The Reproductive Heath Bill of the Philippines
79Why Separation of Church and State is needed in the Philippines
The Philippines is a democratic republic with a similar governmental structure as the United States. This design has proven to be a success here as people, in general, have the freedoms to do as they wish- legally speaking. Of course, not all things good and logical have been adopted into this stucture. I am speaking of one thing in particular, one of the best ideas the forefathers of the US Constitution have implemented, the separation of church and state. Essentially, separation of church and state keeps religion out of the schools and out of the government, keeping it where it belongs...the church. The church has no business being involved in government politics as it is a completely separate entity with it's own governing set of rules. This goes for the public school system as well. If I want my child to learn about religion and to participate in group prayer while in school, I will send them to a private school. School is designed for learning FACTUAL knowledge, not religious theories and beliefs that can never be proven as fact. The church is not designed to be a governing body, it is designed as a means for reaching spiritual enlightenment and participation in such should remain a personal choice, not something that is forced upon you. If I choose to go to college here, should I be required to take (and pay for) a course on Christianity if I myself am a Buddhist and know that taking such a course would be a waste of my time and money? Absolutely not!!!, that's absurd but yet is required at many colleges in order to earn a degree. This brings me to my main point, the negative impact of the Catholic Church against the passing of the Reproductive Health Bill. If you have been living in a cave for past year then perhaps you are unfamiliar with the RHB, however since you are obviously online right now let's assume that you at least know something about the bill and the opposition it's facing (unless of course you are not a Pinoy or are not currently living in the Philippines). If you are anything like me, you are fairly happy that the process is continually being stalled, giving women a little time, at least, to make (some of) their own educated decisions pertaining to their rights as a woman. Unfortunately, the longer the final decision is delayed, the longer women must wait for sexual equality and sexual freedom but, for now, some of these rights and freedoms are still intact from a former bill which is why I say "fairly happy" in the previous statement. If the RHB is rejected, it will send women's rights in this country back to the stone ages by repealing the rights given in the aforementioned bill and taking away so much more, a reversal in social progression . It's the 21st century for god's sake, hasn't humanity evolved past this point? Someone please enlighten me, what is wrong with teaching sex education in the schools? I had sex ed twice, once in 5th grade and again in 9th grade, and I turned out just fine. I am 30 years old with no children and no sexually transmitted diseases. Don't get me wrong, I do want kids....someday, just not now, I would like to continue my education and get a good career first so as to not bring another child into the world of poverty. Also, what is wrong with giving women a choice? If you use artificial contraction, you are NOT killing a life, but that is what the Catholic Church would like you to believe, in their own words. "Artificial contraception is not natural" you may say, well neither is a population that is growing at such an alarming rate (most being in poverty stricken areas of the Philippines) that industry can't keep up with the growing employment demands and the environment cannot supply enough natural resources for this kind of exponential growth. How can it be justified to take away these choices (rights) while watching those most affected suffering and struggling to support 10, 12, 15 children on a paltry salary without offering any substantial aid to these families. A woman has a right to know and a right to make an informed decision about her own body and her future. I am not even referring to abortion here, I am talking about prevention. Me and my fiance' do not want children yet, and with good reason, but if it weren't for the education that I recieved when I was younger, we most certainly would have children and would be struggling and suffering as well. Now to speak of abortion, if a woman is raped or a young girl makes a mistake (due to a lack of education) and has unprotected sex and gets pregnant, should they be forced to go to term or, even worse, to get an illegal abortion on the streets in an unsterile environment from an illegitimate surgeon- risking their life in the process? President Arroyo is obviously against the bill but isn't extremely vocal in her opposition but seems to be a resonable person that is conflicted due to the huge controversy surrounding the bill. What everyone must understand is that family planning is something that is a part of our modern day world and is absolutely necessary. Without it, you will have problems far beyond what any opposition could ever be able to justify such as a population which lacks the education, time, financial means etc. to support those they bring into this world and without the means to protect themselves and others against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, many of which can be passed to the fetus, newborn, or infant before, during or after birth. I mean, how can you give proper care and attention to each and every child when you have more than you can afford, financially and emotionally? How can you have a population which engages in premarital sexual practices without a way of controlling the spread of STDs/VDs? How can you plan for a family (or plan on not having a family) if you have no choice in the first place? In other words it's excessive, uncontrollable breeding, of which can be brought to sustainable and justifiable levels with family planning. Now, I don't want to look at children as just numbers, certainly not, but uncontrolled population expansion at the current rate will only hurt any potential chance of this country eventually freeing itself of poverty and obtaining that so desired dream of "20 years 'til first-world status". The Catholic Church is the biggest obstacle in the passing of the Reproductive Health Bill and has gone as far as to threaten and blackmail members of Congress to vote on the Churches' behalf against the bill. Are threats and blackmail the words of God, or men and women of God? Aren't they suppost to practice goodness and compassion? I really don't see how threats and blackmail fit into this. Personally, I think that they are HIPPOCRITS and are not looking out for the best interest of the many, only the few- themselves! The Reproductive Health Bill is a GREAT IDEA and is only receiving opposition due to a lack of understanding and from brainwashing from the Catholic Church. Their statements of opposition are not the words of God speaking through them, they are only humans, like you and me, and shouldn't cross the lines of what is a "Church" matter and what is a "State" matter. Please consider what I have said and help support the Reproductive Health Bill, it's your future at stake here, the future of your children, and the future of the Philippines.
I recently found the petition against the Reproductive Health Bill online and thought I'd share it with you and give you my thoughts.
To: Congress of the Philippines
We strongly oppose the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043) for the following reasons:
1. AS EMPLOYERS, we do not want to be compelled to provide free reproductive health care services, supplies, devices and surgical procedures (including vasectomy and ligation) to our employees, and be subjected to both imprisonment and/or a fine, for every time that we fail to comply. (Section 17 states that employers shall provide for free delivery of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers more particularly women workers. (Definition of Reproductive Health and Rights Section 4, paragraph g, Section 21, Paragraph c and Section 22 on Penalties)
2. AS HEALTH CARE SERVICE PROVIDERS, we do not want to be subjected to imprisonment and/or a fine, if we fail to provide reproductive health care services such as giving information on family planning methods and providing services like ligation and vasectomy, regardless of the patient's civil status, gender, religion or age ( Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, Paragraphs 1 to 5 and Section 22 on Penalties)
3. AS SPOUSES, we do not agree that our husband or wife can undergo a ligation or vasectomy without our consent or knowledge. (Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, Paragraph 2)
4. AS PARENTS, we do not agree that children from age 10 to 17 should be taught their sexual rights and the means to have a satisfying and "safe" sex life as part of their school curriculum. (Section 12 on Reproductive Health Education and Section 4 Definition of Family Planning and Productive Health, Paragraph b, c and d)
5. AS CITIZENS, we do not want to be subjected to imprisonment and/or pay a fine, for expressing an opinion against any provision of this law, if such expression of opinion is interpreted as constituting "malicious disinformation" ( Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Paragraph f and Section 22 on Penalties)
6. We also oppose other provisions such as losing our parental authority over a minor child who was raped and found pregnant (Section 21, a, no.3)
7. We also do not agree to the provision which reclassifies contraceptives as essential medicines (Section 10) and appropriating limited government funds to reproductive services instead of basic services (Section 23) Thus, we urge you to immediately stop deliberations on the bill and stop wasting taxpayers money.
Sincerely, The Undersigned
NOW MY THOUGHTS:
1. With the ridiculously low average wages and salaries nationwide, it is imperative to provide these services to your employees. You may find it an unjust and unnecessary expense but you could not be further from the truth. Would you rather have to pay your employee severance pay while they are pregnant and unable to work until potentially months after the birth? Or perhaps to fire this employee for their inability to continue working due to their pregnancy, possibly resulting in a lawsuit? Or to keep them working up until pregnancy and risk possible complications to the mother and/or baby? These inclusions will inevitably complete any decent health care package making an employee's working conditions suitable and sustainable- a healthy employee is a happy employee and a happy employee is a long-term hard worker and asset to any company. Would you rather have to pay excessive health care bills for your employee when they need medicine and hospital care for an out of control sexually transmitted disease or would you rather provide them with cheap pieces of plastic(condoms) which would prevent the pain and suffering and medical expenses. Or perhaps have to increase a worker's salary as their current wage is not sufficient enough to support their ever-growing family.
2. Is this one a total joke? As a health care provider it is YOUR JOB to provide this information. Your job is to look out for the best interest of your patient and if they so desire information on family planning you simply must provide it. Shit, I would have you arrested in a heartbeat if I or anyone I know was turned down for any of these necessary services. A vasectomy or tubal ligation is not a very expensive procedure and would help the prevention of any future pregnancies with a couple that doesn't want or need any more children. Why bring another unwanted child into this world if it can be prevented? Plus, this should all be things covered in a health insurance plan which the employee's company pay's for(which comes out of the employee's pocket anyway in taxes)- Hey Philippines, welcome to the 21st century, these things you speak against are a part of modern day life and have survived the test of time in all other societies that have implemented them, so stop being cheap-ass bastards and care for the people you serve and who serve you.
3. As an adult, you are entitled to make your own decisions regarding your own body and no operation (unless in the case of a life or death situation where the spouse is unable to speak for themselves)should require the authority or co-sign of the spouse. It is up to the couple to discuss any future plans regarding this topic and not the hospital or clinic. If a spouse doesn't discuss this very important topic with their significant other- that's THEIR problem. A loving couple should discuss these matters as it is the morally correct thing to do and has nothing to do with legality.
4. Alright, I have to put this in quotes, "the means to have a satisfying and "safe" sex life". That is NOT what sex-ed teaches you in school. It teaches the basics of the reproductive system, pregnancy, hormones, STDs/VDs, prevention and protection, etc, etc. I know about this firsthand I had sexual education twice in the states, once in grade school and once in high school and I guarantee that none of you who are speaking out against this had sex ed in school and therefor don't know what the hell you're talking about. They don't teach you anything about having a satifying sex life, in fact, they teach you that abstinance is the best idea for many reasons, not "How to give good head 101."
5. Well, if you are spreading "malicious disinformation" than perhaps there should be a price to pay. I don't believe that the statement above is accurate as that is comparable to taking away a person's freedom of speech which is legally protected by the constitution. The truth with set you free, not lies or "malicious disinformation".
6. Well, this is a tough one. The child is a minor but rape is a very adult crime and pregnancy is very adult situation. Parents should have a right to know but not necessarily to decide what they think is best for the victim. A girl who is old enough to become impregnated from a rape is old enough to decide on her future, certainly for something as large as pregnancy. Having a child could ruin any chances for her to finish her education and get a career not to mention being reminded everyday of the horrible crime committed against her. If you are the parent of a pregnant rape victim and make her have the baby against her own wishes, you are potentially ruining her life and your relationship with your daughter. She should have that right in such an unfortunate circumstance.
7. I think that this one was probably taken out of context above because it really doesn't make much sense to me. Contraceptives in many regards should be considered essential medicines, I can agree with that in the same way I would view vaccines, they prevent something that is unwanted or undesired which could be harmful to the wellbeing of the patient. I would like to know more specifics that refer to these basic services mentioned above. If government funds are being used for family planning and not basic medical services than this country has a lot more problems than I thought. Family planning should be A PART OF health care and not a replacement for any other very essential parts of the whole. A well-rounded plan is necessary and I don't think that the government would consider reproductive health care before basic health care. Again, I will look into this further but the above sounds very much taken out of context or misquoted or something. They probably don't expect their supporters to look any further into the matter as they have already decided what they support and could care less about whether their information may be misleading. I really don't give a damn about those against the bill, I care about those who read through all of the sites, blogs, and articles in order to find out as much as they can so as to make an informed decision on whether to support the bill or not.
Know Your Options
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
nice! let's support the bill!!
To say the church has no business in being involved in government politics is absolutely wrong. Isaiah 9:6 tells us that the government will be on Jesus' shoulders. Whom do we like to lead this country? Are the jueteng lords,the drug lords and those politicians whose morals are rotten? I think if we disagree with the stand of the Church regarding the opposed RHB, we should not exclude God from politics. Let's just concentrate on RHB. Thanks and God bless!
Caleb and Joshua,
Actually, you are wrong my friend. To say that modern government should be influenced by outdated mythological ideals is ridiculous, it's the 21st century for crying out loud. And then you proceed to quote the bible by saying that the government will be on Jesus's shoulders. Hate to break it to ya bud but Jesus has been dead for over 2,000 years and being as such, I don't think we'll be seeing him on the presidential ballot any time soon. To say that is to isolate the muslims and other religious groups that live in the Philippines. The church has it's place but allowing it's involvement in politics is forcing its beliefs and ideals upon those who don't believe in it, such as myself. No one ever said to empower drug lords or corrupt politicians and just because a government official isn't Christian doesn't mean that they have rotten morals. Pardon my sarcasm but clearly you must see it from my perspective and the perspective of those of us who view religion and God as a man-made creation of ancient cultures. These differences in religious views are what separate us from one another when we should be focused on things that are real and tangible that can unite us all. Try watching National Geographic or the Discovery Channel, it might open your eyes to what is "reality", proven science not mythology. I am, in fact, concentrating on the RH Bill despite what you may think and the main opposition to the bill is hardcore Christians and their blind faith which hamper social progression. Anyway, why would you accept a religion as your own when it was forced upon your nation by your captors who enslaved your people for hundreds of years? Did they convince you that your previous faith was somehow wrong? That it was too primitive? Your statement of "if we disagree with the stand of the Church regarding the opposed RHB, we should not exclude God from politics" doesn't make sense, it contradicts itself. If we disagree with the churches' opposition to the bill, all that means is we don't agree with their stance, not that God should be a part of politics. The concept of God is completely separate from politics because it cannot be proven with any grain of evidence. If you think this is wrong and that there is any shred of evidence then perhaps you underestimate the power of the mind in regards to the "placebo effect" which can be seen around the world with these so-called "faith healers". Politics and government is an omnipresent force of progression towards improving society as a whole and is, in fact, very real. Without a governing body at this point in our history, there would be chaos, anarchy if you will. Without religion, there would be faith in each other, in humanity, and we would solve our problems within ourselves instead of relying on prayer to a deity that may or may not be there at all to solve our problems. SCIENCE IS LIFE :=D
Why discussing many bills after all this will dis obeyed, only the 10 commandments we cannot follow!!!?.. so why passing so many bills?!!!
WE ARE ALL RATIONAL HERE IN THIS WORLD WE KNOW WHAT IS WRONG AND RIGHT, IF THE ANIMALS CAN FOLLOW THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE THEN WHY CANT WE FOLLOW THE GOOD AND LEAVED THE RIGHT!!!...
AFTER ALL WE PEOPLE CREATING AND DESTROYING OUR OWN LAWS AND BILLS THAT IS WHY THERE IS SO MANY SOURCE OF CONFLICT...
IF THIS IS THE PEOPLES DESTINY THEN LET IT BE!!!.. IF THIS IS A CHALLENGE TO US THEN LET IT BE!!!.. SO THAT MOTHER NATURE, POLITICS AND THE DIVINE LAW WILL BE BALANCED!!!.. THANKS!!! GODSPEED!!
Louie, I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say as your English leaves a lot to be desired. And why all the CAPS? I don't believe that we are all rational, otherwise there would be no crime. Yes, most of us know the difference between right and wrong and good and evil but that really isn't the issue here. Yes, I agree that we are constantly passing and repealing bills, but someone needs to stand for things that are just and rational and protect those that may not be informed or educated on the subject. That is exactly what I am trying to do here with this blog. Conflict can be a good thing as it allows all of us to argue in favor of our point and possibly influence others. Politics will NEVER be in balance with mother nature and humanity for that matter but we can get closer if we open our minds and unite towards the good of a society. Religion is not the word of God, it's the word of man, and being as such it cannot be taken as infallible or as "divine law". The people's destiny lies with the people and what they choose for themselves and shouldn't be left up to fate, we create fate, karma or whatever else you'd like to call it and just letting things be won't solve a thing. I won't just let it be as long as I am an independent researcher and know that my knowledge and insight can steer others in the direction that I feel is an absolute necessity.
has the Philippine Roman catholic culture destroyed the Filipino's self-reliant attitude and as a result made him coward in mind and in spirit?
Jhoanne, I wouldn't exactly say that, it seems a bit extreme. Yes, I don't like Christianity, I'm not gonna lie, I think it keeps people subservient. That's not saying cowardly, just perhaps a bit backwards in their ways of thinking. Spiritually, I find nothing wrong with anyone having faith, I have faith, just not in religion. The Filipinos faith in Catholicism is strong to a fault when it continues to hamper social progression.
Section 12, Article II of the Constitution mandates the State to protect the life of the unborn from the moment of conception. The aftereffects of these contraceptives and devices clearly endanger rather than protect the life of the unborn and therefore run counter to the constitutional precept.
The pills women take are abortifacient in nature, and it has been proven.
Section 12, requiring reproductive health education of children from Grade 5 to fourth year high school, interferes with the inherent right and duty of the parents in the rearing and education of their children and the development of their moral character in accordance with their religious beliefs and convictions.
I am an educator in a private school, and i have seen pamphlets of sex education in some public schools - two naked women, one on top of the other. Now what does it say about morality? And teaching kids as early as 5th grade how to use a condom with the use of a banana.
Parents who send their kids to public schools sadly cannot complain about what is being taught in school, and what exactly these 5th graders would do after finding out the use of a condom? We can never say what would happen next. Again, another strike against morality.
Section 17, compelling employers to provide reproductive health care services, supplies, devices, and surgical procedures, infringes on the religious beliefs and convictions of individuals especially Catholics whose doctrines give the highest value to human life.
Doctors can get away with it as long as they would refer the "patient" to another doctor. Its like saying "hey, i have an enemy over there, could u kill him for me?" and the other person goes" no, i dont kill, because its against my morals, but i can refer you to someone who can kill your enemy" isnt it the same thing?
Doctors would say "we cure diseases, we treat diseases." But do we even think that having a baby is never a disease? THe bill would say they are anti-abortion, but these artificial contraceptives are not 100% safe. As a result, this could lead to abortion.
The same is true with Section 21 (a) par. 1 that compels health care providers to provide their patients with health care services which they believe are contrary to the teachings of their religion.
Section 21 (a) par. 2 allows a spouse to undergo ligation or vasectomy without the consent or knowledge of the partner. This intrudes into the and undermines the inviolability of marriage as a social institution. It desecrates the sanctity of family life and weakens the family as a basic autonomous social institution founded on marriage.
One of the bedrocks of marriage is communication. What kind of respect for the sanctity of marriage this bill gives?
Section 21 (a) par. 3 permits children who are still minors (and therefore under parental authority) to seek reproductive health care services without their parents' consent. This clearly undermines parental authority and invades the sanctity of family life.
and by the way, Science acknowledges the fact that it has its own limitations. :)
I'm amazed that I'm approving all these comments from people who aren't even hubpages members, "what are you afraid of people?" Hush, yes it's fine that you are quoting sections from a Catholic-based constitution, which obviously needs revision from the looks of it, but your comments suggest religion over personal freedoms and I, for one, cannot agree with you at all or the constitution for that matter. Plain and simple, the population of the Philippines is ridiculous and growing WAY TOO FAST without signs of slowing down. We have managed to cram over 93 million people into a very small land mass, You don't see anything wrong with that? You don't see anything wrong with poor families having 7, 8, 10 children or more. I do! How can these children become proactive participants in society without any decent education. If the RH Bill doesn't pass than we have just doomed this country to become poorer and poorer, it's inevitable. By the way, there is nothing wrong with artificial contraception, it can't endanger a life that doesn't even exist yet. Hey, let's just continue to have careless sex and have too many kids and pass on all of our STDs like a plague, sounds like fun, doesn't it? You know, I respect everyone's opinion but you brainwashed religious freaks need to stop wasting my time, you are stuck in the dark ages. We are in the 21st century now so get over it, the times are a changin'! Sex ed says nothing about how to put a condom on a banana, at least mine never did. But what is wrong with teaching responsibility, would you rather have those teenage girls get pregnant? You all should think about that before writing your replies on MY BLOG. If you have a problem with that than write your own. If you wish to challenge me, YOU WILL LOSE! When religion prevents social progression, we have problems. You Christians and your "morals" frankly sicken me. I have incredible morals and I didn't grow up with religion, my parents knew better. I an an active member in society, a student, and environmentalist, a volunteer, and donate to charity as well as other things any person of good moral character that cares for his fellow man would do, so go ahead, call me immoral. I and all of those around me know what kind of man I am. If you all want to continue believing in a system of rules that were created almost 2 thousand years ago, be my guest, but don't drag the rest of us down with you. Yes, science does have limitations as it's impossible to know everything but at least science seeks truth and fact, not opinion and theories like religion. One day when we have all evolved past this stage in our history, we will look back and see that all truths were right in front of our faces the whole time, not in some fictional deity.
haha! im in no fight here. there's a comment box, and i simply posted comments. i did not accuse you of being immoral. i didnt even judge you as a person despite how contradicting our beliefs are. i thought of this blog as something healthful in terms of exchanging points of view, rather than entering a fight.
anyway, religion and morality are two different thing. and believe it or not, i am setting aside religion here. This bill hampers morality.
My previous comment was quoted not from any religious constitution, it is the bill itself and i just gave emphasis on what is wrong with the bill.
how do you define careless sex, by the way? and your issue about STDs, why have sex with someone who has contracted a disease? Oh! i forgot! its the 21st century!!! people sleep with anyone, anywhere! talk about being careful! my point here is we, citizens, should be responsible. and using rubbers doesnt make s responsible enough to avoid the dangers of sex such as early pregnancy, STDs, etc.
I am setting aside religion here. this is an issue about morality.
i know you are highly concerned about the poor. but poverty is a different issue. There are better ways to fight poverty, and not a piece of condom would do that.
Chill!
Wow. My eyes hurt from all that hubhub. Morals? Yeah. Nothing immoral about sticking drain pipes into a womb to suck out the life of a living being.
Yeah, Jesus has been dead for over 2000 years, and His name probably won't be in ballots anytime soon, too. No argument there. But heck, I'm impressed. That dead guy inspires millions of people to do good, be moral and institute charities. Much, much better than your leaders who are pushing this bill. The same people whose names are gonna appear on election slates.
This country doesn't need this bill. This bill is a pathetic shortcut your leaders are willing to take because of their refusal to do anything about corruption. We wouldn't need this bill if we had good education or good healthcare. We wouldn't need this crap if we weren't sucking up to every foreign leader who lands on our tarmac. We wouldn't need this crap if congressmen did their jobs instead of watching Pacquiao fights in NV.
I refuse to support this bill because it embodies everything that is wrong with humanity. Family planning, I am in favor of. We have enough people who are a waste of good oxygen, as it is. But to kill a human being, for what? Population control? I wouldn't be so proud of my "morals".
P.S. It is one thing to not believe and another to insult a faith. The world's population, predominantly, has faith in a deity/ies. And as a writer(?), I think you have that responsibility to respect other people's side on such a sensitive area.
I actually wasn't directly reacting to you, I get a lot of crazy comments on some of the other places that I post this blog so I apologize if I seemed harsh or confrontational. I guess what I'd like to know is what is immoral about the bill? I usually associate those who attack it as those heavily involved in the Catholic Church. It's true, you didn't mention religion and that's my bad for lumping morality and religion together in this case, which we all know are considerably separate from one another. As far as the careless sex thing goes, I think it's better to be safe than sorry and nothing is going to stop people's promiscuity. After all, it is the 21st century like we have both mentioned. I guess I may get a bit over defensive at times because of how important I feel the bill is. Are there specific parts that you feel that are immoral. Overall, I can't see it that way but I certainly will entertain other perspectives. I'm not really talking about fighting poverty, I talking more on the lines of reducing the amount of children born into the world of poverty. Of course, fighting it is a different issue and is more along the lines of new government programs and new jobs or job training and placement programs. I know you didn't accuse me of being immoral but it has been insinuated by others in the past because of my opposition to religion and not my actual morals. I actually really love what you said about us citizens being responsible but the problem is people are not, especially when they aren't educated on how to be responsible. That is the best solution, I whole-heartedly agree, but the situation is dire and I believe the bill is essential at this point in time, and probably for some time to come until most people actually become responsible. With STDs, well, you never know who has one and at least condoms are 97+ percent effective when it comes to prevention. I mentioned religion in my reply because you mentioned religious beliefs many times in your reply before. It's not you that I have a problem with, it's those religious beliefs that I have a problem with. I will continue on my quest of enlightenment by uncovering all the truths that directly contradict religion as I find most to be backwards in their theories, often times preventing social progression. Some may say that morals don't change over time and well, I would agree but not all that seemed right and just at one time should necessarily be so today. Though shall not kill, steal, commit adultery, etc., those shouldn't change but some other ones may be questionable. These will always be in debate and I am not going to get into detail about what I think is moral or immoral because it's far too open-ended and will always bring about arguments. I just want a system in place that affords women, couple, families, etc., the knowledge and freedom to choose what's best for them, whether others think it's immoral or not. After all, it's not "other people's" problems, it's only within those in the situation itself and they should be able to have a choice. No choice = no freedom, and I don't want to live in a world like that.
Wildcard, you seem to be focused on abortion and I don't think that is a part of the bill. From my research, abortion is separate from the bill. I support it mostly for the education it provides and the care it enables to those that cannot afford it. I only support abortion in the most extreme of cases, such as rape. In a nutshell, it's the family planning aspect I find most desirable. I know it does seem that I'm attacking people's faiths but when I say religious freaks, I'm referring to those who cannot see outside the confines of their faith, those that answer questions with a quote from the bible instead of an "actual" answer from within. When I say I am sickened my Christian morals, well, I am, but only because I find most people to be hypocritical and don't practice what they preach. They don't allow for any progressive thinking a a very modern world with very modern problems. Sorry to the Christians out there, there's nothing wrong with your faith, I just don't agree with it. Living a good life for fear of things to come (God fearing) is subservient. Live life for yourselves, your family, your friends, your community, and do good things because you enjoy doing so because it's the right thing to do, not because your religion tells you to. The teachings of Jesus, Buddha, etc. are certainly inspiring and it absolutely is amazing how they have transcended the test of time, no doubt but you have to wonder how much of these teachings are still intact. Christianity wasn't started by Jesus, it started hundreds of years after his death. So, how much of the religion itself can actually be based on his teachings if he wasn't there and most of his life and his sermons were undocumented. I have no problems with faith, I said it before and I'll say it again, but it's a personal choice, not one that should affect the laws of an entire nation. Governmental issues and religious issues are separate. If people don't like the bill for religious reasons, well, they should not avail the benefits it provides, it's as simple as that. But those of us that like what it provides should be able to use it. You are actually agreeing with me because it's the family planning aspect that is most desirable. I also very much like free birth control for those that cannot afford it. Yes, perhaps it's a smokescreen for the extreme corruption of our public officials, I won't deny that at all, but it's way better than nothing and nothing is pretty much what we have right now.
indeed! the bill claims that it is anti abortion. but isnt it that the effects of the ineffectivity (if there is such word) of contraceptives could lead to abortion?
Hush, well I imagine it could but not if abortion is illegal, unless someone were to go as far as to get a back alley abortion which is far too dangerous and unsanitary. Contraceptives are never 100 percent so there's always that possibility. I think the word you were looking for is "ineffectiveness".
PS- On a side note, we all have our issues as no one is perfect and I guess sometimes I get a little personal with my writing and replies so I hope that I haven't offended anyone on here. That's always been one of my weaknesses but please don't let it deter from the content of my writings. I love replies because I know people are reading my words and it means a lot to me, regardless of what side you are on. Many seem to believe in a world that is more idealistic than my own perspective and I feel that things should change over time and in some cases, sooner than later. While no answer is a perfect solution, it can be an improvement and that is what I hope to accomplish. Ideally, parents should teach their children about sex in a manner they feel is fitting but from my experience here in the Philippines, that just doesn't happen for whatever reason. I had both the experience of learning from my parents and from school and BOTH were fitting. From my parents, I learned more on a personal and emotional level and from school, I learned more on a technical or biological level. If the schools teach about how to have a satisfying sex life, they are stepping beyond their boundaries. Again, maybe you don't agree with the bill as a whole because of some parts of the whole but I would like to hear about the specifics that are offensive or immoral. Many first world countries have similar bills in effect and they are considerably effective from what I've seen. We aren't going to stop careless sexual practices but we can stop ignorance. If the parents don't teach their children about sexual education, when will they learn? Will it be too late when they finally do?
another thing that saddens me is the fact that the govt will be dispensing contraceptives to barangays, and whether i like it or not, they will be taking the budget from our taxes. Going back to morality, its something that i know for sure is against my morals, yet i am obliged to pay for it. Id be happier if my money will be spent on something more beneficial like books for public school students, housing, etc., and not just a pack of rubbers.
If the government has enough money to pay for contraceptives, why does it not pay for better education, better teachers, better facilities? My goodness, are Filipinos so driven to have sex that they can't control themselves once in a while? There is something that is a very good contraceptive: SELF-CONTROL.
We should consider 'problems' like this when we are done solving a more imperative problem. Has our education system gone sour? Will there ever be time when those street children whom you see everyday, begging and selling sampaguita, will go to school and have a chance to study?
Do not tell me that they aren't important. What will this bill do for them? Okay, they'll have less siblings to care for, but what does that matter? They're too poor RIGHT NOW. We should help them actively, by giving them an education and a better home, rather than passively by preventing a sibling or two.
I swear, people are getting crazier and crazier by the SECOND. If they expect sex education to help slow down the increasing population of the Philippines, then they have a totally different thing coming. If KIDS are taught this sort of stuff at school, naturally, won't they be curious? Won't they think,
"Hey, I know how to do it- so how can anything bad go wrong? Anyway, it's just once, I'm sure nothing really serious will happen."
How sick is that? And we're talking about GRADE 5 STUDENTS here- some may be even younger! I'm agreeing with Hush on this one- this bill IS attacking morality and religion doesn't have anythign to do with it. If kids as young as twelve years old start having random, carefree sex, how the hell is the Philippines going to cope? Have the government officials even put some SERIOUS thought into this?
Perhaps I must have the wrong idea about what sexual education really is in the Philippines. Sex ed never made me curious or anyone else for that matter and, in fact, it reinforces abstinence. I was taught about VD/STDs, birth control, the life cycle of a fetus, hormones, etc. etc., essentially nothing that would lead us to engage in premature sexual intercourse. If you haven't personally had sex ed. (I've had it twice) then you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You are allowing your mind to be filled with urban myths and horror stories and that won't be the case with a "proper" education. To Rachel, I hear you on that, it seems a bit backwards but part of the bill is the education in question, not just for school aged children but also for adults and couples. Self control is one of those things that you either have or you don't and no amount of education is going to change that. Yes, I question that all the time when I see or hear about poor families here with 10 kids or more, "What the hell is wrong with those people?" I think to myself, "They are dooming those poor kids to a life of poverty". If there was an option for better government programs that support the street children and allow them the right to a decent education, I would start waving the Filipino flag around because that would indeed be a proud day. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening, the government officials are far too corrupt to give a shit about the poor. They pretend to care...but they don't. I think population reduction in the impoverished sector is more of a side effect than a direct intension, like you said, passive. However, there are some other very noble and important parts that we shouldn't ignore, ones that help whether people want to accept them or not. The US has a similar stance, it has for a while, and it has been working considerably well for the most part. Yes, we have quite a bit of teenage pregnancy, but it's really a minor issue as a whole because we have the education and are informed on how to make the right decisions for ourselves. Sex education does not empower anyone to have sex, it educates on the consequences not the benefits. Curiosity will not be created by showing 5th graders what syphilis looks like, or genital warts, or the pain of labor, I would say a big NO on that one. I said it once and I'll say it again, if you don't teach your children about sex, who will? The answer is no one, or even worse, themselves after they get pregnant because they didn't know what a condom or diaphragm is. Go ahead, let them throw away their lives because you were too embarrassed or too irresponsible to teach them yourselves. At least the government is trying and is allowing us the freedom of choice. I am going to starting inviting some supporters of the bill to offer some insight of the Pinoy kind. Perhaps I may be prejudiced having grown up in a first world country where this "issue" in question is not an issue at all, it's a part of our culture and an accepted part of our educational system and I, for one, am a better person for having experienced these BENEFITS first-hand!
I think that parents should teach their children about sex. One of the things that Sex ed would do is dispel all the myths that students have about sex. It would stop the glorification of sex, I think, because who wants to have fantasies about STDs? I only dislike the part of the bill which allows people to get vasectomies and ligation without asking the spouse. It seems like it's encouraging a breach of trust.
I do think the Filipinos need family planning,and sex ed. If this bill IS passed, I hope that they work out the kinks. But I wish the government would focus on other important things, especially education.
Rachel, I whole-heartedly agree, there will be kinks and it would be wonderful in the gov would focus more on education, environment, the economy, infrastructure, etc. The vasectomy and tubal ligation thing is a little tricky. I believe that it is undermining the trust between a couple if the procedure is done without the other's knowledge but couple's should talk about that beforehand. If not, then they have bigger problems then worrying about birth control. I think I know what they mean, they don't feel that the spouse has to be present as the person getting the operation is an adult and can decide for themselves. If it was required then it would sort of be like having to ask permission from your spouse when it should have already been decided amongst the couple beforehand. Perhaps there's a more tactful way of presenting it, I don't know, maybe that the couple should undergo some sort of couples guidance session with a doctor to discuss their intentions first and the doctor will then sign off on it, giving them the okay to get the surgery. Of course, then you're talking about more money that the gov doesn't necessarily want to spend but I think it would be effective in this case.
Generally, all the problems go back to government corruption. On an off note, who do you think is the least corrupt of the candidates? I personally wish Teodoro wasn't running with GMA and EDU MANZANO. Ugh.
Lgali says:
9 months ago
nice article