“The angriest advocates for and against the bill are those that can’t, could no longer, don’t or shouldn’t reproduce.”
Heard on the sidelines of the Reproductive Health Bill debate. . .
September 24, 2008 · 38 Comments
Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: catholic bishops conference of the philippines, cbcp, Cebu, congress, house of representatives, pablo john garcia, philippines, reproductive health bill, rh bill
38 responses so far ↓
WillyJ // September 25, 2008 at 8:38 am |
At least they are already doing their share for population control
I hope the entertaining debates are televised. That’s something worth watching after the Ateneo-LaSalle games are over.
kaiserfernandez // September 27, 2008 at 5:22 am |
Who are you to instruct people not to reproduce? Are you Bruce Almighty?
Pity for the 3rd district of Cebu.
http://kaiserfernandez.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/reproductive-health-bill/
DJB Rizalist // September 27, 2008 at 8:32 am |
Join the discussion!
FILIPINO VOICES is discussing the Reproductive Health Bill and the related issue of decriminalizing abortion.
pablojohn // September 28, 2008 at 9:34 am |
Tsk, tsk, kaiser. Read the post again. It’s a pity there’s little evidence that brain cells reproduce.
naira // September 29, 2008 at 1:37 am |
…reproductive health bill can help the the country towards development… all we need is to participate…
Cocoy's Delight // September 29, 2008 at 6:05 am |
Of course the common perception is that population growth causes poverty, so reducing population should also reduce poverty. But the facts do not bear this out. Neither do basic economics.
The idea that population growth causes poverty comes from the ubiquitous zero-sum-game fallacy: the idea that the economy is a pie with only so much to go around. But the economy is not a pie — economies can grow, and population growth can actually help development. A growing population means more labor, which along with land and capital are the main factors of production.
no real correlation between population and poverty. If population were a determinant of poverty, it would be hard to explain places such as Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and the Netherlands. All have high population densities and yet are wealthy. The United Kingdom has about three times the population density of Ghana, and eighty-one times the per capita GDP. There are many causes of poverty, but population is not one of them.
Literally billions of dollars have been spent to reduce populations in developing countries, but have yielded no real economic progress. We know the factors that create economic growth and development: consistent rule of law for all citizens, property rights, sensible regulation, and a culture that encourages and rewards entrepreneurial behavior. These traits have never existed perfectly anywhere on earth, but the degree to which they have been present reflects the degree to which prosperity has been achieved. Conversely, where they remain absent — as in much of the developing world today — poverty and misery are found in their stead.
Sexual morality of contraception and abortion on women view them as moral evils and a violation of their dignity.
We are losings billion and billion of pesos in corruption.If any of personnel in the government are honest,our country has been prosper for long time.
I don’t understand these people,they want to control the Filipino Human race,yet,they allowed foreigners to invade and live in our country.
Cocoy's Delight // September 29, 2008 at 6:11 am |
Since hunger is caused by the present social system, it would seem that it is not overpopulation which causes the crisis in our country. But this view is shortsighted. A reformed use and understanding of agriculture would make it possible for Philippines to feed its present population and even the expected population into the next century. But, eventually, Philippines will face a population crisis. Certainly population growth rate will make Philippines incapable of feeding her people in the best of circumstances.
These population control programs simply don’t work. Moral preaching, sex education, available contraceptive measures and even force do little to reduce populations in very poor people. This is because poor people need lots of children. They need them for reasons:
As workers in the farm fields. As old age insurance for parents who have no other security. Because in a life of low material gratification, raising children is among the few joys and delights one can have. Because they suffer high children mortality rates, poor people must have many children so that even half of them died enough will survive to one,two or three.
Only economic development can effectively lower the birthrate, and that economic development–providing old age security, and some level of material comfort, almost invariably lead people to voluntarily limit birth rates. Such a rise in material standard is also accompanied by higher levels of education, which further contributes to voluntary birthrate limits.
kaiserfernandez // September 29, 2008 at 8:47 am |
Oh ok. So you are staying at the middle of being for or against it. However at the end of the day, for the benefit of the readers, it would be nice to hear your side and your reasons for it. Thanks.
WillyJ // September 29, 2008 at 10:37 am |
By the way, the teaching contained in Humanae Vitae is infallible, contrary to what Mr. Lagman claims.
http://randomthoughtsmusings.blogspot.com/2008/08/on-infallibility-of-humanae-vitae.html
pablojohn // September 29, 2008 at 1:22 pm |
Cocoy’s Delight’s comment is a breath of fresh air in the noxious environment of the RH bill debate.
I certainly wish the debate going on were brought to this level. Let’s debate on matters of policy, and avoid the murky waters of “morality”, where there’s bound to be a lot of labeling and name-calling.
For there are those of us who sincerely DON’T believe that the RH bill is “anti-life” or “anti-family” or that it “encourages promiscuity”, but question: (1) a legislated population policy; (2) the priorities of investing billions of pesos in contraception instead of much-needed antibiotics; and (3) the need to legislate on something that already exists and can be improved without necessarily legislating.
So if we were to raise the level of debate here, I would avoid talk of “morality” or “sin” because God knows (oops) that will get us nowhere.
And, yes, kaiser, I’m going to cast a definite vote on the bill, but after a long and intelligent debate, and not a moment sooner. I do not vote according to the a priori moral edicts of my religion, or any religion, for that matter, because I was elected to a secular office.
cocoy826 // October 3, 2008 at 2:48 am |
Cocoy’s Delight
http://cocoy826.wordpress.com
Leon // October 7, 2008 at 5:40 pm |
Congressman, since my office is not secular enough, should I decorate it with a priori edict? Thank you.
Reynor // October 7, 2008 at 7:09 pm |
The right to educate our children, the right to decide how big our family is, our freedom of religion (e.g. to not do what we consider is immoral), the responsibility of us being husband and wife and/or as an individual and family are things that others may look as if they are only “religious” matters that doesn’t have any weight on “secular” issues.
Sir, yes you are elected to a secular office but that doesn’t give you a reason to forego certain rights just because they may be “a priori moral edicts of [my] religion, or any religion”. These may have a religious background but even the constitution recognizes our freedom to practice it. As an elected official who is supposed to represent and serve the people who put you in that position, you are expected to protect those rights that we have.
Passing the RHBill is doing exactly what Humanae Vitae has been warning us for forty years now, “…give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.”
pablojohn // October 8, 2008 at 2:26 am |
leon, maybe you should, but don’t ignore feng shui a priori edicts.
pablojohn // October 8, 2008 at 2:29 am |
reynor, when you start talking like that, you fall right into the trap of RH advocates. precisely — they’d say — the rights you talk about are “enhanced” if there is “informed choice”.
so i think the argument should be taken to another direction. i mean, you certainly can’t hope to win by flashing the “Humanae Vitae” badge.
Reynor // October 8, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
Yes, you are right congressman that flashing Humanae Vitae badge will not win it. I am with hope though that an educated person who may have a different religious belief may look beyond the religious difference and see that what it speaks about and what it warns us from are issues that transcends religion. This is about our freedom.
Passing the bill remains to be a surrender of those rights that we have into the hands of public authorities and by that alone should make clear what position to take and what we hope you will present to the table being the representative of your constituents, as their voice in the congress.
In simple terms and in fact, the RH bill robs us of our freedom. And that is not acceptable.
pablojohn // October 8, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
you see, that’s the problem because while i’m leaning towards rejecting the RH bill, i do not see the bill as in any way “robbing” us of our “freedom.”
i think it’s overstating the case, and overstating the case won’t win it for you.
Reynor // October 8, 2008 at 7:37 pm |
I am still wondering n as to why you would think that i am overstating the case and why the bill is not in any way “robbing” us of our freedom.
Sec 16 prevents me from deciding what is an ideal family size. I should be free to do so without fear from prejudice that the RH Bill brings about by stating that an ideal number of children is two as if this is true in all cases and in fact.
Sec 12, mandatory education from 5th grade to 4th year HS, prevents me from taking the responsibility in rearing my child, assessing when is the most appropriate time for my child to learn about it, choosing the time that my child in my judgment is ready to learn it, and prevents me from having the freedom to choose to educate my child by myself. And by the definition of state on what is family planning, the state denies me the freedom to teach my children what i believe is morally right. it also prevents me from choosing to live my religious beliefs and passing it on to my children.
Responsible parenthood for me is not handling them contraceptives but teaching them the value of marriage, chastity, fidelity, the value and dignity of their body, and their dignity as a human being created by the God that I believe who calls us to be greater in terms of ethics and high in morals. The Bill simply takes away from me that freedom; to teach my own children that important value that i believe is essential.
These are just among the few.
Congressman, I understand that not everybody shares my view, my religion, my beliefs, etc… whatever the case maybe, if the state believes that the people should be provided by the things that the bill tries to provide to people, we, who believe otherwise should be free to not be in the receiving end. It should not be mandated, it should not be forced. Choice is when one can accept and also choose to refuse, especially if it goes against our morality and religious belief.
Reynor // October 8, 2008 at 7:50 pm |
cont…
Taking our freedom (religious freedom among many others), imposing on us what the state believes and tries to do in terms of family and as husband and wife, subjecting our children to what we believe is not morally right, mandating us to do what we consider is immoral and requiring us to participate what we consider is not good to our family i hope do not really fall under your category of “overstatement” because they are important to us and they are what we consider as basic rights.
pablojohn // October 9, 2008 at 12:40 am |
See, you’ve just proven my point. Section 16 does not “mandate” an ideal family size. It is, at best, an ill-advised suggestion. It neither provides penalties nor proposes actions for ignoring the suggestion.
Section 12 does not “rob” you of any constitutionally guaranteed freedom. There is no constitutional freedom to determine the content of your child’s education. The state has always claimed an interest in the education of your child, and it says so in the Constitution. If at all, it is educational institutions that have the academic freedom to determine, to a greater or lesser extent (depending on educational level), the content of your child’s education.
Besides, reynor, reality check: while you’re railing against the RH bill, TV, the media and the Internet are already “robbing” you of this freedom you claim.
The fact that you are guaranteed your religious freedom means, precisely, that you do not exist in a vacuum. That there are other beliefs, and belief systems, out there that may not sit well with yours. Legislation should rise beyond this because there simply is no other way.
All I’m saying is, in crafting legislation, debate on the basis of policy, and leave religious arguments at the door.
Kiko // October 9, 2008 at 3:03 am |
heto po, para madagdagan ang idea ninyo kung ano ang nangyayari sa labas at loob ng session hall.
Isang Linggo ng Determinasyon sa Kabila ng Diskriminasyon sa Kongreso
Mga Karanasan at Kwento ng Kababaihan at Kalalakihan ng Maralitang Komunidad
Ang sumusunod ay mga salaysay mula sa Apelo Women’s Health Association (AWHA) at Boses ng Kabataang Pilipino (BKP) batay sa pitong araw nilang pagsubaybay sa deliberasyong plenaryo ng Kamara de Representante tungkol sa Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Management o HB 5043. Ang AWHA at BKP ay mga samahan ng kababaihan at Kabataan sa Pasay City na sumusuporta sa reproductive health.
AKO SI GINA Conde, bilang kinatawan ng samahan, naobserbahan ko ang pagkakaroon ng diskriminasyon ng mga kawani (guard) ng HOR. Kapag ang pumapasok ay mga madre, mga worker ng simbahan, guro kasama ang kanilang mga estudyante, walang masyadong tanong at madali silang nakakapasok kahit pa huli silang dumating.
Kahit sa paggawa ng ingay, sa pagpapakita ng emosyon, sa pagpalakpak, hindi sila sinasaway ng mga bantay. Kapag kagalang-galang ang kasuotan, makikita mo ang respetong pagtrato sa kanila na hindi namin naranasan minsan man.
Isang halimbawa ang pangyayari noong September 17 sa 2nd floor North Wing Gallery na hindi ko malilimutan. May dalawang hilera ng upuan sa unahan ang nabakante dahil sa pag-alis ng mga estudyante. Pinalipat ng guard ang mga tao. Nang makalipat na ang mga tao biglang bumalik ang mga umalis kung kaya’t nagkaroon ng konting ingay o bulungan. Nagulat na lang kami nang biglang sumigaw ang guard at pinatatahimik kami na parang ang sinasaway ay mga batang paslit. Sa pagsigaw na iyon, biglang nagkaroon ng katahimikan subalit patuloy sa pasigaw na pagsasalita ang guard at kung anu-ano ang sinasabi. Hindi ako nakatiis at sinabihan ko siya na Kuya, ‘wag naman ganyan ang pagsaway. Hindi kami mga batang paslit. Tao kami na dapat din namang igalang. Sa ginawa kong yun, napagsabihan pa ako na, “Tatandaan ko ang pagmumukha mo!” Grabe! Nagtatrabaho lang sila sa loob ng Kongreso, ‘kala mo kung sino na.
* * *
ANG MAG-ASAWANG FEBRY Fabella, 22 taong gulang at Joey Galicia, 23 taong gulang na may isang anak ay kasama sa mga naniniwala na malaking tulong sa kanila ang Reproductive Health Bill. Dahil sa mithiing maipasa ang bill, ang nag-iisa nilang anak na tatlong taong gulang ay iniwan sa kapitbahay upang pumunta sa Kongreso. Nalulungkot silang mag-asawa at nagagalit sa guard na nagtanong sa kanila kung magkano ang bayad sa kanila. Sinagot ni Joey ang guard na, “Manong, ang pagpunta po namin dito ay kusang-loob at walang kapalit kahit na singko sentimos. Katunayan, ako po ay may trabaho. Nagpaalam ako sa amo ko na hindi muna papasok sapagkat nais kung ipakita ang suporta sa Reproductive Health Bill. Kailangan namin ito para mapagplanuhan nang maayos ang aming kinabukasan at para ito sa misis ko.”
* * *
SI ALING LINDA Unlayao, 67 taong gulang, residente ng Apelo Cruz, Pasay at kasapi ng AWHA, ay kabilang sa pumunta at nagpakita ng suporta sa RH bill. Sabi niya sa amin, “Sa 7 araw na pagpunta ko sa Kongreso ay labis ang ginaw na naramdaman ko sa loob. Maya-maya akong umiihi. May mga pagkakataon na nahihirapan ako sa pag-akyat sa hagdan pero oki lang! Pag naipasa ang panukala, ito ang magandang pamana ko sa aking mga anak at apo.”
* * *
MAY MGA KASAMA rin kaming mga estudyante. Isa na si Carmela Verso, edad 16, 4th year high school. Sabi niya sa nanay niya, “Ma, paano naman maipapasa ang bawat bill? Hindi naman nakikinig ang mga kongresista, lakad sila nang lakad at nagdadaldalan.
* * *
GANON DIN ANG obserbasyon ng asawa kong si Luis Conde sa dalawang beses niyang pakikinig sa RH hearing. Sabi niya hindi magandang halimbawa ang ginagawa ng mga kongresista. May mga kabataan at estudyante pa namang pumupunta at nag-oobserba rito. Late silang dadating at uuwi agad kahit hindi pa tapos ang session. May palakad-lakad, lalabas at magdadaldalan. Pinagsasabihan ang mga tao na ‘wag maingay pero ang mga kongresista ang malalakas ang boses. Paano mapag-uusapan nang maayos ang batas kung ganyan ang kanilang gagawin? Tulad noong September 30, humirit na naman ng rollcall ang mga anti-RH bill. Kung hindi magko-korum, suspended na naman ang pagdinig. Sayang ang ipinasusweldo sa kanila.
* * *
Ang mga kwentong ito ay ilan lamang sa mga karanasan ng mga nagsipagpunta sa Kongreso. Kung magagawa lamang naming kausapin ang lahat ng aming mga kasama, malamang hindi lang ito ang maisusulat na mga karanasan.
Kami sa AWHA at BKP ay nananawagan na bigyang pansin ang mga tunay na karanasan naming mamamayan sa pitong araw na pabalik-balik sa Kongreso upang dinggin ang deliberasyon ng Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Management o HB 5043. Huwag sanang ipagwalang bahala ang obserbasyon ng kababaihan, kabataan at maging ng kalalakihan sa patakarang nagaganap sa loob ng Kongreso.
Apelo Women’s Health Association (AWHA)
Boses ng Kabataang Pilipino (BKP)
704 -A52 Apelo Cruz St.
Brgy. 157 Zone 16, Pasay City
Tel.no. 853-74-30
Kiko // October 9, 2008 at 3:05 am |
Kung bakit naman mahalaga para sa aming mga mahihirap ang bill na ito.
Bakit Mahalaga sa Amin ang Reproductive Health?
Mga Kwentong Buhay ng mga Ordinaryong Taong Tumuntong sa Kongreso
Sa mga nagdaang talakayan ng mga mambabatas kaugnay sa Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Bill o HB 5043, maraming mga ordinaryong kasapi ng komunidad ang masugid na sumubaybay dito. Narito ang mga salaysay ng ilan sa kanila—kababaihan at kalalakihan ng Malabon, kasama ang kanilang buong pamilya—kung bakit mahalaga sa kanila ang reproductive health.
Si Eliza Patricio ay may 8 anak at 2 apo. Paglalagay ng yelo sa isda sa fish port ng Navotas ang trabaho ng asawa niya. Dahil sa kagustuhang matigil na ang kanyang pagbubuntis, ninais ni Eliza na magpatali (Bilateral Tubal Ligation). Nahirapan siya na kumbinsihin at papirmahin ang asawa sa consent form para magawa na ang operasyon. Iba’t ibang pamamaraan na ang kanyang ginawa para makumbinsi ang asawa na pumirma.
* * *
Isa si Rosela Mahinay sa masigasig na sumama sa bawat lakad sa Kongreso kahit na may inaasikaso pa siyang anak na may problema sa pag-iisip. Dama ni Rosela ang hirap sa pagbubuntis at panganganak. Nakikita niya rin sa kanilang komunidad ang iba’t ibang klase ng kumplikasyon na nararanasan ng mga babae bunga ng hindi planadong pagbubuntis.
* * *
Sina Lola Maria Gabrinao, Lola Leonisa Pacala at Lola Adoracion Marin ang tinaguriang “Tres Marias” na tagasuporta sa RH Bill. Si Lola Maria ay may 8 anak at 20 apo. Madalas, si Lola Maria ang nag-aalaga ng maliliit na apo niya sa panahon na nagtatrabaho ang kanyang mga anak. Si Lola Leonisa naman ay 76 anyos, 9 ang anak at may 32 apo. Tulad ni Lola Maria, ramdam din niya ang hirap ng buhay sa pagpapalaki ng kanyang mga anak at apo. Si Lola Adoracion ay 64 anyos na, 3 ang anak at 3 ang apo. Maliit ang bilang ng pamilya ni Lola Adoracion. Palaging ipinaiintindi ni Lola sa kanyang mga apo ang kahalagahan ng pagpaplano ng pamilya upang mas maayos at maunlad ang takbo ng buhay. Sila Lola Maria, Lola Leonisa at Lola Adoracion ay matapang na naninindigan sa pagsuporta sa pagsasabatas ng RH Bill. Madalas nilang sabihin na hindi lang pangkabataan ang usaping ito. Maging silang mga may-edad na ay nagpapahalaga sa kalusugang pangreproduktibo dahil tulad nila, may pangangailangan din sila sa usaping ito.
* * *
Mahalagang maipaglaban ng kababaihan ang kanilang mga karapatan lalo na sa usapin ng katawan. Ito ang katwiran ni Shirley Quitlong, 52 taong gulang, may 5 anak at 5 apo. Sa kabila ng tindi ng pangangailangang mabuhay, pansamantalang nagsasara ng tindahan ng ulam si Shirley upang isigaw at ipaglaban ang kaniyang karapatan kaugnay sa kalusugang pangreproduktibo.
* * *
Ang buong pamilya nina Oscar at Merlita Ala ay laging sumasama sa Kongreso sa pagsubaybay at pagsuporta sa panukalang batas kaugnay sa Reproductive Health. Para sa kanila, usapin ito ng buong pamilya na kailangang pagtuunan ng pansin at itaguyod. Mahalaga na napag-uusapan ang mga ganitong usapin sa loob ng kanilang tahanan. Naniniwala sila na ang mga magulang ang pangunahing tao na dapat na nagsisimula sa pagtalakay ng mga ito. Ngunit, napakahalaga sa kanila na may mga institusyong sumusuporta sa tama at naaayon sa edad na pagtalakay sa usaping pangreproduktibo ng kanilang mga anak.
Mothers Organization for Total Health, Education, Research and Services (MOTHERS)
Kaunlaran, Kapayapaan at Katarungan para sa Kabataan (3K)
Lot 3, Block 13, Phase 2, Paradise Village
Letre, Tonsuya, Malabon City
Tel. No.: 288-79-81
Donnattzzz // October 9, 2008 at 10:55 am |
I could consider
Donnattzzz // October 9, 2008 at 10:58 am |
I believe that implementing the RH bill in our country doesn’t make the acceptors immoral.
Reynor // October 9, 2008 at 2:17 pm |
You have gone back to the shelter of “leaving religious arguments at the door” but the issue goes beyond what is religious and this is not to say that religion has nothing to do with it because it first and foremost it steps on our religious freedom then continues to take our other rights/freedom.
In that regards, this too is a social concern, this is about the privacy of husband and wife, this is about family, this is about the freedom of the parents in raising their children.
The fact that you mentioned that the Media is already “robbing” me of this freedom, the question arises is there really a need for the state to do the same, is it necessary to make it legal and mandatory? It is harder enough to shield the children from such exploitation and exposure need we make it legal and have the school deliver it to the children?
If there are those who wishes to do so then go ahead make it available but do not make it mandatory. Where there is no choice there is no freedom.
I did not use the term “mandate” about Section 16, what i said is that section 16 prevents me from deciding on my own by stating that 2 is an ideal size as if it is a true in fact and in all cases.
The need to add “no penalties” confirms the purpose and the premise by which the section is coming from. How dare the state to say that an ideal family size is two. It is for the family to decide, it is between the husband and wife to decide what is ideal, this particular freedom should not be surrendered to the state.
I beg to disagree about what you said on Section 12. We can go around discussing it but the bottomline is that people or parents who wanted to observe their children and give to them the sex education that they need depending on their age, capability to make decisions, intellectual progress, beliefs in morality, and ability to understand and take on responsibility has no freedom to do so. The title of the section says it all: “SEC. 12. Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education.”
Sir, again, I am not looking to impose what i or we believe on those who doesnt share our belief. What i am for is allowing us to do what we believe is morally right and what is morally and ethically good for our children. The bill simply doesnt allow us that.
To a common-tao like me- if i cannot live and practice what I believe is right for myself, my family, and my children…that is robbing me of my freedom.
Reynor // October 9, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
If i may ask congressman, why are you leaning towards rejecting the bill?
pablojohn // October 9, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
i am leaning towards rejecting the bill because it commits too much of this country’s resources to promoting contraceptives, when they are better spent towards antibiotics and other basic medication that this government can’t even provide the common citizens.
i am leaning towards rejecting the bill because i question whether it is necessary when all natural and artificial methods of contraception are readily available to those who want it.
so i’m questioning the bill along those lines. i don’t have to resort to contrived complaints about the bill “robbing” me of my “freedoms”.
but you know what? i’d vote for the bill if it only contained section 12. ’cause i’d like to have mandatory age-appropriate reproductive health education for my children starting from grade school.
you know why? because i’d want a standard sex education class for my children, and not leave it to people like you and me, reynor, to screw it up for my children. the consequences of sex are the same for everyone, whether catholic, born-again, muslim, jewish, atheist, etc. the dangers of unwanted pregnancy are the same, whether you pray to jesus or to allah. the tragedy of sexually-trasnsmitted diseases transcends religious barriers.
heck, i can name you 8 priests in my province alone who caused unwanted pregnancies. and i bet you, when they were in the throes of passion, they weren’t thinking Humanae Vitae or anything. and i bet you even more, after the first pregnancy test, they wished they were more open-minded about frenzy condoms.
Reynor // October 9, 2008 at 6:15 pm |
Thank you for taking the time to response.
I agree with what you said about allocating funds to distribution of medicines (that in my vocabulary are medicines that really heal and save lives rather than render one infertile or prevent the conception of a human life).
I also strongly agree with you that both natural and artificial method of FP are already available. That negates the need to legislate.
In regards to section 12, as i said before we can always agree to disagree. since you believe that it is necessary and i believe otherwise; that you would rather give that responsibility to the state rather than take it, we should have the freedom to do what we will. if the state insists that sex education should be in the curriculum, then those who don’t have the confidence that they can be good parents in terms of sexual education/reproductive health should be able to avail of it and for those who desire to be in charge of educating their own children about the birds and the bees should be allowed as well.
about your comment re priests, i dont know what bearing does it bring about this issue. in any case, i can also give you even more than 8 priest and not only priests but probably bishops who i am sure were not thinking about humanae vitae at the time that they were doing what they are not supposed to be doing. and yes you are right, im certain as well that they may be wishing they have used a “frenzy condom” if it didnt occurred to them that adultery is a much bigger sin than using artificial contraception that is.
my say to that, it doesnt matter. one cannot judge a certain ideal to be wrong because and by the people who have failed to uphold the ideal. in as much as a legislation cannot be judged as wrong because of and by the lawmakers who cannot abide by it.
pablojohn // October 14, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
“i dont know what bearing does it bring about this issue”
if nothing else, i think it just illustrates the dangers (and ultimate absurdity) of arguing along moral and religious lines on the issue. when you argue on the basis of “morals”, then the other side will always be morally wrong. at some point, you’ll have to decide whether you want to win the RH debate or convert people to your moral viewpoint.
all i’m saying is that you can win this RH bill debate without resorting to it. and you might even lose it if you do so because it’s necessarily divisive. (not everyone, after all, shares your morals and religion)
besides, if the religious can’t even make the moral argument stick in their own church (a lot of catholics use contraceptives, go to mass, and the church doesn’t have any moral issues taking their tithes), i doubt very much if they can make it stick in a forum that’s supposed to be secular.
Reynor // October 14, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
“if nothing else, i think it just illustrates the dangers (and ultimate absurdity) of arguing along moral and religious lines on the issue. when you argue on the basis of “morals”, then the other side will always be morally wrong. …”
I thought the constitution still means what it states regarding family and religious convictions.
Article 15:
The Family
SEC. 3.
The State shall defend :
(1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood;
pablojohn // October 14, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
of course.
but the constitution never guaranteed your right to found OTHER families in accordance with your religious convictions.
pablojohn // October 14, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
… and the RH bill does not in any way interfere with your right to found your family in accordance with your religious convictions. you can still preach the evils of the condom to your children.
Reynor // October 14, 2008 at 8:36 pm |
“but the constitution never guaranteed your right to found OTHER families in accordance with your religious convictions.”
Yes and no one said it does.
“… and the RH bill does not in any way interfere with your right to found your family in accordance with your religious convictions. you can still preach the evils of the condom to your children.”
Section 12 Congressman mandates an education of ALL children from grade 5.
Would you be so kind to explain to me how section 12 will not interfere with my right to do so, when section 12 mandates teaching my children about contraceptives while my religious conviction and idea of responsible parenthood tells me it is wrong?
pablojohn // October 15, 2008 at 1:01 am |
i never thought it needed explaining. but here goes: when your children go home from school, there’s nothing under the RH bill to stop you from bombarding your kids with your moral and religious values. in fact there is no law that stops you from reversing everything that the educational system teaches your children if it does not suit your religious beliefs. you can even insist on the literal correctness of creationism if you want.
religious freedom, and the right to bring up your children according to your religious beliefs, does not guarantee that your children will be insulated in the plastic bubble of religious purity. it simply means that — in the face of differing and contrary belief systems, and even in the face of prevailing sectarian trend of thought — you have the freedom to teach and rear your children in the values you yourself hold dear.
Reynor // October 15, 2008 at 1:46 pm |
Part of my religious conviction and responsible parenthood is to not expose children to what we consider as sins & temptations and to provide them with incentives to keep what we consider as a moral law. The constitution gives us that right so the state is to defend that right. The RHBill does the opposite.
Your use of the word “reversing” proves that the RHBill does what is not acceptable with our religious conviction and how it violates the section 3 of the constitution, it is only an additional responsibility that the RHBill imposes on us – that by the need to reverse what the state will be doing.
Section 3 starts off with “The state to defend…”, and so to defend the RHBill by counting on to the parents to having the freedom to reverse what the bill intends to impose is just not making any sense.
Like you, i don’t see the need to legislate. Aside from the fact that it violates the constitution, it adds another burden to the citizens. In any case and for any reason that you might have for rejecting the bill, i am hoping that you will do as you say. we may disagree as to why but we have the same verdict and that should be enough for now.
Maddog // October 16, 2008 at 9:58 am |
I think Reynor has a point. The Bill imposes mandatory age-appropriate sex education. This brings up the question as to who will decide what is appropriate and whether any government entity is actually competent to do so. There are a great many views on what is appropriate and the state will likely offend more or contradict more viewpoints than it will satisfy (unless it teaches hardly anything at all).
If this sex education were optional then at least parents retain their right to teach their children as they see fit on this subject (or even not to teach them at all and leave it up to the state). But the Bill makes this mandatory, Why should parents be burdened with having to reverse what the state imposes using the parents’ money?
Finally, we should not underestimate the influence of the state. Parents are already having difficulties with all the other negative influences aimed at today’s youth. Why add another potentially objectionable one which will be pervasive and forced upon children for years?
It also seems we have not discussed at all the Bill’s provisions that do can rob us of our freedoms. For example, you have Section 21, part a, number 5, which says that if a person objects to administering abortifacient contraceptives or other objectionable methods obn religious grounds, his views will be “respected” but, “… the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible…”
In other words, a conscientious objector must still see to it that he refers a “patient” to someone else who will do the dirty deed. This still makes him a cooperator in the objectionable act. The Bill therefore forces people to promote or administer artificial and abortifacient contraceptives. That is coercive and violates our rights.
As Rep. Raul Del Mar pointed out, HB 5043 should be renamed “An Act Providing a National Policy Promoting Contraceptives and Sterilization”, because that is what it does. Instead of free and informed choice, you have coercion.
Section 21, part e also lists as a prohibited act, “Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.” This provision is overly broad and could (and most probably will) be construed as prohibiting the airing of objections to the Bill, which is what I am doing right now. This provision is is obviously going to be used to suppress dissent, and is an undue restriction of freedom of speech.
As one person commented on another blog, we should all be against this provision, whether or not we are for or against the Bill.
pablojohn // October 16, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
“Part of my religious conviction and responsible parenthood is to not expose children to what we consider as sins & temptations and to provide them with incentives to keep what we consider as a moral law.”
I think there is no quarrel there. I just don’t believe the Constitution guarantees a plastic bubble. A Muslim, for example, can’t complain if in Health class, pork is promoted as a good source of protein. There will always be things in this world that will go against one religious tenet or other. We just don’t recognize them until they goes against ours.
“Finally, we should not underestimate the influence of the state.”
But when you say that, you underestimate the influence of your faith, and the influence of parents on their children. This “burden” of which you speak — hasn’t that been the burden of all organized religion, and being part of it, since the beginning of time? After all, when we rail against an “imperfect” world, and the “evils” of society, we presuppose that our children are “exposed” to these evils from the moment of their birth.
The state will always have an interest in health, in education, in reproduction, in population, in health education. I think only the religiously extreme will deny that. If the state has to think about the multitude of religious sensibilities it might offend in carrying out policy, the state might as well close shop. I think the state should just do its job, and we should just leave the question of “morals” to the church and to the home.
“Why should parents be burdened with having to reverse what the state imposes using the parents’ money?”
That’s a good question, and a very tough one. But there’s a lot of content in education one parent might find objectionable for one reason or another. A creationist might find the teaching of evolution objectionable. Earlier in our history, the bishops railed against the teaching of Rizal’s books. A Muslim parent might find the bias for monogamy (and against polygamy) in civics objectionable. Cebuanos I know resent the bias for Tagalog in our educational system. The list goes on and on.
My point is that once we allow parents to absolutely determine the content of education just because they’re paying for it, any form of educational system might not be possible. I believe — and here is where we can disagree — the job of religion, and parenthood, is precisely to supplement, to correct, and to enhance, the admittedly imperfect education our children are getting.
Regarding the “conscientious objector” clause, this just underscores my point on the dangers, and ultimate absurdity, of legislating something that doesn’t need legislation. Even without the RH bill, a woman who does not think ligation evil can readily find a medical practitioner who would do it. The RH bill simply looks for a scapegoat in cases where the patient doesn’t look hard enough.
Section 21 (e) is plainly stupid, placed there, I believe, by a “pikon” author. RH bill proponents complain of the “religious pressure” brought to bear. Section 21 (e) seeks to elevate the RH bill into a state-mandated religion.
Maddog // October 20, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
I’m glad that we found another aspect of the issue where we can agree. Section 21 (e) is really very bad law.
As for education, in principle perhaps there can be a middle ground. No state can please everyone. But then perhaps it can try to please as many of its citizens as it can? I think that parents should still have a very big say on what their children are taught. At the very least, shouldn’t there be an opt-out clause when a parent finds certain topics contrary to their faith, morals, and culture? I think opt-out clauses have worked in other countries. It probably won’;t make everybody happy, but at least there’s some kind of compromise. I’m not sure if I’m all for it either, but I offer it as an idea for other issues where mandatory education is concerned.