Want to help save someone’s life without any pain on your part, cost, or even an ounce of effort? Just by signing your name and ticking a box may allow another human being a new lease on life thanks to your decision. Too good to be true? Not so. Interested to learn more? then read on…

Every year, thousands of people die from the lack of suitable organ replacements. The under-supply has even led to more unsavory, underground practices in the black-market trade for organs. A few years ago, there was an expose on a ring of human organ harvesters operating in third world countries preying on those desperate enough to sell a kidney while still alive. But such is the unfortunate result of sheer desperation. When it comes to survival, people may be driven to desperate deeds.

My father couldn’t have kidney transplant and had to endure the painful hemo-dialysis treatments until the day he died. Every other day, he had to endure having a thick needles being inserted into his fore-arm. These needles are many times thicker than a regular hypodermic needle for the volume of blood needed to circulate in and out a dialysis machine. This is the almost daily torture being endured by many patients suffering from kidney failure throughout the country. Many other families share the same problems or worse. Though some organs may be obtained through a living donor, most others like a heart may only be obtained from a deceased donor.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. Common sense tells us that there are more people dying every day with a few good organs intact than there are patients who actually need organ transplants. Its a simple numbers game. After those people die, those viable organs are no longer of any use to the owner but they are just left to decompose instead of being donated to a needy patient in need of a lifeline. Such is the cruel irony of wasted potential. Who would appreciate your gift more? a needy patient… or worms? Unless you’re into the practice of ancient Egyptian burial rites and prefer to have your internal organs all nicely pickled in their own little canopic jars awaiting physical rebirth, then there is nothing stopping you from making the right choice.

When you die, you no longer need your body parts so if there is a worthwhile cause that may benefit from it, why hesitate? And who better to understand this fact than people who have no superstitious baggage about needing their bodies intact for some magical resurrection in the future. And you have no worries about your “immortal soul” feeling some sort of pain feedback when your physical body is “desecrated” (in any case, your body will be quite literally violated anyway during the embalming process. Having watched the entire procedure done to the body of a loved one, I can tell you in all honesty that no matter how respectful the morticians do it, it is still not a “gentle” process having to work through the rather cumbersome rigor mortis.). And that is why I whole-heartedly implore atheists, skeptics, freethinkers and everyone else everywhere to participate in the local organ donation program. So stop watching horror movies like “The Eye” or worse…. “Repo! the Genetic Opera” that’ll give you the heebie-jeebies about organ transplants and start signing up!

Now here’s the tricky part – you can’t tell people that it’s OK to donate your body to a worthwhile cause after you’re dead. Ghostly apparitions and “messages from beyond” aside, you have to let people know ahead of time that its OK with you… while you’re still alive. I know its an awkward conversation to discuss with your family but think of the life you’re possibly saving. That’s why Operation HOPE (Human Organ Preservation Effort), an advocacy campaign launch by the National Kidney Institute is helping raise awareness to the general public. Hopefully, this will encourage people to talk about it and lessen the social taboos regarding conversation about death.

Without your family knowing that you support the program, chances are, when the times comes, your family would be in too much grief or would be hesitant to give away parts of their loved one’s body without specific permission from you, the original owner. You make a last-will-and-testament to tell people what you want them to do with the possessions you’ve left behind, but what about your most intimate possession… your own body? This is where the Organ Donation Card comes in…

We already have the RA 7170, the Organ Donation Act of 199l that formalizes one’s intent to donate one’s organs via an organ donor card. So how does this work?

1. You talk to your immediate family (or the people who can act as your legal guardian during emergencies) about it and even encourage them to participate as well. You will need witnesses to confirm your intent to join the program. These are the people who will inform the doctors that you are an organ donor when the time comes.
2. If you have a driver’s license, don’t forget to check the organ donation tick-box at the back. If not, you can get an organ donation card, sign your name and two other witnesses, preferably immediate family members. Indicate which parts you wish to donate or you can opt to donate everything. (Unfortunately, there is no check-box for opting to donate your schlong. So no matter how proud you are of yours and are hoping to give some poor schmuck some measure of joy by being the proud owner of a penile implant, tough luck there is no demand for dong donations…yet )
3. In the absence of a national organ donation registry (which hopefully they will establish in the future), carry this card in your wallet or in any place easily accessible.

It’s that simple. Just prepare the card and don’t give it any more thought. After you pass away, your death may yet give the gift of life to someone else. In a way, it’s a win-win situation. Just like an expectant mother who takes better care of her body because two lives are depending on it, think of it as an additional incentive to live healthier because your body may outlast even you

————————–

For more information, visit these links:

Want to find out who else are proud supporters of Operation HOPE? Chances are, your favorite celebrities are already one of them:  Why are all these stars asking you to carry this card?

FAQ’s on Operation Hope:

• Everything you need to know about organ donation
• DOH sets up RP-wide organ donor register

The National Kidney Institute’s Operation Hope website

Want to help save a life while you’re still alive? Consider donating blood too.

the birth of Another, the apathy of Otherness —

this altercation of the unconscious Self,

born of the irrational Yet:

the vague paradigm of Nothingness

as it unfolds, this phenomenon of alterity

embodied subjectivity of the ephemereal Doom

utterances coalesce with infinity;

impending Dread : anxious metanoia of Becoming

the All revolves, in this orbit of anamnesis

poignant reverie of what Was, and yet to Be

this-being-I, caught in the transitional flux ; between act and potency

the dynamic interpolation of mind and will; pervading Absence

— ,God; ? (It not is if what not is Be if what not is become of yet! )

I elude this context of  preconceptual knowing;

this frailty that succumbs to the Appearance

the unified multiplicity of understanding the Cogent:

derivatives of a preexistent Nous: language

and, as horizons, concrescence of reaching the Beyond

dissolution in the complexity of the Cogent, the face of its pull

all understanding converges in the evolution of mind

ideas converge in the Becoming;

but, not shall it Be for Yet it not is, what is yet not to Be

is not Shall, in the Be of the end and all of what is Yet —

to cry in the miscontextual co-promise; this Belonging

a failure of the messianic, redemptive fulfilment of what is bound to Become,

but is not Yet, 

— as faith dies, only to be reborn in the ashes of reason.

In the circle of freethinkers, it is common to question religion and government as some of the many things that are commonly taken on faith. What I find to be less common, however, is a critical analysis of monetary economics, which is pretty much the fundamental mechanism that is running the world today. I think that it is of utmost importance that we revisit economics with a fresh perspective, given the many different failures that the traditional model has been spitting out these past few years.

The foundation of modern economic models dates back to a time when self-interest, utilitarianism, and profit maximization were the basic assumptions underlying human behavior. However, recent sociological studies have relentlessly shown over and over again that these facets of ‘human nature’ simply do not explain enough about new phenomena that are emerging.

For example, nobody could have predicted the rise of Free and Open Source Software volunteerism a few decades ago. This community violates all of the old rules of economics by volunteering precious time to do sophisticated work on projects which are just given away to the public.

Another thing that the old model failed to take into account is the exponential growth of technology. In the past, as technology progressed and people were displaced from their jobs, it wasn’t too difficult to learn a new skill from which one could earn a living. Nowadays, however, automation has penetrated the marketplace so deeply that people are having trouble looking for things to do in order to survive, especially since technology moves so fast that what one may be studying now could be obsolete in just a few years. The glaring problem here is the direct conflict between employed human labor and technological advancement. Given the primary profit incentive of business, this means that people will continually be laid off and experience difficulty in sustaining themselves due to the creation of new automated machines.

This exhibits a crucial flaw in the system, wherein technology, whose purpose is actually to free humans from drudgery, becomes a problem for the common worker. Therefore when we apply new technologies, businesses end up with greater capacities for productivity, while consumers are left behind with smaller capacities for consumption because of job loss. Therein lies the paradox of having much to offer but not being able to give it simply because the people cannot pay for what they need.

Surprising as it may sound, the current state of technology is actually advanced enough to allow for a virtually complete automation of the basic industrial processes required to sustain human life. This means creating an abundance of goods so high that putting a price tag on them just wouldn’t make any sense. This could spell the emancipation proclamation of all mankind from the paradigm of “labor for sustenance” and possibly the end of money itself. At this point, I would like to introduce the concept of a resource-based economy, wherein the necessities of life are provided to people for free, without the need for employment.

Naturally, a critical thinker would respond with many different questions to this kind of proposal, which is a good thing. Some of the common questions posed deal with the timeless debate of “nature vs. nurture”. However, as can be seen from the links I have provided above, the human species does have a capacity to change and learn to be sociable. Another common question that arises deals with motivation. Simply put, what would motivate humans to do anything if they were provided all of their basic needs without a price tag? The answer is simple: stuff they like. Sure, some people would argue that most people would just lie around all day having fun. But is there really anything intrinsically wrong with that? It’s not going to be as if nobody will ever do science or develop technology as if those were terribly boring activities. There wouldn’t be any problem with someone just lying around for months at a time, although I’m pretty sure that that person would eventually get bored with inactivity and wind up looking for something to do.

Now there are probably tons of other issues that are unresolved in your mind, such as those of how to deal with property, government, crime, etc. Why wouldn’t there? This is a huge fundemantal shift of perspective from mainstream economics and having these questions in mind is simply an indicator of a skeptical, cautious, and healthy mind. However, in the interest of avoiding a tl;dr post, I shall leave you with some links that will hopefully cover a lot of your questions:

The Venus Project – an organization that advocates the implementation of a resource-based economy
The Zeitgeist Movement – the activist arm of The Venus Project; concerned primarily with spreading awareness of these issues (Here are the Philippine Chapter’s Facebook group and page)

I invite you all to join the movement. Like FF, it is open to people from all nationalities, religions, and walks of life, and also highly values reason and science as important tools for learning about our world.

Today is the feast of St. John the Baptist. And with our very own city of San Juan being named after the saint whose claim to fame is splashing other people with water, it’s no surprise that his feast day here is celebrated in the wettest way possible.

This year’s celebration seems to have been leveled up ten-fold. Whereas in the past few years, we would only see a few locals with their pails of water and garden hoses gleefully “baptizing” passers-by with water, this year we have actual firetrucks in every street corner literally deluging motorists and commuters alike in a torrential baptismal frenzy. With that much water power, one would almost hope that it would be enough to wash away all the evils in the country like Noah’s great flood. But alas, not even the might of Ondoy was enough to cleanse this nation of ours. So on we go with our lives, having no arks… yet still able to endure any amount of flooding that comes our way.

The first firetruck

Only in the Philippines will you see the government deploying all their firetrucks for merry-making (and making hapless commuter’s live miserable). Never mind if there was an actual emergency and all their firetrucks are out of water and stuck in the middle of the immovable crowd. After all, we are a christian nation and god will protect us. All it takes is a prayer to make everything better. In the meantime, the local royalty of the fiefdom of San Juan is much too busy celebrating their across-the-board win in the recently concluded elections. Their old mayor has just been promoted to congress and another family member takes his place in their own little kingdom. Enough reason to crank the celebration to the max. San Juan will not be outdone by Makati’s recent celebratory fanfare. What it lacks in budget, it will make up for in sheer chutzpah.

Yes, Filipinos really know how to party. Just like that those annoying neighbors who love the crank up their drunken karaoke parties till the wee hours of the morning. And its that same insensitivity that shows just how mature we are when it comes to merry-making. Sure, everyone’s having the time of their lives but what about those poor commuters who are just passing by on their way to work? Did anybody bother to ask them whether they’d actually want to participate in all the drenching? Did the revelers think of how those poor office workers will fare when they reach their offices soaking wet? Folks, this is not a simple sprinkling of water you can just air-dry in a few minutes, these guys are using actual fire hoses turned on full blast. The pressure alone from one of these babies will knock you off your feet, not to mention make you look like you swam to work. And if you think going to work with wet clothes suck, think of those carrying important documents that’s now reduced to wet rags.

The second firetruck

It’s a weird blend of one-third merry-making, one-third religious festival, and one-third politically-sponsored thank-you party. And just like its religious origins, things have a way to getting out of hand. People just get so caught up with the flow of things that they forget to even consider the collateral damage. Did the organizers think that everyone passing by is prepared for it and is a willing participant? Did they prepare alternate routes for those not in the mood to participate? You don’t get a choice. It gets shoved in your face whether you like it or not… just like religion. Most people didn’t have a choice of whether to get baptized or not since its done when they were still babies, they don’t get a choice of whether to get soaked when passing by San Juan, and they don’t get a choice whether they even agree with church-influenced national policies. Don’t have the same conservative views on sex as the Catholics? Tough. Think divorce is a feasible option in certain situations? Too bad. Don’t find anything wrong with same-sex marriage? Better luck next time. Feeling a bit more liberal with family planning, with contraceptives, sex-education? Sorry, no RH Bill for you still. It really doesn’t matter if you’re OK with it or not, whether you’re even christian or not, as long as the church has its way with Philippine politics, only church opinions matter and everyone has to play along.

Just like the deluge of today’s San Juan Day celebrations, the meaning of secularization in the Philippines has been washed way… in a torrent of baptizing water… coming from the hose of a government-owned firetruck.

Update: According to a GMA News TV article, Secretary Valisno was misquoted by the CBCP article: “The DepEd is not putting the sex education program on hold. Sec. Valisno clarified that no such decision has been made,” Malaya said. “It appears that she was misquoted in the CBCP article.”

An assistant secretary working for the DepEd also confirmed this when I spoke with her briefly at this morning’s hearing on the petition for a temporary restraining order on DepEd’s pilot-testing program. She also told me that we (civil society) will be invited to the forum to discuss the sex ed modules. If I can’t get some seats for you guys, you can be sure I’ll represent.

The GMA article also says that the plan to upload the sex ed modules to the DepEd website has been cancelled because it might be accessed by those who are not old enough and be corrupted by it. DepEd, I know your modules are controversial, but I’m pretty sure those horny kids could find something more sensational to be corrupted by.

When the CBCP meddles in government, it’s almost always a contest between democracy and theocracy. It’s certainly been the case in their recent “partnership” with DepEd as sex ed consultants. We’ve all been rooting for DepEd and the democracy that their sex ed program represents. But the game is over; score one for theocracy.

Thanks to pressure from the CBCP, DepEd has decided to suspend its sex ed program until after CBCP has given the go signal. “We decided to hold sex education module in abeyance until a final decision is made on the consulting process.”

That was Education Secretary Mona Valisno. Before deciding to suspend the sex ed program, she attended a mass in Manila Cathedral. She sat in the front row while Archbishop Rosales delivered a sermon:

“All of us in this cathedral are either teachers or students or collaborators of church. Ang misyon ng kristiyano ay ganito: isang engkwentro kay hesus, hindi mo maaaring ipagpalit mo ‘yun. [This is the mission of a Christian: one encounter with Jesus, which you cannot replace with anything.] This is addressed to all the schools, let them meet jesus, the compassionate person.”

Any doubts that Secretary Valisno (and her department’s sex ed project) was the target of that sermon was erased by what Archbishop Rosales did after: In front of all the teachers and students in attendance, he gave her a potted plant , which according to him, symbolized the sanctity of life. To me what the action symbolized is this: democracy sacrificed on the altar of theocracy.

Immediately I was reminded of COMELEC’s decision to disqualify Ang Ladlad. Ang Ladlad was not allowed to run for representation on religious grounds — for the religious bigots who made the decision, members of the LGBT community are immoral and are a danger to the youth. Yet Ang Ladlad was able to run, thanks to the Supreme Court’s more democratic ruling, one that obviously bears repetition (emphasis mine):

“Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that “[n]o law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At bottom, what our nonestablishment clause calls for is “government neutrality in religious matters.” Clearly, “governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.”

We thus find that it was grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. Rather than relying on religious belief, the legitimacy of the Assailed Resolutions should depend, instead, on whether the COMELEC is able to advance some justification for its rulings beyond mere conformity to religious doctrine. Otherwise stated, government must act for secular purposes and in ways that have primarily secular effects…

As far as this court is concerned, our democracy precludes using the religious or moral views of one part of the community to exclude from consideration the values of other members of the community.“

That decision was a victory not only for the LGBT community, but also for our country’s democracy, and the secularism that guarantees it. I hoped that the issue was controversial enough for the decision to echo in the halls of government much longer. But in less than three months, it appears the voice of secularism has already been silenced.

What’s happening now is essentially a repetition of COMELEC’s mistake. Even the language being used is familiar: “Anything that will not be in accordance with moral values then we will remove it,” said Secretary Valisno.

But who decides what is in accordance with moral values? Here’s an answer from an article on the CBCP website:

Valisno said they are willing to modify the contents of the program if the church should find topics that contradict Christian values.

Note that what Valisno actually said was “moral” values. But the indirect quotation on CBCP’s website makes it clear: as far as the CBCP is concerned, what is moral is what is Christian, and what is Christian is what the CBCP says it is.

So until the CBCP approves the sex ed modules, DepEds sex ed program is on hold. And from the CBCP’s initial assessment, it looks like sex ed is on hold indefinitely. Here’s CBCP spokesman Msgr. Pedro Quitorio:

“Marami kaming hindi sinasang-ayunan sa modules na ito. Sa pagtatantiya namin ay hindi ito pasado [There are many things in these modules we don't approve of. This program will most likely not pass.],” he said.

I can only imagine what kind of program will emerge from the CBCP’s censorship process. But one thing’s for sure: it won’t be the sex education program that our country needs.

So as far as sex education is concerned, theocracy 1, democracy 0. But maybe the game is not yet over. Maybe it’s only half-time. Secretary Valisno said that her department would upload the sex ed modules to the DepEd website for public scrutiny, in a way employing the public as sex ed consultants. I’m not sure how, but if this is going to be worth the effort, they’re going to find a way for the public to have a valid voice in this debate.

This may be her way of evening the playing field, giving everyone a say. But I’d like to see it as her way of recruiting allies. In the first half, the DepEd was alone in facing the CBCP, Ang Kapatiran, and all those other Pro-lifers. The DepEd’s going to need our help. I’m in, and I hope so are you. Let’s win this for democracy.

The CBCP began fulfilling their duty as sex education consultants by doing three things: (1) urging President-elect Aquino to scrap sex ed, (2) filing a class suit against Education Secretary Mona Valisno and Undersecretary Ramon Bacani, and (3) telling the DepEd (and anyone who will listen) that there shouldn’t be sex education in the first place.

The geniuses at Malacanang who thought consulting the CBCP on sex ed was a good idea made an obvious mistake: they weren’t being realistic. Why? Because the CBCP is not compatible with sex ed, DepEd, and reality in general.

The CBCP is not compatible with sex education. Asking the CBCP to be consultants on sex is like asking creationists to be consultants on evolution. Not only is the CBCP as ignorant of sex as creationists are of evolution, they have the same aversion toward the topic they’re supposed to consult on: both dogmatically ignore scientific evidence about said topics, both think that teaching said topics has lead to the moral degradation of our society, and both prefer that the public remain just as ignorant.

The CBCP is not compatible with the DepEd. The DepEd is a democratic, secular organization. The CBCP is a theocratic, religious organization. The DepEd is responsible for all Filipino citizens, while the CBCP, although it also tries to be responsible for all citizens, favors only Roman Catholics, ignoring the rights and beliefs of those who have different faiths, or who have none at all.

To implement its projects, the DepEd uses unbiased scientific evidence from experts around the world. To perpetuate its dogmas, the CBCP chooses only the evidence that is consistent with its myopic worldview.

The CBCP is not compatible with reality. By ignoring scientific evidence about sex and sex education, they are denying the truth; by making claims based on tenuous evidence or no evidence at all, they are spreading lies.

But apologists will say that they do consult experts, they do listen to evidence. Whose experts? Which evidence? The Vatican’s? Who can forget the Pope’s irresponsible comments about the condom?

They say that sex education will result in children being exposed to sex too early. The truth is, earlier than ever, children are not only exposed, they are bombarded by sexual ideas — from their peers, the media, video games, the internet, and so on. And this will happen whether or not our children are educated enough to deal with it. It is wishful thinking to think otherwise.

Another fallacy based on wishful thinking is the idea that sex education should be left to parents. How likely is it that a Filipino parent has accurate information on sex and sex education? How likely is it that a Filipino parent will actually talk to their children about sex properly, if at all? Just because the CBCP believes that parents should teach their children about sex does not mean that they will.

The spread of sexually transmitted infections, unwanted teenage pregnancies, the rapid growth of the population — these are real problems that need real solutions. If only the CBCP could stop its wishful thinking and finally accept reality, they will realize — sex education is the best real solution that we have.

Malacanang’s experiment has failed: making the CBCP sex ed consultants was a gross mistake. They have betrayed their partners not only by asking for the suspension of the project they’re supposed to work on, but by filing a class suit against the people they’re supposed to work with. Yet the appointment was a mistake from the start — a failed hypothesis. Their way of thinking is antithetical to the success of a secular, science-based sex ed program (or any secular, science-based program for that matter).

Malacanang must revoke CBCP’s appointment immediately. If the CBCP can be consultants on anything, it’s not sex education — it’s sex ignorance. But if the DepEd wants to keep them as consultants, the best way to go about it is this: measure progress by how much the CBCP is pissed off. If they’re filing lawsuits and pressuring politicians, you’re doing a great job.

The need for sex (education!) has been on my mind lately. You see this current furor about sex education to be done in schools. I don’t know what the fuss is all about – I remember being in Grade 5 or 6 and my homeroom teacher writing the words “penis” and “vagina” on the blackboard and proceeding to talk to the whole class about sex. And that was in a Catholic school run by Jesuits at that. I’ve been thinking about sex lately because of close friends having problems with their teenage daughters. I for one believe parents should talk to their kids about sex (please be more specific than just going on about the birds and the bees!). In these modern times when sexual promiscuity and having kids out of wedlock is no longer something to raise eyebrows about, I think the debate in the news about sex education in schools is way too much hype. For one, talking about sex does not mean condoning a sexual lifestyle. We can’t deny the fact that we live in quite modern times, and yes, more and more people are having sex (starting at a younger age than my 25 years!ahem.abstinence until absolutely, cannot completely control!). I remember a TV show about the sex education debate and a panelist putting it quite succinctly, “If you put a swimming pool in your backyard, shouldn’t you teach your kids how to swim?”

At a practical level, kids need to be taught about sex for their own good and protection. With sexual molestation and sexual perversion on the rise, sex education at its most basic level starts with telling kids that parts of their bodies are private. In a sense, I was teaching sex education to my Grade 2 students when I was handling Guidance classes as a Counselor several years ago (yup, me as a Sex Ed teacher!). The topic was teaching 8-year old boys about cleanliness and hygiene, but I segued the discussion to talk about how you keep your privates to yourself (the pressing incident at the time was that the kids were comparing their “soldiers” in the CR= funny, curious kids!). But on a serious note, I also tried explaining (ever so tactfully) how important it is that he is in control of his body, and that he has permission to refuse any unwanted touch. That if anyone does touch him, and it makes him feel uneasy or uncomfortable, he needs to tell that person, whether it’s someone his own age, someone he knows, or even if it’s an adult he might know, to stop. Then, he must go to a parent or someone older that he trusts, and tell about what happened. Horror stories abound about strangers in the mall, even older relatives, or cousins playing seemingly “innocent” childhood games, that I think such a talk is one a parent should have with one’s kids.

But what about teen-agers? Take out all the talk about spirituality and morality (though these are important mind you!) but at a practical, reasonable level, and what for me are my own personal views, I would stress 3 things about sex:

(1) It’s normal that we think about sex. Growing up means we have all these sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) raging inside us, and sex is nature’s beautiful way of keeping the human species alive and reproducing. I remember a co-teacher in HS (a Guidance Counselor) asking me (since I studied psychology daw = as if I had all the answers!) what he should tell students in Guidance Class about masturbation. I forgot what I told him exactly (!). But I do believe kids should be told that what they feel is normal, and that all those feelings are not “sinful” or not be taught to see sex as dirty.

(2) Take responsibility. Since the very nature of sex is for reproduction, then getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant IS a consequence when having sex. Basically, my personal take on the matter is (moral issues not withstanding), have sex if you believe you are old enough, mature enough, financially responsible enough to have a child! If there’s one thing that irritates me to no end aside from the question of sex education, is that other debate about birth control. I do remember Theology class on marriage and being taught about the Catholic Church’s premise on the rationale for natural family planning methods (and to a certain extent I do agree). But I also think we should be realistic. I believe women should have a choice about their own bodies, and that they be taught about other methods as well, so in this case, yes I am pro-choice (stopping short of abortion, I have seen from personal experience with close friends how the guilt one goes through is just not worth it). Girls, birth control is also your responsibility (don’t leave it up to the man! and I’m telling you – a month’s set of Trust birth control pills costs only Php49!). I also strongly believe Filipino men would do well to be informed about using condoms! (tsk, tsk, there ARE condoms of the ultra-thin variety where you can still feel pleasure!). So be safe!

(3) What about feelings? Ahh, a note of caution here. Sex increases attachment with someone so choose your partner carefully. Studies show the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin are released during orgasm, hormones that deepen feelings of attachment and make couples feel much closer to one another after they had sex. In a sense, sex does confuse the issue, in that you might not be sure altogether if you really love the person. Physical intimacy should be an expression of love, not the other way around. Sex definitely does complicate men-women relationships. Yup, maybe the old folks had it right: fall in love, get married, then have sex. Yeah right.

I really don’t profess to be an expert on sex. Or even love for that matter. But the above sentiments are indeed something I feel very strongly about. At the end of it all, all I can say is, instead of having sex….. Make love!

Morality is often equated with an absolute standard – religion and/or God – so atheists, agnostics, and other non-theists are sometimes viewed as people who lack moral standards. And why not? In a nation where a lot of people actually believe that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments – “Thou shall not kill…steal” – how indeed can someone who doesn’t believe in God be expected to tell right from wrong – or choose right over wrong? Someone who doesn’t believe in an absolute justice that metes out eternal punishment might be able to do evil things because they believe they can get away without any consequences.

But there are consequences, although they are not very obvious and immediate and one has to look far enough to understand. Even if a person thinks only of himself and what could be ultimately good for his own welfare, as long as he is rational enough he will apply the Golden Rule – which happens to be a very selfish rule by the way – and choose to do what is desirable rather than detestable according to one’s own standards.

For example, if a nonbeliever decides not to steal even when there is very little possibility of getting caught, it’s because he had somehow figured out a long time ago that stealing is such a lousy thing to do, and it’s not because of what he was taught in Sunday school or religion class. Stealing is wrong because it causes loss of property to others, and even if such loss doesn’t happen back to the thief or his loved ones, the highly evolved person will see that it will still bring more harm than good. He may not get caught now, but a lifelong habit of stealing will surely put him at risk of being distrusted by the people around.

But more importantly, he cannot bear to insult himself and his own self-esteem with the idea that he has to resort to stealing for his survival and prosperity. Freethinkers are often proud people; when one chooses for himself what he considers right and wrong instead of having some authority dictate it to him, he takes responsibility for his actions even in the absence of laws.

I believe that morality should be based on how certain actions benefit or harm individuals and society and not on the ‘revealed’ commandments of a deity whose existence still remains to be proved and whose ‘revelations’ are all hearsay. This comment on another article says it best:

The atheist’s morality of “do no harm” is actually much more complex than the theist’s “10 commandments” when actually put into practice. By no means, however, does this make the atheist’s morality inferior. Our morality is more nuanced, which many theists interpret as lacking principles, because they are unable to understand what isn’t spelled out exactly for them in a simple list.

The rational person knows that it is advantageous to himself to do things that benefit instead of harm others because while the temptation of undue personal gain at the expense of others may at first look attractive, in the long run he will have to pay the price. And if such inequity happens in a community often enough it will trigger even more injustice as people become desensitized to supposedly repugnant behavior.

Life is not a zero-sum game where each person’s gain necessitates an equal amount of loss to another; in nature and in society teamwork and cooperation have proven that it is actually possible for everyone to win, and that every now and then small civilized gestures go a long way and eventually trickle down to the pool of moral standards, gradually raising its level. And it only takes rationality – not religion – to realize that.

When classes start today, sex education will be integrated into the curriculum of 159 schools, while thousands of others will continue to lack this much needed education.

Meanwhile, the Department of Education (DepEd) continues to compromise its integrity by trying to appease their official sex ed consultants, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP):

In a letter to Bishop Odchimar dated June 4, 2010, DepEd Secretary Mona D. Valisno said their noble intention to introduce sex education in public schools “caused some misperception about our planned actions.”

Secretary Valisno said both the government and the Church “care for the welfare of our youth who are facing the realities of the modern times and who may not have control of the factors that could cause continuous degradation of our moral decadence in this era.”

She added she looks forward to seal agreements with the Catholic Church “on how to safeguard the physical and moral wellbeing of the country’s youth. She asked for an audience with Bishop Odchimar within the week.

When Valisno talks about “degradation of our moral decadence,” she panders to the bishops by using their language. And when she looks forward to sealing agreements with the Catholic Church on our youth’s moral wellbeing, she considers them more than just mere consultants — she grants them authority as gatekeepers of morality.

This has led to a castrated version of sex education — in both scale (only 159 schools?) and breadth (contraceptives not taught in sex-ed?). But it’s a start. Yet Valisno only succeeded in pilot-testing the program this year by ignoring Malacanang’s mandate to consult the CBCP — at least until classes open.

Now that she’s begun the consultation, I hope Valisno can take the pressure until June 30, when her term ends with Arroyo. And I hope that unlike Valisno, the next DepEd secretary won’t compromise too much in the wrong direction.

The practice of genital mutilation is still evident in various African cultures. The clitoris is removed and with that comes the possibility of ever experiencing sex in its fullest glory. The clitoris is packed with nerve endings and one could just imagine how painful it would be for a little girl to have this cut off. Female genital mutilation is considered barbaric in inhumane by almost all countries who subscribe to the idea of human rights.

Ironically, the male version of this procedure is not nearly as controversial. Male circumcision is done to babies as young as a few days old in hospitals despite the obvious lack of consent of the people involved. Much of the reasons set forth for circumcision are religious in nature. Later on though, there seemingly was an apparent increase in medical evidence to prove that circumcision had some benefits to it. Societies that mostly had circumcised males also tend to force uncircumcised males to make choices regarding their bodily integrity under duress.

While there are studies that prove that one’s likelihood of getting HIV and penile cancer are reduced; circumcision is still not the biggest factor in the likelihood of getting these devastating illnesses. It still lies in the person’s sexual practices and his ability to observe safe sex and/or abstinence and self-control. Circumcision is for the most part (pardon the pun), circumstantial as a factor. Hygiene could also be a factor, but with proper education and sufficient attention to detail; that problem could also be circumvented – no need for some radical surgery that would modify a child’s body forever before he even realizes what he lost!

Almost all Filipino men are circumcised. A handful probably had their foreskins removed as infants while a few had surgery when they were approaching puberty. Most boys probably got it over with to prove a point or be at the same state as their other circumcised friends are. To a certain extent, being circumcised or “tuli” makes one more of a man than an uncircumcised chap or “supot”.

The bottom line is everyone should have the ability to be in control of their body’s. Removing a body part – even just an inconsequential fold of skin (that by the way, is packed with nerve endings that could be great for sex) – should be a decision of the person and nobody else’s. Making the choice due to social pressures, fear of ridicule and other circumstances that could put one under duress is a blow to the autonomy of a person that should have when it comes to dealing with issues of body integrity.

Sex education will be pilot-tested by the Department of Education (DepEd) in several schools starting June. This news should have been great. But thanks to CBCP Meddling™, it’s merely good.

The long overdue sex education desired by most Filipinos will reach relatively few — only 80 of the almost 38,000 elementary schools and 79 of the almost 6,000 high schools. That’s a tiny drop in the ocean of students expected this schoolyear — 13.1 million in elementary, 5.6 million in high school. (source)

But if it were up to the CBCP, not a single student would get sex education at all. And we barely avoided this fate — Malacanang recently ordered DepEd to consult the CBCP on sex education. (Yes, seriously.)

But despite the disagreement of the newly appointed sex education consultants, Education Secretary Mona Valisno said the project would push through. She added that “consultations are now set to immediately start after the opening of classes.”

So they’ve so far ignored the CBCP’s protests. But what happens when our education department finally takes the CBCP’s expert advice? Will DepEd suddenly suspend sex education? Will they ensure that all scientific evidence and ethical advice passes the Roman Catholic Church’s standards? Will they encourage natural family planning or abstinence-only sex education?

Whatever happens, I don’t see any good coming out of consulting the CBCP. For starters, a lot of Filipinos are not Catholic. Even those who are don’t necessarily agree with the CBCP’s views on reproductive health — surveys have shown that most Filipinos want sex education in public schools.

And not only is this consultation a violation of our secular constitution, it’s just plain wrong. What kind of educational advice can you expect from an institution that doesn’t want sex education in the first place? Simply this: that sex is only moral when it allows the possibility of procreation by a husband and wife ; and that contraceptives do not work in preventing unwanted pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted infections.

This is most (if not al) of the advice the DepEd will get from the CBCP. Call it unscientific, simplistic — even stupid. But if sex education is to happen at all — if the CBCP is to allow it — this is necessary. One of the main reasons the CBCP politically campaigns against sex education is their assertion that the responsibility belongs not to the schools but to the parents.

But think about it. Where do most Filipino parents get their sex education? Which institution outside of schools obsessively teaches about sexual matters, wielding absolute ethical and scientific (they have studies) authority? The Roman Catholic Church. So the bishops are OK with parents doing the teaching because they’re teaching the parents anyway.

But what if these parents were to teach their children something unCatholic (read: secular and scientific)? What if children were taught at home that homosexual sex and contraceptives are not evil? Would the CBCP still think sex education should be left to the parents then? Of course not.

When the CBCP says it’s against sex ed in schools, what it’s actually saying is this: no one has the right to give sex education — except us. And with their recent appointment as DepEd consultants, they just got their chance. So finally — reluctantly — they will allow it.

Yet whatever the CBCP has done or will do to castrate sex education, our country has taken a step in the right (read: secular and scientific) direction. Whatever happens this year in DepEd’s pilot testing, things can only get better.

So I take it back. This is great news. Still, a part of me is reluctant. The sexual well-being of almost 20 million children and adolescents are being entrusted to an insular institution of bishops and priests. Why does this bother me?

The use of animals in our society is so normal that my choice to be vegan is often questioned and misunderstood. The idea of being vegan is just too radical for some. Their reactions are not exactly unfounded. Animal use is everywhere- the milk in your coffee, the pet hamster on the TV show you just watched, the leather in your watch strap, the gelatin in your halo-halo. So why be vegan? I throw the question back at you. Why not? Veganism is not just a diet, although going vegan can do wonders for your health. Veganism is not necessarily a religion-based code of ethics, although the ancient religion Jainism does prescribe Ahimsa or a path of non-violence towards all living beings. Even among vegans, we disagree about what the term vegan must mean, and we each project our own ideals onto the label. Must it be limited to the ethical motivation to be compassionate? Must it be inclusive of respect to your own health? What is not up to debate is that vegans abstain from any use of animals, animal products, animal byproducts, and animal excrements for food, clothing, medical research, entertainment etc in as much as it is practical and avoidable. The underlying principle is that we oppose murder and rape and other forms of violence and we see our use and abuse of animals as just that. These pre-meditated crimes are not acceptable just because they are committed against beings other than humans. Violence is violence. Rape is rape. Murder is murder. Suffering is suffering. Veganism is a way of life that acknowledges that version of our reality.

The core of veganism is the reduction of suffering and violence. It is crucial to emphasize that the violence against animals is not limited to the obvious aspect of slaughter.  It also includes the way in which they have been born and raised- or to be more accurate, the way in which they have been manufactured and stored. Standard practices in the industry include cutting off the beaks of chicks without anesthesia, castration without anesthesia, slamming down baby pigs who do not meet weight requirements on the floor, branding cattle with hot iron without anesthesia, killing and skinning animals when they are still conscious, not to mention the atrocities of their living conditions that basically confine them to a single area equal to their body size for all their short miserable lives. Through our use and confinement of them, they have become artificially disabled. They cannot flap their wings, milk their young, or run freely as they would in their natural environments. Even their physiological form has been manipulated so consumers can have more meat and become more obese and business owners can have more cash in the bank. Animals are forced to be cannibals as the industry commonly feeds cows other cows, pigs other pigs, and chickens other chickens. Whatever the animal industry and whatever their use, the bottomline is the same. They suffer. Needlessly.

Factory farming aside, what is so wrong with eating animals or wearing a leather jacket or going to a zoo or dissecting frogs in Biology class? Doing any of those things presupposes that human beings own animals, that we can do with them as we please, regardless of their sentience or capacity to feel pain. The common argument I hear is that we are the more intelligent species. I find this illogical for a number of reasons. Why should intelligence be an excuse for abuse and savagery? If we were to accept that the more intelligent can do whatever they want with the less intelligent, does it mean we can kill infants with mental disabilities and make sausages out of them? And supposing that another species would emerge that appears to be more intelligent than us, are we ready and willing to be skinned alive to serve as materials for someone else’s jacket? Another similar argument for animal use is that humans are on top of the food chain. The food chain again presupposes that there is an order in nature, but there is nothing natural about the way food is produced and transported and consumed today. Other animals do not factory-farm other animals. It is only us humans who do.

An ethical aspect that people often overlook is human welfare. We are creating jobs that force people to kill, where desensitization is a near certainty and injuries are habitual. In slaughterhouses, many workers urinate and defecate in the assembly lines in order to keep up with the production speed requirements. They are also injured by the struggling half-alive half-dead animals who either still summon up enough will to fight back or are so delirious with pain they can only react in violent convulsions. In leather factories, workers are immersed knee-deep in toxic dye substances. In zoos and aquariums, trainers are given commands to treat the animals like things, to use electrocution freely, to stop themselves from making any emotional or empathic connection with the animals. We are building a world where the demand for assassins is growing, where we hire them to do our dirty work all the while absolving our own accountability. And for what good reason? Because they taste good to our chemically-drowned palates or because we need a new variation of shampoo to treat our colored hair. The world we inherited has brainwashed us into thinking this is the way the world works –that this is who we are.

Veganism is about awakening our senses, learning the truth, sometimes having to dig through it, and ultimately facing it. It is connecting the dots. It is knowing that if I eat animals, I am directly responsible for both the screams and screeches of the animal and the unabashed violence of the slaughterhouse worker in and outside his workplace. Veganism is about examining my values, weighing the importance of my personal trivial interest of swimming with the dolphins in an aquarium against the importance of letting the dolphins live their natural lives in a vast ocean. Veganism is listening to my true nature as a human being, that even if I did not have the literacy to express the wrongness of killing, I would already know it. Veganism is looking at cruelty and seeing it for what it is and saying “No, I simply cannot be a part of this.”