Why the RH Bill is not pro-poor as it claims to be and why it is not compatible with being Catholic
Here is a response to the "14 Atenean Professors" who are usurping the name of the school from the Pro-Life advocates:To be an Atenean, a student must abide by the rules and regulations of the school, otherwise, Ateneo may expel any student found guilty of violating these, especially the major ones. It is unfortunate that 14 professors of the Ateneo do not apply the same principle to the
Catholic Church.
They arbitrarily proclaim that one can still be a Catholic even if one does not obey her moral teachings. This is sad because too many think that being Catholic is merely an identity one assumes when baptized into the Catholic Church, without adhering to her teachings.
Facts Not Considered by the Atenean Professors:
1) Correlation of Contraception to Abortion
Moreover, these professors also fail to see how abortion is the inevitable consequence of a culture that is permeated with contraceptive use. This is happening in many countries today. The widespread distribution of oral contraceptives beginning in the 1960s facilitated the onset of the so-called "sexual revolution". A few years later, abortion on demand became legal. The fact is when people who do not want to have a baby have sex, the ultimate alternative if an unwanted pregnancy occurs is abortion. And this will surely happen because no contraceptive claims 100% efficacy.
2) Reproductive Health 5043 Cannot Be Pro-life, Pro-women and Pro-poor
The bill cannot be pro-life because of many sections in the bill that promote harm than health, promote injustice rather than a greater good, and do not respect the solemn union of spouses in marriage.
Most contraceptives carry scientific proof of serious medical side-effects. The Pill for example, can cause hypertension, brain diseases, etc. IUDs can cause perforation of the uterus.
Some contraceptives are abortifacients. That means they prevent implantation of a fertilized egg.
Neither is the bill pro-women because it makes them available for sex anytime the man wants it. Too often, especially in depressed areas, the woman is forced to have sex by abusive husbands, who are often alcoholics and/or drug-abusers. In the long run, it is again the women who suffer from the physical consequences of contraceptives and the emotional depression coming from sexual abuse.
Additionally, how can it be pro-poor when the P2B initial funding will be allocated to contraceptives, instead of food on their tables, or jobs for their livelihood, or education for their children?
3) RH 5043 does not deserve to be elevated to a National Policy
In spite of the absence of a Reproductive Bill, the Local Government Units are passing Ordinances on Reproductive Health; the DOH has without restraint implemented 'Ligtas Buntis Program' and spearheaded a massive distribution of free condoms and contraceptives, gave monetary incentives to people who would undergo vasectomy and ligation in health centers all over the country; the DepEd since the early 90's has incorporated a Sex Education program for public schools; and some NGOs like Gabriela, have conducted free ligation and vasectomy in
depressed areas.
SWS Survey – A "Convenient Truth"
The proponents of the bill conveniently use SWS to justify their agenda. SWS may not be a reliable source of information regarding the survey they conducted on the reproductive health bill. The question asked in the survey about the RH Bill is not neutral. You can check
it out for yourselves at http://www.sws.org.ph/
Ang "Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2007" ay isang panukalang batas sa mababang kapulungan ng kongreso na magbibigay ng katungkulan sa gobyerno na magtaguyod ng programa ukol sa responsableng pagpapamilya o responsible parenthood sa pamamagitan ng sapat na impormasyon sa publiko at pagakakaroon ng mga ligtas, legal, mura at de-kalidad na serbisyong na pang-reproductive health sa mga taong may gusto nito. Kayo po ba ay PABOR o HINDI PABOR sa panukalang batas na ito?
It is obvious that this kind of question was designed to put the Bill in a favorable light by using words like "responsible parenthood", "safe, cheap and high quality", and "to people who want it" (implying freedom of choice). However, it did not mention that doctors, health workers and employers will be compelled under penalty of fines and/or imprisonment, to distribute or promote contraceptives, without respect for their religious beliefs and convictions. Neither did it say that children from grade 5 to 4th year HS will be taught the "use and application" of contraceptives and condoms, without considering what their parents may feel about these things.
No wonder then that the survey always shows favorable results. The question, and the survey in which it was used, is highly DECEPTIVE. In another survey, "SWS Survey for the Forum for Family Planning and Development" (http://www.sws.org.ph/
asked regarding the following statement:
The usage of legal contraceptives like condoms, IUDs, and pills can also be considered as abortion.
The above statement deliberately contains a factual error. Many know that condoms do not abort. Yet it is lumped together with IUDs and pills which are abortifacients. Any person who does not know this but knows condoms do not abort will most likely disagree with the statement. Under these circumstances, the credibility of SWS is therefore questionable since the questions put forth seem designed to favor support for the RH Bill.
More importantly, surveys can never be the basis for moral decisions. Morality can never be voted upon; it is never arbitrary, especially if it does not lead to life or to the source of all life. Today's culture of relativism tells us that moral right depends on numbers. This is a lie!
As with regards to the statistics they gave, what is needed, among other things, are the proper education of couples with regards to the value of marriage, spousal relationship, responsible parenthood and the use of natural family planning methods (like the Billings Ovulation Method) that do not have any harmful side-effects, have a higher success rate than artificial means, and foster deeper communication, care and respect between couples. The Legislators must also enact laws that will promote the availability of affordable and improved pre-natal, delivery and post-natal services for indigent families; and focus on addressing the causes of mortality rates, primarily, insufficient nutrition, safe water and a cleaner environment.
It is dangerous when people from credible institutions like the Ateneo and SWS are misleading the public against the Catholic Church. It is important during these times to be founded on absolute truths to guide our moral values. #
posted by rek @ 2:41 AM
4 Comments:
I must say this piece is both a concise yet very comprehensive take on the Ateneo professors’ position.
I have read their 16-page position paper myself and have wondered why it contained all hossanas yet it avoided to analyse its obvious flaws as you have posited above. I had expected that a position paper coming out of the academe will be inclined to point out both the strengths and the weaknesses, even as it may recommend approval overall, with reservations. There are no critical reservations at all in the Ateneo professors’ position paper, or they merely chose to gloss it over, which is a sad dissapointment as I had expected a position that bears the balance of academic discipline.
I’d like though if I may, to add a 4th item to your already comprehensive list: The curtailment of religious freedom. It is enshrined in our constitution and redounds to a freedom to act or not act according to one's conscience. The prohibitive and punitive provisions puts a coercive nature to the bill, in fact negates conscientious objection, through prohibitions and coercive aspects on : requiring referrals from conscientious objectors (sec 21 a-5); mandatory Rh education (sec 12); and freedom of speech (sec 12).
While the professors’ position paper is entitled “CATHOLICS CAN SUPPORT THE RH BILL IN GOOD CONSCIENCE”, it becomes clearly ironic that the bill itself coerces Catholics acting in good conscience. It is also the height of irony that the professors have not seen the contradiction, or refused to do so.
Thanks and more power.
Respectfully,
1) there is a disclaimer both at the very beginning and somewhere at the end of the position paper that clearly states that the view of 14 "ateneo professors" do not necessarily reflect the views of the institution. In fact, they clearly mention their acknowledgement of the controversy their position paper is going to invoke. Nonetheless, the need for clarity and information, consistent with the purpose of the RH bill itself, is what made the position paper possible.
2) The use of contraceptives, as proposed in the position paper and the RH bill, is not vaguely stated. It is repeatedly stipulated that these methods are to be coupled with correct and sufficient information regarding both benefits AND risks, which includes reliability. If implemented properly, the RH bill will not be promoting promiscuity because recommendation to use contraceptive will be coupled with warnings regarding these methods' lack of reliability. It still leaves for the filipino to responsibly make the choice to have sex when they know clearly that there is a chance that their preferred method of contraception could fail. Ergo, while the correlation of contraception to abortion is a valid statistic, it assumes that the use of these contraceptives is irresponsible, which is clearly not proposed in the RH bill.
3) Moreover, the repeated emphasis on education and dissemination of sufficient information is a core principle in the RH bill, which the position paper espouses. Moral education will come together with the RH bill and therefore, while redundant, it sets in stone a coherent strategy of instilling responsibility and catholic decision making regarding sexual behavior, especially among the youth.
4) Finally, while it is also true that surveys are hardly a good source of proper information for moral decision making, it still is able to gauge opinion which cannot be dismissed simply due to its tendency for misinformation. This is a grave generalization because some opinions are formed from correct information as well. Moreover, the position paper relies on SWS not to make decisions but to support obvious social realities with statistical data. Their moral decisions are still supported by Church Social Doctrine, sound moral philosophy, economic theory and sociological study.
While I agree that Catholics should have one stand, indeed the presence of "factions" within our Church is alarming. On the other hand, to caricature well-reasoned positions damages dialogue. The position paper of the ateneo-14 has its flaws, but most of those that you have pointed out to be its flaws are not.
Finally, position papers, bills and opinions are never final. The beauty of dialogue and democracy is precisely that a multitude of people can come together different and emerged roughly the same. A good democracy is not a people divided in opinions but a people who start our divided but are willing to come together and emerge united, whether in compromise or what not. Essential to this is open-minded dialogue.
thank you.
You might experience side effects from taking generic Cialis, but these side effects will pass in less than two days. You might feel muscle pain or aches, a headache or experience a runny nose, but please note that besides muscle pain, which passes after a couple of days, all other side effects usually go away in just a few hours, leaving you only to enjoy the power of this drug.http://www.buy-cialis-online-now.com
I commend you for your stand against this dangerous bill. It not only endangers the unborn and the family, but even democracy itself. HB 5043 contains a very dangerous provision that restricts free speech by punishing "malicious disinformation" against the Bill. We already have libel laws. Why in the world is this provision needed? Obviously it is going to be used to stifle dissent.
I have made another position paper in response to the one from the 14 Ateneo professors. It can be found at: http://mamador.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/a-position-paper-against-hb-5043/
God bless!
Post a Comment
<< Home