The reproductive health bill is a breach in collective national reason
The Reproductive Health Bill is a breach in collective national reason. It iscommon knowledge that this country has stumbled over many baddecisions over the span of its existence, but the Reproductive Health Bill ison a par all its own. While it is true that the Reproductive Health Bill doeshave some good points and intentions, my reason has led me to believethat the RH Bill will lead us nowhere but miserable failure. Unfortunately Iam an underage student in high school with no political power whatsoever,and what I can do to influence the decisions made in this country isinfinitely smaller compared to the power held by you. That is the reasonwhy this letter is being written, because I know you yourself wouldencourage a young citizen like me to take action, although my opinion andyours seem to contradict each other. I do not see any way around thatproblem so you might as well deal with it and read what I have preparedfor you in this letter.In the Reproductive Health Bill, with its paragraphs and statements andendless definitions, one simple goal is blatantly expressed: to curb nationaloverpopulation. This dilemma of ours is supposedly an obstacle in the wayof national progress, because apparently a country only needs a certainnumber of people to succeed. This country, so it is said, has too manymouths to feed, too little space to build houses on, and too little money toaccommodate everybody. It is a very simple concept that seems true. Weneed a fewer amount of people so that we can make the most out of themoney we have. We will not try to make more money. We will try to havefewer people.Obviously there is a lot of fallacy in this. First of all, poverty is not causedby overpopulation. Poverty is caused first and foremost by inefficientleadership. If you take the root of it all you will see that the ruin of asociety has never been caused by the people. It is atrocious how people,especially the poor ones, are seen as the stumbling block to this country’sprogress. Is it the poor who steal billions of pesos of taxpayer’s money? Isit the poor who do not provide sufficient infrastructure? Is it the poor thatcontinually makes one bad decision over another? Maybe instead ofblaming the innocent, you should be pointing your finger in the otherdirection. It is so easy to manipulate words to justify one’s actions and
incapability, and then put the blame on the victims, instead taking theresponsibility for one’s own.In fact, the single most important resource in a country is the humanresource. It is the Filipino people who make up this country’s workforce.The bigger the population, the more people there will be to work. Themore people there will be to consume. Correspondingly, if you havenobody to work, there will be less output. There will also be less people toconsume products. Consumers are needed for this country to thrive. Whatwill happen if there are not enough Filipinos?Overpopulation is nothing but a myth used as a scapegoat by powerfulpeople as a way to continue their inefficient agenda. The mentality ofoverpopulation will destroy the Philippines just as it is destroying the worldas we speak. When perhaps we have a population that is suitable enoughfor you, you will realize that you actually need people to work and toproduce in order to keep a country on its feet. Perhaps maybe then itwould be too late, and the economy is struggling to keep alive because thesmall population of young workers is also trying to handle the burden oflarge aging population. Then you would have to switch things around anddo what countries like Singapore are doing, and that is to actually pay acouple to have children. But do the Philippines have enough budgets forthat kind of plan?I would also like to take this opportunity to inquire if the government isactually doing something to assess the high density of people in the urbancenters. The reason that the cities are so cramped is because there no jobsto be found in the rural areas. Is the government looking for ways to makenew jobs so that people would not go to the city? Perhaps the problem ofoverpopulation would not be so bad if the Filipinos could be more spreadout. This is just a suggestion.Second of all, I am against this bill because it states that I will go to jail if Isay anything bad about it, supposing that it is passed. Never in my life haveI encountered a bill with such insecurity. What is so wrong about speakingout against some law? If you have an answer, then please enlighten me. Ido not understand. I thought that our Constitution defends my right toexpress my opinions. Apparently I can express my opinions about anythingexcept this certain topic. I did not realize that such things are allowed. Ofcourse I would not know about these very well, since I am only in high
school. However, you are politicians and you should know a lot about lawsand rights. Please reply back so that I can settle this in my mind and tell myfriends about it.Thirdly, the Reproductive Health Bill speaks a lot about defending womenby giving them access to artificial birth control methods. I understand howhaving clinics is good for women, as it is mentioned in the RH Bill, butwhat are you defending them from when you give them birth control?From babies? Since when have babies become vicious pests that womenneed defense from? As a young woman myself, I personally find condomuse degrading. Artificial birth control methods encourage men to seewomen not as persons but as objects to derive pleasure from. Widespreadcondom use will raise the number of prostitutes in this country. Now thatyoung girls know how not to get pregnant, they can sell their bodies asmuch as they wish without the risk. How does this empower womanhood?That is one more thing I do not understand.One’s stance on the Reproductive Health Bill is not an opinion. This Bill isnot something that I can compare to a favorite color or a favorite poptune. Your stance on the RH Bill is yes or no, wrong or right. Perhaps forsimple folks like me, they say on the RH Bill has no consequence. But foryou, it is a matter of progress or regress for this country. ImportantPolitical Person, I am pretty sure that you know more than I do, and youhave very good tastes and opinions on a vast array of subjects. But on thisissue I am afraid to say that you are wrong. You have been deceived by thepopular opinions of the western world and you are leading everyone in adangerous direction. When you are making your decision you are not sidingwith the church or state, the masses or the elite. You are making a decisionas a service to your country, which is what your occupation demands youhold in utmost.I have brought forth what my mental power can come up with, andhopefully it has caused you to think about the Reproductive Health Billeven just a little bit."+..zheLdiTah..+"
I HAVE been following the debates on the RH Bill not just in the recentHouse sessions but practically since its start. In the process, because ofwhat I have said and written (where I have not joined the attack dogsagainst the RH Bill), I have been called a Judas by a high-ranking cleric, Iam considered a heretic in a wealthy barangay where some members haveurged that I should leave the Church (which is insane), and one of thosewho regularly hears my Mass in the Ateneo Chapel in Rockwell came to medisturbed by my position. I feel therefore that I owe some explanation tothose who listen to me or read my writings.First, let me start by saying that I adhere to the teaching of the Church onartificial contraception even if I am aware that the teaching on the subjectis not considered infallible doctrine by those who know more theologythan I do. Moreover, I am still considered a Catholic and Jesuit in goodstanding by my superiors, critics notwithstanding!Second (very important for me as a student of the Constitution and ofchurch-state relations), I am very much aware of the fact that we live in apluralist society where various religious groups have differing beliefs aboutthe morality of artificial contraception. But freedom of religion meansmore than just the freedom to believe. It also means the freedom to act ornot to act according to what one believes. Hence, the state should notprevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to theirreligious belief nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatevermeans, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief. Asthe “Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church” says,“Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religiouscommunity might be given special recognition on the part of the State.Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil orsocial order for other religious groups” and “Those responsible forgovernment are required to interpret the common good of their countrynot only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according tothe effective good of all the members of the community, including theminority.”Third, I am dismayed by preachers telling parishioners that support for theRH Bill ipso factor is a serious sin or merits excommunication! I find thisto be irresponsible.
Fourth, I have never held that the RH Bill is perfect. But if we have tohave an RH law, I intend to contribute to its improvement as much as Ican. Because of this, I and a number of my colleagues have offered ways ofimproving it and specifying areas that can be the subject of intelligentdiscussion. (Yes, there are intelligent people in our country.) For thatpurpose we jointly prepared and I published in my column what we called“talking points” on the bill.Fifth, specifically I advocate removal of the provision on mandatory sexualeducation in public schools without the consent of parents. (I assume thatthose who send their children to Catholic schools accept the program ofCatholic schools on the subject.) My reason for requiring the consent ofparents is, among others, the constitutional provision which recognizes thesanctity of the human family and “the natural and primary right of parentsin the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development ofmoral character.” (Article II, Section 12)Sixth, I am pleased that the bill reiterates the prohibition of abortion as anassault against the right to life. Abortifacient pills and devices, if there areany in the market, should be banned by the Food and DrugAdministration. But whether or not there are such is a question of scientificfact of which I am no judge.Seventh, I hold that there already is abortion any time a fertilized ovum isexpelled. The Constitution commands that the life of the unborn beprotected “from conception.” For me this means that sacred life begins atfertilization and not at implantation.Eighth, it has already been pointed out that the obligation of employerswith regard to the sexual and reproductive health of employees is alreadydealt with in the Labor Code. If the provision needs improvement ornuancing, let it be done through an examination of the Labor Codeprovision.Ninth, there are many valuable points in the bill’s Declaration of Policyand Guiding Principles which can serve the welfare of the nation andespecially of poor women who cannot afford the cost of medical service.There are specific provisions which give substance to these good points.They should be saved.Tenth, I hold that public money may be spent for the promotion ofreproductive health in ways that do not violate the Constitution. Public
money is neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Muslim or what have youand may be appropriated by Congress for the public good without violatingthe Constitution.Eleventh, I leave the debate on population control to sociologists.Finally, I am happy that the CBCP has disowned the self-destructive viewsof some clerics."+..zheLdiTah..+"
I really dont know why the Roman Catholic Church and some peopleOPPOSE RH BILL. They say RH BILL is ANTI-LIFE because itPREVENTS A WOMAN TO GET PREGNANT, or the prevention ofmeeting the sperm and egg cell to create a life or a baby. With the use ofartificial methods of family planning like condoms, IUD and such they sayits IMMORAL.My mind is a mess what the Roman Catholic Church is fighting for? IsPRO and ANTI-RH BILL a fight between Artificial and Natural FamilyPlanning? The church says they are PRO-LIFE but the methods of naturalfamily planning also PREVENT the meeting of sperm and egg cell tocreate a LIFE if they chose not to.The church already approved the NATURAL WAY OF PREVENTINGLIFE when they are PRO-LIFE. Huh? What? Im having trouble whilewriting this.They say ABSTINENCE is the answer. Yes, I agree with you because it isthe best of all in order not to get pregnant. I will totally agree with you ifyou only say the reason you are ANTI-RH BILL is because ofABSTINENCE. To abstain is to no sex, no babies, and no pleasure.No ifs and buts. Please dont confuse ANTI-RH BILL with NaturalFamily Planning because it will just contradict that you are PRO-LIFE. Again and again, natural family planning is a method of preventing lifewithout the use of artificial contraceptives.I believe that RH Bill goes for Natural and Artificial Family Planning. It isto educate people especially us women and girls. We have the option tochoose for Natural or Artificial Family Planning. I am PRO-RH BILL butwhen the time I got married Ill go for Natural Family Planning and youcan have a nice talk with your husband about ABSTINENCE.RH BILL is a SELF-DEFENSE to us girls and women. Admit it or notboys are more educated than us girls in terms of sex. Boys are more
curious than girls about sex. Girls are totally innocent about sex duringpuberty stage.