The Reproductive Health Bill: empowering Filipinos

The proposed Philippine Reproductive Health Bill (RH Bill) is so hot a topic at the moment that I can’t even open my Facebook without reading some kind of update from someone about it. Most Filipinos like myself, were raised as Catholics so discussing anything to do with shhh… sex openly can become too uncomfortable and it is basically a no-go zone for people in our society. Just thinking about it makes a few people a bit squeamish. This is precisely the reason why any attempts at opening a discussion on controlling Philippine population through artificial contraception can be easily shut down by the Moral Police. The “Moral Police” or the religious zealots can instantly make you feel immoral just by them saying “it is immoral” to even think about using any contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

The topic has come to the attention of a few more Filipinos who were otherwise uninterested or too shy to talk about such a taboo subject. This is thanks to a flamboyant Philippine tour guide operator, Carlos Celdran. Celdran who was recently sent to jail overnight for a stunt inside a Philippine church which involved barging in on a gathering of clergymen while holding a placard with the word DAMASO written on it. It was an impassioned plea to the members of the clergy to give the RH bill its well-deserved consideration.

It was no surprise then that the clergymen were not happy with Celdran and found a reason to sue him, not because they thought that he had no right to speak his mind or not because they found his costume a bit silly (he was dressed as national hero Dr Jose Rizal); the men in robes are now suing him for disrespecting their religious beliefs. Obviously, these clerics want to teach Celdran a lesson in time travel — if he doesn’t straighten out, so the lesson goes, they are going to send him to a place where time will stop and where he can dress like a clown everyday. The Church also wants to teach everyone about logic. According to this logic, the RH Bill is totally out of the question because, well, because they said so and that it makes perfect sense to …hmmm… THEM! Ladies and Gentlemen, what we have here is a failure to communicate.

It has now come to my attention that the best way to go around and make sure the RH Bill is passed into law is to make the belief in contraception a religion in its own right. That way, no one can accuse those who choose to use contraceptives of violating anything. The only problem is, it might be too late to declare Controlling the Philippine Population as a religion in time for the deliberation of the bill in Congress, no thanks to the slowness of the system and the mindset of the majority who are still trapped in the 1950s. At 50 years old, President Noynoy Aquino (P-Noy) is at least supporting the RH bill which can potentially contribute to solving the problem of overpopulation which could, turn, solve extreme poverty in the country.

P-Noy’s support is in line with that of most people with common sense. Common sense and P-Noy in the same breath is enough to make even some atheists believe in miracles. I guess we can thank our lucky stars that P-Noy personally does not believe in having kids and, perhaps, does not have a problem having sex outside of marriage (c’mon folks, you don’t really think that he is still a 50 year old virgin, do you?). Excommunicating P-Noy should be the last thing the Catholic Church should consider, because it will only make him even more powerful the way Obi Wan Kenobi became invincible after he was struck down by Darth Vader’s light-saber. The Catholic Church should realize that threats to excommunicate someone is not exactly teaching anyone much foresight. But it does make people appreciate life more once they realise that the Church has a lot of silly rules that are now irrelevant to peoples’ ways of life.

The flaring up of the subject of contraception is very timely indeed. May 2010 marked the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill or the Pill as it is called nowadays. It was in May 1960 when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of the oral contraceptive. The Pill’s acceptance for use by Western society as another form of birth control was a long drawn out battle with Christian religious groups leading the charge against it. Thanks to feminist groups who fought back tooth and nail and won, the Pill eventually changed the way people live and love in the western society.

It was in the 1970s when the true impact of the Pill was evident and it was said that the changes were not particularly obvious on the sexual behavior of American women but on how they pictured their lives, their choices and their obligations. There were more women who were able to imagine a life that included both a family and a job. The desire for a large family went out of vogue as more women found they could do more things with their time.

In 1972, a bill called Title IX was enacted which ended discrimination in education and opened doors for women who wanted to pursue courses in law and medical schools. The Pill was instrumental to convincing colleges and graduate schools not to reject female applicants on the basis of assumptions that they would just wind up getting pregnant and drop out. Research conducted by Harvard economist Claudia Goldin showed connections between the point at which different states in the US allowed access to the Pill in the 70s and the progress women made in those states made.

A short history of contraceptives and religious opposition

Prior to the invention of the Pill, people were already actively searching for ways to avoid falling pregnant. Back in the olden days, they got very resourceful about it. However, the methods people used were very inconvenient, most likely uncomfortable and less effective — unlike the Pill, which was small and easily swallowed.

Even during the ancient times, historians have noted that Egyptians mixed a paste out of crocodile dung and formed it into a pessary, or vaginal insert. Whether it worked or not is a good question no one will be able to answer. It was also said that Aristotle recommended cedar oil as spermicides (a contraceptive substance that eradicates sperm). Even Casanova suggested using half a lemon as a cervical cap. One can be forgiven for giving that one a miss. The condom was named after Dr. Condom in the mid-1700s who is said to have invented a sheath made out of sheep intestines for England’s King Charles II to help limit the number of bastards he sired.

In 1952 however, a professor at Harvard Gregory Pincus collaborated with a fellow Harvard-trained physician named John Rock who accidentally formulated a birth control pill. Rock was a devout Catholic who made it his mission to help barren women have babies. When the two began to collaborate, Rock was experimenting with using hormones to help women conceive. His idea was to use the hormone progesterone to suppress ovulation for four months, then withdraw the drug and hope for a rebound effect; of course it was effective as is still today. And using the hormones to manipulate the release of the eggs also made sense to block ovulation and prevent women from getting pregnant.

In modern times, any form of contraception was met with unified opposition from across the religious spectrum — Protestants and Catholics, Western and Eastern Orthodox. That was because to these religious groups, sex, even within marriage was considered immoral unless it was aimed at having a baby. Back then information about contraception was treated as equivalent to pornography. In 1873, the US Congress passed a law banning birth control information as obscene.

The Catholic Church in the 1950s had approved of the use of the rhythm method as a valid approach to family planning. The idea was that couples would limit intercourse to the woman’s “safe” period. However, it was not foolproof because there are some women who have irregular menstrual cycles. John Rock found a way around this by arguing that all the Pill did was mimic naturally occurring hormones to extend the “safe” period so make the safe to have sex longer.

During the convention of the Second Vatican Council in 1962 under Pope John XXII, it was said that many lay leaders and clergy were already leaning towards the relaxation of the restraints on family planning as part of a general liberization of Church teaching. Unfortunately, when Pope Paul VI took over, he appointed a commission to study the issue of family planning and concluded it by issuing his encyclical Humane Vitae in which the teaching against contraception stayed in place. His decision was entirely against the commission’s suggestion that nearly all theologians and a majority of the cardinals favored changing the church’s teachings on the immorality of contraception. It seems that someone had a narrow view of the world and very arrogantly exercised his power without thinking of the consequences of his actions.

In the Philippines, half a century after the use of the Pill was legalised in the USA, the issues that are associated with any form of contraception, which the Catholic Church deem unnatural, is still controversial to say the least. Why it should be controversial is mind boggling considering that the reproductive system is after all, a woman’s issue more than a religious issue. Why would the Catholic Church or any religious organization for that matter insist on lecturing a woman on how to live her life? Could it be that the “men” who run the Church are afraid of women? It is all starting to make sense now. Women who have the option to do more than just “mind the kids” seem to threaten men who still see women as second-class citizens.

Apparently, apart from its many teachings, the Catholic Church to which I belong by the way, also wants to include lessons on hypocrisy. Reading through the proposed RH Bill will have you conclude that they have no qualms about resorting to exaggerating when they insist that the bill will eventually promote abortion. There was no mention of that word at all. It did have the word “abolition” in it. To quote a section of the bill:

2. Declaration of State Policy and Principles. The State affirms the role of women in development and ensures the substantive equality of women and men. It shall promote the empowerment of women and pursue equal access to resources and services. Further, the State realizes that equality of men and women entails the ABOLITION unequal structures and practices that perpetuate discrimination and inequality. To realize this, the State shall endeavor to develop plans, policies, programs, measures, and mechanisms to address discrimination and inequality in the economic, political, social and cultural life of women and men. Consistent with the Magna Carta of Women, the State shall accord women the rights, protection, and opportunities available to every member of society. The State shall ensure the necessary mechanisms to enforce women’s rights and adopt and undertake all legal measures necessary to foster and promote the equal opportunity for women to participate in and contribute to the development of the political, economic, social and cultural spheres. In recognizing the role and contribution of women in development, the state shall provide comprehensive, quality, and accessible reproductive health services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information for girls and women of all ages, especially for the women and girls coming from underprivileged sectors.

I don’t know how many times I have read this from people who support the RH Bill but I need to say it again: The Church does not have a right to interfere with the affairs of the state. They do not even have a moral high ground considering that all we got from the years of abuse thousands of children received in the hands of Catholic priests is a lousy apology from Pope Benedict. He is not even going to look into changing the celibacy rules in the priesthood to perhaps reduce the occurrence of such heinous acts. They probably want to teach us a lesson in irony too because what they are preaching is not in line with how some of them act. Even author and previously devout Catholic Anne Rice had been turned off with some of the clergy’s behaviour and declared that even though she still believes in God, she is no longer a Catholic. But I digress…

Carlos Celdran is not the first person to be jailed for fighting for the use of contraception. But it is usually women who fight for women’s rights. So Celdran gets two thumbs up for fighting a cause that will greatly benefit women. American Margaret Sanger who coined the phrase birth control in 1914 was arrested for mailing her magazine Woman Rebel, an outlaw paper with its discussions of contraceptive use. Her 30 days in jail did not stop her pursuit of her cause. Her movement gained momentum during the Depression when it made sense to limit the size of families in order to survive.

Considering that the Philippines is in a permanent Depression, the RH Bill will be good for everyone in society. It won’t benefit just women. It will benefit the men and children in the women’s life. It has the potential to improve the Filipino’s quality of life because people will not be engaged in unnecessary fighting for scarce resources in order to live a decent life. The RH Bill law has to be passed and it needs to be passed now, or we will forever be imprisoned by 1950s thinking along with runaway population growth. Let us not let an outdated religious ruling control the future of the next generation. The Catholic Church does not have power when they don’t have the backing of the people.

If we don’t control the population, Nature will do it for us.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Lifestyle, Religion and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

270 Responses to The Reproductive Health Bill: empowering Filipinos

  1. marcky says:

    BRAVO! great article!

      • jcc says:

        Ilda,

        if you have some decency and honesty in this whole debate, you should atleast inform the entire womandood of the risk about contraceptives. anyway.. that is the best way to annihilate the poor people from the philippines so the rich can have all the resources for themselves… “lex taliones” in the most subtle form.

        http://jcc34.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/the-health-risk-the-rhb-proponents-should-know/

      • ilda says:

        Manong jcc

        The risks involved in all forms of contraceptives will be discussed to the women who opt to use it. The ABC of that is not really the point of my article. Of course there are risks. Almost everything in this world has its risks. It is every individual’s duty to educate themselves about the risks. People need to make an informed choice and try and figure out which option has more risk.

        Did you want me to add another 1000 words on my already long article just to please you? The medical professionals should be consulted about the risks not me.

      • sotirios says:

        JCC

        What according to you are the risks associated with contraceptives like the pill and the condom. Secondly, have you ever thought that reducing the number of poor people may one day result in a greater number of middle class people who in turn have a greater voice in politics and thus “control” the very rich. Finally if you’re so pro poor, why don;t you invite them all over to you house and you look after them with your OWN funds, I’m sick of most of my taxes going to these individuals.

      • Twin-Skies says:

        Hello ilda!

        I stumbled upon your post from the Filipino Freethinkers forum. I’m only halfway through your admittedly long composition, but I’m liking what I’m reading so far.

        Moving on to business:

        I see you have problems with trolls as well, if you know who I’m referring too. At the least trolls I’ve met don’t try to bore me to death with long-winded ramblings about how much better they are than anybody else.

        In any case, I would like to share some of the resources I’ve picked up regarding the present RH situation here in RP. I hope you will find them as useful as I have over in FF. Cheers:

        http://reproductiverights.org/en/forsakenlives
        http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/21245/

        And if you don’t mind some shameless self-endorsements from a fellow writer, my articles regarding RH. I hope you find their links most helpful:

        http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/10/02/logic-fail-babies-in-garbage-cans-pro-rh/
        http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2009/10/17/on-the-churchs-nfp-only-stance-the-case-of-texas/

      • ilda says:

        @twin-skies

        AP has many trolls. They always think they are smarter than everyone else.

        Thanks for the link to your blogs. I will visit them soon.

        Cheers!

    • jcc says:

      hohuuomm.. small minds attracting small minds… what do you know about faith and the LAW? Nada!

      http://jcc34.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/the-missed-issues-on-rhb-and-mr-celdran/

      • Jay says:

        @Jcc

        The bill will preserve the resources for the rich by eliminating the poor people. The rich always get the upper hand and yet they were assiduously marketing this Bill as pro-poor, and that to me is very sickening!

        Oh yeah, very well thought out there. 5-15% of the 95 million are rich and the rest are poor, also to count the dwindling middle class that is more of an endangered specie than the poor people you claim. Just very thought provoking there to the point that I forgot to spit my coffee.

      • ilda says:

        @jcc
        You are finally using the comment section of AP. Good for you! 🙂

        But try not to be a typical Filipino who asks for credentials before they can believe in what others are saying. I don’t have to be a priest to know what faith means. And I don’t have to be a lawyer to know about the LAW.

        Your article will have to wait until I actually have time to read it.

        Ta-ta

      • jcc says:

        sorry ilda, but i did not submit it to AP, it is in my blog. okay what is your understanding of free speech in the light of Mr. Celdran’s claim about his church tirade? and what is so wrong with putting in your credentials and your actual photo in your blog? you feel comfort behind the idea that you can defecate in public places as long as you can cover your face? hahahaahhaha!!!!!

      • ilda says:

        @jcc

        I can understand why you are laughing. What you are suggesting is funny, indeed! You have this tendency to concentrate on the messenger instead of the message. You are getting everyone sidetracked here. Sorry to say, I will not fall for that kind of crap. I don’t hide behind anything. My family and friends call me Ilda. I don’t care if you don’t know who I am and what kind of diploma I have. I don’t even care about your diploma. I only care about what you say.

        For your info, I found it regrettable that Celdran had to enter the Church’s premises and interrupt the celebration inside. But I guess you had to be in the moment to understand what kind of emotion he was going through which compelled him to do what he did. And you know what? It got their attention. Some people like the clergymen and their stand on population control can push people over the edge. Too bad for Celdran because he is now in trouble with the law. But good for the entire Philippine population because people are now finally talking about the issue.

        Celdran basically had the right to say what he thought of the church just like the church is always dismissing things as immoral. Had he stayed outside the church’s premises, he would have been fine. Unfortunately, he wouldn’t have gotten any attention either.

      • ilda says:

        @jcc

        I finally had a chance to read your blog and I must insist that you are indeed a funny man. The problem is, I don’t think you were trying to be funny at all. Here is the part that made me laugh:

        Eventually, the poor will be extinct in one generation because there will be nobody to replace them.

        Whoa…you really believe that poor people will eventually become extinct? 😉

        I think you need to travel more because even in rich countries, there are still poor people. There is no way any society can eradicate poverty because men are not created equal. There will always be those who will be left behind. What the RH bill wants is to reduce the number of people who are left behind.

        The multi-nationals you are talking about actually prefer to have a bigger population to sell their products too. So your assumption is wrong when you said, “The bill will preserve the resources for the rich by eliminating the poor people.” A lot of rich people in our society actually prefer the status quo because they love their cheap servants and labour. Why would they try and eliminate that?

        Suppose there is a possibility of eliminating poverty, what’s so wrong about that anyway? Wouldn’t you want to live in a world where there are no poor people?

      • Jay says:

        The church can accost Celdran outside the premises. Calling the police on him is rather extreme, if in fact rather baseless. Which would then make him rethink of other methods to bring out his message in more subtle ways. The church also trying to take him to court with a stupid charge also shows how balat sibuyas the CBCP are, considering its natural that they are purely pinoy that way.

        If anything, the church in any scenario of how they handle Celdran besides having him jailed wouldn’t take a hit on their reputation and make them look slightly better as an understanding collective. If anything, its strict and conservative individuals who don’t know the difference would rather defend them and make them out as the victims instead of Celdran’s shenanigans.

      • Jay says:

        Just like the Don’t tase me bro incident, Celdran clearly walked that fine line. The difference is he didn’t behave like the white guy in the video and became example of questionable police brutality.

      • ilda says:

        Indeed he did. Only time will tell if it was worth it. Filipinos have this tendecy to be unappreciative of this sort of intellectual pursuit.

      • ArticleRequest says:

        @ ilda

        Actually jcc is in the same mold of Pinoys who I call credentialists, palaging naghahanap ng “credentials”. I often give an assertion about a certain topic tapos (ie PNOY or the state of affairs) may ayaw maniwala: “You’re not the president, you’re not an economist, etc. who are you to say that!?” My reply: “Why I’m me and how does this affect the truthness or falseness of my assertions?” Too often sa mga typical Pinoy they never get the whole evaluate the truth value part. Because, the truth value of a statement is true or false regardless of the person uttering it. Something is true by virtue of the fact that it IS, a first step in understanding logic. On the other hand, I have seen many Pinoys accuse me of not valuing their opinions and refusing to listen simply because I disagree. If they disagree with me they say “It’s only an opinion what’s wrong with you?!” Shucks naman. Typical Pinoys and their hypocrisy. 😛

      • ilda says:

        @jcc and ArticleRequest

        Since jcc is still obsessed with credentials, I would like to share a very good article by Randy David on public intellectuals. Here is an excerpt: http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100929-295099/Public-intellectuals

        But, the term “intellectual” is more elusive in its meaning. It suggests a thinker whose influence extends beyond academe or a particular field of specialization. He may often not be a professor or a university-based scholar. In the 19th century, such a person might be called an “ilustrado”—someone shaped in the mold of European enlightenment liberalism, who thinks differently, like Rizal.
        Whatever it might mean, the word “intellectual” has been a favored label throughout the 20th century, acquiring in the course of its usage many affirmative connotations. Paired with the term “public” to form the trendy appellation “public intellectual,” it becomes a contentious label. I have yet to meet anyone who bears the title “public intellectual” on his calling card, or identifies himself as such.
        Yet in the last decade or so, despite its ambiguity, the term has been used extensively and in a very positive light. In cooperation with the Nippon Foundation, for instance, the Ateneo de Manila University runs the “Asian Public Intellectuals Fellowship Program” that awards research and writing fellowships to qualified individuals who wish to do comparative research and travel in Japan and Southeast Asia. A quick look at the profiles of past recipients, however, is not helpful in arriving at a more concrete understanding of the term. What one sees is a wide range of qualities that one typically encounters in any program that offers professional sabbatical fellowships.

        In one of its preferred usages, the term “public intellectual” suggests a predisposition to stand up to power, to employ ideas as weapons against tyranny, and to use the arena of public discourse to wage war against obsolete ideas and various types of dogmatism. But, perhaps more than this, the image the term conjures is that of influential thinkers who not only resist power but disavow it. They are very political in the sense that they use ideas to challenge power, but they are not politicians because they are not themselves pursuing political power.
        In contrast to the private scholar, public intellectuals are not only read or studied, they are also seen, read and heard in the modern mass media. As protagonists of the public sphere, they are sought for their views on a broad range of issues.

        Here is the part that jcc should really, really try and get a grip on so he stops obsessing about credentials:

        But, acquiring a public image poses the most daunting problem for intellectuals. By the public nature of their interventions, they gain, in time, not just a loyal set of readers and listeners, but a constituency that expects them not only to write or criticize, but to lead.
        Michel Foucault, one of the great French intellectuals of his time, was deeply aware of the dangers of the public adulation of intellectuals. In an interview he gave to Le Monde, he made the unusual request that only his views be recorded, that his name be not mentioned. “In our societies,” he said, “characters dominate our perceptions…. Why did I suggest that we use anonymity? Out of nostalgia for a time when, being quite unknown, what I said had some chance of being heard… A name makes reading too easy.”

        Once intellectuals go public, it doesn’t take long before they become “celebrities.” People begin to assign value to what they say not because of the wisdom it expresses, but because of who said it. The exercise in anonymity, Foucault said, is “a way of addressing the potential reader, the only individual here who is of interest to me, more directly: ‘Since you don’t know who I am, you will be more inclined to find out why I say what you read; just allow yourself to say, quite simply, it’s true, it’s false. I like it or I don’t like it. Period

        Intellectuals who are seduced into becoming media pop stars or politicians run the risk of compromising the critical role they play in society, which is to sharpen the public’s sense of reality in the face of the confusing plethora of information made available in media. This role can only proceed from a habit of thinking differently and boldly. The moment intellectuals actively seek popularity, power or profit, they become sensitive to ratings and begin to behave no differently from other media celebrities that trade in images..”

        Energized by public adulation, they are often moved to broadcast or write everything that comes to their minds, no matter in what state it is, “leaving no thought unpublished,” to borrow Christopher Hitchens’ memorable phrase. In quest of constant affirmation, they become mouthpieces for all kinds of advocacies and movements. Before they realize it, they give up the hard work of reflection, preferring to dwell in one comforting delusion after another.

        Let me know if you still don’t understand why some of us here prefer to maintain our so-called anonymity. 😉

      • jcc says:

        you missed the point again ilda… would you rather feel comfort if i say one or three generations the poor will be eliminated because they will not be allowed to procreate under the RHB?
        would the rich people sign a covenant with the poor people that from here on, every new married couple can only have one child or no child at all regardless of their status in life? no ilda, they wont’t…. the rich won’t.. it is only the poor that can be guinea pigs under this RHB..
        BTW you have not address my beef with Celdran on his claim of “free speech”.

      • ilda says:

        @jcc

        You are taking this issue way to the extreme. I thought you were a lawyer? Or are lawyers really prone to read between the lines? There is nothing in the proposed bill that says that poor people cannot procreate anymore. The bill is basically advocating equal opportunity for women and more education on birth control. Why are you so afraid of educating the ignorant people?

      • Jay says:

        would you rather feel comfort if i say one or three generations the poor will be eliminated because they will not be allowed to procreate under the RHB?

        Do you have anything solid to support your blind conjecture? The poor technically multiply faster than the rich (what with many circumstances) and the only thing KEEPING THEM POOR is their inability to match societal standards and not understanding how the current system can work for them.

        no ilda, they wont’t…. the rich won’t.. it is only the poor that can be guinea pigs under this RHB..

        Put this together. If a married couple makes a combined total of 15k pesos a month, that is better in the long run for their survival than having a child considering they then have to make sordid sacrifices that would bite in their budget for monthly survival. Have five children and the expenses balloon exponentially. This also reflects on the government, which also helps provide services for individual citizens who apply. Everyone loses when they are irresponsible, even with you. Unless you are the wealthy, as take away the money of the rich and they are in the same leagues of the poor.

      • BongV says:

        strawmen are a dime a dozen –  “would you rather feel comfort if i say one or three generations the poor will be eliminated because they will not be allowed to procreate under the RHB?”

        who says they are not allowed to procreate – heck the church does not allow you to procreate if you are not a married couple – but they procreate anyway.  😆

      • John B says:

        Way to go jcc go for it! I use to think like this pro RHB people and I thank God HE has opened by mind to the truth. The deception of RHB is so subtle, hidden in a kind of language that is seemingly good but in reality opens the gate to the culture of immorality, death and perverseness that is opposite to what it supposedly represent. Hey, I’m all for reproductive health myself but the RHB does not give the people any of that.

        And jcc, don’t be too hard on this RHB people, all the years of miseducation in our schools have skewed their thinking in the wrong direction as mine was, you know Darwin, Marx, Malthus and their ilk.

      • ilda says:

        @John B

        Please do enlighten us where you see all the subtle points that will lead to immorality, death and perversion.

        You do realise that the men who organised the Catholic Church are humans too like Darwin, Marx et al? Just in case you are not aware, not everyone belongs to the Catholic Church and at the rate their going, more and more people will leave the church if they don’t change their attitude.

      • Jay says:

        The deception of RHB is so subtle, hidden in a kind of language that is seemingly good but in reality opens the gate to the culture of immorality, death and perverseness that is opposite to what it supposedly represent. Hey, I’m all for reproductive health myself but the RHB does not give the people any of that.

        How are you for reproductive health? Let the people discipline themselves cold-turkey style and not exercise sexual intercourse? Have the church be the basis for sex-ed? It has been like that and it has certainly been what has brought the nation problems!.

        The anti-abortion section in the old constitution by Jaime Sin with the aid of Cory also opened up perverseness, death and immorality. In terms of death, I put my numbers below. Obviously they’ve tabooed it so much that unwanted pregnant women, who are also the basis for the bill resort to have it taken care of by their immediate families or go the daan matirik and press for abortion with what limited education they have regarding that, potentially risking themselves AND the baby. So much for pro-life on paper eh? And imagine, since the argument is open-shut by both church and politics, there is no further conversations about sex-ed in general and how it pertains NOT JUST to spirituality, but to the real world. And so the old order perverts whatever holy intentions they have for the sake of not looking like liars, which ironically, have been the biggest liars throughout all of human history. But of course in order to do what they do for their agendas, they have to.

        The RC’s pro-life stance is no different from PETA’s stance on animal cruelty; complete inequality.

      • Ronald Montemayor says:

        Wow, Mr. Oh SO RESPECTABLE jcc, it’s so modest of you to refer to yourself as a small minded person. I thought you were name-calling the guys and gals who support this blog. ^_^

        You condemn people like Celdran for trying to lecture on the clergy, but neglect to mention that the Catholic clergy itself abuses its rights when they use the pulpit to criticize government policies.

        Mr. Celdran hit the nail on the head when he wore that “Rizal outfit” and bore the Damaso placard. Dr. Rizal was a known critic of the Catholic Church’s abuse of power, which is why his novels were never taught in Catholic schools for a very long time.

        For someone who claims to know about faith and God, you really haven’t read Romans 13:1-5 of the New Testament.

        Really, RHB will exterminate the poor “Holocaust” style? You also neglect to mention that First World Asian countries like Singapore and Japan have very low birth rates.

        You should really stop wearing that tinfoil hat over your head, mister. Mr. Celdran’s hat is much better looking. 🙄

        I bet that you won’t reply now that I’ve answered your argument.

      • palebluedot_ says:

        ” why his novels were never taught in Catholic schools for a very long time.”

        I came from a Jesuit-run Catholic university, which has a Dr. Jose Rizal School of Medicine. From the moment I started my education in a Catholic school many decades ago, the works and books of Dr. Rizal were always part of the school curriculum. Sadly, no Pilipino Filipino teacher has explained Rizal’s work well to me. I had my greatest appreciation of the works of Rizal only from that Jesuit school who employed an American Rizalist to teach the works of our hero. I am just curious, on what era was Rizal not taught in Catholic schools?

      • Ronald Montemayor says:

        @palebluedot

        Consider yourself fortunate that you’ve been able to study in a Jesuit school, for that religious order is the one most tolerant of Dr. Rizal’s beliefs and is the most progressive among them.

        I should have added, “according to my observations as a high school student” to my statement regarding Catholic schools not teaching Rizal. ^_^
        Let me elaborate. We have several Catholic schools in our province, I studied in one of them and my sister studied in another, that was in the late 1980’s. Do you remember when the topics they studied in Filipino class were about the works of Francisco Balagtas, Huseng Batute and other Filipino poets and authors in third or fourth year HS? Sadly we never studied Noli Me Tangere or El Filibusterismo during high school. I asked my parents why that was the case since he’s our national hero. My parents simply said, “Kasi they consider Rizal’s works as blasphemous”. Apparently, they also didn’t study Rizal’s works during their HS days, as they went also to a Catholic school.

        I was only able to study Noli, Fili and Dr. Rizal’s life when I studied in a State University.
        I don’t know, maybe they teach these things in other Catholic schools in other places. Maybe my experience was an isolated case, but one thing’s for sure, I do envy you for having been taught by Jesuits. Rizal was at his best under their tutelage.

      • BongV says:

        In a Jesuit university in my old hood – there’s a Noli course where you study the Noli for an entire semester – I remember one of the instructors – “Bing Sobrevega” – also an instructor on Political Science and Constitutional Law – PS 11

        In the Jesuit ADDU High School – Noli is taught in 3rd year HS, Fili in 4th year HS. Same for Davao City National High School

      • palebluedot_ says:

        DECS HS curriculum requires Noli to be taught in 3rd year & Fili in 4th year. My bestest Rizal instructor in college was Dr. Burton. he’s American (i think) who discovered Rizal in Mexico. no Filipino teacher i met has ever had great knowledge about Rizal than him. when all Filipino teachers think of Noli & Fili as the love story of Ibarra & Maria Clara or the tragedy of Sisa’s family or the oppressive occupation of Padre Damaso, Dr. Burton emphasized Rizal’s message to the Filipino — Moral Transformation!

        @Ronald
        don’t be envious…not all Jesuit professors/teachers are good in teaching the works of Rizal. i still loathe that Pinoy teacher who gave me C in my essay for agreeing that all Padre Damaso-like priests in this country should be guillotined…

      • Twin-Skies says:

        [Let me know if you still don’t understand why some of us here prefer to maintain our so-called anonymity]

        Or at the very least, we are our own worst critics, and should never provide anything short of solid data for our assertions.

        On a related note, I recall my arnis guro telling us why masters like Bruce Lee or Mas Oyama were such strong men in both mind and body. It was because they never saw themselves as “masters.”

        They saw themselves as students, always open to new ideas (provided they made sense 😆 ) always ready to experiment, and more importantly, always humble enough to know what their limits were and when their own theories were wrong, and were willing to correct it; Jeet Kun Do itself is derived from Master Lee’s intense study of over a dozen other fighting styles.

      • ilda says:

        Excellent point Twin-Skies

        I agree with what you said that we are our worst critics. I also learn a great deal from our commenters here. Not just from those who agree with me but also from those who beg to differ and can defend their point of view.

  2. Pingback: Tweets that mention The Reproductive Health Bill: empowering Filipinos -- Topsy.com

  3. markad says:

    I agree. A great article!

    • ilda says:

      Thank you! 🙂

    • jcc says:

      oh i am sorry ilda.. you did addrress free speech but from a layman’s perspective. i will talk layman now… speech has to components – yours and mine. celdran, vis-a-vis, the church. celdran went to the church premises to harangue the church for his disapppointment of being able to boink one woman or a man after the other without the benefit of matrimonial bond… he wants the church to stop its support to RHB – which in effect he is trying to suppress the right of the church to participate in this debate, he wants his only side of the debate, and nothing to do with the church’s debate and mind you, the church did not even go celdran’s premises – he did.. and he wants his kind of debate to be honored by the church even in the midst of its services.

      your free speech ends when my nose begins.. the church nose begins rights in its premises… speech is forum specific- you cannot go to my house and lecture me on the merit of RHB, and neither can i go to your bedroom and tell you let us have sex, but only if you agree to marry me first, though you may say perhaps.. we can have it right now and to hell with the prelates!

      • jcc says:

        i mean, celdran wants the church to stop its opposition to rhb… mea culpa.

      • Jay says:

        which in effect he is trying to suppress the right of the church to participate in this debate,

        As much as its the CBCP’s opinion that matters, he is not in any way suppressing the church’s ability to participate the debate as the church already has a solid stance regarding the issue, influenced highly their doctrine. And if you have read below, you would know there are also more progressive Catholics who are not as archaic minded as the RC authority figures of the Philippines.

        and he wants his kind of debate to be honored by the church even in the midst of its services.

        There was no debate considering there is no mediator or acknowledgment of both sides. Its a protest and certainly a statement and a legal one at that. The church can protest as well if they want, but they have done a similar counter by jailing an innocent and taking him to small claims court for nothing.

        your free speech ends when my nose begins..

        Tell the church to stop being nosy and forcing their olfactory domination on. The only thing I can say that was bad, and one you didn’t pick up on was that Celdran is barking up the wrong tree in general. But then again, that is the risks you take when you make a statement like that.

      • benign0 says:

        @ jcc, perhaps Celdran is taking up the Church on its own interpretation of “free speech”. Just as Celdran’s right to free speech ends where Church premises begin, the men-in-robes’ right to free speech ends where our prerogatives as citizens begin. You can see where they have failed to influence people’s minds and hearts via the pulpit and its dogma and scripture, the Church now seeks to cross the line and influence its own flock via the political arena where it does not belong.

        Of course it can claim (fallaciously) to be simply exercising its own right as an entity of our society to participate in the National Debate and lobby politicians like any other citizen. You who are too immersed in the letter rather than the spirit of the Law (the Law being a very crude literal representation of the ethical aspirations of our society) of course fail to see the fallacy in that assertion. Indeed, such is your tunnel vision that its is so evident in the rather condescending manner by which you announce your intention to speak in “layman’s” terms to Ms Ilda.

        Considering the most brilliant men of the Law in the land were for the most part directly responsible for running the Philippines aground, I often wonder what mediocre ones like you would have done given the chance to take the reins of power. 😀

      • jcc says:

        benign0,

        i wonder also if given the reigns of power like you in RP, would do to the country. but you did not address the fervor by which these politicians seek through the backdoor of these churches to seek their blessings to get elected to the office– as politics being immersed to the ideals being spoused by the men in clothe…. you suddenly find it ideal, the principle of church-state separation because it is the men in clothe knocking at the backdoor of political sanctums. its a quid pro quo, dude.

        you say that the church has no business intruding into the private life of the citizens, when you should only say that the church has no business intruding into the private life of the “non-believers” –

        the church is only speaking its dogma to the faithful but because the society is composed of those who believe as well as those who don’t it cannot channelize its sermons specifically to those who believe. Where under its perception, the “faithful” would be waylaid by this Bill, the church has all the right to speak against it. i don’t find its opposition to the bill intrusion into my political or private life, i find it in accord with my moral make-up and belief.

        you do not need the bill for the unbelievers because right now they use contraceptives irregardless of the church’s position.. so you were actually trying to pass the bill to impose it on the believers, and as final solution to zero growth only for those who cannot afford to raise the children but not for those who can afford the children. yes progress is about jettisoning the most uneconomic sector of the society, the poor raising more poor chilldren so the resources are better managed by the rich and the elite – i have no problem with that, only that i am honest about my read of the BILL why most of you gloss over it and hail the proposed solution.

      • jcc says:

        benign0,

        did you ever try seeking your mind why Cory, a civilian, had its wake at the Archbishop cathedral in Intramuros, in full regalia of a funeral given only to a church dignitary? Has anyone of the Aquino family, specially Noynoy objected to it?. No he was looking at it as BAROMETER of the Aquino Magic.. Did you know where Noynoy had his soliloquy on whether he should run for president or not.. It was in a catholic convent in the Visayas where her mother had sought safety after the RAM boys bolted from Mr. Marcos in 1986.
        The church believes that this PNOY was their altar boy, why the heck the Church should vacillate in knocking at his door and ask him to back off from this BILL?
        My analysis, this bill won’t pass. If it will, it will be mostly watered down.

        Now, you can deal with that.

      • BongV says:

        jcc – get out of america, live in the philippines for good. enjoy your RCC RHB.

      • benign0 says:

        @ jcc I’m not quite sure what the point of the last two comments you made is (I’m having trouble reading your rambling and run-on sentences), but the way I am interpreting what I read, you seem to be making an argument to the effect that…

        the Church has every right to speak out against something that it sees as a threat to the morality of its flock

        …to which I say: Sure it has the right to speak out, but if its reasons are the same as yours — i.e. that the Church presumes to know what is best for its flock, well, that’s the aspect of the whole thing that is debatable — which is why this whole thing is discussed to begin with: because the notion that the Church knows what is best for society HAS become debatable.

        And as such, though you can say that “i don’t find its opposition to the bill intrusion into my political or private life, i find it in accord with my moral make-up and belief”, the QUESTION is: On what basis do you presume to prescribe your “moral make-up and belief” as something that is applicable or even right for everyone else?

        It seems that the only one here who is unable to “deal with that” is you, dude. 😀

      • BongV says:

        no representation without taxation – nasa america ka na manong jcc.

        if the church wants to take part in the debate that’s find – BUT they give up their tax exempt status –  TAX their churches, schools, bingos, TAX EVERYTHING the church owns – and all church people as well – bishops, clergy, cardinals – CBCP –

        render to Caeasar  FIRST – then, by all means.

        As long as the church does not pay taxes – it does not have a right to join the debate of taxpayers – COMPRENDE? 

        Umuwi ka ng Pilipinas – stay there – and enjoy your stupid Philippine laws.

      • John B says:

        if paying taxes is the only basis for anyone to have the right to fight for their beliefs and principles then the Catholic church, other religious groups and the poor are not qualified to do so. But in this God given society of ours anybody has the right to fight for their beliefs and principles regardless of whether you’re a tax payer or not.

        Now when one ask as to the basis for anyone to presume the morality of something or anything then I say that that person has a relativist view of morality. This view is basically unchristian by not believing that morality has its fixed standard from which a person should based his actions, morality for that person is what he think is good according to his own perception.

        For Catholics we believe that morality has a standard, a starting point from which we judge our selves as to what is right and wrong. Our basis is the Bible which we believe is the Word of God as taught by the Catholic Church and also where the Catholic Church gets its authority to determine what is good for society. This point may be debatable to some but then we would have to delve into the spiritual aspect of the Bible which would also be debatable to the purely materialist person.

        What is the right of the Catholic Church to teach its brand of morality? Like the right this web page has to preach its brand of morality. But then again we have to delve into the question as to the basis for anyone to have this “right”. This right is intrinsic to us as human beings as basic human rights in accordance to what God has given us and spelled out by the United Nations in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

      • benign0 says:

        As far as I’m concerned there is no “morality” being “preached” here. Deferring to the unknowable — such as a God, for example — is a cop out and a conversation ender. That is why religion is such a powerful force while science and logic struggle for equal bandwidth in primitive/ignorant societies. In societies where people are too lazy to think, religion is an appealing option — because religion does not have underpinnings that are subject to inquiry to which intellect can be applied. Science, on the other hand, requires the application of a disciplined and rigorous approach to thinking — a skill that is simple inaccessible and even alien to the typical Pinoy mind. 😀

      • Miriam Quiamco says:

        Yeah, let the church have its say and risk looking ridiculously irrelevant by calling for civil disobedience against the RHB.  At least here, we are making our stand very clear, we are for the population reduction, and the RHB addresses that, for once the government is making the right step forward in pursuing its development agenda.  No country has developed, past the imperialistic age without some sort of population reduction policy.  We need this law now more than ever.  The church can scream and threaten, but we, enlightened Catholics who are modern and thinking, not medieval, will not be intimidated by the church.  Why, if the church excommunicates anyone, how could the church enforce this, there will be millions who will ignore the church.  What public figures can do if ex-communicated is just go to a different parish incognito and receive the holy communion there, the church and its man-made laws does not have the last word from God.  It is only a venue to celebrate Christ’s teachings and different popes and other top brass members of the Roman Catholic Church have had different interpretations of the bible, the church does not have the monopoly of the truth in interpreting the biblical teachings.

      • Jay says:

        For Catholics we believe that morality has a standard, a starting point from which we judge our selves as to what is right and wrong. Our basis is the Bible which we believe is the Word of God as taught by the Catholic Church and also where the Catholic Church gets its authority to determine what is good for society.

        Do realize this, as there are other religions out there who also use the bible as their basis for morality but just like offsets of RC, they interpret things differently. The bible may be the source but the set values they individually have are the ultimate basis for their morality.

      • John B says:

        Is man that proud already that we need to put God in a test tube to know if He really exists? Are we that proud that we ridicule those who believe in God as primitive and ignorant, relying on our imperfect and material selves as saviors of our selves? It is like a computer declaring proudly that man did not create me and I will exist all by myself, I do not need man.

        How can we know God? We can know God by his creations and that’s where science comes along. Using science but excluding God leaves out the purpose of knowing anything in this world.

        Contrary to popular belief, Roman Catholicism is a thinking man’s religion. Many Catholics do not know the doctrines of the church because many do not bother to know what they are. They only know what they have heard but never verified if any were true or not. The Church encourages the flock to study, read and learn the Catholic doctrine and beliefs. Does anyone really know why the Catholic Church is against RHB? I read a lot of comments in this web site and non even hits the mark. Of course many will ask me, OK smart aleck tell me what those doctrines are and why the Catholic Church is against RHB, OK I’ll start by suggesting you read GK Chesterton’s work “Eugenics”, it’s a bit of a hard read but then again you guys are thinking people, so think.

  4. jemon says:

    After practically saying you do not believe in what the catholic church teaches, you still say you are a catholic (and perhaps you thought someone would believe you)? Yeah, that is not hypocrisy. Nice of you keeping the faith. jejeje..

    • Gabo says:

      Ilda is a Catholic living in the modern world. Most of the Catholic Church lives in the Dark Ages. Ilda lives in a world where everybody has the right to choose; the Catholic Church lives in a world where they impose on what to choose

      You can see where I’m going here, right?

      • ArticleRequest says:

        Talk as well about being Filipino and writing for antipinoy.com 😆

        Be a good Filipino by questioning Filipino society and culture. Be a good Catholic by questioning authority. Having studied snippets of Catholic Church law and the its philosophical basis, many years ago, I am really unhappy that the CBCP sees nothing wrong in dishing out lame platitudes and vague, motherhood statements. Instead of pointing out the basis for their opposition they would rather engage in the “Oh this does not fall in plaxce within our beliefs and 85% are catholic.” No no.

      • lilia says:

        ANTI-CHILD BEARING CAMPAIGN IS POISONING THE LIVES OF DEFENSELESS HUMAN BEINGS AS SIMILAR TO A FORM OF “CHEMICAL WARFARE” (POPE JOHN PAUL ii, CENTESSIMUS ANNUS NO. 39)

        CONDOMS DO NO GUARANTEE PROTECTION FROM AIDS AND STDs. Pills have been shown to cause cancer and abortion of 5 day old babies & IUDs may cause trauma of the uterus and abortion of 5 day old babies (John Wilks, A Consumer’s guide to the Pill and other drugs 3rd edition, National Bookstore mla. 2000

        MAYBE YOU NEED TO READ MORE. TRY READING FAMILY VALUES VERSUS SAFE SEX BY HIS EMINENCE ALFONSO CARINAL LOPEZ TRUJILLO. ALSO MISCONCEPTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL IN PHIL. CONGRESS AND HUMANAE VITAE.

        READ ALSO: UNDERPOPULATION, NOT OVERPOPULATION, THE REAL GLOBAL PROBLEM – WASHINGTON POST, MARCH 18, 2001. IN ADDRESS TO ESTONIANS, PRESIDENT CALLS ON CITIZENS TO MAKE MORE BABIES – NEW YORK TIMES, JAN. 2, 2003. HAVE 3 BABIES TO SUSTAIN THE POPULATION – DAILY TELEGRAPH, DEC. 12, 2003.

        Let’s not be superficial. Study both sides under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

      • ilda says:

        @lilia

        One problem at a time, please. At the moment we don’t have a problem with under population. What we do have a problem with is OVERPOPULATION. With 100 million Filipinos and counting, you can still have your caregiver when you retire and when your great grandchildren retire.

        I wonder though, how many of the babies born to impoverish conditions will survive to become caregivers? How do you propose to care for them without straining our resources? I think you are just too happy with the status quo because you are not one of those born in shanties.

        Follow your own advice and study both sides well in the guidance of logic.

      • mga ulol says:

        @lilia… daaaaang you are exactly right… flipland needs more pulubis… sige iyot ng iyot mga flips until flipland is overloaded with pulubis and sank in the pacific ocean… also, ask papa sa roma/italia, “HOW DOES THE ROMAS/ITALIANS DO IT? THEY HAVE ZERO POPULATION GROWTH”… mga baog ba ng italianos??? 😳 :mrgreen:

      • BongV says:

        Catholics have the option of not availing the services.

        Non-catholics have the option of availing the services.

      • John B says:

        I know what you mean, but you’re still contradictory with a touch of oxymoron.

      • Buloy says:

        ^ That doesn’t even make sense.

      • Buloy says:

        And to contradict your suggestion that we read Chesterton’s Eugenics – much of the book deals with abortion which, by the way, IS STILL ILLEGAL IN THE PHILIPPINES AT THIS TIME OF WRITING. EVEN if the RH Bill passes. Chesterton’s comparison of Adolf Hitler’s killing of Jews and eugenics is absolute B.S., by the way – a way of grasping at straws to compare something he dislikes to something he knows everyone else dislikes.

        Unless of course, you believe that sperm already counts as babies, and the millions of them that find their way into a latex condom instead of a female vagina counts as genocide?

        If so, how many babies have you yourself killed by jacking off, Mr. B?  

      • John B says:

        You don’t have to be rude Mr. Buloy, you believe what you want to believe and I to what I want to. We are here to express our opinion on a matter of great significance to the future of the Philippines. Some believe that it is good for our country and some , like I, believe that it is not. Being rude and insulting will not help to win over converts to your side. Please conduct yourself with more dignity. Thank You.

      • Twin-Skies says:

        [You don’t have to be rude Mr. Buloy, you believe what you want to believe and I to what I want to.]

        This coming from somebody who cheered for jcc, despite being the arrogant, condescending prick that he was earlier. Pardon, but I think my irony meter has exploded. Again.

        Furthermore I think you mistake bluntness for being “offensive.” Well I’m sorry (no wait, I’m not :D) to tell you that we’re not here to stroke your ego or hold your hand. We’re here to state our opinion, often backed with facts, and if you don’t like them, well cry mich ein river.

        [Being rude and insulting will not help to win over converts to your side. ]

        So is attempting to to justify genocide in the bible with poorly reasoned apologetics.

      • ilda says:

        Religious zealouts are very good at making themselves look like they are the victim! Unfortunately, he is not really very good at convincing us though 😉

      • Twin-Skies says:

        @ilda

        Well to be fair, they’ve had several decades to practice:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27wisconsin.html?_r=1

      • ilda says:

        @Twin

        It just makes me sick to read about all the vulnerable kids who were victimised by these monsters. We may never know how many kids have been molested because some of the victims may be too embarrassed to say anything. If you watch the movie Doubt, you will realize how easy it is for priest to get away with abusing little children who trust them. Other priests help cover it up with more lies.

      • Twin-Skies says:

        But at the same time, I have nothing but admiration and respect for those who would risk their careers to protect their flock from the real monsters. People like Fr. Thomas Doyle

        http://www.snapnetwork.org/news/otherstates/doyle_loses_job.htm

        That’s why I’d prefer to give individuals priests the benefit of the doubt – a lot of the ones I personally know are just as pissed off at the local bishops as I am.

        As for Doubt, I haven’t seen it yet, but if you’re after something more grounded on real events, may I advice this BBC documentary?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_crimes_and_the_Vatican
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/5389684.stm

        It was thanks to this film that I’m convinced that the next time some God-botherer tries to proclaim some sort of moral high ground during a debate, the only honest answer I can give them is “Frak off,” or something like that.

        Speaking of which, have you heard of the Murphy Report?

      • ilda says:

        @Twin-skies

        I will try to watch the documentary but frankly, I never had a reason in the past to watch something like that. I just know it’s going to make me sad after viewing it. Hollywood films tend to have actors who are pleasing to the eyes at least and good directors make films that are close to reality 😉

        Of course you are right that we shouldn’t generalise or include all the men of the church as sexual deviants. But for some reason, every time I see a priest, I always remember the victims and what they must go through. Yeah, I did read about the Murphy report in the papers and TIME magazine a few months ago. The sins of our fathers caught up with them big time.

      • Twin-Skies says:

        [I will try to watch the documentary but frankly, I never had a reason in the past to watch something like that. I just know it’s going to make me sad after viewing it.

        And that’s why I’d recommend it. There is nothing more compelling than to hear these horrors straight from the victim’s mouths. And it’s BBC – their editing’s good enough that they don’t get carried away with the sob stories and always try to look at things from a relatively objective perspective.

        But if you insist on Hollywood, may I recommend “Milk”? 🙂

      • ilda says:

        @Twin

        My list of films to watch is getting longer. I always try to squeeze in watching one even with my busy schedule 😉

      • Jay says:

        @John B

        You don’t have to be rude Mr. Buloy, you believe what you want to believe and I to what I want to.

        Well certainly resorting to answering arguments by using response by tone doesn’t help your case and trying to win with your argument. And if you sincerely believe that, then you should believed wrong since everyone in this forum is beyond petty emotions. Just facts and proper research supporting your points, and especially JCC’s obtuse angles about it.

        And instead of getting potentially we get lunatics like JCC and people trying to play hard like you and Jemon, still exercising their linguistic and argument skills like they are still in ENG105 Intro to Debate. C’mon man, catch up with the rest of us so we can take you all seriously, not this god tossing foolishness. In fact, what makes it even less convincing is the fact that the Pro-RH arguments are at least supportive of the stances and its benefits while those against it are coming from different angles like pro-poor (JCC), pro-radical economist (Rhyne B or whatever), or your run off the mill pro-moralist/anti-progress (Jemon, you, Illia, etc.) which has the most consistency due to their sticking with what the RCC says and not making a complete, meaningful debate out of it.

    • Jay says:

      @Jemon

      And you don’t question the decisions of the catholic church as a whole throughout history? Plenary indulgences and threatened excommunications as form of blackmail are good and acceptable? Oh not to mention how they get at everybody when it comes to the matter of procreation but they are entitled to their sexual lives in private?

    • jemon says:

      So Ilda you are a Catholic without believing in Catholicism. Someone said that is being, say, modern? Great logic, the best one here so far. I am sure people here believe you are not a hypocrite. Keep it up. jejeje..

      • Jay says:

        @Jemon

        And odd enough, do you support the move the CBCP did against Celdran when they could have called towards a more modern approach and instead of blowing it out of proportion, reached for that one word you didn’t think of, but I would anyway despite not being a Catholic.

        FORGIVENESS

        When you thump the bible too much, you forget what was worth thumping about to begin with. Sucks to be you.

      • jemon says:

        I thump the bible too much? toink. jejeje

      • Buloy says:

        @jejemon

        From wikipedia:

        “Bible thumper is a pejorative term used to describe someone perceived as aggressively pushing their Christian beliefs upon those who do not share them. Its target domain is broad and can often extend to anyone engaged in a public show of religion, fundamentalist or not.”

        Look who’s the ignoramus now? Jeje.

      • jemon says:

        @buloy aka jay, I did not say someone is ignoramus, you did. jejeje..

      • Jay says:

        Ah Jemon, resorting to defense by assuming everyone who has similar rational points are the same person. The holy ghost can’t be screwing with your rationality like that now!

        And regarding to Buloy’s post, if you want to make it as elementary as possible (like you always do when you are out of ammo to rationalize things since you didn’t pray hard enough), its a rhetorical question. Looks like you forgot how one is when you yourself answer to everything with blind rhetorics eh?

  5. ulong pare says:

    daaang… fcuking CPCP as “moral police”??? priests are pedophiles in cloaks… all they know about sex are masturbation (mutual and singular) and homo acts… and flips are just bunch of ‘toopid gung gongs… hay naku…

  6. ArticleRequest says:

    Para wala nang controversy sa RH Bill at contraceptives, alam ko na ang solusyon: SLEEPING PILLS. No ethics battles, moral guilt, culture clash. Konteng kukote lang. 8)

  7. Ryunken says:

    For me… I still live in the dark ages… Yet, I also see it in a modern perspective.

    I learned from the teachings which implies that all life is sacred. And killing it is a grave sin…

    If I could see the future… I could see this one going to be one big problem in the end…If it does, our generation will be blamed…

    So, let’s see if they push the RH Bill through, what happens to the community within the morality and the world we see today. If this doesn’t work, let’s see if 2012 would really happen and the world ends… Just to clean up the mess of the whole world!

  8. WTF DUDE!!! says:

    madami na akong mga taong nakiktang getting preggy at age 15-18
    by the way nice article 😀

    • ulong pare says:

      daaaang… not mine, peks man! … 😳 …. exactly right, watdapak…. kunyari ang mga flips, allah eh, mayumi at relihiyosa … pero, mga sobrang libogs… there’s ‘sang tambaks na buntis from one stree corner to another… :mrgreen:

      • Ronald Montemayor says:

        @ulong
        Korak, pare. ‘Wag mo ring kalimutan yun mga mail-order brides na nagpapakasal sa mga foreigners to get that green card or Schengen visa. 😀

        Very shameful that the government depends on their remittances for the economy.

  9. lilia says:

    Catholic church says self – control / discipline sexual urge thru natural means. Because of artificial means, teen-agers go pre-marital sex- spouses go extra marital sex. Let’s stop sinning, stop lusting that all may go well with us. Why can’t govt. come up with Dengue control Bill. or infrastructure bills in mountain bgys. There’s so much livable space in the world if gov’t invests. If we’re afraid of babies, why are we worried if dengue eats up the population? Why do we treat our illness and spend so much on medicines? Why is there corruption and heaping of so much wealth? Is it because we want the world to ourselves? we want our own enjoyment while depriving the unborn to enjoy the world as we do? We already have a taste of life yet we’re afraid to die. Then we complaint of overpopulation? Then let those who worry of overpopulation allow themselves to die young (by not treating their illnesses) so they can solve the problem they created. Then let the new borns taste what they have tasted. FOR ME, I PREFER TO LIVE TOGETHER IN FAITH AND TRUST IN A SPIRIT OF ABUNDANCE OF GOD’S VINEYARD and not in a spirit of scarcity and trust of self.

    • ulong pare says:

      you cannot stop feeling horny… it’s natural… you have to relieve yourself one way or another… padre damaso says self control… aka masturbate/celibate… cold shower doesn’t cut it… nocturnal emissions is messy… :mrgreen: …. don’t be ashame of your physiological functions… it’s good for your health… sexually and mentally… FREE YOURSELF! it’s a good feeling… like a happy meal from mickey d’s… :mrgreen:

    • ilda says:

      @lilia

      Yeah, good question. Why can’t government come up with all kinds of bills to address all kinds of issues in our community? Oh that’s right! You forget that they are incompetent because they were only voted in by ignorant voters who did not have the means to study in good schools. Some of the better legislators are also busy with more important things like fighting for the passing of the RH bill!! Please get a grip on reality 🙂

    • Jay says:

      Catholic church says self – control / discipline sexual urge thru natural means

      Tell that to the more courageous individuals who spoke up about certain catholic priests or who individuals that became bishops who had priests in their jurisdictions that can’t control their urges through natural means.

      Because of artificial means, teen-agers go pre-marital sex- spouses go extra marital sex.

      Did it ever occur to you that their decisions are based on little or no education regarding the subject at hand, and was probably taught the subject based on how the Catholic point of view about it? Oh and those who get the church’s blessings with abundant children yet with little or no means to support them are even worst than the deviant acts you mentioned.

      Why can’t govt. come up with Dengue control Bill.

      Prevention costs much less than a cure. The same can be said for the population control. A child is what it is, but in a much stronger, pragmatic sense they are also investments. Sadly neither current church nor the government see it that way, considering they don’t care to factor in financially how much a child matters. Too bad God’s Vineyard isn’t cheap, but if he can sell some of that magical wine, maybe that will make a convincing statement from the church to be able to finance teh full potential of baby making.

  10. bokyo says:

    I still have my Faith, but i don’t believe at CBCP’s tantrums about  the RH Bill.  :mrgreen:

    • Jay says:

      There is nothing wrong with having faith.

      • bokyo says:

        having too much of it without doing much is just as bad 😦

        CBCP’s been close minded for issue. Let’s hope if they have a change of heart after their session with PNoy and the RH advocates for the next few days (unless PNoy’s the one who will have a change of heart”

  11. Hyden Toro says:

    Mga Padre Damasos on the March!!!

    • lilia says:

      GLAD THAT YOU WERE BORN SO WE COULD MARCH1

    • ulong pare says:

      padre damasos should continue their march all the way to imburnal pasig river… and drown in their own squats/pulubis filth…. sige martsa ng martsa…. walang hinto…. diretso…. walang liko sa birhen de edsa de gung gongs… :mrgreen:

  12. Theroadmix says:

    (Section 14, Article II); the equal protection of “the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception”

    What most people don’t know is that some oral contraceptives are abortifacients. People don’t understand because they don’t do their research.

    • lilia says:

      congratulations! May your tribe increase! We need people who are deep. Good that your mother allowed you to be born!

      • ulong pare says:

        daaaaang…. you should have been aborted… flipland is over run by gung gongs like you… stop spitting pulubis if you could not feed/house/clothe them…

    • Jay says:

      LOL quoting from the constitution that had heavy association with the church due to Jaime Sin’s cooperation with the admin then. Yeah I do my research too bro but sadly you left that out of context.

      • Jay says:

        Oh and yet abortion is still done illegally and in high numbers as well. So an archaic law is actually contributing to more deaths of teh fetuses rather than controlling those numbers.

      • theroadmix says:

        Also, how can you say that “abortion is still done illegally and in high numbers as well.” is attributed to the ‘arhaic law’ that you say? The are a lot of factors and interaction of factors that could possibly cause the number of abortions. (e.g. quality education, and by education I do not mean just sex education) And if you’re gonna mention numbers please be kind enough to put actual figures.

        You mentioned the law being archaic. Precisely my point. If people want the RH bill implemented at least clean up discrepancies it has with the constitution. (Section 14, Article II) is not even the only discrepancy.

      • theroadmix says:

        Lol. Why is the church even dragged in a non-religious, secular argument? Also, how is it out of context?

      • Jay says:

        Its out of context since you are using a piece of the law that as I have said is archaic and biased to the church to try dispute the RH Bill. That section you cited certainly has no point to it, considering it failed to protect the inevitable, which is the act of the mother committing abortion.

        I don’t say its the lack of education considering the public were never provided education or alternatives in situations like these. Certainly neglect and ignorance from the authority of the real issue then only to let it fester up until now.

        In 1994, the estimated abortion rate was 25 per 1,000 women per year; no further research on abortion incidence has been conducted in the Philippines.

        In 2000, an estimated 78,900 women were hospitalized for postabortion care, 473,400 women had abortions and the abortion rate was 27 per 1,000 women aged 15–44 per year. The national abortion rate changed little between 1994 and 2000; however, large increases occurred in metropolitan Manila (from 41 to 52) and Visayas (from 11 to 17). The proportions of unplanned births and unintended pregnancies increased substantially in Manila, and the use of traditional contraceptive methods increased in Manila and Visayas.

        The increase in the level of induced abortion seen in some areas may reflect the difficulties women experience in obtaining modern contraceptives as a result of social and political constraints that affect health care provision. Policies and programs regarding both postabortion care and contraceptive services need improvement.

        http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3114005.html

        Though at this point its harder to get accurate numbers considering the isolated cases that are also non-documented. But as I digress, the law failed due to that people kept doing what was needed on their on volition to have an abortion due to lack of total awareness and public service for what to do in that situation.

      • Jay says:

        The church wouldn’t be in the mix if they would stop butting in political controversies they find themselves mixed in, such as jueteng.

  13. Hyden Toro says:

    Seriously, this is a question of the stranglehold of outdated and obsolete Religious Beliefs . High Priests ruled with governments and Kings for many centuries. They were even rulers; like the Paraoahs of the Ancient Egyptian Empire. The Temple of Luxor in Eqypt is as magnificient as the modern day Vatican. Paraoahs who were Rulers and High Priests, at the same time. They control the population; by terrorizing people; that the Gods would be angry at them; if they did not follow the Paraoah’s will. The Incas in the ancient Peru; were the same. The High Priest; that was, at the same time: the Supreme Ruler; decrees people, mostly Young Virgins, to be sacrificed, on the top of those Pyramid Temples, to appease the Gods. Are these modern-day High Priests, doing the same to us? Sacrifice every young born to be subjected to probable famine. Because, by practicing Birth Control; we may anger the Gods. To appease the Gods; we have to do as we are told. Have sex and bring children, even those, that we cannot probably provide. Our religious dogmas and doctrines, are outdated and obsolete.

    • bokyo says:

      I think it is in terms of “not being understood” or “not being applied” properly. Hence some of the doctrines might not be applicable now to the modern times.

      Makes me want to ask some poor Filipino parents what the context of “go forth and multiply” means to them :mrgreen:

      • Hyden Toro says:

        Take what works for you. Leave behind what you think are myths…I have read the Christian Bible many times. I have even read the Apocryphas. If you believe it literally: you will grow crazy. It is written in: metaphor; similies and allegories. Parables abound, to teach people lessons. All Holy Books seems the same. They portray an angry God. Then, a benevolent God. They encourage believers to kill the unbelievers. Then,at the same time; forgive the unbelievers and see them as your brothers. They portray that sinners will burn in Hell. Then, the believers will be happy in Heaven. Most talk about the Eternal Life. Some touch about the resurrection of the mortal body. Most are the same as the Ancient Egyptian Religion of Resurrection and Eternal Life. The Judging of the Heart, against the “Feather of Truth.” It seems what has changed, has remain the same in religions. 😯

      • John B says:

        @Hyden

        Where in the Bible does it say to kill unbelievers?

      • Buloy says:

        This is for John B’s question:

        “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.”

        Deuteronomy 13:6-9

        This good enough for you, or would you like me to specify half a dozen more passages?

      • John B says:

        Yes indeed Deuteronomy in the old Testament is full of dire warnings, violence and threats of violence by God to His people if they did not obey or follow his commandments. Many have asked this question as to why God would sanction such violence. But we have to put things in perspective, at that time Israel was a new nation and was just out from Egypt and many pagan nations like the Amorites, Canaanites, etc. wanted to destroy the small nation. Many Israelites wavered in their belief in YHWH and so YHWY warned them against following the pagan ways of the Canaanites, Amorites, etc. These pagan nations practice human sacrifice, including child sacrifice, perverted sex , etc. which is an abomination to YHWH. Many Israelites found it easier to follow these pagan religions. In order for Israel to survive as YHWH’s people YHWH has no choice but to use extreme threats and methods because that was how ancient people would understand and listen. Such threats only applied to the ancient Israelites, to Amorites, Canaanites, Bashanites, Hesbonites and not to Filipinos, Americans, or any other modern day people. YHWH had sent his only son Jesus to save us by dying for us in the Cross and that’s in the New Testament.

      • Buloy says:

        @John B

        The Bible is considered the Word of God. By the church’s own statements, and by the affirmations of many priests not just in the Philippines but around the world, is considered inerrant. This means that all that is written in it is held as truths. 

        Therefore as a Catholic, you are not allowed to say that the Bible is right in some interpretations and wrong in others just because this was written in the period it had been. For a Bible to be inerrant, it must apply even in modern times. Therefore, the Bible’s very specific instructions to whore out your daughter to protect your guest, to take wives if you would like to, to encourage slavery, to kill those who do not believe in your religion, MUST be held as truth as the other passages the Bible preaches such as perverted sex, child sacrifice, etc.

        You are not allowed to just pick and follow only certain passages just because some suit you better than others.

      • Buloy says:

         … as the other passages the Bible preaches such as THOSE AGAINST perverted sex, child sacrifice, etc., even. 

      • Hyden Toro says:

        @JohnB…Look at the Old Testament. It says: Strike at the: Philistines, Canaanites ,Midianites, Amorites, etc..
        These are the Unbelievers…they believe in other Gods. Strike means to kill…kill them all and take their lands, their wives, their animals; their belongings; etc…This happened when the Israelites were wondering in the desert for 40 years, trying to reach the promised land…

  14. ulong pare says:

    recent article in italian newspaper stated that flip OFWs/hugas pfwets are the fastest growing ethnics in europe… european red light districts are populated with flip sexy gurlz… masahol pa sa malate… ayos ‘yan, diyan kayo magkalat sa europe… :mrgreen:

  15. J.B. says:

    @Ilda,

    Good stuff!

    Why would the Catholic Church or any religious organization for that matter insist on lecturing a woman on how to live her life? Could it be that the “men” who run the Church are afraid of women?

    Such questions were answered by Carl Jung half a century ago. “Human beings are too prone to share with their fellow human beings the injustice (RC version: celibacy) and violence (RC version: flagellation) they inflict upon themselves.

    • ilda says:

      Thanks J.B.

      It is very obvious that there are men who still do not want to give women equal opportunity.

      • J.B. says:

        That’s true. It is aggravated by the fact that in our Pinoy society, it is the lady that is assumed the main culprit why a male priest fell into temptation.

  16. ashley says:

    I only have one concern against the RH Bill (and this is not about the grounds that the Catholic Church is whining about):

    RH Bill Section 17 Employers’ Responsibilities. – Employers shall respect the reproductive health rights of all their workers. Women shall not be discriminated against in the matter of hiring, regularization of employment status or selection for retrenchment.

    All Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers. In establishments or enterprises where there are no CBAs or where the employees are unorganized, the employer shall have the same obligation.

    – Correct me if I’m wrong but does this mean that employers must provide the said services for FREE without any compensation? If so, I think it will not be fair on their part. The government has no right to enslave a particular member of the society for the sake of the less privileged ones.

    • Jay says:

      makes sense there. That part does seem rather vague and your interpretation of it certainly favors the less privileged completely.

    • ilda says:

      @Ashley

      Like everything in this world, it’s not perfect. This is precisely the reason why there is a need for further dialogue. There are things that need to be fine tuned and members of business sector need to speak out if they have issues against some of sections of the bill.

    • J.B. says:

      What is practiced in other countries is that employers are mandated by law to provide paid extensive leave, perhaps few weeks more than non-preggy. Other than that, it’s the government should provide.

      And yes, that provision should be scrapped.

    • palebluedot_ says:

      @Ashley

      i have witnessed months ago the “partnership ceremony” of the government (DOH) and the business/private sectors in my city particularly on the delivery of reproductive health care services to the employees. from how i understood, the delivery of services will be through the active participation of the DOH. say, if an employer desires to educate their employees about reproductive health disorders, the employers will need to call DOH to deliver the services to its employees; this is the FREE part. as far as i can remember, the focus of the reproductive health services of that talk/partnership is not much on the goods (eg artificial contraceptives), but on reproductive health education to the employees of businesses/private companies.

    • Teki says:

      Actually, non-unionized companies especially those within the BPO industry have already set dialogues with OSHC (Occupational Health and Safety Center) within the DOLE with regard to the implications of Sec 17.  This is important as employer-companies are subject to audits by virtue of PEZA requirements.  What is in discussion is not compensation (as this can be coursed through SSS and HMO negotiations) but what constitutes “reasonable quantity”.  A matrix table is being drawn up vis’a vis with workforce numbers of the company. (This is not a hard feat to do because for every 1,000 employees PEZA companies are required to have a clinic on site and a visiting doctor twice a week.)  

  17. boombox says:

    With the numbers of reported abandoned babies in the country yet most of them are left in front of the church or worst in the garbage bins dead or alive.

    I ask myself,  “What the hell are we doing with this flip gung-gong that keeps on iyut ng iyut?” Ano ba tong tinatapon nila? Disposable lang?

  18. J_ag says:

    Who says that the Church cannot advocate against a law that it believes to be immoral?

    The Church is an NGO entitled to participate in any discourse relating to laws in the country.
    The Church’s position is strictly on the issue of morality.

    The Church position is simple. Sexual relations between married couples are for the primary purpose of procreating. The pleasurable aspects of it are exclusively for married couples only.

    The State has no business involving itself in the bedroom of couples. Now there are those who claim that sex is also an important part of human recreation. Hence we should recognize that important reality. Why the exclusivity concept. We are after all animals with instinctive need too.

    The issue of overpopulation is a false issue since it is more a problem of economic inequality.
    Malthus died a longtime ago.

    Now for those like Ilda who would like to be part of the sexual liberation movement you may join other faiths that are more tolerant of sex as recreation and marriage as meaningless. Free choice.

    Maybe one can convince Cedran to give lectures on the ways of safe anal sex. Why insist on the state subsidizing safe anal sex with free condoms to fight HIV. Ilda have you ever tried anal sex. What about lesbian sex or three ways? All this in the interest of honest discourse since sex as recreation could be similar to enjoying good eats and good wine.

    At the heart of this is the fact that we are in some part animals that need to have sex since it is hormonal. Our higher state of intellect is what separates us from the other animals.

    Maybe Boy Abunda could start a program about sexual liberation for the young. Tips for masturbation and other forms of pleasure. .Legalizing brothels would also be a good idea.

    It is true that the Church is more conservative than it is progressive. But its right to debate the issue is guaranteed and if anyone would like to challenge their teachings all they are saying is
    one is free to leave the Church.

    Ilda would like to know your sexual preferences though.

    • ilda says:

      @J_ag

      Your jokes always fall flat and do not add any value to the conversation. Plus I don’t really get whether you are for or against the RH Bill. At some point you defend people’s hormonal needs but you also defend the church in your convoluted comment. Overall you just give us the impression that you are repressed or something.

      Good day sir!

    • J.B. says:

      @J_ag,

      Your argument is typical red herring and that is the real problem with the church position that RH bill would equate to liberal sex or promotion of it.

      How can you promote a practice that is already promoted and practiced? How can you degrade sex when it is already degraded?

      If the church really want to promote good marital sex, RH bill is the least of all their enemies.

      • ilda says:

        You are so correct J.B.

        I don’t see why the sexual behaviour of people who are already actively engaging in sex should be any different when the RH Bill is introduced. Why would people be any more experimental when there is a contraception? I guess J_ag is an expert on these things.

    • Jay says:

      @J_ag

      The State has no business involving itself in the bedroom of couples.

      Well that has been the policy for the longest time. When a family creates a small barangay, guess who has to pay for de juniors development as they move into society, in forms of social services? Unless the parents home school their mini-barangay and can provide money for a college education.

      The issue of overpopulation is a false issue since it is more a problem of economic inequality.

      Fun fact: The more people there are, the more money is needed to disperse toward the budget to support their little bundles of joy. With the administrations not wanting to change policies to really help spur the economy, there is certainly less money to support each person. Even more so for the high number of unemployment.

      As of the rest of what you wrote, One word: Secularism.

  19. aone says:

    Once the fill has been successfully passed, TAKE THAT CHRISTIANITY!!!

  20. J_ag8 says:

    The company that produces Trojan came out recently in the U.S. with a study on the sexual practices of Americans. The study revealed that there are more heterosexual couples practicing anal sex. Also with all the modern methods of contraception in the U.S. abortion is still numerous.

    Red herring indeed. Why the need for the RH bill. To control population because some wiseguy believes that the Indios are multiplying like rabbits?

    What any couple does in the privacy of their quarters is their business. When election time comes by these idiots in government will troop to the INC and other religious denominations to get blessings for a command vote. Then this guy Celdran complains that the church has no business is advocating against a particular bill.

    Unfortunately for the Indios this guy Celdran is around because the Indios failed in their revolution otherwise his ancestors would have been purged.

    Now back to the so called jokes.. It is only proper to discuss human sexual behavior openly based on the view that sex is also a recreational activity. If the idea makes you uncomfortable
    you are going to allow weak and corrupt government to start intervening into the privacy of couples.

    Pornography is partly driving the development of the internet. Sex is used as the basis of mainstream advertising. Now you guys are cringing from discussing it in relation to human relations.

    You base your premise on some voodoo economists projections of an overpopulated world. That is pure idiocy….

    • ilda says:

      @J_ag

      The Trojan study is not even relevant to the RH Bill. Correct me if I’m wrong but if people engage in that kind of exercise, then the only reason they need protection is from diseases not protection from unwanted pregnancies. And in any case, the result of those kinds of surveys sponsored by a corporation like those who manufacture condoms can be easily manipulated to show that people need to buy more condoms.

      No one is saying that the church does not have a right to their opinion but you have to be in denial if you don’t recognise the fact that religious groups have a strong hold on ignorant people’s minds. And you also forget that this is a society where the padrino system rules and the church is numero uno who practice it. This is also a country where people still kiss the hand of the priest after mass for blessing (read: what the clergymen say is still worth its weight in gold).

    • boombox says:

      @J_ag

      Perhaps you’ve haven’t encountered a family that runs two basketball teams in one roof.   😀

    • Jay says:

      The Philippine population in the early 1990s continued to grow at a rapid, although somewhat reduced rate from that which had prevailed in the preceding decades. In 1990 the Philippine population was more than 66 million, up from 48 million in 1980. This figure represents an annual growth rate of 2.5 percent, down from 2.6 percent in 1980 and from more than 3 percent in the 1960s. Even at the lower growth rate, the Philippine population will increase to an estimated 77 million by the year 2000 and will double every twenty-nine years into the next century. Moreover, in 1990 the population was still a youthful one, with 57 percent under the age of twenty. The birth rate in early 1991 was 29 per 1,000, and the death rate was 7 per 1,000. The infant mortality rate was 48 deaths per 1,000 live births. Population density increased from 160 per square kilometer in 1980 to 220 in 1990. The rapid population growth and the size of the younger population has required the Philippines to double the amount of housing, schools, and health facilities every twenty-nine years just to maintain a constant level.

      http://countrystudies.us/philippines/34.htm

      http://www.indexmundi.com/philippines/population.html

      Have you ever herped so much that you derped J_ag?

      Yeah the wiseguy certainly is retarded. The church has much to lose considering they don’t only lose their sheep, but their piece of the action in a society that still looks at them with some form of high social relevance, like politicians.

      Sure the growth rate has lowered, but if the government has not made measures then to make high population an asset what makes you think the government OR church would care what advantage a high populated country can give? There isn’t enough money to go around for people lower of middle class and those ones are the people who are the main culprits for the climbing numbers. Conveniently, they are also simple minded tools whom the government and church can subjugate.

  21. ibelieveinmagic says:

    my religious studies teacher is claiming that the Philippines isn’t overpopulated therefore the RH bill isn’t needed… can you believe that, he’s just outright ignoring the problems of the country.

    • ilda says:

      Take it with a grain of salt. He is in denial.

    • Teki says:

      A friend once told me that overpopulation is a myth. He even asserted that there is a finding from the Population Research Institute (PRI) saying that the Malthusian theory is flawed and used to promote the idea of  overpopulation.  A lot of CBCP officials and even some lawyers use PRi’s findings to assert their claim.  But actually, they are wrong.

      First, PRI (which is notorious worldwide for its campaign against the myth of overpopulation) was founded by the Catholic priest Fr. Paul Marx OSB.  He founded PRI in 1989 as a pseudo-scientific initially to rally behind the Catholic Church’s pro-life stance.  So in essence, despite its so-called research, it is tainted with bias.

      One of the flaws of their argument is that there is no such thing as overpopulation because if one divides the total number of people in a country by its land mass, one is able to deduce that there is no space problem.  They even assert that all people in the world can fit the entire state of Texas.  Their calculation is childish because not all land mass are habitable.  Take the case of Japan.  Of its total land mass, 3% is only arable and habitable.  That’s why Japanese tend to converge in places that allow them better commerce and trade.  If the entire earth’s land mass were livable, then humans would be living in the Poles and the deserts without difficulty.  

      Another case to make is the use of the right word.  It may seem like semantic but the ICPD (International Conference on Population and Development) which globally defined Reproductive Health together with the UNDP, does not even use the word “overpopulation” in any of its background research for the conference.  The word “population control” can only be seen once in the ICPD Programme of Action, not within the official statement, but was stated in reservation transcripts by the delegation from Nicaragua who said that “abortion should in no way be used as a method for regulating fertility and population control.”  In essence, the UN and its associated agencies have not used the words “population control” in any of its recent research.  Even the ADB, which does population and poverty linkage research into the country has not used it, as the guided nomenclature is to use the word “population development”.  (similar to saying “climate change” which is more precise, than “global warming”)

      In a 2005 PIDS (Phil Institute for Development Studies) report which was also done with ADB, family size was stated as a contributor to household poverty in the Philippines.  Citing the FIES (Family Income and Expenditure Survey), evidence stated that poverty rises as the family size increases.  

      For those who are interested you can read the PIDS report from here: http://www3.pids.gov.ph/ris/dps/pidsdps0519.pdf

      For those interested in reading the 2008 National Demographic and Health Survey that was used by Edcel Lagman as one of the backgrounder research for the RH Bill, you can read it here: http://philippines.usaid.gov/resources/key_documents/NDHS_2008.pdf

      • ilda says:

        @Teki

        Thanks for all the valuable information. Actually, even without knowing that the PRI study was founded by a Catholic priest, it was already quite obvious that the study is riddled with holes.

        Even if everyone in the entire planet can fit in Texas, if it so happens that Texas is the only place we can all live in, what land is there left for agriculture? The findings of the report is ridiculous, indeed. But educated people like lawyers (JCC) swallow up the flawed logic like crazy.

        Even if there is still space to accommodate more Filipinos in the country, we still have to account for the fact that we don’t have the necessary machinery or capability to produce enough food for everybody. The more food or products we consume, the worse for the environment.

        We also need to care for the environment which is essential to maintain balance. Unfortunately, Filipinos are not aware of the concept of Yin and Yang or the seemingly contrary forces that are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world, and how they give rise to each other in turn. Our rainforest is almost gone due to deforestation but most Filipinos still get surprised when some parts of the country suffer from landslides or other man-made calamities that could have been prevented.

      • Twin-Skies says:

        @ilda

        [Thanks for all the valuable information. Actually, even without knowing that the PRI study was founded by a Catholic priest, it was already quite obvious that the study is riddled with holes.]

        And now you know why I treat most Anti-RH apologists with little to no respect, if not outright rudeness and hostility. Most of them refuse to use accurate data, and resort to fear-mongering and appeals to emotion instead of facts. If they refuse to fight fair, then they deserve nothing less than contempt.

        Jose C. Sison is one prime example of this – try reading one of his columns regarding RH, and see if he does NOT invoke some sort of UN secret plan to control the RP population as part of a bigger Imperialistic agenda by the United States.

        Do I sound biased? Yes, but that
        @Teki

        Thank you for that data.

        It’s most refreshing to read something sensible, given I just walked away from Roberto De Vera’s own analysis a few days ago.

        And quite frankly, I smelled a rat given the way he presented his evidence. In retrospect, what could I expect from an Opus Dei stooge 😦 ?

        Anyway, one of our residents at the FF forums who seems to be affiliated with Likhaan posted this opinion paper from several professors from the UP School of Economics. I thought you might want to read it, as well as ilda 🙂

        http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/papers/Population_Poverty_Politics_RHBill.pdf

        Then there’s a paper from my old alma mater Ateneo de Manila, crafted by several professors from our philosophy, theology, and sociology and anthropology departments regarding why Catholics should support an RH Bill.

        http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/reproductive-health-bill-5043/text-of-ateneo-professors-position-paper-on-rh-bill-5043/

        It’s a little odd seeing Humanae Vitae being used to back up the RH Bill, but I do respect the intentions and reasoning, if only because their interpretation of Catholic theology seems more grounded in reality than the dogmatic rubbish I’ve been hearing from the CBCP and its idiot squads lately

      • ilda says:

        @Twin-skies

        Religious zealots don’t bother with data because they know it will only prove they are wrong. They refuse anything that will burst their bubble.

        Thanks for the links. Looks like I have a lot of reading to do 🙂

      • Jay says:

        Thanks as well for the info. Hilariously I was reading something about how the area around Las Vegas has seen a boom in population should be careful considering its pretty much a desert all around and the resources for water may not be enough to support more people, thus draining the source faster than it can replenish itself on a yearly basis. This is a part of the United States talking about an overpopulation issue. So of course there are red flags everywhere when you look at the Philippines immediately, why Manila specifically the way it is now and goes back to my initial (and longtime) thoughts that the city was never meant to sustain such a high population growth in a short time.

        I mean if the poor thought they weren’t endangered already, wait until disaster strikes where it hits them hardest due to their large numbers while the rich with their few numbers and vast resources can make do. A sad and painful reality.

  22. bokyo says:

    http://antipinoy.com/the-reproductive-health-bill-empowering-filipinos/comment-page-1/#comment-26766

    _____________
    Dr. Edelina de la Paz, national coordinator of the movement Catholics for Reproductive Health, puts it another way: “You don’t stop being a Filipino just because you are disappointed or angry at our leaders. The same goes for our love and faithfulness to the Catholic Church. We remain very strong and faithful to the Catholic Church, but we strongly disagree with the bishops’ stance on family planning and reproductive health.”
    _____________

    Point exactly

  23. haw says:

    Because religious view of overpopulation is that there are more people than it can fit in one land mass. Their concept of overpopulation is what you see in city jail where people sleep standing up. They don’t see overpopulation as demand is exceeding supply.

  24. ava says:

    I am not really so well-versed about this RH bill but I am into family planning, whether its natural or not. Coming from a poor country, I think its high time for Filipinos to really think twice before having a baby and raising a child. Being a parent is a lifetime responsibility and one should be prepared and committed to it.

    The Catholic Church, because it has its own set of moral standards, would really be anti-RH. But would it really matter what it says?

    The Catholic Church is anti-corruption (corrupt priests are the exemptions, not the rule) but graft and corruption in the Philippines is so rampant in spite of the stand of the Church. Surely, passing the RH bill will not be hindered by the moral proclamations of the Church since the corruption of our government is not swayed by any moral teachings of the church. so why can’t they pass the bill? Afraid to lose its support and eventually, lose their hold on power?

    As for me, let them pass the bill and let Filipinos make personal decision on the matter of reproductive health, despite what the Catholic Church says. Its not as if the Philippine government is adhering to the moral values of the Church.

    • Jay says:

      The RC never adheres to moral values of anything, considering they are willing to wash their hands off donations disregarding its possibly seedy sources that they probably crusade against. Much like any institution, business will always be in mind and their bottom lines are filling church pews and being relevant by any means possible.

  25. ChinoF says:

    Those people who don’t like the RH Bill might want to look at the Consensus Bill. Of course, there are several bills on RH policies with different options; just choose your poison.

  26. keepong says:

    Teenagers will HAVE sex, protected or not. My opinion about teenagers abstaining: If you’re Jolina Magdangal prolly yes.

    The truth is, the church has no control over the libog of the populace. If pinoy wants some, he’ll get some! Ive known teenagers who supposedly attend mass kuno, pero magkukuwentuhan lang sa tabing tindahan then go some place dark and do it there.

    I personally believe filipinos follow suit to what DIMAS did. Acknowledge Jesus as the Son of Man while being crucified. Not that theres anything wrong with it. But thing is, flips will sin 6 times a week and come sunday, they take communion and ask for forgiveness. Then they feel the slate has been wiped clean again, and a new week of sin commences.

    Ang galing talaga ng mga pinoy….

  27. J_ag says:

    Once again ignorance and idiocy rules. The issue of poverty in the Philippines is not caused by overpopulation. The natural course of economic evolution has been distorted. The natural internal migration for generations from rural to urban has been deeply flawed. Absence of capitalist industrialization.

    The value added per hectare of U.S. agriculture is 40 to 50 times that of the rest of the world. U.S. agricultural productivity produces more food than they require on a per hectare basis. Third world economies are predominantly in a carabao based level of productivity. The U.S. since its creation has had its government has the prime enabler of economic development. They literally moved mountains and changed the direction of rivers to raise the level of productivity for their agro-industrial base.

    It was over 150 years ago that the city of Chicago built a sewage system for the then growing urban area that was the city of Chicago. Today Manila Bay is our giant septic tank.

    The Philippines is unable to compete economically since its productivity level is primitive. That is not a market failure or failure of markets it continues to be a massive failure of government to enable productivity though the industrialization process.

    So government has decided to blame the poor for having more children.

    Now getting back to sex as recreation, isn’t it a hoot that you have a woman running for the U.S. Senate partly on an anti- masturbation platform? The Christian right in the U.S. are the dominant group today pushing for a more Christian state in defiant contradiction of their own constitution.

    Economic development has cured and debunked Malthusiann theory of the depletion of resources. The problem has been uneven and eventually unequal economic development caused by historical forces. (Military might backed up by technology)

    Idiocy reigns in the Philippines… Look who is President.

    • benign0 says:

      ====begin quote
      Once again ignorance and idiocy rules. The issue of poverty in the Philippines is not caused by overpopulation.

      […]

      The Philippines is unable to compete economically since its productivity level is primitive. That is not a market failure or failure of markets it continues to be a massive failure of government to enable productivity though the industrialization process.
      ====end quote

      Guess again, dude. There is no conflict between the above two concepts you introduced above (i.e. your assertions that (1) overpopulation is NOT the issue behind poverty and (2) lack of productivity is the issue behind poverty).

      You just simply fail to connect the dots between the two — which is where my usual brilliance comes in to summarise things in this simple statement which synthesises the two concepts that you feel contradict each other:

      Filipinos are proliferating in unproductive numbers.

      Kung baga, Filipinos are an inherently unproductive lot, and therefore the rate at which we multiply cannot be justified by our individual productivity levels as economic entities.

      So we are (1) unable to generate the levels of productivity that (2) make the rate at which we multiply economically sustainable ERGO the chronic and untenable impoverishment that imprisons Pinoy society that we are witnessing today.

      I lay out the full conceptual framework of this brilliant thesis in an FV piece for your reading pleasure here.

      Enjoy! 😀

      • Killersmile says:

        dude, fv is dead! what a waste! do you have a place where you save those that you’ve written on fv? iba pa rin ang init dati ng fv, “clash of the titans” ika nga. nakaka miss din, gago kasing nick na yun. anyway, si bong v ba meron ding repository sa mga naisulat nya. i don’t always agree with you guys, but right now, you are on top of the food chain. keep writing you guys.

    • ilda says:

      @J_ag

      You got it right in the end: “Idiocy reigns in the Philippines… Look who is President.”

      If only you started and ended with the above statement. You just had to keep insisting that overpopulation is not a problem. It wouldn’t be if our leaders knew what to do with our resources.

      How do you propose to educate the millions of ignorant people considering the cycle of stupidity? I can’t believe you don’t see the number of unproductive people as a liability even if they just use up much of our dwindling resources without contributing anything. Do you prefer that they continue multiplying at such a high rate?

      • Jay says:

        It was over 150 years ago that the city of Chicago built a sewage system for the then growing urban area that was the city of Chicago. Today Manila Bay is our giant septic tank.

        Duh I wonder why. Look at a picture of Manila in the 70’s and compare it today and you will be amazed at the difference. You can’t stop the people from migrating to Manila unless there is another secondary big city that has similar opportunities it offers.

        So government has decided to blame the poor for having more children.

        It would help the poor IMMENSELY if they DIDN’T have so many children. They aren’t victims of their own circumstance by to by considering what you said in the end Idiocy reigns in the Philippines… Look who is President. has been going on for a long time. Call it generations of idiots with a penchant for pain and suffering, but they can certainly do something about it even without factoring in education. It is common sense and they have thrown it out of the window for so long and for what? A life long lifestyle of blaming others, playing the victim and looking for a god to fix everything.

      • Jay says:

        And with that J_ag, Manila becomes more dense in terms of population, the city and government can’t keep up with the system for upkeep and sewage (as you can see the ever progressive water companies continuously laying down pipes) and with a certain amount of jobs available and more so for those who have education and skills, those who have no place to go take the professional occupation that is numerous in the city called being poor.

        Its adaptability both ways. The Pinoys fail to adapt and resort to increasing their numbers, hoping to get some form of productivity in there. The government, as hapless as it is, chosen BY THE PEOPLE can only do so much with their budget so they have to adapt to the conditions given and they fail at that.

  28. TOMADOR says:

    hahaha exactly!!!

    The author is right on. Im not an expert in the Religious Faith nor did I go to a fancy College/University but it does not take a lawyer to determine that the Church has NO BUSINESS in meddling with the affairs of Government!

    The Church is not even paying taxes for Pete’s sake! What gives them the right? Oh wait some would argue…”we have the moral right” …YEAH RIGHT!!!…so you also have the Moral Right to Molest Children…Impregnate Women…etc..?? The HYPOCRISY of the Church is so vile that disgusts me as a Catholic!

    What Carlos Celdran did…though inappropriate…was just taking the Church’s threat for “civil disobedience” down their throats! Ah gusto nyo pala ng civil disobidience ha…eto sa inyo! O ngayon….CBCP gusto nyo pa civil disobedience?? Ang lakas ng loob nyo mag threaten ng civil disobidience pero pagka sa inyo ginawa ..sasabihin nyo na na offend kayo! Another display of Hypocrisy from the Church…naku kelan ba kayo matuto to WALK THE WALK and TALK THE TALK??? Or maybe never! :mrgreen:

  29. palebluedot_ says:

    there is more to RH bill than artificial contraceptives. RH bill includes:
    1. information and access to natural and modern family planning;
    2. maternal, infant and child health and nutrition;
    3. promotion of breast feeding;
    4. prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications;
    5. adolescent and youth health; prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, HIV/AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases;
    6. elimination of violence against women; counseling on sexuality and sexual and reproductive health;
    7. treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers;
    8. male involvement and participation in reproductive health;
    9. prevention and treatment of infertility; and
    10. reproductive health education for the youth.

    why do we, particularly the CBCP, focus so much on access to modern family planning methods (condoms, pills etc) when talking about the bill? prevention through education is more important, and that is what the bill campaigns for. people who are against the bill should read back its contents. CBCP & other self-professed moral police focused so much on methods that are abortifacient. are they not aware that there are more maternal deaths, as well as deaths caused by malnourishment, than deaths due to voluntary abortion? by preventing the passing of the bill, it is more immoral since they are indirectly killing more mothers and children…

    • ilda says:

      Thanks for your input pale

      I wish manong jcc would give one minute of his time to read what you wrote and try and comprehend it like a real educated person. 😉

    • palebluedot_ says:

      for those who aren’t aware yet, we have signed a pact years ago together with other countries for the Millennium Development Goal – a global action plan to achieve 8 anti-poverty goals:
      Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
      Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education
      Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women
      Goal 4: Reduce child mortality
      Goal 5: Improve maternal health
      Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
      Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability
      Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development

      The deadline to achieve these goals is 2015 To date, we are progressing badly with Goals 2, 5 & 6. Check this link for more info: http://www.undp.org.ph/?link=4.

      the RH Bill is one tool that can help us achieve our aims. As a health professional, the passing of this bill will mean better support for the deployment of health workers to the community. As an active RCC member, one of the wisest tool to bring back the flocks (both receivers & givers) to their faith.

      • jemon says:

        member of the RCC my ass jejeje..

      • ChinoF says:

        As if your ass can prove that someone else is an RCC member or not… 😛

      • jemon says:

        In fact, not even those who claim they are members of RCC can even prove it themselves.. At least my ass can prove something came from there jejeje..

      • ChinoF says:

        Sometimes, the church will even claim someone is an RCC member even this person claims not to be… especially when this person is wealthy. jejejeje.

      • jemon says:

        Yeah? Like who?

      • Twin-Skies says:

        Chino, leave Jemon alone

        He’s obviously a troll.

        Though you may have a point with “Who’s a member of RCC.” The RCC will tell me that most Catholics who support the RH Bill aren’t “really” Catholics, so it can get very confusing. Such is the nature of True Scotsmen, I guess…:(

      • ChinoF says:

        You may be right, Twin-skies. I’ll take your advice. I do try to use my replies as a chance to impart other ideas about the issue.

      • palebluedot_ says:

        “most Catholics who support the RH Bill aren’t “really” Catholics”
        this is indeed confusing. i think it should be that not all catholics share the same view as the CBCP. just like, not all bishops/priests share the same view as the CBCP. but because of the vow of obedience (in the case of priests), they are somewhat forced to accept the view of the majority of the bishops and has the responsibility to propagate it to its flock. the CBCP is the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in this country. whatever they say, that’s supposed to be the collective view of the whole RCC, even if it is somewhat twisted in the eyes of the individual Catholic.
        note that RCC is a moderate religion, everyone is empowered to have their own opinion, especially, on social & political issues. anybody can write/voice out anything against CBCP’s views, and if you are part of RCC, you are not automatically deemed as heretic, unless if what you have changes the whole system of beliefs. maraming discussions pa talaga yun nangyayari before a certain view is accepted into its system. yun nga lang, the church leaders are usually the last ones to accept a change.
        if you are schooled in catholic institutions, malalaman mo talaga how open RCC is because they do not condemn you if your opinion is against them. if i am pro-RHB, it is not because i am against my faith & religion, it is because i see more advantages about the bill esp. in my profession, which majority of the CBCP is struggling to unify because of the already established doctrines of the RCC.

      • Twin-Skies says:

        @palebluedot_

        [note that RCC is a moderate religion, everyone is empowered to have their own opinion, especially, on social & political issues. anybody can write/voice out anything against CBCP’s views, and if you are part of RCC, you are not automatically deemed as heretic, unless if what you have changes the whole system of beliefs. maraming discussions pa talaga yun nangyayari before a certain view is accepted into its system. yun nga lang, the church leaders are usually the last ones to accept a change.]

        I’ve seen enough of the Vatican using their dogmatic bullshit to persecute gays, women, and to hide sex offenders to be thoroughly convinced that while the RCC’s people may just be trying to do the right thing – though I vehemently disagree with their concept of a god – its leadership is rotten to the core.

        Under normal circumstances, being a bigot or a molesters gets one landed in jail – why should we treat some self-righteous bishop or cardinal any differently?

        http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE4BL2FE20081222
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/22/catholic-adoption-agency-_n_689711.html
        http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67R1EN20100828

        [malalaman mo talaga how open RCC is because they do not condemn you if your opinion is against them. ]

        O’Rly?

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515
        http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/02/28/church-dialogue-an-offer-we-can-and-should-refuse/

      • palebluedot_ says:

        @TwinSkies
        “its leadership is rotten to the core”
        …that, i agree.

        maybe i should emphasize here that my definition of the Church (RCC) is the people/faithfuls. the Church itself is empowered to change the system/doctrine. even if these leaders (CBCP) insist their voice is the truth, in the end, RCC’s system of governance still respect the faithful’s voices – though as I’ve said, matagal nga lang ang change effect because of their very stiff established traditions. kaya andaming ginagawang investigations, dialogues etc., to the point where you get to ask “coconut ba yun brain nila?”. at any rate, if you want the Church leaders to listen to you since they seem to be influencing the Philippine government leaders, be part of the Church or respect our Church naman. because if u make noises for changes of the RCC’s system of beliefs na hindi mo naman naiintindihan yun belief namin (or you did not experience the kind of awe we experienced) , isn’t it a lost cause?

      • Twin-Skies says:

        [even if these leaders (CBCP) insist their voice is the truth, in the end, RCC’s system of governance still respect the faithful’s voices – though as I’ve said, matagal nga lang ang change effect because of their very stiff established traditions. kaya andaming ginagawang investigations, dialogues etc., to the point where you get to ask “coconut ba yun brain nila?”]

        So where was the CBCP when their faithful were already calling out for A Reproductive Health program?

        http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20081016-166740/71-of-Filipinos-favor-RH-bill–SWS

        Oh wait, here they are, from their own press release:

        http://www.cbcpnews.com/?q=node/7464

        Doesn’t sound like them listening to their faithful’s voices at all. It looks more like somebody who doesn’t like what they’re hearing, and have decided to stick their ears – not to mention their entire head – up their arse. From what I’ve seen, the CBCP doesn’t give a damn about their flock – they’re more concerned jerking off each other’s ego by telling themselves they’re holier than everybody else.

        [at any rate, if you want the Church leaders to listen to you since they seem to be influencing the Philippine government leaders]

        That is the freaking problem right there, if you haven’t noticed. Section 3 of our 1987 is very explicit on the separation of church and state. if there’s anybody who should be listening, it should be the bishops, from the people when they tell them to sod off (honestly, these filters are forcing some very creative use of language).

        [because if u make noises for changes of the RCC’s system of beliefs na hindi mo naman naiintindihan yun belief namin (or you did not experience the kind of awe we experienced) , isn’t it a lost cause?]

        I’ve got a news flash for you: spent four years worth of theology classes in college, so I at least have decent amount of understanding regarding Catholic theology. How do you think I ended up leaving? And do you know what’s a lost cause? A religioous institution trying to claim the moral high ground despite its past crimes, sex scandals, and mysogyny.

      • jemon says:

        a third guy calling me a troll jejeje.. surely two of them are impertinent. sometimes, when people want to believe in believe in something, they repeat things again and again until it becomes their reality. Sometimes they look for people who agree with them. It gives them self confidence. jejeje..

        So it seems that the RCC members here do not agree that using pills and condoms for birth control is a sin (for RCC members at least), and they call themselves catholics? Isnt that hyporcrisy? Perhaps you are catholics only when you agree? jejeje..

  30. Tony B says:

    Great article; well done.

    I’ve got a question….does this bill just need approval by the Government or does it need to go to a referendum? In Ireland in the 1980’s there was a referendum on allowing Divorce. It was voted down because of intense campaigning by the pedophile club (aka the catholic church). They got up in their pulpits each Sunday and told the people that they would lose their house and land and everyone would catch aids and their children would be having sex in primary school etc….anything they could do to scare the people. It worked.

    Watch the catholic church – they are the most immoral organization I’ve ever come across.

  31. killem says:

    the proper title should be; RH bill enslaving the filipino people, just like yesterday…..

    • ChinoF says:

      I wonder what enslaves the people more… backward medieval thinking or the lack of thinking at all that a wily religious group can take advantage of? 😉

    • ilda says:

      @Killem

      What’s the matter? Are you afraid that married couples will engage in s e x more often than what the church wants them too?

      You can keep pretending to live in your fantasy world but with Kris Aquino as a role model of the youth, the Philippine society is already going down the wrong path even without the RH bill.

  32. Ponse says:

    @JCC

    I enjoy your banter and you make some good points but for goodness sake please take some proper English writing classes. Your sentence construction reminds me too much of all that awful legalese I read in my business contracts. 

  33. Ponse says:

    I remember when I was a university student centuries ago, we had a Catholic Priest as a guest speaker.  We had a quick debate on contraception and he told the class, “The Philippines has all the resources to feed all the unborn children. Contraception is not necessary.” 

    I wanted to chunk him out of the window for spouting such ignorant bullcrap. This world need less clergy and more critical thinkers.

    • ilda says:

      He must be the same professor of the other commenter here a while back. His professor said exactly the same thing. I’m sure J_ag went to the same school 😉

      • Ponse says:

        Hah. Perhaps but I’m already hitting 60 this year so unless that fellow is 90 years old I don’t think he is the same person. 🙂 I guess the point here is, foolish justification against contraception like this have been festering in the minds of some the Catholic clergy since time memorial…

    • ChinoF says:

      The problem indeed with the argument that “there is enough resources for all” is the burden of proof. Where is it? The proof more indicates that there isn’t enough.

      It may be a moot point abroad, but as the Filipinists say, look here only within the country. And looking within the country, there is going to be a rice shortage because of the stopping of imports. Plus, a lot of people getting hungry because there’s really little supply. If the leftists say that making people buy food instead of doling out to them is evil… go ahead and try doling it out yourself. They’ll never stop asking for dole-outs.

    • palebluedot_ says:

      that Catholic Priest is (was?) insane for connecting these 2 bible verses…
      “be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”
      after all, “look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly father feeds them. are you not much more valuable than they?”

      hesusmaryosep!!! compare ba naman yun birds sa tao…

      The Bible is to blame for devastation of the planet, says Sir David Attenborough. :mrgreen:

      • bokyo says:

        Misinterpretations. They left out what’s really the spiritual context of these verses, if you ask me  

    • bokyo says:

      We have enoung resources , true. Problem is , it is not distrubuted evenly, as too many are condensed in one or two areas, and the areas left are abandoned and undeveloped. 
      And the poor are growing because of this uneven distribution of resources, that’s why the RH bill also want to target of controlling the growth of the population. Might help the economy in a long run as it also reaches on health care and security for women and children, and special participation of men.

      Why the hardcore RCs are equating “RH Bill = abortion” when they’re leaving most out of the context of the bill, i do not know.

      • ChinoF says:

        If you wanna go the maldistribution explanation, then the best solution would still include economic liberalization and federalism, since “Imperial Manila” hogs all the wealth it collects from the people, and protectionism helps ensure that the resources are managed by only a local few – who divert it from being distributed to the many.

    • Jay says:

      @Ponse

      “The Philippines has all the resources to feed all the unborn children. Contraception is not necessary.”

      I was reading an article 2-3 years ago about some El Shaddai leader talking about a similar issue and stated a similar response, saying there is enough resources to support the people of the country.

      If these clowns looked at how much food Philippines are importing because ITS CHEAPER, they would think twice about making goofed up statement like that. Just to show how out of touch some moral and spiritual leaders are of the country, especially when they get into the discussion of the concept of sustainability that isn’t beyond god.

  34. Ponse says:

    I hope this is relevant to the topic at hand but since we are talking about Christianity/Religion in general and the CC in particular I heartily recommend these two very good books on the negative effects of established religion by Sam Harris:

    1) The End of Faith 
    2) Letter to a Christian Nation

  35. Manong Gard says:

    dapat siguro mag-anak na lang tayo ng mag-anak tapos bigay natin sa mga pari, marami naman silang oras at pera eh. hehehe…baka isang araw magising na lang sila marami ng bata sa lugar nila.

  36. J3 says:

    Hello, 

    What does Article 2 Section 6 in our constitution mean? “Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. ” Since this is frequently brought up in the discussions on the topic. What is the line exactly, since during the elections various religious groups were endorsing candidates – which would directly affect the “State”. What is different now? 

    • Jay says:

      There we go. Many people point at the constitution (as seen above) for ways which the RH bill apparently undermines when the call for secularism isn’t even respected.

    • ilda says:

      @J3

      Well, that’s the dilemma that P-Noy and other politicians who relied on the church or religious groups to win votes during the election are facing now. When they needed the Church’s support to win, they had no qualms about pretending to be true to their faith. The church is just asking for a return of the favour by continuing to meddle in state affairs. It remains to be seen if P-Noy will give in to the church and their call for civil disobedience.

      If you will recall, during elections, the Iglesia ni Cristo always announce their support for the most popular candidate one week before the election because this ensures that they are siding with the likely person who will be in power. They can also make a deal with the winner on matters that affect their congregation or whatever.

      • Jay says:

        @ilda

        of course we have to deal with every animal differently. InC certainly was more hands on and organized like lemmings better. The RC of the Philippines aren’t going to stoop down that level. I mean, threatening (how did it even come out anyway) the archaic excomm to the president and getting their feathers ruffled over a simple guy trying to make a statement because they don’t agree with the current issues of RH bill? Whatever happen to piety, as opposed to bible thumping for the sake of it?

      • ilda says:

        I wouldn’t exactly call the INC organised. Maybe blatant 😉

        There is no such thing as piousness in organised religion. They survive through sheer arrogance .

    • killem says:

      its basic in political law, that constitution serves to limit, what could have been plenary power of the state…. the article 2 section 6 serves as a limitation of such power. It can only be invoke against the state, and not the other way around..

      basically, it prevent the establishment of state religion, including but not limited to prohibiting the use of public funds to support or prejudice any kind of religion..

      It mandates that the state should adopt a “benevolent neutrality principle” and apply “compelling interest test” in order to determine whether the state has the right to intervene in a religious belief…

    • ChinoF says:

      Note that he only quotes his own blog posts. He’s probably the type that if you tell him the sky is blue, he’ll say, “no, the sky is blue because there is a blue tinted film spread across the sky. Remove it and you’ll see that it’s red.” 😛

      • Jay says:

        I love when these people use this quote:

        The categories of rights above show that rights are only limited to man’s rights to his LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY, and his PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. The concept of rights excludes and rejects man’s right of force and compulsion.

        They probably never read Franklin with his quote:

        Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

        Oh and we get gems like:

        To me it is anti-Life in the sense that it kills man’s motivation to achieve and the value of man’s achievement.

        Uh, wut? Please elaborate. If man’s motivation is to procreate without the financial ability to support the child, what value has he given his achievement especially if we add more children? Beggars can’t be choosers. They create life with the inability to support it THEN whine to the government why they can’t help out the situation is stupid. Government steps in to intervene and provide some education for the obvious, with as subtle impact that maybe, if the population numbers are curbed that there is enough money and opportunities in the future. THEN they WHINE when someone wants to make that happen, because its not equal.

        Add in their tossing of political gradients as if they existed in the Philippines (LOL communism, facism, republican and democratic ideologies) and you certainly have a pol-sci student who is talking out of their @$$.

    • BongV says:

      “There is no such thing as a right to health care” –

      While there is no such thing as a right to health care there is such a thing as police power.

      The inherent authority of a government to impose restrictions on private rights for the sake of public welfare, order, and security.

      Police power is the state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property to promote the general welfare. It consists of (a) an imposition of restraint upon liberty or property; (b) in order to foster the common good. It is not capable of an exact definition, but has been, purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all comprehensive embrace. [1]

      It is characterized as “the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs.” Negatively, it is defined as “that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.” The most frequent cited definition, however, has been Chief Justice Shaw’s classic statement which calls police power “the power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the same. [2]”

      Police Power is primarily vested in the National Legislature — The Congress of the Philippines, but may also be exercised by the President of the Philippines and administrative boards by virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power.

      The tests to determine the validity of legislative enactments are:

      The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the exercise of police power; and
      The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

      “The medical profession is not a slave to our society. Doctors and medical health providers are not different from businessmen, lawyers, engineers, architects, and laborers. The important nature of their profession does not give the state the unjust, non-objective power to regulate and control the whole medical profession for the sake of the “greater good.”

      The medical professions exist to provide a service to society. The license to practice medicine is a privilege granted by the state. As such, practitioners are expected to comply with a modicum of services that are the basis for the continuity of such contracts.

      Non-compliance will cause undue harm to society. As a preventive measure, practitioners who do not comply with the regulations that come with the license are stripped of their license as that will cause harm. The state, by virtue of its police power, exercise its inherent right and steps in to protect the public from the non-compliant practitioner.

      “Reproductive Health Education, which is a clear attempt to control the education sector.”

      It is not an attempt to control the education sector rather it is a measure to control the spread of false information on repreductive health.

      Rather it supports Section 7, Article 3 – Bill of Rights “The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.”

      And in further support of Section 17, Article 2, DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES – “The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human liberation and development.”

      “Employers shall respect the reproductive health rights of all their workers. Women shall not be discriminated against in the matter of hiring, regularization of employment status or selection for retrenchment.”

      is not fascist. PERIOD.

      “All Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers. In establishments or enterprises where there are no CBAs or where the employees are unorganized, the employer shall have the same obligation.”

      “Free delivery” is one thing – “provide the contraceptives for free” is another.

      “The insulting word here is “encouraged”. What if the private health care providers refused to join their colleagues in non-government organizations? Would they be penalized?”

      If the law does not provide a penalty – then there’s no penalty.. DUHHH.

      “. This means that should our politicians pass this bill, every health care provider and doctor in the private sector would become employee of the government! ”

      The license to practice the medical profession is essentially the state giving the individual practitioner a public franchise. As part of the individual’s duties in keeping with the franchise is to deliver the services that come with the franchise.

      The individual physician always has the option of going to another profession if he does not agree with the franchise or he can work to renegotiate the franchise under the democratic processes.

      Employers would be forced to lay off or even fire employees;

      Disagree. “Free delivery” is not equal to “provide contraceptives for free”.

      Employers and doctors would be regarded as potential criminals;

      Anyone who has intentions to violate the law is a potential criminal.

      Employers would not hire more people to avoid RH care spending mandated by the bill;

      Not when its only “free delivery”. Totally different from “provide devices for free”

      There would be mass exodus of doctors and health care providers;

      There is already a mass exodus – but it ain’t from RHB

      Both local and foreign investors would be discouraged to invest in RP;

      Foreigners are already discouraged from investing – but it ain’t from RHB

      There would be massive job loss;

      There already IS massive job loss – but it ain’t from RHB

      The Philippines would become one of the unfriendliest countries to business (plus consider the possible passage of the Antitrust bill).

      It already IS one of the unfriendliest due to Sec 10 and 11, Article 12 of the Philippine Constitution- it ain’t from RHB

      Some people would be penalized for what the bill calls “malicious disinformation”;

      Then comply so you don’t get penalized

      There would be massive medical brain drain and exodus of businessmen and professionals.

      There already is massive brain drain and exodus – but it ain’t from RHB

      😆

  37. Chorvaqueen says:

    I highly doubt every Filipino is a Catholic.

    That’s democracy for you, it sucks when it’s against you.

  38. Rhyne May says:

    So far, The Vincenton Post offers the best argument against the RH bill. This pathetic, lunatic blogsite exists for small minds and ignoramuses.

    From TVP’s Reproductive Health Bill: A Fascist Bill!:

    Those who didn’t read the bill simply spout a fantastic fallacy and sophistry that it’s all about “informed choice.” It seems that this “informed choice” is our one-way ticket to fascism, as the dishonest leftist and fascist politicians know how to cleverly sell their agenda. Again, this bill seeks to control the whole business industry, medical profession, and the entire education sector.

    Should they pass this bill, it would have the following effects:

    * Employers would be forced to lay off or even fire employees;
    * Employers and doctors would be regarded as potential criminals;
    * Employers would not hire more people to avoid RH care spending mandated by the bill;
    * There would be mass exodus of doctors and health care providers;
    * Both local and foreign investors would be discouraged to invest in RP;
    * There would be massive job loss;
    * The Philippines would become one of the unfriendliest countries to business (plus consider the possible passage of the Antitrust bill).
    * Some people would be penalized for what the bill calls “malicious disinformation”;
    * There would be massive medical brain drain and exodus of businessmen and professionals.

    We have to fight this bill by exposing its many contradictions and evil intents to violate our individual rights and freedom. We are all engaged in a battle of ideas. I oppose this bill not because it’s against the will of God, but because it is dangerous, non-objective and unconstitutional. We are still free to do what we want in this country. We are free to buy condoms at any convenience store without facing any legal threat to our liberty. Yes, the Catholic Church is against any kind of family planning method and contraception, but we are still free to disobey or follow its religious decrees. The Church threatened with “communication”, I say “excommunication” is a thing of the past- of the Dark Ages when the Catholic Church had an absolute monopoly on the fields of religion and politics.

    Yes, we are free to apply any kind of family planning method in this country. We are free to spread our views and influence other people. The Catholic Church and all religious institutions have the right to spread their religious ideas and even to influence the government. To prohibit them from spreading their views and beliefs would be tantamount to dictatorship. Also, the communists/leftists are free to spread their evil ideas and to fool young students so long as they don’t initiate the use of force. However, we have no right to ask the government to provide us our needs, be it education, health care, or transportation. By asking the state to be our “benevolent provider”, that would be tantamount to forcing the productive and successful members of our society to be society’s sacrificial animals. Remember, the road to hell is usually paved with good intentions.

    LINK: http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/reproductive-health-bill-a-fascist-bill/

    • jemon says:

      Sadly rhyne, it seems no one here understand what the separation of church and state really means. They thought it means the church should stop teaching its doctrines.. Funnier, they even thought everyone is stupid.. jejeje..

      • ChinoF says:

        Separation of church and state means that the church should not force or even slip in its doctrine as part of secular law. Unfortunately, that has been done in the 1987 Constitution, with priests as part of the ConCom.

      • jemon says:

        Jeje… Chino wrong.. you might want to review your definition. jejeje

        and Secular law? jejeje..

      • Twin-Skies says:

        [separation of church and state.. of course it is protecting the freedom of religion from the government and not the other way around as many seem to agree here.. paki basa po ang clauses ng ating constitution regarding that policy and all the other democratic country’s constitutions and statutes para may reference. ]

        That’s only half the interpretation of the constitution. The same section can also be interpreted to indicate that the state is obligated NOT to favor any specific religion over others – a very clear violation being shown when they only sought dialogue with the RCC.

        [wala pong magsasabing bawal magsabi ang mga religious ng kanilang beliefs or mag-rally kung gusto nilang isulong ito.. of course that is if democratic ang bansa natin.]

        They have a right to practice their faith, but they don’t have any right to stuff it down a non-member’s throat.

        [Ang galing talaga ng website dito, kapag may nagdisagree ang tawag bobo, ignoramus, troll, ano pa? Kaya pala halos lahat ng nagcocomment pare-pareho ang sinasabi jejeje.. marunong na silang kumahol lahat ng sabay sabay jejeje…]

        We don’t have any problems with people who disagree. However, you mistake disagreeing with being a flame-baiting nincompoop. Would you like to know where we think you stand?

      • ilda says:

        @Twin-skies

        Tingnan mo nga naman itong si Jemon, he is full of malice when he said: “Ilda, no need to make uto the guys, they will follow you no matter what.. jejeje. He is not exactly showing us what a true Christian is like with his mentality. I doubt if Jesus Christ will agree with his behaviour.

        We are debating about something important to the future of our nation but he tries so hard to reduce the discussion to something trivial. It’s just so pathetic. First of all, who can take someone like him seriously when he always ends his statement with “jejeje” ?

        It’s so simple: the church should stick to their business of providing spiritual guidance and stay out of the business of running the country.

        BTW, read some of your articles – good read. I like your style. I just didn’t have time to comment in your blog because I still have to deal with some of the comments here too. This is precisely the reason why I hate wasting my time with stupid comments like Jemon’s. Jemon thinks he is being a good Catholic by telling us we are immoral. I don’t think I can blame anyone for calling his comments idiotic.

        I wonder why he thinks that the Pill is immoral?

      • Jay says:

        apparently, Jemon has not been reminded enough how much he has been told time and time again, regardless of a church-government related discussion or not.

        Ganyan talaga pag hahawak ka sa patalim.

      • ilda says:

        Ang hina talaga ng utak nyang si Jemon. I don’t understand why he still doesn’t get that I have been ignoring him. I don’t waste my time on trolls.

        Hey, Jemon! Come back when you actually have something that makes sense to say, ok?!

        Ta-ta!

      • jemon says:

        Ilda, I know you are ignoring me, especially when you cannot come up with a reply. Siempre, pag butata ka na ignore ka na lang aju…

      • Buloy says:

        She can’t really come up with a reply when you don’t really make much sense.

      • ilda says:

        You get it but he still can’t get it. It’s best that we don’t hold our breath waiting for him to understand what we are trying to say.

        Here’s another appropriate reply to such commenters: If you have to ask that kind of question, you won’t understand the answer.

      • jemon says:

        buloy ayos yan, agree ka lang.. perhaps you know who is the more impertinent person here.. Ilda, no need to make uto the guys, they will follow you no matter what.. jejeje

        balikan natin ang usapan. separation of church and state.. of course it is protecting the freedom of religion from the government and not the other way around as many seem to agree here.. paki basa po ang clauses ng ating constitution regarding that policy and all the other democratic country’s constitutions and statutes para may reference. wala pong magsasabing bawal magsabi ang mga religious ng kanilang beliefs or mag-rally kung gusto nilang isulong ito.. of course that is if democratic ang bansa natin.. jejeje…

        well of course, rather than answer things directly, you prefer to refer to me as bobo . may tawag dun di ba? jejeje..

        In many of my previous comments to you, I challenge your position but you immediately downgrade your comments.. Oh I see, if I do not agree with you, perhaps I am bobo? jejeje…

        Ang galing talaga ng website dito, kapag may nagdisagree ang tawag bobo, ignoramus, troll, ano pa? Kaya pala halos lahat ng nagcocomment pare-pareho ang sinasabi jejeje.. marunong na silang kumahol lahat ng sabay sabay jejeje…

        ahuuu!

      • Jay says:

        wala pong magsasabing bawal magsabi ang mga religious ng kanilang beliefs or mag-rally kung gusto nilang isulong ito.. of course that is if democratic ang bansa natin

        Mukhang may hindi marunong mag intindi ah? Walang problema mag commento, syempre. Pero pag pa threat ng laos na ex-comm at mag respond sa mga active criticismo na salpakan ng kaso? Mukhang meron sa atin na asar talo ah at hindi marunong maki pag debate ng maayos. At bakit naman kelangan ganun, dahil hindi katulad ng mga ibang provisions ng constitution sa ibang bansa ay hindi kasama naki pag sulat ang iisa lang religious faction. I mean, hindi naman tayo Fundamentalists noh? Galing kasi mag diskarte si Jaime Sin eh, diba?

        well of course, rather than answer things directly, you prefer to refer to me as bobo . may tawag dun di ba

        Eh, anu ba naman tatawagin ang ayaw gamitin ang kokote nila, at maki pag sagot na parang wala lang? Syempre hindi matalino o kaya malalim mag isip. Obvious naman ah so bakit magiging isyu mu yan sa amin?

        In many of my previous comments to you, I challenge your position but you immediately downgrade your comments

        Wow selective memory ka dyan bro? Ilan ilan lamang beses na sinagot ka ng matino sa mga punto mo, at wala ka rin ma ibat bat? At kahit dito, ilan beses na rin nag bigay ng matinong punto pero walang dinala ang mga counter points? Ngayon reklamo ka nalang. Boohoo sori kung nasaktan ang feelings mo bro. Forgive me nalang kung nsaktan kita, since you are a good christian and follow their doctrines correctly.

        Kaya pala halos lahat ng nagcocomment pare-pareho ang sinasabi

        Looks like someone has a problem dealing with it. Here is a solution:
        deal with it.

        Sensya na dahil walang katapat sa tagalog ang pinaka matinong salita na yan sa ingles.

    • ChinoF says:

      Also, the guy seems to be a puking anarchist. I bet when a state creates police to prevent people from killing or stealing, he’ll call it fascism too, simply because it prevents people from doing something. 😆 🙄

    • Buloy says:

      * Employers would be forced to lay off or even fire employees;

      further explanation of why this is so should be in order.

      * Employers and doctors would be regarded as potential criminals;

      For following a bill should it be passed into law? How does one become a criminal by following the law?

      * Employers would not hire more people to avoid RH care spending mandated by the bill;

      Employers hire according to their specific needs, and dismiss or fire people for other more relevant reasons. To say that they would fire more people or not take on new employees because of the RH Bill being passed, is like saying people are no longer going to be buying cars because the traffic system in Manila is terrible. 

      * There would be mass exodus of doctors and health care providers;

      There is already a mass exodus of doctors and health care providers, and the reasons will not be because of the bill, but because there is little good work to be had in the Philippines for these occupations regardless of whether or not the bill passes.   

      * Both local and foreign investors would be discouraged to invest in RP;

      Again, why? Contraception is legal in other countries, but that has never stopped foreign investors before.
      * There would be massive job loss;

      Again, this speaks more of our inability to maintain a feasible work economy and our generally low wages more than anything else.

      * The Philippines would become one of the unfriendliest countries to business (plus consider the possible passage of the Antitrust bill).

      How exactly does practicing safe sex make one unfriendly? Do vaginas take offense at the feel of latex?

      * Some people would be penalized for what the bill calls “malicious disinformation”;

      Perhaps certain people who do spread misinformation about what constitutes safe sex SHOULD be penalized.

      * There would be massive medical brain drain and exodus of businessmen and professionals.

      Again, we are seeing this already even without the RH Bill. 

      The whole purpose of the RH Bill should not just be about defining what procedures should be legal and what shouldn’t – it should deal heavily with educating the masses about what the RH Bill is, and to help people fully understand what their options are, and what alternatives would work best for them. Shoving condoms and birth control pills at people without them knowing how to use them, or why they should be using them, is not what this bill should be about, and if those sponsoring and pushing for legalization of safer sex themselves do not understand this, then the RH Bill fails even before it can be passed. 
       

      • Rhyne May says:

        @ Buloy:

        I hope you’re a thinking individual. If you read the bill and the blog post of The Vincenton Post, you’d understand the impact of the RHB on the entire industry and the medical profession.

        I’ll give as example the universal health care or the Obamacare in the United States which also forces companies/corporations or businessmen and doctors to provide free health care to their employees. Unlike Filipinos, most Americans opposed the passage of the Obamacare. Surveys show that most Americans didn’t want the implementation of ObamaCare. Now, since most of you are stupid, you might argue that the Obamacare is different from the RH bill. Yes, that might be true, but both bills force employers and doctors to provide free health care (in the case of Obamacare) or RH care services (in the case of the RH bill) to employees/people.

        Now, most businessmen say they’re not hiring! You don’t have to be a businessman to know the impact of this bill on your business, you idiot! The intents of the bill is very clear, and only stupid people wouldn’t understand its evil intents and provisions.

        The Vincenton Post clearly and thoroughly explained how this bill would control the entire business community and the medical profession.

        Again, I quote Vincenton Post:

        “Should our politicians pass this bill, both public and public school students would be indirectly indoctrinated with neo-liberal/leftist ideas (e.g. the perversion of the concept of rights). Now, here’s one proof that this RH bill is a fascist bill. Section 17 defines “Employers’ Responsibilities as follows:

        “Employers shall respect the reproductive health rights of all their workers. Women shall not be discriminated against in the matter of hiring, regularization of employment status or selection for retrenchment. “All Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers. In establishments or enterprises where there are no CBAs or where the employees are unorganized, the employer shall have the same obligation.”

        “The first paragraph mandates employers to “respect the reproductive health rights of all their workers”, which simply means they have to provide the RH care needs of their employees. The second paragraph states the legal magic by which employers would be legally coerced and forced to respect the RH rights of their workers. This particular paragraph invalidates the constitutional guarantee on “equal protection of laws”, as employers would have NO choice at all but to provide “free delivery” of “reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers.” The process of Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is just a formality. Even in businesses and enterprises where there are no CBAs and unions, the bill mandates that the “employer have the same obligation.” This section seeks to enslave the ENTIRE business industry. This is not simply about redistribution of wealth, but primarily about forcing and enslaving the entire business community. Why is this the case? One possible explanation is the fact that the government is already broke that it can no longer provide the RH needs of the people without taxing the people. Also, we all know that the government currently confronts high budget deficit and high foreign debt of more than P4 trillion. The question is: Does Rep. Lagman have any idea what it takes to manage and grow a business? Do the passionate supporters of this bill have any idea how to conduct a simple medical operation? To all mini-fascists and little dictators who sponsor and/or support this statist bill: THE BUSINESSMEN AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS ARE NOT YOUR SLAVES! So the best way to guarantee people’s REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH RIGHTS is to enslave employers and health care providers. Is this not a clever fascist idea? Section 18 speaks of enslaving the “private reproductive health care providers, including but not limited to gynecologists and obstetricians”, as they are “encouraged to join their colleagues in non-government organizations in rendering such services FREE OF CHARGE or at REDUCED PROFESSIONAL RATES to indigent and low income patients” (emphasis added). The insulting word here is “encouraged”. What if the private health care providers refused to join their colleagues in non-government organizations? Would they be penalized?”

        I mentioned above that most businessmen in America said they’re not hiring because of the ObamaCare.

        Read this news report: http://sroblog.com/2010/09/03/michael-p-fleischer-why-im-not-hiring-wsj-com/

        and this… http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39548132/ns/health-the_new_york_times/

        I know that most of your are lunatic and close-minded… It’s really hard to explain facts to people who have shut their brains!

        Now, TRY TO EDUCATE YOURSELVES, FOLKS, INCLUDING THE IGNORANT AUTHOR OF THIS BLOG… http://fvdb.wordpress.com/no-to-rh-bill/

      • BenK says:

        Your argument, besides being lunatic and close-minded (hey, you said it, not me), is completely fallacious to compare it to a health care program in any other country, let alone the US, which is, despite the chagrin it causes you Hannity and Beck fans, still operated as a secular nation. And one that has a large-scale and comprehensive health care insurance industry, recent reforms notwithstanding.

        So what’s your solution? If no RH bill, then what? That’s the real issue, isn’t it? You and the Catholic Church are the type that are great at being against something, not so good at offering other suggestions to the problem you’re drowning in. Unless you think the rate of population increase and the corresponding rates of poverty and decline GDP per capita are perfectly okay; in that case, you’re just insane.

      • Buloy says:

        I like how you are able to call us closeminded and ignorant while exhibiting the very same traits that you accuse us of. There are two sides to every story, feasible pros and cons to every debate, and brushing away every argument in our favor to insist that your own is the only right answer –  and trying to diminish the importance of my argument by calling me and others  names which, I might add, is an acknowledged intellectually dishonest debate tactic –  smacks to me of hypocrisy.

        Every business is supposed to offer health insurance and medical care, even in the Philippines. Some businesses take higher health premiums for its members, while others do not. The number one reason why businesses take on new employers or let go of old ones had never been mainly about whether or not they can afford the health insurance; they base it on their manpower needs and on their profit. 

        It is true that providing these RH health care services will bite into each businesses’ respective profits then, but it also serves to follow that each business will be adopting medical health care plans for their employees that they themselves can afford – no small business is going to have to file for bankruptcy because one of their employees have decided to opt for an expensive vasectomy. What the RH bill has in its desire for better medical care, it lacks in specific details as to what viable health care services it construes and should be implemented to suit basic family planning at the very least. Many businesses take health care plans where reimbursement for medical procedures or medicine costs can be capped at a specific amount – why not extend this to include the common contraceptives? Abortion (which is still considered a criminal offense anyway under current law), vasectomy, and other tubal ligation procedures are considered extreme forms of family planning as it is, and it is highly unlikely that the latter two counts as an emergency procedure necessary in employee health care. Small businesses can adapt this as part of their medical plan quite easily. The way you carry on, it’s like thousands of businesses here in the Philippines will collapse if one person so much as asks for a Frenzy condom as part of his health insurance plan.

        Perhaps you might like to ask your friends the Sys, the Lopezes, the Gokongweis and the Ayalas and Cojuangcos if they would like to establish reachout programs and create foundations and health care facilities for people – not just for reproductive health care, but for all kinds of medical care. Perhaps they can claim this as incentives for tax breaks and bask in the limelight every time GMA, ABS-CBN or TV5 documents their glowing achievements for Philippine posterity. What makes this so different from all the reachout programs and medical missions big companies like to spew about on camera? Lobby for the government to offer tax benefits or other similar incentives for doctors who choose to volunteer for these lines of work. Just because no such detailed plans have been specified in the current incarnation of the RH Bill doesn’t mean there won’t be, and while you can only see the rigidity of the bill because profit seems to be more important to you than health, we see the possibilities it can offer. The RH Bill is just the first step in a very long process – or did you seriously believe that the government should just snap its fingers, tell all the other businesses to make it so and find some new unnecessary dragon to slay? The fact that this particular government is more concerned with lining its own pockets shouldn’t be a deterrent over what everyone should at least in theory have, and that is the right to health care, especially when the amount of children they have can also define the kind of live they live. 

        Section 18 in its entirety is: “Support of Private and Non-government Health Care Service Providers. – Pursuant to Section 5(b) hereof, private reproductive health care service providers, including but not limited to gynecologists and obstetricians, are encouraged to join their colleagues in non-government organizations in rendering such services free of charge or at reduced professional fee rates to indigent and low income patients.” talks nothing of the enslaving you have been claiming it does. Had a service that went beyond “encouraged” been required, “mandatory” or “obligatory” would have been the better terminology, and doubtless would have been used. ‘Encouraged’ implies flexibility. Stop quibbling over the terminology and enforcing your own bias upon it.

        Support for what the RH Bill stands for does not end once it passes into law. As I had pointed out in my previous post, the need to educate the public about what these contraceptives are, and how and why we should be using them, takes the priority. Having condom stands and birth control pills by the drug counter, but without telling people unfamiliar with them how they are used, makes them nothing but strange ornamentation. Support for the RH Bill extends also to supporting everything that necessarily comes after. 

        Businessmen and health care providers may not be our slaves, but we sure as hell aren’t their bitches, either.      

      • Jay says:

        Now, since most of you are stupid, you might argue that the Obamacare is different from the RH bill. Yes, that might be true, but both bills force employers and doctors to provide free health care (in the case of Obamacare) or RH care services (in the case of the RH bill) to employees/people.

        Still different. Healthcare covers many things, including illnesses/disease that usually HMO’s drop people with (or find ways to drop their customers) because it is not under the premium. RH care will at least be very specific, as much as the HMO’s coverages are.

        Every business is supposed to offer health insurance and medical care, even in the Philippines.

        Which is funny since the radical capitalist posting doesn’t believe in that, yet him and his business major buddy haven’t thought of a way how businesses can help offer benefits for their workers. Unions? HAH! This is another case of stupid small-mid sized and weak minded businessmen not being savvy enough to keep up with the laws and assert some form of protecting the conservatism in a twisted way ala BILL O’REILLY.

        The question is: Does Rep. Lagman have any idea what it takes to manage and grow a business? Do the passionate supporters of this bill have any idea how to conduct a simple medical operation?

        Resorting to ad-hominem are we? A huge sign of someone’s argument falling apart besides the errant usage of fascim like hipsters are to obscure references. You shouldn’t ask Lagman that. Ask the Tsinoys instead considering they have the most success yet nobody tries to imitate their road to success and finds a support group such as yours to try pin that mid sized businesses are going to be victims since compliance has to exist.

        I mentioned above that most businessmen in America said they’re not hiring because of the ObamaCare.

        You forgot the tattered economy but that is fine, considering anyone trying to reach for straws will do anything to make their argument look sound to common folks.

        Also I remember one statement from an MC Ramirez saying its possible for individual or small groups to organize and carry out the supposed education and awareness that the RH bill is suppose to do. See, such negativity for the RH Bill yet such lack of faith for a solution for an alternate program based on grass-roots approach due to the fickle nature of the Pinoy Society.

      • Miriam Quiamco says:

        You are quoting Vincent Post here, now I know where you are coming from.  That site is host to Ayn Rand-struck fanatics.  Get rid of government and everything shall fall into place, you must realize how sophomoric the perspective of Vincent Post is on public policy!!!

      • ilda says:

        @Miriam

        This Rhyme May is pretending he is not the writer and blog owner of that Vincent Post. Why else would he keep saying that it is the only site that makes sense? Maybe to him. As of the moment, I don’t have any plans of responding to him because he is basically a time waster and life is too short plus I am really busy at the moment. I’ll respond when I actually have the time to go over what he wrote. Frankly I’d rather devote my time to writing proper blogs than respond to such an arrogant commenter who will only dismiss what I have to say anyway. I’ll leave it to the capable hands of our intelligent commenters who are pro-RH Bill. 🙂

        Cheers!

      • ChinoF says:

        Miriam, not only sophomoric… I’d wager the guy doesn’t even adhere to Ayn Rand principles completely He’s got his own interpretation of it and is forcing it. Same as he is trying to force his own interpretation of the RH Bill on everyone. Of course, everyone has their own interpretation; but do you always have to say, “see things my way!” 🙄

      • Twin-Skies says:

        Oh good grief. Vince has been here too? 😦

        ilda, I advise you to ignore him. Everybody else too if you can help it, which I know may be tough; it’s like trying to look away from a train wreck…which may be a succint descrpition of Vince’s mental state now that I think about it.

        That lunatic trolled the Filipino Freethinkers forum a couple of months ago, and we’ve realized he’s not worth the trouble talking to. He’s stalked at least one of our charter members on FB with multiple accounts.

        He’s an objectivist extremist – look up the term online if you’re wondering – a philosophical line of thought founded by Ayn Rand that considers altruism as some form of innate evil.

      • ilda says:

        I was right about ignoring him then! I could tell he is not the type who will even read what other people have to say.

        😉

  39. Miriam Quiamco says:

    Right Iida, can’t read the post of this Rhyme character in its entirely, too many hysterical words and caps, it appears, he is a screamer, good for you to ignore this hysterical commenter.  You did a lot of good already by spending hours thinking about the issue.  Nagwawala na si Rhyme , tsk, tsk, now Ayn Rand wouldn’t approve of that. . .

  40. sotirios says:

    JCC reminds me of the scabs of society. All comments on his site are moderated, I doubt whether mine would get through. So I’ll post it here’s, but first here’s his blog entry;

    http://jcc34.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/the-health-risk-the-rhb-proponents-should-know/#comment-471
    “The Health Risk The RHB Proponents Should Know!”
    Now my comment about it;
    “You have a link to “original research”?!. WTF, there isn’t any original research there at ALL!!! It’s an opinion and to make it worse there aren’t any references to scientific papers cited to support the opinion. Do you know what original research is, do you know what informed scientific opinion is???. This is so much like the catholic church fafafafafafa, no substance. You’re a laugh, REALLY.”

    • ilda says:

      Too right sotirios 🙂

      • Twin-Skies says:

        if I may toss in my opinion, you’ll find that a lot of the so-called pro-lifers and self-proclaimed moral guardians in RP follow this trend – heavy on righteous indignation, pomp, and contempt for anybody outside their bizarro world view, and always willing to ignore hard facts so they can present their own stock of rubbish.

        There’s a fellow over in FB name Abaya who talks almost exactly like him, and posts nothing but Catholic-sourced documents as his “evidence.” People like that shouldn’t be taken seriously.

        On another note, greetings, ilda! I stumbled upon your account via a link from Filipino Freethinkers, and I must say I like what I’m seeing 🙂

        Keep in touch – I haven’t been able to write lately due to work, but you’re more than welcome to the resource materials I’ve been using, which I’m happy to say was painstakingly sorted from credible studies.

      • ilda says:

        Well, these self-righteous individuals keep emphasizing that we are immoral so they are not exactly convincing us that they are even ready for a dialogue. They are like a dog with a bone.

        Thanks for the kind words. I will keep an eye on your stuff.

  41. jon44h says:

    I havent bough birth control pills or any contraceptive products so i dont know how much it is but i believe an ordinary woman in philippines would rather buy food or any necessities for her family rather than buy pills…

    • ilda says:

      If a woman can’t afford to buy contraceptive pills, she simply can’t afford to feed and raise a child 😉

      • jon44h says:

        some people dont think ahead….they only think for the now… and contraceptives is the last thing on their mind im sure…or not even an option for them to do at all…

      • Buloy says:

        Then this is where educating these women to think about using contraceptives come into play, which IS a part of the RH Bill. 

      • mel says:

        @Ilda and Miriam

        Involved in charity and social development works, I can tell you that we have enough contraceptive pills for FREE in our Barangays here in La Union. We have done and are still doing a lot of educating poor families on family planning but we always end up throwing and destroying most of them. Many women are afraid to take them because the local priests are telling them every Sunday to avoid these “devil pills”.

    • miriam quiamco says:

      That’s why you need the government to distribute contraceptive pills free of charge.  This is what the Brazilian and Indian governments have been doing to curb their population growths.

      • jon44h says:

        really??? but india is the second highest populated country in the world right ? they only thought of it now? better late than never right…

    • palebluedot_ says:

      @jon44h
      i hope this helps (check http://www.undp.org.ph/?link=goal_5 for more info):

      “On the contraceptive prevalence rate (CPR), the percentage of currently married women
      ages 15-49 years using contraceptives slightly changed from 49 percent in 2001 to 50.6 percent in 2006 based on the FPS for the same years. ”

      “Survey findings, however, revealed that Filipino women across all socio-economic classes desire fewer children and would like to use modern contraceptives. Yet only about half of women of reproductive age practice family planning (FP). Even when FP services are available, it has been observed that the decision to seek health services is often determined by gender norms in the family and community, as well as cultural and religious beliefs and practices.”

      Solution: EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION! –> to redefine ones cultural & religious beliefs and practices –> to make it easy for women to accept the different FP services, not just 1 type of service supported by the church –> to help reduce population.

      • Twin-Skies says:

        @ilda

        Just to be clear, are you discussing RH Bill 5043 in particular, as authored by Edcel Lagman? I’d just like to confirm to avoid any possible confusion.

      • ilda says:

        Yes, I read the bill and am also an advocate of empowering Filipinos. The freedom to use contraception is just one way of empowering the Filipino people.

  42. adz says:

    Whether there’s a bill or not, artificial method is already there. The church should’ve taught it’s faithful regarding this matter for a long time. The government just have a ride on to an existing norms. Bp Cruz have a good point that behind this bill is a business for large pharmaceutical companies. Is this really for the poor?
    let’s say there will be no poor.,all is rich.,who will be your maid?your worker?your laborer?
    Robotic age will began.

    The more, the merrier. four kmi mgkakapatid. my mother ligated. and my parents realize, they can even afford pala to have more children. Because they are able to help my cousins also. So for me, I just let the nature decide. If God will give me many or few, I would be grateful.

    Luke 12:22-34 (New International Version)
    Do Not Worry
     22Then Jesus said to his disciples: “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. 23Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. 24Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! 25Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[a]? 26Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest? 27″Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 28If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! 29And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. 30For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. 31But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.

    • Twin-Skies says:

      [The church should’ve taught it’s faithful regarding this matter for a long time. The government just have a ride on to an existing norms.]

      The Gov’t also has a responsibility to the welfare of the entire Philippine nation, not just Catholics. And FYI, Reproductive Health programs ARE the norm – we’re one of a few handful of countries in Asia that has yet to adopt one. And you can thank the constant cockblocking of the CBCP for that fact.

      [ Bp Cruz have a good point that behind this bill is a business for large pharmaceutical companies. Is this really for the poor?]

      What’s he worried about, competition for the church’s coffers?

      Besides, whether big pharma profits or not is irrelevant – the fact is that we can scarcely provide for the population we already have, and that measures must be taken to encourage people to plant their next offspring more responsibly. The only way to do this is through a comprehensive RH program.

      The only offer I have seen the bishops provide is abstinence-only, which from what I’ve found to be ineffective. As have a couple of other medical groups and state health departments. Would you like the links?

      To quote Ben Goldacre of the BadScience blog: “Repeat after me: pharma being shit does not mean magic beans cure cancer.”

      [let’s say there will be no poor.,all is rich.,who will be your maid?your worker?your laborer?
      Robotic age will began.]

      Speaking as a sci-fi fan, I think you’ve been watching too many movies

      [Luke 12:22-34 (New International Version)
      Do Not Worry
      22Then Jesus said to his disciples: “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. 23Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. 24Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! 25Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life[a]? 26Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest? 27″Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 28If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today, and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! 29And do not set your heart on what you will eat or drink; do not worry about it. 30For the pagan world runs after all such things, and your Father knows that you need them. 31But seek his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.]

      Sure, tell that to a family of 12 in the slums, the parents unable to provide a stable income for their brood.

      You obviously have no fucking idea what these people have to go through on a daily basis, and I think you’re bloody delusional if you think some cherry-picked verse is going to make that starvation, malnutrition, and other bodily ailments go away.

      But since we’re on the topic of what would Jesus say, allow me to pick my favorite verses from the Bible too ;):

      Matthew 23:14
      Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.

      Matthew 23:23
      Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

      Luke 12:56-57
      You hypocrites! You know how to analyze the appearance of the earth and the sky, but why do you not analyze this present time? And why do you not even on your own initiative judge what is right?

      • Jay says:

        Don’t make me bust out the she-bears verse! See I love how one verse is suppose to trump and help support these debates, but you do the same and it messes it up for them even more.

    • ilda says:

      @adz

      Spoken like a true paranoid. To be specific, you are very afraid of not having a maid in the future. Wow man, learn to clean up after yourself and you will live a much happier, independent life.

      I’ve got news for you: we are not lilies so we have to think about what we will eat, what we will wear and the roof over our heads. That’s the reality.

      • adz says:

        paranoid?FYI, I’m not rich and I don’t have maid.,I am talking of true reality, for those who do have, not just maids, even laborers, factory workers.

        Sure we are not lilies, maybe you also planned when you will be born and who will be your parents.,do you really understand the meaning of what you just have read?

        I don’t know how poor people have to go through on daily basis? You don’t know even more the joy of having many siblings. Whether rich or poor, all have its own problem. What a problem for you may be a blessing for others.,you’ll never know.

        For poor people, just 1 meal a day is already satisfying.,but for rich ones, even with various dish and many possesions, they can never be contented.,

        It is by nature that man will multiply “humayo kayo at magpakarami!” hnd p napupuno ung mundo ng tao.

        “Kung masipag ka, hnd ka maghihirap”

        Luke 12:16-21 He spoke a parable to them, saying, “The ground of a certain rich man brought forth abundantly. He reasoned within himself, saying, ‘What will I do, because I don’t have room to store my crops?’ He said, ‘This is what I will do. I will pull down my barns, and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. I will tell my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years. Take your ease, eat, drink, be merry.”‘ “But God said to him, ‘You foolish one, tonight your soul is required of you. The things which you have prepared—whose will they be?’ So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”

      • Twin-Skies says:

        That just makes you worse.

        You would, with the full understanding of what the less fortunate of our country go through, be more than willing to think that a handful of verses from your favorite book is going to alleviate their plight.

        At least that’s the image I’m getting with your god-bothering. And instead of discussing how we can come up with a meaningful program to help them, you decide to play the blame card on all the “rich” people.

        I disagree with ilda. You’re not paranoid. You’re a bleein’ idiot.

      • ilda says:

        @adz

        Since you are not rich, then don’t pretend to know what the rich go through. As Zsa-Zsa Gabor once said: “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor. Believe me, rich is better”.

        You can’t simply assume that people who have money are sad people. You are talking like a true loser. Being poor does not give you the authority to say “but for rich ones, even with various dish and many possessions, they can never be contented.” What makes you think that people with money are bad people? Do yourself a favor and quit watching telenovelas because you end up stereotyping rich people. A lot of them work hard to get to where they are so they deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

        You talk so much crap about the joys of having many siblings but you don’t acknowledge the fact that there are many people who end up abandoning their children or neglecting their needs because of their wretched existence.

      • Jay says:

        apparently adz is not aware of the ir misconceptions of rich and wealthy.

        To quote chris rock: “Shaq is rich. The guy who signs his check… is wealthy”

        I’d rather be wealthy than rich. Poor is what happens when you are rich and you have that taken away with a bad summer habit, ala MC Hammer.

  43. adz says:

    @ilda..So theres the problem comes.,you generalize! a sweeping statement. As if all rich are the same and all poor are the same. Even without the bill, people have the choice. But upon passing of the bill, you just preventing the population growth looking on economic perspective but not on other consequences. It is indirectly promoting immorality.
     Instead of teaching the students to avoid pregnancy, it should be taught that sex is only for a married couple for the purpose of bearing a child.
    Helping the poor?you are promoting prostitution beacuse instead of fear of STDs and unwanted pregnancy, you are assuring them that it is safe instead of giving them onother options to leave those kind of jobs.
    You think that population growth is the main problem?Sori, but by nature, all living things are made multiply. Those with many living sepcie survives and the less becomes instinct.

    A rich man if he does’nt work, he will end up poor. A poor if he learns to work hard, he can be rich. No excuses. No blaming of others. its all about yourself.

    also @ Twin-skies – what part of your brain makes you think that if a person have a different point of view than you he becomes an “idiot”? you should learn to look on the mirror that is if you are not an “imbecile”

    • ilda says:

      @Mr adz

      Please don’t turn this around. You were the one who was generalizing about the rich and the poor people. Just review your previous comment, manong.

      Here is the problem: Even if you don’t teach some teenagers about safe sex, you can’t stop them from engaging in sex. Their activity will more than likely result in either unwanted pregnancy or venereal disease. Just take your pick.

      Would you rather attach a chastity belt to all the unmarried couples in our society? Or maybe you also want to attach chastity belts to married couples as soon as they announce that they are not having any more kids?

      Don’t forget that not everyone is a member of the Catholic Church. Which means that, not everyone believes in the principles they teach in the church. The Philippines is supposed to be a free country so don’t try to shove your beliefs down other people’s throats.

      Try to travel to other countries that have a small population and you will realize that they don’t have a huge problem with poverty like the Philippines.

      • adz says:

        Sori but i am not a catholic either. Yes there should be a separation of church and state. But it is still the duty of the church to be the moral conscience of the faithful. Good decision maker knows how to listen and look at the other side of views, not to give in to what they want, but for you to grasp a better perspective and weigh all the issues properly. You may be healing the finger but poisoning the whole body.
        Of course small population, smaller poverty issue. lets talk on proportion not on volume.
        If you can’t go with the religious perspective, lets do it this way.
        The question is, is the RH bill relevant/applicable or would it really control population growth?
        If the gov’t simply educate and leaves the decision to the people, whats d use?
        Responsible parents know what to do even without the bill. If they are irresponsible, hard headed ones simply follow what they want. If young got pregnant or disease, they should reap the consequences of their act. Being responsible starts even befor the sex itself.
        If you really want to control birth rate, impose 1 child or 2 policy. A bill that is simply to educate, its useless. Waste of time and money.
        And the government should also discuss the penalties or any criminal grounds whatsoever if you don’t follow this bill. Its one sided information, and it is also deceiving.

      • Twin-Skies says:

        [Sori but i am not a catholic either.]

        I can see that. You’re too incoherent. Probably from a charismatic group.

        [But it is still the duty of the church to be the moral conscience of the faithful.]

        The church can preach and ramble on all it wants to the pulpit. The problem begins when it tries to impose its ramblings on an entire nation, regardless if the residents are not its members.

        You said it yourself, separation of church and state.

        [Good decision maker knows how to listen and look at the other side of views, not to give in to what they want, but for you to grasp a better perspective and weigh all the issues properly.]

        A good leader will indeed have their own religious convictions, but they should be professional enough to know that they cannot let these biases cloud their decisions for a country. They answer to the people, not to the “moral” convictions of just one of several other religious organizations in a country.

        [You may be healing the finger but poisoning the whole body.]

        You’re absolutely right!

        The RCC may have a small (and delusional) moral victory in blocking the RH Bill, but in doing so, they poison the women of the Philippines for the long term, denying them health care, proper education and other needs that could have been addressed had the church been less dogmatic.

        Oh I’m sorry, were you referring to somebody else? 😉

        [Responsible parents know what to do even without the bill. If they are irresponsible, hard headed ones simply follow what they want. ]

        Take a good look at most Filipinos. The sad fact is that most of us don’t have a very good idea regarding responsible sexual behavior Most of it has been lessons passed by word of mouth from parents. They become irresponsible not because they’re necessarily being hard-headed, but simply because they don’t know any better.

        [If young got pregnant or disease, they should reap the consequences of their act. Being responsible starts even befor the sex itself.]

        Yes, let’s let deny pregnant women the proper means of taking care of themselves and their child. Let’s make an example out of them. Let’s kick them out of our schools!

        http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/220983/unwed-pregnant-and-kicked-out

        adz, people like you, who seem to derive their sense of morality on a never-ending desire to “punish” people, sicken me. And I can only be thankful that you revealed to everybody else here how big an ignorant, self-righteous, imbecilic twat you really are.

        [If you really want to control birth rate, impose 1 child or 2 policy. A bill that is simply to educate, its useless. Waste of time and money.]

        Except we’re not China. The point of an RH bill is to educate people so that they make make a more informed decision themselves.

        [And the government should also discuss the penalties or any criminal grounds whatsoever if you don’t follow this bill. Its one sided information, and it is also deceiving.]

        And you’re an idiot.

      • ilda says:

        @adz

        You may not be a member of the Catholic Church but you are obviously a Christian. Catholics and Christians are almost the same. And people who are members of recently organised religions such as the Born Again Christians can be more arrogant about their beliefs. Someone told me of the time they tried to get rid of the statues in the Catholic Churches because they think it is “immoral” to be praying to such things.

        Neither the RCC nor any Christian religion has the moral high ground on any individual’s behaviour. As long as people are not hurting any human being, it’s none of their business what people do in their own private time. Even Kris Aquino is free to do her thing as long as she does not air her dirty laundry in public.

        You said:

        Good decision maker knows how to listen and look at the other side of views, not to give in to what they want, but for you to grasp a better perspective and weigh all the issues properly

        I say:

        That is exactly what you and our public officials should do. But unfortunately, it is very obvious that you are stuck with your Bible. A book that contains some teachings which are totally irrelevant to today.

        You also said:

        Responsible parents know what to do even without the bill. If they are irresponsible, hard headed ones simply follow what they want. If young got pregnant or disease, they should reap the consequences of their act.

        I say:

        The only time people become responsible is when they are educated. At present, the RCC and other Christian religions are not even equipped to educate the Philippine population to be more responsible. Plus, they do not answer the more physiological and psychological needs of each individual. It’s not enough to put a blanket advice on people hoping that it will cover everyone’s situation.

        Any added information on top of what the church teaches is not a waste of time and money. People should know all sides not just the church’s.

        PS

        Makinig ka kay Twin-skies. He knows a lot about the RH bill 😉

    • Twin-Skies says:

      You’re going to call somebody an imbecile, at least learn to check your spelling and grammar.

      • adz says:

        @ twin-skies – who knows a lot about RH bill. With that kind of attitude you display, there is a more reason to reject the RH bill.

        Did the church have the vote on the house or senate?How can they affect the decision?In the end, its not the church who decide, at least they do their part.
        Christians or not, majority or not, ideas should be viewed objectively.
        There is no need to educate on Reproduction to be responsible. Lifting moral values among children will do.

        The problem here is, what is wrong turns to be right just because many do it. And we create this things to support the wrong and make it look right. But no matter what you do, it is absolutely wrong!

        If you don’t like religious views nor moral issues, got nothing to do with that.
        The same way that you don’t want others to hamper your freedom, other group also should protect their moral privacy against vulgar topics that disturbs other minds. There is no need for outright education. There should be a freedom if the person want to be educated or not. RH is there for a long time. But it should not be obligatory. Just make it available for those who want to learn. We don’t need RH bill.

        If RH bill is passed, then they should also pass Moral bill. That is needed more badly as you show:)

      • benign0 says:

        With a “Moral Bill” you will also need a Morality Police to enforce this legislation. And you can hire the Taliban as consultants to implement such a police force. 😀

      • adz says:

        @ benigno – nice one lol…in RH bill then, there will be a random checking on households and hotels if the couple really use the condom the government give them.

        “stop! b4 you continue, let me see if you have yor condom on” or say ” have you taken your pill or your IUD maybe misplaced, let me check”

        lol:)

      • Twin-Skies says:

        [who knows a lot about RH bill. With that kind of attitude you display, there is a more reason to reject the RH bill.]

        And with the kind of grammar you display, no wonder the only logical thing to with your comments is to point, and laugh XD.

        [Did the church have the vote on the house or senate?How can they affect the decision?In the end, its not the church who decide, at least they do their part.]

        Good idea. Let the church get a vote in senate. Then we’ll have every reason to tax them for all they’re worth 🙂

        Can you imagine how many condoms that will buy?

        [Christians or not, majority or not, ideas should be viewed objectively.
        There is no need to educate on Reproduction to be responsible. Lifting moral values among children will do.]

        Let me get this straight, you demand objectivity, and yet you’re demanding teaching kids morals?

        Okay, fine, but whose morals? Christian Morals, Islamic Morals, or Catholic Morals? it’s ironic that you demand objectivity, and end up shooting your own argument in the foot by invoking a concept as fluid as “morals.”

        [If you don’t like religious views nor moral issues, got nothing to do with that.]

        And yet a few statements ago, you were so intent on having Christians vote in senate. Looks to me like you do want Christians to tell everybody else, non-christian or not, to be subject to THEIR doctrine.

        [The same way that you don’t want others to hamper your freedom, other group also should protect their moral privacy against vulgar topics that disturbs other minds.]

        So pre and post-natal education – which is part of the RH bill – is vulgar? Dude, keep your fetishes out of this discussion – we don’t swing your way 😦

        [There is no need for outright education.]

        Trust me, the Gov’t won’t be wasting resources trying to educate guys like you 🙂
        They’ll be “wasting” it on people who are actually concerned, famililies and couples who’d prefer to better plan their brood.

        [There should be a freedom if the person want to be educated or not. RH is there for a long time. But it should not be obligatory. Just make it available for those who want to learn. We don’t need RH bill.]

        For the umpteenth time. Read the frakking bill.

        These education programs are not mandatory – they’re simply there as an option. And neither are the people mandated under threat of punishment to take contraceptives or whatnot – that is also entirely up to them.

    • Jay says:

      Helping the poor?you are promoting prostitution beacuse instead of fear of STDs and unwanted pregnancy, you are assuring them that it is safe instead of giving them onother options to leave those kind of jobs.
      You think that population growth is the main problem?Sori, but by nature, all living things are made multiply. Those with many living sepcie survives and the less becomes instinct.

      Prostitution is around not because of lack of education, but because like many other seedier occupations its one with active opportunities and a limited skillset to do. Satisfy the client, hopefully the contract is good and payment is made. It is not a problem that is going to be created by the bill as oppose to it existing for a long time now, unless you’ve been living a rock, assuming so since you make such a blind assertion.

      Much like how there are anti-abortion provisions in the 1987 constitution but neither authorities in part who helped author it have followed up on it with proper education, hence what was written in law to prevent abortion actually makes it occur more. Read above in one of my responses and you will see that statement justified.

      Living things are made to multiply, but of course when you have something as complex with humans as societies and variables for survival like food, water, shelter in a limited span of living areas, humans have to rationalize and accept in a give and take in order to ensure maximum survival and not just ANY FUTURE for their offspring, but a bright one. Which many who are blinded don’t see since they consider all life as sacred, but don’t consider the importance of the other factors that sustain life, which are also in limited amounts and cost a certain amount of resources. It is instinctive to want to pass on genetics and give life, but without proper values, you are no better than ignoring the future.

      • Jay says:

        The problem here is, what is wrong turns to be right just because many do it. And we create this things to support the wrong and make it look right.

        Oh, like the anti-abortion bill in 1987 right? Suppose to help stop abortions yet it STILL OCCURS! and in high numbers! Oh and the RC’s argument against jueteng when they make a moral standpoint about it but disregard other forms of gambling as well, ones that also has been ran by the state for quite a long time called PCSO? How selective!

        You sir/ma’m are a product of a Catholicism by convenience, much like how you pick off the RH provisions and prove very little of what it really means.

  44. Pingback: Aquino 2.0 Deja Vu: Overtures of Military Adventurism

  45. Pingback: From F to A: What P-Noy Needs to do in order to Succeed

  46. Maki_Alam says:

    What is it with these “RHB is pro-rich/anti-poor” comments? The poor have a right to information just as much as anybody else. And the beauty of it is, they can do with that information whatever they want and however they see fit. That’s what the bill is ultimately about–the right to information and the freedom to make a choice. Fear-mongering and keeping people ignorant about their own reproductive health, now THAT’S anti-poor.

    The RHB is not immoral or sinful. The even bigger sin would be to deny parents the right to plan their own families, thus bringing x amount of children into the world that they can’t afford to feed, educate and raise properly. If these religious nuts are willing to take in all of these unwanted babies and raise them themselves, then by all means do it. One commenter said the government should stay out of couples’ bedrooms. Well, the CBCP should stay out of them, too.

    Abstinence is a joke. Wake up, CBCP. People are having sex whether or not the Church approves, and they will keep on having sex whether or not the RHB is passed. Obviously, the threat of eternal damnation has done nothing to curb the Pinoys’ sexual urges. Better to arm them with the necessary knowledge regarding the physiological and economic consequences of their actions.

  47. lolwut says:

    No. The saddest thing here is that people say they are Catholics but don’t even know why they are Catholics.

    If you are a Catholic, read the Catechism and study a little bit about Theology and Philosophy. You’ll realize that based on the principle of double effect and the criteria for mortal sin actually excuse you from using contraception (you will commit venial sin depending on the circumstance). End of argument. But the CBCP always HAS to say NO of course (duh! They represent what is Good in terms of Catholicism), because venial sin is still a sin no matter how small it is. But in the end it is always the people’s choice. So don’t go thinking the CBCP is interfering with politics. They can only advise and politicians can ignore them. 

    Oh, and I think Celdran is an idiot for doing what he did, no matter what the intention. A Church is a sacred place for a Catholic. Even if you’re not Catholic, it’s a sign of disrespect. It’s like barging into a Buddhist Temple or something to that degree.

    **If you don’t know/forgot what mortal sin and venial sin are, just think mortal sin is the BIG sin that can’t get you sent to hell, and venial sin is the little sin everyone cannot avoid committing and you don’t actually go to hell because of it. It’s better if you read about it though.

    • Renato Pacifico says:

      Celdran should have protested outside of the church.  But I liked his gimmick.  The effect was immediate and embarassing to the stuck-up medieval church.
      I thank Celdran for acting like an idiot.  It put light on the church that should not meddle in politics.  Politics deals with reality.  Church deals in fantasy.  If people wanted to go to heaven on earth by having protected sex let them do so, anyways the fantastical God has not done any goot to Philiphifins except suck up money so the Vatican can live in grandeour oppulence.
      Funny thing about religion, if politicians are successful in turning around Flippers lives, religion take control of the credit.  If politicians fail, religion blame Filipinos.

  48. concerned_citizen says:

    “Nothing is too hard for the daring for mortals. We storm heaven itself in our folly.” To get the point straight to the thickheaded skulls of these arrogant clergy. If people think that going to Church every day is the sign of a good Christian then they are misinformed. It’s about living a life according to Christ’s teachings. Those who believe they are truly good Christians are so stuck up and self-righteous that they forget the simple beauty of humility. I for one am not a good Christian but I try as much as possible each day to do good things. I am far from perfect but I do give it a try. Far too long has the Catholic Church meddled in affairs of the state and now is the time for Filipinos to think for themselves.

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