Do tools make a good man?

Of all the areas that the issue of reproductive health has touched I have always considered that population should be removed from the table by virtue of agreement.   There is nothing more annoying than to hear the issue resurface and discussed over and over again.

Now how could I consider both parties agreeing when in the media they seem hell bent on tearing each other’s heads, hopefully not literally. The reason is family planning.  Yes, each side favors its own method: natural in the anti-reproductive health side and artificial for those in favor; but whatever the method, if people calmly think about it, the intent is the same: control.

Family planning is basically controlling the number of children being born to a family.   So it makes no sense to me why any anti-reproductive health advocate would want to argue population when they have already agreed to a method of family planning.   Favoring any method is agreeing that children should be limited or that there should be ample spacing between children.

Without the population argument all that is left is a superficial argument over tools and methods.   People will be judged as pious or condemned as sinners based only on which method they use.

I believe we have a saying for this: “Don’t judge a book by its cover”.  Man is far too complex a being to be judged simplistically.   Skin, religion, race, financial status, possessions – or in this case, tools – should not have any bearing on the goodness of a person.

Let’s a take a pen for example.   I have one, a Parker at that, and I have glasses, but that does not necessarily mean that I am a writer. It doesn’t make me sinister or violent either, but I have to ask, is it justified?

As for my Parker pen, I have to say I like its size and weight compared to the plastic ones or the silver Parker pen of some years ago.   It feels denser than the silver models.   Simple physics can tell you that I can impale anyone’s head or puncture someone’s jugular without a problem should I want to use it as such. And with it being in my shirt pocket it is easy to use.

With that being said, can I still be judged as a meek intellectual? Would people still tell me if I exceeded my commas or misused a semicolon? Perhaps people still would, but more carefully now.

How about a weapon, say a pistol, will it be different since its only use is to cause harm?

If I walked around the mall with a gun bulging at the back of my pants, wearing maong, rubber shoes, and maybe for dramatic effect a Che Guevara T-shirt, people would  most likely run away in a stampede because my attire gives out the signals I was up to no good.  But if I wore a police uniform which matches my enormous belly, people wouldn’t run; in fact, they might even ask me for directions.

In both cases, from a tool predominantly harmless to an outright deadly weapon, judgment depended a great deal on my (presumed) intent.  Now why is intent suddenly irrelevant with regards to reproductive health? A couple is judged to be pious when natural family planning is used and condemned as sinners when they use artificial.

What is the difference between ejaculating sperm in latex and ejaculating it in a uterus in its monthly off switch?   The intent is the same!

What’s even crazier is the reason why the natural family planning is considered acceptable.  It is the position of the Church that any method that makes procreation impossible is immoral.   So in effect natural family planning is a method that can fail, which is why it is allowed in the first place.

Let me repeat that. Control and limitations are agreed to by the Church because of endorsing natural family method. They have agreed to a goal and yet they set themselves up to fail.  There must always be a chance for children.

Despite all their recent protestations that condoms do not work the only reason why they do not allow it according to the Humanae Vitae is that it greatly impedes chances of fertilization.

Another thing, those who are only for natural family planning may not be as respectful as they claim to be but are actually disrespectful in a lawyerly sense, playing technicalities with God whom they claim to be all knowing and all powerful.

In paragraph 13 of Humanae Vitae it states, “If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life.”

If sex should equal children as God has intended then what is the difference between natural and artificial when it is the intent of both to limit children?  That’s Almighty God, not a Supreme Court judge, is it not?

Why are these supposedly obedient servants playing with words like lawyers? They say they are loyal then they should have avoided the idea of planning altogether.  Why worry when, as they always believe, God will always provide.

So here I am annoyed still seeing the Philippines still in a stalemate that should not be so. The state needs to provide action and yet it sits idly by. Virgins (presumed at least) now dare to lecture couples on marriage and ‘cold turkeys’ when the rule for many other situations might be ‘you don’t make the rules if you don’t play the game’.

What’s worse is that with this year’s election, with all the issues on corruption, economic trouble, human rights, and leadership, the Church recommends that candidates should be chosen because of condoms, of all things.

Why the stalemate? Why do people refuse to take action? Why the sorry state of affairs? Maybe one reason is that people have deluded themselves into seeing communion as a tool in getting to heaven or that they even need the Church to do what is right.

But do these ‘tools’ really make a good man?

Also seen in my blog.