as keepers of truth about our faith are the ones misleading the young hearts and minds of our students.how could they do this to to the stand of the church?my goodness!!!they distorted the fundamental moral teachings of the church.how bad and horrible!!

  96. imariachi
    May 15, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    PLEASE… PRO RH BILL LISTEN… WE ARE NOT OKAY WITH SOME PROVISIONS OF THE BILL… CAN YOU RESPECT OUR VIEWS BY NOT PASSING THIS BILL? ANYWAY EVEN THIS BILL WILL BE PASS OR NOT… YOU CAN STILL USE CONTRACEPTIVES OR CONDOM… WE WILL NOT SUE YOU FOR THAT!!! BUT THEN WE WILL ALSO ENJOY OUR FREEDOM TO SAY IT IS AGAINST GOD’S WILL… GODBLESS US ALL!! :)

    • May 15, 2011 at 4:13 pm

      the same way you are allowed to say the RH Bill is against God;s will, we are saying this is probably just against the will of philippine bishops.

      • zatho
        May 24, 2011 at 8:17 am

        i am not a bishop, nor many of those who post their comments here.

        we oppose the rh bill base on legitimate issues.

        IT IS NOT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH WHICH IMPOSES ITS WILL ON THE PEOPLE.

        IT IS THIS PROPONENTS OF THE RH BILL THAT WANTS PEOPLE TO BE SUBJECTED TO ITS PROVISION.

        • bughaw
          May 30, 2011 at 10:36 am

          huh? everyone being subjected to the laws is the reality of a country under the rule of law. the philippines is one.

          the church do not want the RH Bill to be passed because it has provisions it does not agree with. it is the church’s arrogance because not everyone in the country are catholics, nor is the country a theocracy, it is a democracy.

          • Raffy
            August 26, 2012 at 9:23 am

            then there should be a conscience provision in the bill. however, there is none. contraceptives are already being handed out by the government., so that is not an issue. you do not need the rh bill in order to allow the government to hand out contraceptives and encourage its use. the question is does the government have the right to tell parents what values to teach their kids? the education provision in both bills apply not only to public schools, but to private schools…that is wrong. Clearly the bill is infringing upon parental rights.

            Also, the bill was taken straight out of obamacare. we do not have the same kind of medical system here. the bill gives too much power to healthcare professionals, yet our laws make it very difficult to hold them accountable in the event that they kill someone.

            the bill states that if a person needs to have an “emergency” procedure relating reproductive health, the healthcare professional has to do it with or without the individual’s consent…yet, you can walk out of a hospital if you are in the middle of a heart attack for as long as you sign a consent form. that doesn’t make any sense now does it?

        • bughaw
          May 30, 2011 at 10:41 am

          if you do not like the laws in the country, go live somewhere else that has laws you like to follow or disobey the law and take the penalties as written in the laws.

  97. rodel
    May 16, 2011 at 8:49 am

    You know these actions against RH Bill should not be a concern of the church. It is said that adopting the methods in the bill is not mandatory. So what’s the fuzz all about? For me the concern of the priests is to teach their brethren what is right and what is wrong. Consider the statistics of poor families with more than 5 children, statistics of corrupt government officials, snatchers, hold-uppers, those kids that lines up in motels to get a room. How many of them are Catholic?
    How does these bishops teach the formation of conscience and the moral teachings of the church?

    If the church cannot do its job on his flocks then why the heck do they want to teach the government the morals that they think is in accordance with their teachings? If the catholic bishops are convinced that they have thought their flock well then they should not be afraid of whatever the government is trying to do to solve poverty in this country.
    Do your job in teaching your flock what is right and let the government do its job too in accordance with the ideals of separation of church and the State. Anyway the population of these country are not only Catholics.

  98. zatho
    May 24, 2011 at 10:31 am

    TO THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES:

    HAVE YOU BEEN WONDERING WHY THERE IS A VERY AGGRESSIVE PROMOTION OF THE RH BILL?… READ ON

    What’s New
    Philippines adopts US designed family-planning promotion plan

    02 September 2010
    United States Agency for International Development designed a new family planning promotion strategy being implemented by the Philippines government. The May Plano Ako programme has been conceptualised in line with the MDGs on population control and reproductive health and aims not only at women but also men and youth.

    The government has started implementing a new family planning marketing strategy designed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

    The “May Plano Ako” program, conceptualized by the USAID’s Health Promotion and Communication Project, or HealthPRO, is in line with the country’s Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs, especially those on population control and reproductive health.

    May Plano Ako “targets not only women but also men and young people” on the importance of family planning and contraceptive use, according to a top official of the Department of Health (DoH).

    Unlike previous family planning initiatives of the DoH, which were “sporadic and small-scale,” the new program will be “unified, national and comprehensive,” according to USAID and DoH program materials furnished the Inquirer.

    The US Embassy in Manila has acknowledged Washington’s active role in the Philippine government’s family planning initiatives.

    In a text message, Wossie Mazengia, the US Embassy deputy spokesperson, told the Inquirer that the USAID “continues to work in partnership with the DoH, local governments and the private sector to increase access to and improve the quality of basic health services, including family planning.”

    Training of nurses

    HealthPRO and the DoH-attached National Center for Health Promotion (NCHP) have so far trained 607 nurses and midwives and 2,217 barangay (village) health workers in 11 pilot provinces on “interpersonal communication and counseling on family planning, and maternal and child health.”

    The provinces are Bulacan, Negros Oriental, Negros Occidental, Sarangani, South Cotabato, Zamboanga del Sur, Compostela Valley, Albay, Pangasinan, Capiz and Davao del Sur.

    HealthPRO and NCHP are set to train another 700 health service providers and 3,000 barangay health workers in 12 other provinces: Cagayan, Isabela, Tarlac, Nueva Ecija, Aklan, Bohol, Bukidnon, Misamis Oriental, Misamis Occidental, Agusan del Norte, Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga Sibugay.

    The two groups plan to use “strategic communication to enhance family planning and maintain behavior change among targeted market segments in the Philippines.”

    May Plano Ako, finalized in June, has the “full support” of Health Secretary Enrique Ona, said Dr. Ivanhoe Escartin, NCHP head.

    Ona is scheduled to lead the launching of the program on Aug. 31 in Legazpi City while Undersecretary David Lozada and Assistant Secretary Nemesio Gaco are expected to grace similar activities in San Fernando, La Union, and Bacolod City, respectively.

    Communication strategy

    In a 37-page report, titled “Family Planning Behavior Change Communication Strategy,” the NCHP said: “The strategy builds on the understanding that encouraging individuals or couples to use family planning is a process, involving distinct audiences that need different messages and approaches.”

    “Information alone is not enough to bring about behavior change among any audience. Instead, the strategy is based on a multilevel, synchronized and holistic marketing approach to family planning.”

    The same report said “the approach is unique in that it focuses on increasing modern contraceptive use through demand generation, or increasing knowledge and forming positive attitudes toward contraceptive use and birth spacing; social marketing, or repackaging or selling the concept of family planning as a lifestyle that contributes to better quality of life; and service marketing, or building capacity of family-planning service providers and promoting model providers.”

    Lost opportunities

    The report also noted that previous family planning approaches of the DoH had “resulted in lost opportunities to involve men and young people and address values that may actually drive contraceptive use.”

    Citing data from the National Demographic and Health Survey and the Commission on Population, among others, the NCHP said that:
    Many poor Filipino women are having more children than they want.
    “Currently, the total number of children a Filipino woman has during her reproductive years is one child higher than the desired number, or 3.3 vs. 2.4. For the poorest women, it is two children (5.2) higher than the desired number.”

    A large proportion of married women, especially those with more than two children want no more kids, yet contraceptive use is low.

    “More than half (54 percent) of married women in the Philippines want no more children. The proportion of women who no longer want additional children increases with the number of living children.”

    “However, contraceptive use is low and has remained fairly stagnant over the last five years. Only one out of three married women is using a family planning method and only one out of three is using a modern method.”

    Unmet need

    Adolescents, those aged 15 to 19, have the “highest unmet need for family planning.”

    The DoH defines “unmet need” as “the percentage of married women who either want to stop having children or want to wait for their next birth but are not using any family planning method.”

    More than one in five pregnancies in the country are either mistimed or unwanted.

    Worse, “many women obtain an abortion when they discover an unplanned pregnancy.”

    “About one in five pregnancies in the Philippines end up in illegal abortions, mostly in unsafe conditions that can lead to maternal deaths.”
    In a May Plano Ako briefing paper, HealthPRO said “many Filipinos believe having a plan is good for their families.”

    “They not only want their government to help them plan their families. They also have to get the information and services they need to help them plan their families,” HealthPRO also said.

    Aside from HealthPRO, USAID’s other health-related projects in the country include SHIELD, short for Sustainable Health Improvement Through Empowerment and Local Development; Health Policy Development Program (HPDP); Private Sector Mobilization for Family Health (PRISM); and Strengthening Local Governance for Health (HealthGov).

    These projects are part of the US government’s “Country Assistance Strategy for the Philippines” from 2009 to 2013.

    P4.46B in USAID projects

    Last year, the USAID allocated $96.04 million (about P4.46 billion) to its projects in the Philippines.

    Nearly $27 million (about P1.25 billion) of the budget was spent on health-related projects like the drive against HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and other infectious diseases.

    In June, then Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral cited the USAID as a DoH partner in the state’s family planning campaign.

    Earlier in an interview, Cabral told the Inquirer that the government’s family planning program had “not been as successful as we want it to be.”

    “Even as population growth is coming down, it is not coming down at the rate necessary to improve the country’s socioeconomic status,” she said.

    Target growth rate

    Cabral said the state needed to “bring it down (from 2.04 percent in 2008) to a level of 1.3 to 1.4 percent per annum where the population will stabilize.”

    In a report on the Philippines, the UN Millennium Campaign (on the MDGs) said “the country’s high population growth is diluting the gains of economic growth.”

    “The larger the population a country has, the greater will be the pressure on basic social services and on natural resources,” it said.

    Here, “more than one million babies are born every year. They will be needing resources in the future, such as health care, schooling, food, clothing and later on, employment. Even today, these needs are not being met,” the report added.

    Source: Asian Journal

  99. zatho
    May 24, 2011 at 10:33 am

    Even without this rh bill. every one is free to choose his way of contraception. GUSTO MO MAG PILLS- YOU ARE FREE TO DO IT. GUSTO MO MAG CONDOM – YOU ARE FREE TO DO IT NOW. You want ligation or vasectomy or iud– nobody is stopping you from getting access to it.

    What this bill does is to make it mandatory by means of brainwashing our children (by means of mandatory attendance in sex education classes). So that when they are of reproductive age, the children will find it ACCEPTABLE or EVEN THE EASIER CHOICE, to get contraceptives rather than to EXERCISE SELF CONTROL.

    This bill not only makes it alright for teens to engage in promiscuity. It promotes it by making it alright so long as you have protection or contraceptives.

    This Rh bill should be restricted to a rating of PG (parental guidance) or R (restricted) or even For Adults only.. This Rh bill makes it mandatory for children to attend sex education classes (without parental guidance)

    Ano ba naman ang gusto ng proponents nitong Rh bill na gawin sa bansa natin?

    Poverty is caused by lack of drive of people to succeed, lack of faith in God, and by greed/corruption of people. Sometimes by sheer stupidity and laziness.

    The solution for poverty is not immorality. Spending of millions of pesos (tax payers money) to give away contraceptives to people, to me seems to be the wrong approach.

    KAILAN BA NAGING ESSENTIAL MEDICINES ANG CONTRACEPTIVES? That we the taxpayers should be obligated to purchase with our taxes. Hypertension medicines, anti tuberculosis medicines, vaccines, antibiotics etc.. yun ang essential medicines. Alam mo ba kung ilan ang namamatay dahil walang pambili ng anti-hypertension medicines? dengue? etc.

    HOW CAN IT PROMOTE RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD when you give away contraceptives, which will be purchased from taxes of the people.

    HINDI BA NAKAKAHIYA IYON NA IBA ANG GAGASTOS NG CONDOM, PILLS etc para sa pagtatalik ng isang magka partner? Ano responsible doon? Dapat kung gusto mo mag condom, mag-condom ka pero ikaw bumili galing sa pera na pinaghirapan mo. Hindi galing sa pera ng ibang tao. DELIKADEZA LANG YUN, AT SELF RESPECT.

    And we are not talking only of a few pesos per condom, we are talking of hundreds of millions of pesos.

    THE GOVERNMENT MUST BE MORE CIRCUMSPECT IN SPENDING PEOPLE’S MONEY. Contraception is a private matter. The rh bill should promote individual responsibility.

    THIS IS HOW THEY WANT TO BRAINWASH OUR CHILDREN.. THEY WILL BE USING THE EDUCATONAL SYSTEM ( MANDATORY SEX EDUCATION ) TO MAKE CONTRACEPTION ACCEPTABLE TO YOUNG CHILDREN. SO THAT WHEN THEY GROW OLDER, THE CONTRACEPTIVE INDUSTRY WILL HAVE A MARKET FOR THEIR PRODUCTS.

    our children is not a market.. they are our future. if we allow the pro-rh to corrupt their minds now, what will happen to the philippines?

    What this rh bill wants is for our nation to have a culture of contraception. DO YOU WANT FOR OUR PEOPLE TO HAVE THIS CULTURE OF CONTRACEPTION?

    In Psychology and training, if you are promoting an idea, and you use mandatory education to propagate it, in layman terms, we call it BRAINWASHING. Brainwashing is the application of techniques that tend to persuade or coerce to implant ideas into the subjects. To affect a persons thought patterns and subsequent behavior (wether you realize it or not).

    “Age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall be integrated in all relevant subjects…”

    If YOU PUT SEX EDUCATION INTO TEXT BOOKS, AND THE CHILDREN ARE TASKED TO STUDY THESE TEXTBOOKS , THEN THIS IS MANDATORY. THE RH BILL WANTS PARENTS TO OPT OUT OF THIS MANDATORY LESSONS. BUT HOW MANY PARENTS WILL EVEN BE AWARE OF THESE LESSONS? REMEMBER THE LESSONS WILL BE FROM GRADE 5 TO 4TH YEAR HIGH SCHOOL. THIS OPT OUT IS DECEPTIVE.. WHAT THEY SHOULD PUT IN THERE IS OPT IN.. MEANING IF YOU WANT YOUR CHILDREN TO ATTEND SEX EDUCATION CLASSES THEN YOU CAN OPT IN.. THE WAY TO OPTING OUT IS DECEPTIVE AND IS NOT REASONABLE

    let the children get older so they may decide for themselves what they want to learn… to do. Education is not evil. It is alright , but if this rh bill gets passed into law. It will not be a choice anymore.

    If the children are too young to decide, then it is us parents who must protect them by by being wise.

    It is the parents who have primary responsibility in the moral upbringing of his child. If the government through its laws unreasonably interferes with it, then the law is inherently wrong.

    There are good points in this bill. But if you include those that intrude on parental authority, and religious freedom and also considering the manner by which this law is to be implemented, maraming bad points itong rh bill. It is not a good law.

    Alam mo ba na ang population ng mga muslim sa pilipinas is just a fraction of the entire population of the country? Pero mayroon silang special privileges. for example, pwede sila mag-asawa ng madami, maron silang principle na ‘blood money’, etc..

    You know why? Because of ‘FREEDOM OF RELIGION’. We respect their right to their beliefs. Maski na it is contrary to ours.

    MAYROON TAYONG FREEDOM DITO sa PILIPINAS. We should guard against any form of laws that will diminish our freedoms.

    Alam mo, this bill does not increase any of your freedoms that you now already enjoy. You already have this freedom to choose, what ever you like. You most certainly know what is there to know about family planning, sexuality, social dynamics, if you only inform yourself about it.

    This bill will not increase your knowledge or your freedom. THIS BILL WILL NOT MAKE OUR COUNTRY PROSPER.

  100. mykels mike
    May 28, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    GISING ! MATAGAL NA PANAHON NA ANG PANLOLOKO NG SIMBAHANG KATOLIKO SA MGA TAO. dapat i-ABOLISH na natin yang simbahang Katoliko. THEY WANT TO BE CALLLED CHRISTIANS PERO ANG DAMING KAUTUSAN NG DIYOS ANG NILALABAG. Ginagamit lang ng mga pari ang Diyos para magkamal ng maraming pera at dinadala sa Roma. Puro panloloko lang ang ginagawa ng mga pari sa mga tao. At ngayon gusto nang makialam sa ating gobyerno.
    Ang sabi ng panginoon, Mt 10:8 Mangagpagaling kayo ng mga may sakit, mangagpabangon kayo ng mga patay, mangaglinis kayo ng mga ketong, mangagpalabas kayo ng mga demonio: tinanggap ninyong walang bayad, ay ibigay ninyong walang bayad. Pero anong ginawa nila? KASAL-P1,000 (depende sa dami ng ninong); BINYAG-P1,000 (depende sa dami ng ninong); LIBING-P1,000; PAMISA SA PATAY-P500 (di naman nabubuhay);
    Ginagamit lang ng mga pari na KAMPON NG DEMONYO) ang Diyos. Niloloko ang mga tao. Maliban sa pera, NILABAG PA NILA ANG IKALAWANG KAUTUSAN, gumagawa pa ng kung sinong Santo para sambahin ng mga tao. pati si Maria sinasamba na.
    Ang sabi ng panginoon: Deut.5:7-9 Huwag kang magkakaroon ng ibang Dios sa harap ko. Huwag kang gagawa para sa iyo ng larawang inanyuan na kawangis ng anomang anyong nasa itaas sa langit, o ng nasa ibaba sa lupa, o ng nasa tubig sa ilalim ng lupa: Huwag mong yuyukuran sila o paglilingkuran man sila: sapagka’t akong Panginoon mong Dios ay mapanibughuing Dios, na aking dinadalaw ang kasamaan ng mga magulang sa mga anak, sa ikatlo at sa ikaapat na salin ng nangapopoot sa akin.
    Kelan ba kayo magigising ? MAGBASA KAYO NG BIBLIA …….

  101. Korky Cute
    May 29, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    I think the position paper is correct. I all of the Filipino people reads the bill in full context they would know that it is indeed PRO LIFE, PRO WOMAN AND ANTI ABORTION not like what they keep on saying on the rallies. The issue is just being injected with religion which is it shouldn’t be. I’m not against religion. AM a Catholic since birth…for our country’s sake!

  102. Korky Cute
    May 29, 2011 at 7:16 pm

    the issue here is not between man vs. god. this is an issue for the protection of all the women who will become mothers and also to our robust population growth. it’s for our country’s sake!

  103. May 31, 2011 at 12:01 pm
  104. dungeonexplorer05
    June 5, 2012 at 10:32 pm

    May I know the name of the author of this paper?? please?? I really need know :)

  105. NieFeng_XII
    August 5, 2012 at 2:48 am

    Honestly, I find no direct statement anywhere in the bill that mandates/promotes/implements/encourages abortion or anything near that. The question of “implying” the idea is weak, as the nature of such is based on personal interpretation.I guess what the bill is up against now is whether or not it provides a solution/s or options credible enough for it to be passed.

    Say the bill isn’t passed. Nobody could tell whether the bill is A solution, neither does it prove the CBCP and the rest of the anti-RH Bill populace right about the bill. All this would be reduced to just a great debate but without a resolution. And the Philippines goes on with its issues until a new proposed bill emerges, of course, it would never spared from an opposing party.

    There will always be pros and cons to every proposition. Let’s not forget that. We are searching for what’s best for our country right now, and not the perfect bill that can be praised by everyone.

  106. limplamb
    August 22, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    it is not fitting to named it as Reproductive Health Bill,
    rather it should be titled with Reproductive Death Bill… to pass the scrutiny of the Christian faith
    in it hidden from the articles of every resolution of the said bill is the institution of Mankind to promote, the idea of greed for lust and Possess as a thing every Womanhood as a thing for lust… like unto the “serpent telling Eve”, you will be like God, you surely will not die, as the creation merits the words, as it unfolds to the public to see, on Sex about … “it is GOOD”… this is the real hidden secrets with in the RH bill… not the thing about health for Woman, and most the family…termed as “SAFE SEX”, that is why, nothing Honestly, can be find to direct statement anywhere in the bill that mandates/promotes/implements/encourages abortion or anything near about its true nature, but the sinfulness of greed for lust. to womanhood, see if you have eyes, and mankind to hear if you have ears… it is why the secrets is not revealed to the few, but only to that which is god choose to understand the meaning of true “Reproductive Health of God”…

  107. atenista
    September 10, 2012 at 4:45 pm

    The “theologian” who wrote this statement has no body of publications to his name, tried entering his own name on Wikipedia’s list of “liberation theologians”, and teaches that sisig and tuba should replace bread and wine in the Eucharist. The other two “theologians” who signed on do not believe in the Catholic Church and try to convince their students in class to support the RH Bill. They have no published works.

  108. Team Anti-RH
    September 18, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    Here’s my opinion:

    http://letter-for-life.tumblr.com/

    Food for thought. :)

  109. December 30, 2012 at 10:44 am

    There are many limited knowledge of increased mortality rate,,not just the lack of contraceptive pills or devices.

    There are no sufficient available medical providers,,nurses or MDs in the barangays to take care of the health needs of pregnany women and pediatric population..Hilots deliver babies in many areas of the philippines even in the provinces near manila..

    The morality has deteriorated and fillipinos feel they are npw liberated free to express whatever suits their human desires disregarding that we are created n the image and likeness of God leading to early sexual experimentation and pregnancy among single .adolescents

    In a conference in Boston,in the 1980’s it was said that”FAMILY P{LANNING FAILED RAISING THE ADOLESCENT pregnancy statistics and so the solution to the crisis is abortion.
    This will explain the low pregnancy rates now in the West due to rampart abortion..

    Why do we have to copy the west often?
    Why is it hard for educators like priests nuns and Jesuits to focus on the moral aspects of our life?Will the rh bill solve poverty?Let us see..the gospel has not been lived..i.e.sharing and the gaps are wider between the rich and the poor here..Jobs, decent housing foods agricultural aids are neede together with the elimination of corruption even among us the christians.

  1. November 10, 2009 at 11:52 am
  2. December 16, 2009 at 2:29 pm
  3. January 18, 2010 at 9:59 pm
  4. October 7, 2010 at 11:26 am
  5. August 21, 2012 at 10:40 pm
  6. August 25, 2012 at 12:40 am
  7. August 31, 2012 at 3:03 pm
  8. September 4, 2012 at 1:28 pm
  9. September 4, 2012 at 4:11 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,389 other followers

%d bloggers like this: