REPORT Secularism Violations
PoliticsReligionSociety

Sex, Slavery, and the Pro-Life Movement

Garrick Bercero
Garrick Bercero

With seven Bataan village councils issuing unlawful copycat ordinances of the infamous Ayala Alabang one, it is time to call a spade a spade. This is not about unborn children. This is not about the RH Bill. What we are seeing is a war of attrition against sex, fought one village at a time.

Recently, Congressman and pugilist Manny Pacquiao was quoted as saying that if his parents had used contraceptives, he wouldn’t be here. Many RH opponents like him and Manoling Morato seem to be under the impression that contraceptives are depriving human society of celebrities like Pacquiao. The fact is, the odds against anyone’s birth are astronomical. Having contraceptives in the equation is a drop in the ocean of prerequisites necessary for anyone existing. Your exact set of ancestors going all the way back to the first sexual organism had to meet in the exact set of circumstances that led to your being. The millions in the batch of sperms in which you developed had to lose to you. For men, by choosing not to be procreating right at this moment, the next Einstein is now being reabsorbed into the male genitourinary tract. For women, by not being pregnant right now, the next Shakespeare is now being thrown out on a used tampon. And this is not even the half of it. Successful conceptions prevent the birth of other potential Newtons and Joyces. And these lost geniuses go unnoticed because they don’t exist and probably never will. If you weren’t here to exist, someone else will be.

Contraceptives do not make it any less likely in any significant way that any specific person will be born. The failure to understand this simple fact is what makes anti-choice superstars like former Chief Justice Davide embarrass themselves by disgustingly decrying contraceptives as worse than the tsunami that drowned thousands in their houses and cars in Japan.

The unborn aren’t a set of prefabricated people you draw out from heaven and into a vagina. They’re hypothetical permutations outnumbering the stars in the sky. Pacquiao’s line of reasoning was not only fallacious, it was unfairly self-deprecating for him. He was arguing that the only reason he has achieved what he has as an athlete was because he was born. It is a shame for someone like him who’s worked his fists to the bone to fall prey to manipulative quacks using his fame to impose their frumpy puritanism on the nation’s free citizens.

This has always been about sex. They want to dictate how it can be done. They want to dictate when it can be done. This is what keeps them up at night in cold sweats: someone at that exact moment may be enjoying themselves in a way they do not approve of.

The true intentions of the pro-life movement are betrayed by their obsession about an issue as innocuous and as private as the intimate relations of their neighbors. It is not just that they are anti-choice and against women having the right to do what they want with their bodies. What the conservatives of the Holy Roman Catholic Church want is to regulate sex. This is why even condoms, a mere physical barrier between an ejaculating penis and the womb, have to be lumped with contraceptive drugs. This is why former public officials like Lito Atienza compose hateful tirades about how gay marriage will destroy the Filipino family. This is why the pro-life movement of the Roman Catholic Church has always been about situations that involve sex and not about ethnic cleansing in Rwanda or the sectarian violence in Egypt.

Those who fashion themselves as more sophisticated than the rank and file opponents of the bill may use supposedly secular distractions such as “population collapse” in an attempt to mask their religious motives, but why is the burden of propping up an obviously flawed economy on our descendants who never chose such a fate? Since when has it again been acceptable to treat people as commodities and before they’re even born? Since when has it been honorable to deprive people of the informed choice to decide whether or not they want to have children? RH opponents have to resort to such shameful and despotic economic arguments just to hide their prejudiced belief that sex must be controlled at all costs.

At this point, if those disagreeing with me are even still reading, I have to address the old canard that sex is a gift from God and that liberals are trampling on it with their sex positive attitudes and their promiscuous lifestyles. Even if we were to allow this absurd and flawed premise, since when has a gift meant that the giver has total control over the use of said gift? Apparently, God’s gifts to man include the not insignificant requirement of human enslavement. Thanks, but, no thanks.

“Pro-life” is a misnomer. It is marketing speak for the larger culture war the social conservative movement is waging. It is a ruse to hide the desire at the core of the anti-choice anti-sex movement to become serfs ruled in absolute tyranny by an invisible thought police. In a bout of resentment against the freemen who reject such nonsense, conservative Catholics twist the arm of the national government to appease their sexual neuroses.

Related content

358 comments

  1. No it's not about sex. It shouldn't be. And couldn't be anyway. With or without the RH Bill, those who want to use contraceptives will, and those who don't won't.

    It's about power. Opponents of the bill don't have grassroots presence the way the religion does. They're pervasive. The strange thing is, people in the smallest towns and provinces have sex to their hearts content, the Gods be damned. Priests and their like have access to these people, but can't and never have been able to prevent them from doing as they please when the sun goes down.

    People in the cities steeped in Western thought also acquired, as a natural consequence, Western guilt. And it shows on both sides of the RH Bill debate. Pro-RH people (most probably bred in Catholic schools) hate it so much that this institution responsible for ruining the joys of their sexual awakening years now threatens to prolong the guilt trip. Anti-RH people, well… a mixed lot. But I like the Anti-RH group that smells corruption at the very core of this whole thing.

    Pass this bill and weep, 15-20 years after. Some countries worry about an aging population. We will have that a generation from now if this bill passes and the budget doesn't go to funding the SUV purchase of the 14th illegitimate child of this or that politician.

    I think the problem with this whole overpopulation thing is that we hold on to life for too long, even when we're way beyond our productive years, and too much of the wealth of countries is spent on keeping old people alive and looking young. I don't mind the "keeping alive" part. But I mind the "looking young" part a lot. Or maybe that's part of the quality of life argument.

    I like the women empowerment argument of the Pro-RH people. If they could do away completely with the sex part (contraception) and just focus on health and women empowerment, I'm all for the bill. But if it's be won on the platform of morality, "kanya-kanyang sungkitan muna ng kulangot." Take the contraception part out and you effectively knock some teeth off the Anti-RH group.

    Most importantly, you should ensure that high-radiation cell phones are made available to all males and then educate them to place it in the front pocket of their jeans all the time. But this doesn't fall within the mandate of the bill.

  3. i will make a counter argument on the idea that "if a somebody's parents used contraceptives, they (our national hero) will not be on earth today." no, this is not true. he will still be born on earth because it is due time that he should be born on earth..this planet is the place to educate us and to refine us into perfection. the human form of life is like a boat that we will utilize as an instrument to educate us. it has the facilities to inquire of the truth. can the dogs inquire of the truth? no. that is why we should not live like dogs.

  4. to follow the arguments of secularism is to open the lines to pedophiles, homosexuals, sodomy, and the likes, they all have the rights if you interpolate where the arguments are heading to.

  5. the truth is not sectarian, nor it is secular. regardless of race, religion or what ever…the truth speaks for itself. it applies even to an atheist!! by being a slave of the senses we humans will live like animals. the tongue and the genital, the most difficult sensory organs to control. if you can control these sense organs then you are qualified to preach about the "RH Bill." weather you are pro or anti you can speak about it because you are not a slave, a truly liberated person.

  6. booo!! sex is not a gift but an instrument for our attempted enjoyment!! even animals know how to make sex! secularism is gearing humans to be like sophisticated animals!!! animals do sex even on the street, humans do it in beds!! whats the difference now?? why do we need sex education?? even the dog knows it!!! this world has gone to the dogs!!! slaves of the senses!!

  7. ok Duh! infant mortality is going to lower, diseases are going to lessen if we kill the child before they are born. "Let's kill them at conception!" thats what you are saying. We are basically pulling the trigger on them before anything can kill them or infect them, but thats still killing. The greatest problem to lessen is not the hight statistical numbers, but the fact that you are thinking its ok to kill babies a.ka. abortion and contraception before they have the ability to speak. Its a contradiction to fight for "human rights" and to support contraceptions and abortions. Because by doing so we are basically saying "too bad you cant control yourself, too bad you are like a dog who sniffs and reacts" instead of giving ourselves the truth, which is that we are rational beings who CAN have self- control. Or " we want the action but not the consequence" instead of taking every child conceived by an act -that is supposed to be an act of love and unity -as a gift that they truly are (love bears fruit, fellow people, they are called children). We are basically telling ourselves, our friends and family that we are not dignified enough to truly have self-control, to truly appreciate life, to truly live pleasure to its fullness, to truly respect the most basic human right which is a right to life.
    You can just keep thinking that by escaping the consequences due to us for having sex, or murdering a child in the womb is the solution to lowering the numbers. Keep it up and the numbers will drop, but only in the expense of killing a human life and producing a society that has not sense of true responsibility and self-respect.

    • @Mags

      Intentionally preventing people from getting proper education so that they may be able to make a decision for themselves is also an insult to their intellect.

      As is lying, and making the medically false claim that a developing fetus is the of a fully developed child.

  8. The negative votes are sooo funny. Then why are we in agreement with the appointment of Mdm. Bachelet to the UN Women's Council & to play by the Crece Contigo & Comprometidos por la Vida playbook? Can't make up your minds anymore? I know, I know …. it's the PHP 3B a year budget those RH Bill Tongressmen have been promising people. That's what desire for that much money– even just a share — does to people. Here's a friendly suggestion & I know you guys will think about 'cuz you're all smart.. Let's work together on clean government. We can free up even more than PHP 3 B to help give Filipinos what they really need — nutrition, medicines, education, housing …. Do I get thumbs up this time? LOL

    • so you're OK with sacrificing the life of the mother or placing her in jeopardy just to satisfy an extremist stance on total non-abortion – therapeutic or otherwise?

      you are one sick dude

  10. Chile has had a continuous and successful family planning program since the 1960s, interrupted only by "a brief pro-natalist campaign in 1978–79 [that] hindered contraceptive use" during the Pinochet dictatorship. Those who want to learn about the history, programs and lessons can read chapter 7 Family Planning in Chile: A Tale of the Unexpected (by Hernan Sanhueza) of the book The Global Family Planning Revolution available free here:
    http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPRH/Resourc…

    From the book:
    "As family planning knowledge and contraceptive use became more prevalent in the 1960s, fertility began to decline, and by the early 1990s, fertility, general mor- tality, and infant mortality had declined substantially. By 1990–95, the crude birth rate had fallen to 22.5 live births per 1,000 population and the death rate to 6.4 deaths per 1,000 population. Infant mortality had been reduced spectacularly to 16.9 deaths per 1,000 live births, and the rate of natural increase of the population was 1.6 percent (United Nations 2002)."

    From UN's 2009 World Contraceptive Use
    Chile: pills 29% use; IUD 19%; condom 9%; female sterilization 7%
    Philippines: pills 17%; female sterilization 10%; IUD 4%; injectable 3%; condom 2%
    http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/con…

    I would support implementing Chile's family planning program here in the Philippines, after reading chapter 7 cited above.

      • you make it sound like this is the answer to all our problems. guarantee a 100% success rate and we'll call it a deal

        • There is no 100 percent solution. However, comprehensive RH programs are far more effective than abstinence-only programs.

      • You have any documentation on this that we can study? Not videos, blogs or propaganda pieces please, but studies or technical papers (English, sorry I don't understand Spanish). Have you read the chapter on Chile I linked above? What's your take on that one?

      • In an article on Chile you cited it says "The point being, that pregnancy care, skilled birth attendants and emergency obstetric care should be the focus of safe motherhood campaigns, not legal abortion." http://www.mercatornet.com/family_edge/view/6623/

        At the Filipinos for Life site, someone calling himself The_Filozopher do not like "emergency obstetric care", claiming it "may be misinterpreted not as a legalization of abortion but a tolerance & acceptance of the practice, given the specific attention given to “emergencies” and not general obstetric care. (Emergency obstetric care is designed for responses when it is too late for the foetus. Comprehensive care monitors the process from the start & is proactive.)" http://filipinosforlife.com/2011/04/05/filipinos-…

        Are you the same person? Care to explain why you like the Chile article and not the RH Bill's use of "emergency obstetric care"? You do know that the RH bill has "pregnancy care, skilled birth attendants and emergency obstetric care" in it?

    • I think using Chile as a point of comparison is kinda random. If we want to use the abortion rate as a yardstick of effective maternal policies, it would be more logical to look at the countries with the LOWEST incidence of abortion, yes?

      It would make more sense to focus on the maternal policies of Switzerland, Belgium, and the Netherlands which consistently have the lowest abortion rates in the planet. The Netherlands in particular never had a problem with abortion because of their effective policies – a combination of proper sex education, access to contraceptives, and family planning facilities.
      article here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545

      • I agree, it is random. Come to think of it, I don't know how Chile links with the article here. I just read some of the exchanges on Chile and thought a link to in-depth article would help clarify things.

  11. what? praising Chile for supporting the rights of women? that's the most insane thing I've ever heard. It has one of the most restrictive policies in the world when it comes to maternal policies. Even if the mother's life is in danger, she still has no option to resort to therapeutic abortion. how can this be "win-win" if the mother dies and the child along with her?

    it only looks good on paper but the actual statistics still show that even with abortion highly illegal there, the actual number of cases are still soaring in their region because people have resorted to illegal underground means which increase maternal fatality rate even more. I dont see any good news there. they havent solved their abortion problem at all but instead have made it worse by risking maternal welfare needlessly.

    • The UN must have made a mistake to appoint the ex-Pres of Chile to the Women;s Council then. No wait, twin skies was happy she was appointed. Wait … make up your minds, will ya? O_O My point is let's study the Chilean model some more before we hastily pass the RH Bill like the baduy "We are running out of time …" video is scaring people to do. Bwahahaha ….. nice try. 😛

      • make up who's minds? 🙂 Twinskies can make up his own mind and so can I. You do realize you're in a Freethinkers website?

        But that's a good point you raise. Chilean ex-president Michelle Bachelet is perfect for the UN job. she's pro-feminist and pro-Planned Parenthood. I'm hoping she can achieve more in UN than in her old post where she was continuously blocked at every attempt to institute change in the system. Prolife hates her guts and keeps labeling her an abortionist or some such nonsense for trying to promote responsible use of contraception, including the morning-after pill.

        For the most part, Chile's catholic blockade is the same problem the RH Bill faces here in the Philippines. The "award" you mentioned is, in all likelihood, a thinly veiled message to the new president replacing Bachelet to be more supportive of their prolife cause or they'll make a living hell of his tenure like they did with Bachelet.

        • "Crece Contigo” (“Chile Grows with You”) program begun by former Chilean president Michelle Bachelet and meant to advocate for the well-being and protection of young children, has always included strong awareness that the unborn child is a member of the family as well as the new “Comprometidos por la Vida" ("Committed to Life") program announced by President Piñera to offer assistance to pregnant women in difficult circumstances in order to carry their babies to term. Glad we see eyet-to-eye on her appointment & may she continue to work with her successor who is following through her great project. Hopefully, the Congress won't be atat over the PHP 3B annual budget for the POPCOM & pass the RH Bill without studying Chile.

  12. And that line of thinking has taxed their women greatly. Making abortions illegal did nothing to curb it. All it did was force the practice underground, where women are falling victim to unscrupulous practitioners.
    http://www.womensenews.org/story/the-world/041128… http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/chile/090203/c…

    What you failed to mention, Filo, is that Chile's government does distribute Emergency contraceptives, a move that has been backed by several local scientific and feminist communities, and was outright opposed by (who else?) The Chilean Catholic Church:
    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/10/19/chi…

    You can blabber on and on about Malthus or whoever else gives your conspiracy-addled brain a hard-on Filo, but the fact is that anybody with half a brain in Chile is opposed to the sort of stupidity your ilk loves to toss around.

    And speaking of that "Malthusian-Sangerian/UNFPA/US State Dept." trifecta you cited, well, Michelle Bachelet would like to have a word with you. She's the head of the United Nations Women (UN Women) group, and she's from Chile:
    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/09/14/for…

    Viva Chile indeed 😀

    • Now who's talking about Malthus et al first this time? Seems the ideas got you so turned on. =)) Now who's the country that's ranked in the corruption perception index (#134) criticizing the policy of Chile ranked (#21) higher than the country whose recommending the RH Bill to the Phils (US, #22)? Why do you badly want to shoot down a possible alternative to the RH Bill? And how do you know they don't have comprehensive obstetric care (which sounds like what their gov ads promote) & not only "emergency" obstetric care to which the RH Bill is limited. You mean you can arrange a personal word from Mdm. Bachelet? Gee, thanks! We live in interesting times! I say, the Chilean model is worth a good look see before we rush into pushing a defective RH Bill (unless you think it's perfect as it is, that would make you as dogmatic as the people you call dogmatic, if not more, about the RH Bill). I haven;t studied the model adequately but I do like their upbeat, positive approach rather than the "We are running out of time" bogus scare message. i Viva Chile Libre !. =))

      • The Chilean model that banned reproductive health measures for nearly thirty years? Shit man, give us another four or so without any proper RH measures, and you'll see exactly where Chile is 😀

        • I'm about as pro-abortion as women, meaning I see it as a necessary evil what won't be necessary in a perfect society. The problem is that we're not, and from what I've observed, banning abortions does nothing to address the plight of women.
          http://reproductiverights.org/en/forsakenlives

          While I'd rather not see abortions happen in the first place, I'd rather have them available, to prevent women that need them from having to resort to underground clinics, where guidelines of medical safety aren't enforced. The RH Bill is one way of ensuring less abortions happen.

          • You're a funny guy Filo. If I recall my biology classes properly, our discussions on the human reproductive system were also called the lectures on human sexual behavior.

            Or to be more exact, human reproduction is the biological aspect of sexual behavior. Somebody hasn't been reading his biology books 😉

          • Somebody hasn;t been reading their biology books. That explains why RH Bill advocates can't tell the difference between reproduction & contraception & want to say they're the same thing so their sloppy bill can pass.

    • Mysteriously, you seem to cite as a defect the fact that making abortions illegal did nothing to curb it all. You mean you like the RH Bill because that won't happen? O_o Waitaminit, but you also say the RH Bill is not legalizing abortion. Oooopsss …. I see an interesting situation here. Uuuyyy … pro-abortion ka ano? Aminin!!! Don't be shy! Yun ba talaga ang agenda ninyo, hah? You hah! =)) Garrick already showed his cards. You naman …

      • Oh, you mean the Chilean Mining rescue that had several religious groups claiming it was THEIR miracle that got those trapped miners out?
        http://richarddawkins.net/articles/532548-chilean…

        My dear Filo, all you've proven with your first video is that the Pro-Lifers will stoop to absolutely anything to push their agenda, be it bullshitting about reproductive health, to hijacking the triumph of this event just to make it look like it's even remotely associated to women's health issues.

        You are a fucking moron, you know that?

        • As for Chile's banning of abortions as some sort of respect for life: http://www.womensenews.org/story/the-world/041128…

          "The abortion rates are highest in Chile and Peru (where one woman in 20 has an induced abortion). In Brazil, Colombia and the Dominican Republic, it's about one woman in 30, and in Mexico approximately one in 40. (In the United States, the rate is 21.3 per 1,000 women.)

          Cristina Alonso works at the Luna Maya birthing clinic in San Cristobal de las Casas, Mexico. She says there are between half a million and a million abortions a year in Mexico. And while abortion is legal in cases of rape or a threat to life, the actual mechanism to get permission to have a legal abortion is so complex that it discourages women. Alonso points out that last year in Mexico City, only 17 legal abortions were approved, yet there are 30 rapes reported to police per day there."

          This is the real legacy of your Pro-Life waffling.

          • Oh, I noticed your link is 2004 pa. Luma na yan, hijo. Don't you know expired data are bad for your brains. Kaya naman pala ganyan ka mag-isip. Pobrecito … Here's some fresh news so you can rehab your grey matter in want of intellectual nutrition …. http://www.turtlebayandbeyond.org/2011/abortion/c… Happy viewing!!! 😀 Lower maternal mortality rates without legalizing abortion Wow, sarap pakinggan ano? Hat dawg, ang sarap pakinggan! Please isumbong mo kay Tulfo, pati na rin kay Dawkins. LOL http://www.mercatornet.com/family_edge/view/6623/

            By the way, the "we are running out of time" video is soooo baduy!

          • And of course, you linked to two sites that are either Catholic-leaning in their ideology, or are socially consevative on the matter of women's rights. What are you going to do next – link us to an article on the follies of racial equality from the KKK website?

          • @Filo

            From your own C-FAM source

            [From 1960 onwards, there has been a breakthrough in the public health system and primary care" in Chile, with resources devoted to the development of "highly trained personnel, the construction of many primary health centers and the increase of schooling of the population.” Education appeared to be a primary factor in the country’s improved maternal health.]

            Increased access to reproductive health education, trained personnel, and primary health centers. Oh dear, are you insinuating that you are actually in support of the RH Bill?

            Capital! 😀

          • It said "public health", not "reproductive health". O_o Hey, does that mean you're willing to go by the Chilean Crece Contigo & Comprometidos por la Vida playbook from hereon? Sige, call!. Welcome to my side of the fence, twin-skies! Sorry Dawkins & Planned Parenthood, you guys just lost a disciple. =))

          • [Sorry Dawkins & Planned Parenthood, you guys just lost a disciple. =)) ]

            I'm sorry to disappoint you Filo (Oh wait, I'm not), but I never left my side of the fence, given that the RH Bill's focus has always been on education on responsible family planning, which also happens to be the crux of Chile's "Crece Contigo & Comprometidos por la Vida" program.

            What you failed to mention, and what arm has properly noted earlier, is that said program included comprehensive contraceptives distribution. Contraceptive distrubution + Sex Education = less unwanted pregnancies = less abortions.
            http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB5055/i…
            http://www.internationalfamilyplanningperspective…

            So riddle us this: You're against abortions, but at the same time, you've shown time and time again you're also against contraceptives that are proven to decrease incidences of abortions. So what are you for?

            Certainly not for intelligent solutions, it seems.

  13. Am a pro-life but I never bought those points alike to Manny Pacquiao's argument–the famous Beethoven story for example. they are illustrative, yes. But it says very little about the 'right'ness or 'wrong'ness of controlling birth. Its a counterfactual argument, a fallacy. thats it. Inadmissible.

    Nevertheless, I do not easily appreciate the attack of Mr Bercero on regulating sex. Why? Because human society has been regulating sex and is regulating sex. That is why we have laws against pedophilias for example. So, I do not agree with the banner argument that the state should leave it to people to do whatever they want with their bodies or to have sex in whichever way they want.

    • Just defending Manny Pacquiao's celebration of existence. Even Descartes's cogito ergo sum wasn't do much a tautology as it was a case of exclamatory awareness. So, curiously, what are your reasons for being pro-life?

  14. [You guys should try writing your own TV script shows. Maybe for Charlie Sheen?]

    Get us hooked up with NPH, then we'll talk. 😉

  15. [It's too overstretched won;t be technically approved for "Boston Legal". ]

    I'm not much of a Boston Legal fan, so I wouldn't know. Colbert rules. Your ass. Everyday.

  16. And you think social control is a less bitter pill to swallow than population control?

    Don't delude yourself into thinking that winning this ideological war will bring the second coming of the Victorian era to the Philippines. It's going to go further into that and take us into the Dark Ages.

  17. 2nd, they argue that we wouldn't have people like pacman or einstein if their mothers use condoms. I argue we wouldn't have Hitler, Napoleon or Genghis Khan either who together is repsonsible for the massacre and deaths of millions of people either. The argument works both ways. I also argue that Einstein or Manny wouldn't be who they are if it weren't for the encouragement, education, training and opportunities they got. They weren't born great and even then births of great men are statiscally staggering. They are one in a million. In a poor country such as the Philippines, how would you expect a kid born into a family of several kids and born in the slums to be encouraged and educated when their families don't even have enough to eat??? How many of these children will turn into Einstein as opposed to them turning into petty thieves or prostitutes???? Third, population expolsion not a hindrance to suatainable development??? Simple mathematics!!!!! More people equals more resources needed and with the world especially a third world country such as ours having only limited resources……I think any kid can do the math on this one….

    • If it's purse speculation then. why engage in speculation that the future generation is a threat & its number must be diminished. They haven't even come to be then? That's why I consider Malthusian pseudoeconomics a bad basis for policy.

      • If you can suggest ways we can increase food production or areas suitable for human habitat without doing much damge to the environment then by all means have more children. Perhaps you haven't been out of the safe and comfortable confines of your house lately…….Our streets are littered with street children who are left to fend for themselves by their irresponsible parents….Squatters are all over the city polluting the areas they inhabit….You must have been living under a rock not to have noticed these problems……

        • Believe me, I have. We can actually raise rice production 40% with the right technology & governance but it will sacrifice the interests of rice cartels & confront the conflicts of interests within the NFA itself. As to squatters, I've worked with them & even lived in their shanties. once in a while. Have you? If only you know how much resources they have that if it didn't go to syndicates that protected them AND extort from the landowners, the poor can actually afford decent housing. Now worries. I haven't given up & taken th eeasy way out of looking at population control as the panacea for poverty.

          • [As to squatters, I've worked with them & even lived in their shanties. once in a while. Have you? If only you know how much resources they have that if it didn't go to syndicates that protected them AND extort from the landowners, the poor can actually afford decent housing.]

            The Likhaan women's group also works with squatters, as do several other medical clinics that have seen firsthand the need for family planning among the communities they render charity to. And unlike you, they're supporting the RH Bill on account of their own observations.

            Between their word or yours, I'd take theirs anytime.

          • OK, if you don't believe me, ask Likhaan how much rent they pay for their shanty, compute how much they really pay per square meter & compare it to commercial space rents. Then let's discuss some more after getting info from a source you trust.

          • [OK, if you don't believe me, ask Likhaan how much rent they pay for their shanty, compute how much they really pay per square meter & compare it to commercial space rents.]

            You're right. I don't believe you. But if you're going to discredit Likhaan, you'll have to be the one to do the legwork. Come back when you get off your lazy, self-assured ass, and actually come back with figures on their expenditure.

            No shifting of burden of proof for you.

          • Me do the legwork? But you already said you don't believe me. O_o This doesn't sound fair. I was hoping Likhaan could provide what you consider better data so we can continue engaging. Waitaminit! Are you really a freethinker?

          • You guys must be living in a fantasy world……Thats why they are called squatters because they have to "SQUAT"……..and if your idea of a decent housing is a house barely bigger than a doghouse with 6 people living in it and if you guys are talking about squatters going through rubbish to scrap for leftover food then I guess we are talking about 2 different world then………and if you guys don't mind squatters throwing their garbage everywhere and polluting our environment and using our rivers as their own personal toilets why don't you guys put your money where your mouth is and put them up at your home……I certainly dont want my tax money being used to clean up after these people…….

          • Oh btw, links to fringe, conspiracy, Pro-Life, and conservative Catholic/Christian/Religious sites are not are not considered valid evidence, unless you're trying to induce laughter.

            I know this sounds biased, but said types of sites have a piss-poor track record for accurate data.

  18. The arguments being given by anti rh bills are just palin and simple absurd. First they argue that access to condom and other means of birth control and education doesn't result in declines in unwanted pregnancies and spread of STD's. Ok then, cite a study or prove then that not using condoms and other means of birth control prevented unwanted pregnancies and spread of STD's. It's a proven scientific fact that a person will more likely get someone pregnant or catch a disease if he doesn't use protection plain and simple not unless the condom breaks or something then that's another matter all together. The reason why std's are still spreading and young girls are still getting pregnant is because either 1 they choose not to use protection or they don't have access to contraceptives and protection.

    • On micro-level incidental level, sure, but there is a ratchet effect. With contraceptives giving a populace the impression of protection, they increas the number of times they take the risk & thus increase the probability of catching the disease & getting pregnant unintentionally. Then what next if they are pregnant? The logical next step policy of the RH Bil is legalizing abortion that many, except some of you honest souls, deny saying you are not pro-abortion.

      • [With contraceptives giving a populace the impression of protection, they increas the number of times they take the risk & thus increase the probability of catching the disease & getting pregnant unintentionally. Then what next if they are pregnant? ]

        Hence the need for vigilance when the RH bill's education program hits the ground.

    • Oh, I didn't know one had to be black to be offended by someone being called a nigger. I didn't know one had to have mental disabilities to be offended by someone being called a retard.

    • [Probably so did FCJ Davide. I heard no offence tajen by the Japanese community over what he said.]

      They're too busy with alleviating the disaster to mind us at the moment.

        • [I know, Some people were former foetuses yet they feel no offence when society refers to other foetsuses as "unwanted pregnancies". ]

          And some people are too busy worrying about the possible personhood of a clump of cells to give a damn about the woman's rights in the matter.

          • [I'm for "comprehensive obstetric care" not just "emergency obstetric care" that the RH Bill limits itself to. ]

            Yes, I'm sure rape victims would love to hear your opinion on the matter.

          • [False dichotomy there. ]

            For any medical doctor worth his salt, there is none. The mother's life will ALWAYS be the priority over the zygote. Perhaps for somebody with your degree of moral acrobatics though, it's probably a dilemma.

          • Misleading again?

            If the doctor decided that you were matured enough in the womb to be born, that would mean that you're a late-term pregnancy, ergo, not a zygote that's in its first few weeks of development.

            That would be like saying that a brick is the same as an office building.

            And as you said yourself – your mom was given the choice in the end – how many more women here in RP, when faced with an unwanted pregnancy, can truly say the same thing.

            Your circumstance is different from theirs, and while I applaud your mom's courage, you get zero points for medical knowledge.

          • I'm not against comprehensive obstetric care.

            I am against idiots who want to deny emergency services for rape victims because they it's "immoral" to terminate a fertilized egg, regardless of the victim's situation.

  22. Ano ba talaga ang problema na gustong solusyunan ng RH Bill? Ang kahirapaan o ang karamihan ng anak? Hindi naman problema ang mga anak eh, noong bata pa ba kayon, iniisip niyo ba na problema kayo? Iniisip ba ng mga magulang niyo na problema kayo?

    • [Ano ba talaga ang problema na gustong solusyunan ng RH Bill? Ang kahirapaan o ang karamihan ng anak?]

      Reproductive HEALTH Bill, in case you missed it on the first shot.

      [Hindi naman problema ang mga anak eh, noong bata pa ba kayon, iniisip niyo ba na problema kayo? Iniisip ba ng mga magulang niyo na problema kayo? ]

      Tomas, the situation of our parents is different from the situation of the parents of kids who live below the poverty line. While my parents are well off enough to provide for the family's needs, the fact is most filipino families, especially in Manila, can't, and do wish that they had kids when they were more prepared. This short Al Jazeera docu should give you a better idea of how things are:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZxCoXUZj4U&fe…

    • Hindi problema? Sabihin mo yan sa daan-daang mga sanggol na natatagpuang patay sa basurahan, sa kanal, sa ilog, o sa tapat mismo ng simbahan dahil walang sapat na kaalaman o edukasyon yung nanay na maagang nabuntis. Kung totoong pro-life ang simbahan, mas papahalagahan nila yung mga nabubuo kesa dun sa hindi nabubuo sa sinapupunan.

  23. Hahaha, it's crazy labeling PRO LIFE as a misnomer, RH is! Of course you can't point a finger to yourself. You have integrity, right? And it's downright insanity this is named THE FILIPINO FREE THINKERS….such a shame to the flag. On the other hand…..yeah free thinker…..delusional!

    • But then Stalin would not have had any sufficient opposition from expanding to Western Europe, a la Red Alert. 😉

      • How do you know that the one more kid they chose not to have would not have become a champion to rival even Manny? You don't. How do you know that contraception hasn't prevented the birth of another Hitler? You don't. Your hypotheticals bite both ways.

        • Well, Pacquiao is sure he was born & he;s thankful for it. You don't seem to share his joy. You prefer we don't have Pacquiao & that Marcos's POPCOM continue instead of Pres. Cory shelving it & putting its functions under the DOH. What a choice!

          • Nope. I don't care whether he was born or not. That was never in my control, or yours, or even his parents'. Mr. and Mrs. Pacquiao had a child and they didn't know it would be the specific collection of neurons we call Manny Pacquiao. As for Pacquiao, he never chose to be born or be a Filipino or even to be a Pacquiao. He could have been an astronaut, or a serial killer. He could have had siblings that could have discovered the cure for Parkinson's. But they're not complaining and neither are you, because they're not here and they never will be. I know the bias of hindsight is very convenient, but it's not very flattering.

            Why aren't you shedding tears for the Filipino Einstein who has yet to be born and was prevented from being born because of NFP?

            Proposing that contraceptives would have prevented the birth of this specific Manny Pacquiao is as absurd as saying that natural family planning has prevented the birth of the next Newton.

          • Trillions? Oh, hyperbole. I was talking about the REAL Manny Pacquiao, not the speculative "population explosion". By the way, what is your proposed target population growth, may I ask?

          • Not hyperbole. The number of permutations genes can make number in the trillions. I'm not talking about actual people who will be born. If you cared to read what I've been saying, you will learn that most of the people who can be born will never be born, with or without contraceptives.

            I don't care about target population counts or anything of that sort. I do not care for population control measures. What I want to see with the passage of the RH bill is the accessibility of contraceptives and education to those who do not have them due to poverty or oppression by conservative anti-intellectuals. I want all children that are born to be wanted by their families, unlike the conservatives who do not care if children are born to families that cannot even eat one proper meal a day.

      • [I wished Pacquiao's parents stopped at two also! I think now we won't have a champion! ]

        I wouldn't wish anything – it'd be more prudent to let the woman decide for herself how many children she'll have.

  25. I don't see a problem with condoms and other contraceptives of this sort. I don't see why we should spend tax-payers money to give them freely either.

    As far as the other things of the RHbill, I think they're good, insofar as educating people is good. But contraceptives that kill human life on conception, at least to me, is bad. But I don't know if these are the kinds of contraceptives that the RHbill will be promoting.

    So I guess I don't know what my stance should be.

    • There are a lot of things that citizens have to pay for that they do not necessarily agree with. What this boils down to is, should Filipino tax payers be concerned about the plight of fellow citizens who, solely by misfortune in the lottery of birth, are unable to procure basic health care. It is a fact that RH initiatives will curtain maternal deaths and minimize suffering of unwanted children. Some people don't want to contribute to that, maybe that's for the discussion of a completely new political system. Until then, Filipinos pay for healthcare for the poor and pay for the subsidies of churches as well.

      • While your argument makes sense, I think the money could be better spent elsewhere –like "basic healthcare" such as medicine, medical services and so forth. So it's wrong that being against the RHbill necessarily makes you against "fellow citizens who, solely by misfortune in the lottery of birth, are unable to procure basic health care. ".

        There are so many things we can do to help the poor, so many medicines that they need, so condoms and contraceptives.. I don't know. I'm sure there are persuasive arguments from both sides on this very issue though.

        • We can certainly try to do both. We can agree that it's a good thing, then discuss how it can be funded. That's where I want this discussion to go: people reasonably debating the merits and demerits of the proposition free from Church interference and unscientific and dogmatic arguments. The Church doesn't even want the bill discussed on the House floor with representatives filibustering the bill with lectures about communism.

          • Also, I think it's worth mentioning that in countries like Britain, and in the U.S. (and other European countries), ever since they had state-funded contraception and sex-education they've had more abortions, more out of wedlocks, early pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. I can't actually establish a causal linkage there because the work, that shows it's leading up to these things, hasn't been done. But if it's stated purpose is to reduce these things, then it has failed abjectly. It has been accompanied by all the things it claims to prevent.

            So while I'm fine with it, I say anyone should go use it if they want to; buy condoms or pills if you wish. But spending tax-payers money… I'm really skeptical about that. It could probably be better spent elsewhere. But like you said, this is another topic altogether.

          • ["ever since they had state-funded contraception and sex-education they've had more abortions, more out of wedlocks, early pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. I can't actually establish a causal linkage there because the work, that shows it's leading up to these things, hasn't been done. But if it's stated purpose is to reduce these things, then it has failed abjectly. It has been accompanied by all the things it claims to prevent.]

            Actually, the incidences of unwanted pregnancies and abortions in the United States inceased – that is their overall downward trend slowed down – after the Bush administration increased funding to abstinence-only programs.
            http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/597… http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Teen-Sex-Ed.htm… http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/article/abstinence_only_fail…

          • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12709307 — a more empirical & comprehensive peer-reviewed study has this conclusion: "Rising contraceptive use results in reduced abortion incidence in settings where fertility itself is constant. The parallel rise in abortion and contraception in some countries occurred because increased contraceptive use alone was unable to meet the growing need for fertility regulation in situations where fertility was falling rapidly." The Phils must be cautious as to the use of contraceptives to prevent abortions because it shows characteristics of a country where there has been a parallel increase in contraceptive use & increased abortion.

          • @The_Filozopher

            Read the results of your reference:

            "After fertility levels stabilized in several of the countries that had shown simultaneous rises in contraception and abortion, contraceptive use continued to increase and abortion rates fell. The most clear-cut example of this trend is the Republic of Korea."

          • And I'd be willing to wager that those figures would have been lower had we confronted the problem of reproductive health earlier, instead of being dazzled by Cory's charm, and religious rhetoric, which I think is the real white elephant in the room.
            http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/com…

            If we'd confronted this problem head-on, our women 560,000 wouldn't have had to resort to illegal abortions under unsafe conditions, only to be suffer and die from the complications that followed.
            http://reproductiverights.org/en/forsakenlives

            You'd have to be fucking blind or fucking stupid not to see these figures as a problem, and then pretend that the best way to deal with them is to let whatever we're already doing is good enough.

            It is not. And the stories of these half-million women is testament to your faulty reasoning.

          • Well, probably if they clean up the corruption at DOH & save PHP 3B a year to do more instead of proposing to spend PHP 3B spare cash a year to resurrect the white elephant wil do better? Di ba dude?

      • Ah, so it;s basic health care. I thought it was "reproductive health" & as I read the RH Bill, it's more concerned with preventing or intervening with reproduction but not with sex. If the government really cares about the poor, it should make cheaper generics more available. Instead, it protects the pharma cos by complying with WTO GATT & the RH Bill adds insult to injury by proposing to subsidize contraceptive sales from these same pharma cos. Besides, what do you recommend to couples who still use contraceptives & still get pregnant? What is your next proposed step, Garrick?

        • False dichotomy. The government can do both. As for people who use contraceptives and still get pregnant, I am not against abortion. Was that what you wanted to hear?

          • I support the right of thinking, breathing, conscious human beings capable of suffering and well-being over and above any supposed right of a cell that has yet to have even a semblance of neural activity. I will defend the right of sentient animals over that of embryos anytime.

          • You're validating the slippery-slope argument then. This only affirms the anti-bill people in their doubts about the bill's true intentions.

            I'm sure I would also support the rights of "thinking, breathing, conscious human beings" well over that of a human life that's at the initial stages of conception.

            But if it's about fucking around with some peace of mind (you did say that if the contraceptive fails, then you support abortion), then that's supporting a flimsy right at the expense of a more important one.

          • I believe that abortion is a fundamental right provided for by the right to privacy. I would rather that a non-sentient embryo be aborted than be brought into the world as a thinking and conscious being capable of suffering under the guidance of people that never wanted it in the first place. I want all babies to be born to people that want them and that intend to take care of them and provide for them. This also means that I have no qualms against embryonic stem cell research, which could potentially cure all diseases known to man, without exaggeration. The choice between the rights of a sentient person trumps that of a clump of cells without the capacity to suffer any day.

            But, the thing is, the bill explicitly states that it does not change the law on abortion. Even though I support a woman's right to abort a pregnancy, the bill does not assist me in any way in that regard. The anti-choice advocates like to bring the issue to abortion because they want any sex positive attitude squelched and this bill is certainly sex positive in that it accepts the reality that people have sex. This bill does not live in the universe where many of the people against it live, where the fact that sex is a real thing can be ignored and suppressed.

          • Thanks. It truly is and it is a breath of fresh air to finally get that point across to someone.

          • Abortion is a fundamental right? I;d like you to propose that as an amendment to the UN Charter … or maybe start with the Phil Constitution. The RH Bill may be explicit in not legalizing abortion but it can be misconstrued as tolerating it under the guise of "emergency" obstetric care. Why not make it "comprehensive" obstetric care, unless there are specific products in some inventory they want to roll out? Well, for the record, let it be said that you disagree with scientists who are of the view that embryos are non-human & that you are not alone..

          • [So let it be known that abortion is the next logical policy step after the RH Bill. ]

            And right after that, we have gay marriage. Isn't it glorious? 😀

          • [False dichotomy, Twin Skies? 😛 ]

            Nope. Slippery Slope actually, but you do get 1 point for effort.

        • If the government truly cared for its people, it would implement education programs that would enable them to make informed choices on how they can plan their families; The choice would fall on their hands, and will not be mandated by any gov't official, much less any self-righteous prick who thinks they know better about each family's specific situation.

          • [As if he knows. ]

            Well not him obviously. But the medical professionals that will called to the field for the RH program will know what they're doing, as will the existing women's clinics that are already in squatter's areas. The latter are already doing what they can with their severely limited resources to help the women in their affected areas.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZxCoXUZj4U

          • I suppose the conscience of medical professionals is of no consequence, even if their patients followed theirs, used contraceptives & still resulted in pregnancies. Now how double-standard is that? Who is the more sanctimonious?

    • IUDs prevent the implantation of fertilzed oviums. That instrument is mentioned as an "essential medicine" in the RH Bill. So are permament impariments to the reproductive systems like ligation & vasectomy that the RH Bill wants Philhealth to cover. Check it out.

  26. There's something very basic that everyone here has to understand. Everybody's talking about the right of women to do with their bodies as they please, as if this supposed "right" is gospel truth. In fact, it is not. It came about only when people bagan to become too smart for their own good. Prior to the 20th century, God was humanity's source of absolute knowledge. In recent years, however, people have started replacing God with science and technology as their source of absolute knowledge.

    But is man's truth superior to God's? The experience of Western societies who preceded other societies towards this path says otherwise. Why are young people in Japan taking their lives for reasons that many would consider trivial? Why is depression and the absence of meaning in one's life common in Belgium? In contrast, why do Filipinos, despite their poverty, consistently score in "happiness" surveys?

    Plenty of things to keep us thinking for a while.

    • "It came about only when people bagan to become too smart for their own good." This is typical anti-intellectual rubbish from the religious establishment. So, you're suggesting we just be dumb enough not to question tradition. Got it.

      "Prior to the 20th century, God was humanity's source of absolute knowledge." That's completely absurd. Ask Democrates, Lucretius, Voltaire, Spinoza, Hume, Darwin, Laplace, or Eliot. Even religious scientists like Newton, who believed in alchemy, never relied on dogma for his discoveries. That is why his insights are useful even to this day: they work. That is why his alchemic rubbish died with him: it didn't work. That's how science gains knowledge, not through the authority of absolute truth, but by surviving rigorous testing and skepticism.

      And why is it that it's your God's "truth" that always has to be heard out? How is your God any better than the God of the INC or of the evangelicals who support the RH Bill?

      "Why are young people in Japan taking their lives for reasons that many would consider trivial? Why is depression and the absence of meaning in one's life common in Belgium?" It's far more likely that they have such problems because they get to eat every day, they get to feed their families, and they get not to die of starvation. They get first-world problems like, how fulfilling should my career be? How much happier will I be with a larger HDTV? Those are the kinds of problems they get to deal with.

      People here worry about whether they get to eat rice with salt or not. They may be happy with the situation, but that's because they never had the choice to see that there's more to life than survival. Once you get past the issue of 3 meals a day, you get to worry about other things. That's how life is.

    • Actually Rexy,

      Filipino's no longer score high on happiness surveys. And No, Belgium is higher than us on those surveys. And also, those surveys take poverty into account. So a poor country that was, say, 50% happy, would score higher than a rich country that was, say, 70% happy. They've all thought about these variables and included them as such.

    • [God was humanity's source of absolute knowledge. In recent years, however, people have started replacing God with science and technology as their source of absolute knowledge. ]

      You say this as if it were a bad thing. 🙁

    • "Prior to the 20th century, God was humanity's source of absolute knowledge." – Where do you think this knowledge came from? Did your god talked to some people and told them that this is what you need to do? No, those knowledge came just from someone else's mind, it came from the thoughts of a person, from an ordinary human being. Prior to the 20th century, and still to the present, people equate mysterious things to religion because there's still no scientific proofs and technology to explain these mysteries.

  27. 6) Hey, I'm all for informed choice. That’s why I'm here — to share information & engage. I'm not a politician who will negotiate for support & numbers in the shadows, behind closed doors. I'm certain that freethinkers & non-freethinkers alike who are reading this will agree as well. And I hope my comments encourage people to study the Sex Bill more critically & proactively.

    • Despite your terribly reasoned and non sequitur arguments about the unborn, I tell you that your comments are much appreciated and certainly considered for what merit they contain.

        • [Funny, I find your responses so off tangent, so lacking in vision & swallowing hook-line-&-sinker of arcane Malthusian pseudo-economic dogma but, hey, it's your article]

          Malthusian? I think you're confusing women's health issues with whatever convoluted understanding you have of basic economics.

          • Women's issues? You keep harping on the poor not having been born. It's like blaming their poverty on the fact that they were born. Just like Rev. Malthus. He was a religious man, did you know?

          • [No, I was harping about how our poor are never given a chance to be able to have their kids only when they're prepared, and on the women in RP whose maternal deaths could have been avoided had they been granted access to modern birth control. Poor or not.]

            [Just like Rev. Malthus. He was a religious man, did you know? ]

            So was Hitler, Rev. Jim Jones, and Timothy Mcveigh.

  28. The origins of population control — eugenics — targeted homosexuals as sectors of society that must be deprived of their reproductive powers. Anti-Sex Bill is anti-gay? Pro-Sex Bill people must look hard at themselves in the mirror before they point unfounded accusing fingers at others as well.

  29. 4) For me, the unborn is classified as follows … let;s take steps backward. Human being are guaranteed their rights — from the moment of conception to their foetal stage. The conceptual & imaginary unborn is also a concern in policy & regulation in as far as "sustainable human development" is concerned which the Sex (let us call a spade a spade, all right) Bill itself invokes in Sec. 2. Sustainable development is defined as economic growth that does not jeopardize future generations (aka "unborn"). Pro-Sex Bill advocates must be consistent in the very principles their pet Sex Bill claims to advance.

    • This is the exact type of meandering nonsense about the unborn that I was talking about. I worry that the site might not be displaying all the words I wrote.

      What anti-sex anti-choice advocates push for is the serfdom of future generations for the well-being of baby boomers. Fix the economic system rather than force those who aren't even born yet to buy into it to pay for the wastefulness of the living.

      • Just out of curiosity, does the RHbill promote contraceptives that kill life upon conception? If it does, then I'm against it. If it doesn't, then I'm for it. (Sorry, I haven't researched this topic)

          • IUDs don't kill life upon conception but they do prevent the fertilised ovum — that cell which multiplies into a born human being when allowed its natural course — from implantation. Your choice, Miguel.

          • Filozopher,

            No sarcasm involved in this question: What makes you say that a "fertilised ovum" is a human? I can very well agree to the idea that human life starts at conception, but what you just said seems to be something completely different.

          • Science, Miguel. A fertilosed ovum has the complete human blueprint upon which it multiplies itself to a born baby when allowed to follow its natural course, which includes implantation. Your other cells can't do that.

          • Abject nonsense? There you go with the conclusion before your faulty explanation. I am aware the adult stem cells with the scientific technology aplied can be engineered to be clones & I think prospectively that clones are human beings & must be granted human rights protections under law. Fertilised ovium need to be implanted to naturally live on & IUDs prevent that. Now, why do you conclude with invoking the name of some "Lord Himself". Are you really that much a fan of Rev. Thomas Malthus?

          • So, stem cells need technology to naturally live, but only when they become human beings do they get rights, but fertilized eggs, which are aborted up to 50% through completely natural causes get rights even without the viability provided by the uterine lining. Alright.

            All your arguments boil down to a naturalistic fallacy.

            And what's with Malthus? Did you learn about him in school today?

          • You mean you haven't learned about Malthus? You sound so much like him. O_o You tell me to not drag science but there you go, engaging me with your own understanding. Who gave you a franchise? Is IUD a "natural" cause? I think it is classified under "artificial" contraceptive practices, isn't it?

          • Well, you were talking about IUDs and Malthus. I have never even debated you on the level of economics, which you will have noticed if you even had the common decency to argue with a modicum of intellectual honesty.

          • Hey, I'm just mentioning the seminal sources of "overpopulation" jitters of which you raise spectres. What's so not intellectually honest about that? O_o Yeah, I mentioned IUD. You mentioned GOD all of a sudden. You deluded or something?

          • And where exactly does Malthus figure into a discussion on medical definitions of "Human Life?"

            You don't see us pulling Karl Marx out of our ass when we talk about the developing zygote. And please, if you're so obsessed with Malthus, you can have him. We're not greedy -_-

            Get a room. Sheesh.

          • Uhm , I think Malthus was referring to right to life, to be born at all, to have children. I think he & Mdm Sanger (Pres. of Inernational Planned Parenthood Federation in the 1950s & 60s) believe that the "less fit" must "reproduce less". Sounds bigoted to me but, hey, free expression, right?

          • [Uhm , I think Malthus was referring to right to life, to be born at all, to have children.]

            Malthus didn't exactly have 8 mouths to feed with a monthly salary worth less than 8k PHP, did he?

            [Sounds bigoted to me but, hey, free expression, right? ]

            Sounds more like you're talking out of your ass. Again. Now you're resorting to quote-mining Margaret's rhetoric.

          • Re" Malthus: Yeah but the English elite used his economic models to justify enclosures that rendered miilions of subjects landless, subject to inhumane employment in the factories of the Industrial Revolution & driven to immigrate to countries where they systematically wiped out indigenous populations. Wait, this sounds familiar. Isn;t this happening in the Phils too?
            Re: Sanger: But she hey, Hillary Clinton idolizes Mdm. Sanger AND support efforts like the RH Bill, doesn't she? And so do you! You believe the poor shouldn't reproduce.

          • Stem cells become human when they engineered to have the complete 23 chromosome blueprint & are able to multiply as an individual. It would violate their rights to be treated as chattel. If you have a case vs. Mother nature, bring it up with her. :/ You're the one who insists on having an unnecessary PHP 3B bill passed.

      • Marcos joined the POPCOM bandwagon, warned of an overpopulated Philippines & too many mouths to feed. I wonder where the Philippines would be if the millions of OFWs had not been born then? OFWs contribute 12% to GDP. You have so much lack of foresight & imagination, Garrick. You're falling for First World eugenic propaganda that is afraid of Third World populations like us outnumbering them.

        • Let me get this straight: Your argument against the RH Bill is because it would have prevented millions of filipinos from being shipped out of the country, and away from their family and loved ones?

          • No, it would have resulted in worse poverty. You know, the problem you keep harping about that is caused by "too many people", including OFWs. Unless you don't think OFWS are people?

        • This has got to be one of the most stupid posts I've seen here.

          Kung susundin namin ang logic mo, mas maganda pa nga para sa bansa natin eh. Kasi may chance na hindi pinanganak yung mga mahihirap na nagiging kriminal, yung mga pulis at politikong nagiging corrupt. Teka, i-atras pa nga natin. Puwede rin palang hindi pinanganak yung mga Espanyol na sumakop sa'tin, or yung mga Hapon na umatake at sumakop sa atin nung World War 2! Ang galing!

          Bottomline is, if the 12 million OFW's you're referring to weren't born, another 12 million Filipinos would've taken their place. It's that simple.

          • Why is is that you can speculatively that another 12 million would have taken their place while there are REALLY 12 million born OFWs out there? It looks like one side can;t speculate while you can? If thinks calling stupid the people who disagree with you work, in only shows your depth of insecurity. I have not called anyone stupid here because I believe that is the way to engage people in a discussion — with respect & equanimity.

          • [I have not called anyone stupid here because I believe that is the way to engage people in a discussion — with respect & equanimity. ]

            You get respect when you earn it Filo, not before.

          • Fuck noblesse oblige.

            I follow the martial artist sensibility of proving my opponent's point through active combat. If his argument works, then I show respect. But if it's bullshit, and he constantly makes excuses and refuses to face up, I am not obligated to show him respect. I am obligated to beat him into the ground. Hard.

          • [You haven't earned mine but my noblesse oblige grants it to you.]

            And thank you for admitting you're a condescending elitist :3

          • I did? Where? O_o You a martial artist?! Wow! I thought martial artists begin engagement with a salute or bow, not with calling your opponent names? Are you a "white belt" by any chance?

          • [Wow! I thought martial artists begin engagement with a salute or bow, not with calling your opponent names? ]

            From where I come from, we do bow, but anything pretty much goes in the ring: gouging, grappling, and locks. And this is arnis. Our group's geared for practical combat, not dueling or competitions.

            [Are you a "white belt" by any chance? ]

            Why do you ask? Would you like one?

          • No, thanks, Wouldn't want to deprive you of your belt & let your pants fall. OK, have fun in the ring. My best martial art is the one of "fighting without fighting". Anything else where I am obliged to exercise my right to defence from bodily harm is secondary. Our first rule is "Never harbour wicked intentions" & always treat your opponents with compassion.

          • [My best martial art is the one of "fighting without fighting". Anything else where I am obliged to exercise my right to defence from bodily harm is secondary. Our first rule is "Never harbour wicked intentions" & always treat your opponents with compassion. ]

            I've always favored Master Lee's concept of "strike first" actually. Less injuries happen when a fight ends quickly – the really nasty stuff starts happening when it gets dragged on.

          • My favourite concept is "I have the right to defend myself" & "Protect the innocent, Uphold the law. Preserve the public trust." . Things that obviously you hold less regard.

    • [4) For me, the unborn is classified as follows … let;s take steps backward. Human being are guaranteed their rights — from the moment of conception to their foetal stage. The conceptual & imaginary unborn is also a concern in policy & regulation in as far as "sustainable human development" is concerned which the Sex (let us call a spade a spade, all right) Bill itself invokes in Sec. 2. Sustainable development is defined as economic growth that does not jeopardize future generations (aka "unborn"). Pro-Sex Bill advocates must be consistent in the very principles their pet Sex Bill claims to advance. ]

      We already have a clear example of what happens of dumbfucks like you have their way in imposing the same degree of rights to a zygote as the woman carrying them: http://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/pre…

      So, shall we have every miscarrying woman arrested for manslaughter or murder? The fetus has the same rights as the woman after all, meaning we have to penalize the woman to the fullest extent of the law.

      • [So, shall we have every miscarrying woman arrested for manslaughter or murder? The fetus has the same rights as the woman after all, meaning we have to penalize the woman to the fullest extent of the law.]

        — I think these are prudential questions, Twin. Myself, I don't mind allowing a fetus at that stage to die if it would mean saving the mother. But I am completely against killing fetuses so women can have all the sex they want and some peace of mind.

        • @Miguel

          [But I am completely against killing fetuses so women can have all the sex they want and some peace of mind. ]

          Said example does not speak of the majority of pregnancies that do happen here in RP I'm afraid. The former is a better case.

        • [But I am completely against killing fetuses so women can have all the sex they want and some peace of mind. ]

          Can you actually cite any woman who'd say that? Abortions aren't exactly as easy as waltzing into a clinic, and having the problem fixed like a root canal. Virtually every case of an abortion I have heard has the woman suffering severe anxiety and fear over their impeding decision.

          It is not an easy choice.
          http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/1000ab.htm

          • [Can you actually cite any woman who'd say that?]

            –Ocourse, you wouldn't actually hear anyone say that so blithely. But if you're suggesting that such an idea is rarefied, you only have to look at the entertainment industry.

          • [But if you're suggesting that such an idea is rarefied, you only have to look at the entertainment industry. ]

            So are you conceding that a high-profile star's personal life is reflective of the plight of a good majority of women in the community?

          • The majority doesn't matter here. In speaking of abortion, even if only 5% of the women, who got an abortion, had done so for the shallow reasons we just mentioned. Then I think it's still piffle to say that that's a negligible statistic. Since, we are talking about human life here (on abortion).

            Besides, If we legalized abortions, do you think the government would be able to keep tabs on the reasons why women get abortions? No. Who's to say that that hypothetical 5% won't get higher? If it does get higher; if more people get abortions for flimsy reasons, at what point in it's increase should we start saying "Oh, now we should stop legalizing it".

            So abortion is not so much of a slippery slope as it is a greased precipice. I'm definitely against it. As it turns out, the RHbill is also against it.

          • [So abortion is not so much of a slippery slope as it is a greased precipice. I'm definitely against it. As it turns out, the RHbill is also against it. ]

            Then we have nothing left to discuss on this matter.

            I will note, however, that by your reasoning, we could just as well say that nobody should drive a car, because there will always be a small number of the population that will use them as getaway vehicles for bank robberies.

          • [I will note, however, that by your reasoning, we could just as well say that nobody should drive a car, because there will always be a small number of the population that will use them as getaway vehicles for bank robberies.]

            — Ridiculous analogy. I said, nobody should be able to get an abortion if nobody's life is at stake. If someone's life is at stake, then that's a prudential question and is a completely different situation.

      • C'mon, Is a miscarriage intentional? I will appreciate we be civil & use appropriate language. I would want people to say that Filipino Freethinkers are proper ladies & gentlemen. They may call us freethinkers name but I don't feel the obligation to reciprocate.

        • [C'mon, Is a miscarriage intentional? I will appreciate we be civil & use appropriate language. I would want people to say that Filipino Freethinkers are proper ladies & gentlemen. ]

          neither is manslaughter Filozopher, but if I took your argument that the zygote has the same rights as a fully developed human being, then wouldn't it follow that even accidentally killing one, for whatever reason, is manslaughter?

          • Wouldn't put the charge as manslaughter. You have to produce a corpse. However, there is such a thing as a duty of care. If people are not made aware of the risks that the zygote is a human being & that the IUD is preventing its life into fruiting, then the duty of care is violated. The RH Bill & health professionals should be transparent with regard to that risk.

          • So if you're not willing to consider it manslaugher, then why are you willing to concede that killing the zygote is murder?

          • And I'm just following your reasoning to its logic end. If you consider abortions (intentional killings) to be murder, then what's stopping the next moral nutjob from declaring that by extension, accidental miscarriages can be recognized as manslaughter, ergo, a criminal offense

            And no, it's not my imagination making shit up. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/02/20/uta…

          • The fact somebody made your reasoning into an actual law renders your accusation of "irrlevant & immaterial." Hard evidence, as we call it.

            Oh my, do you need stronger glasses?

          • you have to admit, Twin-Skies has a point there… if zygote=baby, then if a mother had a miscarriage, intentional or not, they can be sued by the state for gross parental negligence leading to involuntary manslaughter (yes, I watch waaay too much crime drama shows on TV)

            The mother should have taken more drastic steps to ensure that the spontaneous miscarriage did not occur. Her negligence led to the accidental death of a human being and she should be held accountable by a court of law.

  30. 3) As for CJ Davide's speech, he was speaking (which is his right) in figurative — not literal — terms of his opinion that the promotion of contraception will result in the opportunity loss of future generation of Filipinos. I'm sure everyone here has at one point used hyperbole, metaphors & allegory in their statements. Aren;t we all glad there is freedom of speech?

  31. 2) On Manny’s gratitude for his dad not using a condom, that was a very logical response, but not all laws are about logic. Many times it is about celebration of life itself. People legislate celebration & gratitude. Our great sportsman, Manny, is doing his job asking people to be thankful for their very lives & by honouring future generations, not seeing them as threats to progress but possibilities of greatness. It is very grand of him.

    • It was a very idiotic statement that I addressed in paragraph 2 and 4. It's as absurd to be thankful for your parents not to have used contraceptives as it is to be thankful for your dad deciding not to ejaculate 3 seconds earlier than he did.

    • [Our great sportsman, Manny, is doing his job asking people to be thankful for their very lives & by honouring future generations, not seeing them as threats to progress but possibilities of greatness.]

      I don't see how denying a woman basic education to her reproductive health, or forcing her to give birth to a child into a life of poverty is, in any meaningful way, a "celebration of life."

      • I think he mother she speak for herself, twin skies, not you. As far as I can see, she;s glad she gave birth to Manny. So am I. You don't seem to be just because he disagrees with you.

        • [I think he mother she speak for herself, twin skies, not you. As far as I can see, she;s glad she gave birth to Manny. So am I. You don't seem to be just because he disagrees with you. ]

          Well and good that Lola Dionisia loves Manny then – any mother would be proud of a son that manages to become such a fine specimen of physical prowess. And I do not say that with any sarcasm.

          My question to you Filo, is how Manny's reasoning justifies the millions of other filipino children who are born into poverty, and are unable to climb their way out of their predicament not due to lack of trying, but simply because they're not "quite" as talented as Manny.

          You fail to realize that for every potential "Pac-man" born, there are countless others who will never make it, and will die of starvation, or will be abandoned by their parents because of lack of resources. This is not hyperbole, Filozopher. This is fact.
          http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/09/19/10/100-ki…

          • That's why I engage in socioeconomic justice work, twin-skies. The most robust economies after WWII had socieoconomic equity as the common policy, not population control. I haven;t seen any population control program work in the world. Have you?

          • These are cases in the First World cases where socioeconomic reforms were instituted & had been effective. The Philippines has neglected such reforms & insist on population management as the primary policy for reducing poverty. Third, note the demographic they attack — poor AfroAmerican & Latina segments of the population … sounds racist & eugenicist to me — however, such are the roots of population control ideologies.

          • Your argument would hold IF the actual goal here was true population control, and not population management as a means to an end.

            The CBCP and others figured it out, which is why they're taking the fight to such levels. The best outcome here is total cultural modification. Take all the good that came from the panoply of cultures that have left their impression on us and discard what is evil.

            Evil, of course, would be defined by me as an ecclesiastical organization wielding political power for social control. Don't know what you'd define as evil, so let's not go there. 🙂

  32. 1) I've always believed "reproductive health" is not the appropriate title of the proposed bill. This very commentary supports my advocacy. It supports the prevention of reproduction — right, it is not about unborn children. It is about preventing the unborn.

    • There's a difference between "preventing reproduction," and "planned reproduction." The RH Bill is closer to the latter's definition since it doesn't force couples not to have children, and focuses on educating them on their options so they may have children only when they feel they are ready.

      • It is obvious that the promotion of IUDs which prevent implantations of fertilized oviums & permanent impairment of reproduction systems like ligation & vasectomies limit choices & possibilities … & it;s in th epolicy & even classified as "essential" & proposed to be covered by Philhealth.

        • [You plan to prevent pregnancies. Got it! ]

          Nope. I said planned reproductions, meaning that couples should be able to choose when they decide to have a child.

          [It is obvious that the promotion of IUDs which prevent implantations of fertilized oviums & permanent impairment of reproduction systems like ligation & vasectomies limit choices & possibilities … & it;s in th epolicy & even classified as "essential" & proposed to be covered by Philhealth. ]

          Can you cite studies that prove your point?

  33. So for you what is RH Bill really about Sexual Health or Sexual Freedom? What is the RH bill really about can you tell me? Sexual Freedom or Sexual Health? State reasons Please 🙂 .

    • It's about both sexual freedom
      Section 2: "The State shall eradicate discriminatory practices, laws and policies that infringe on a person’s exercise of reproductive health rights."
      Section 3: "Freedom of choice, which is central to the exercise of right, must be fully guaranteed by the State"

      and sexual health

      Section 3: "Since human resource is among the principal asset of the country, maternal health, safe delivery of healthy children and their full human development and responsible parenting must be ensured through effective reproductive health care"

      I found this on Google.

      • Reproductive Health isn't Sexual freedom. 🙂 So how can the youth benefit in this RH Bill? In America, I believe, I have many American friends and people who I know who are Americans who got involved in sex as early as 13 years old and in the United Kingdom there was news that 11 year old boys had raped an 8 year old girl, so what does Sex Education advocate sexual health or sexual freedom? Dr. Grossman argues it is not sexual health but sexual freedom, We've seen a decline in teen pregnancies yet it is still relatively high. Please refer to this article http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/231317/sex-educatio…

        • I suppose you want children to be born regardless of the ability of their families to even feed them. That sure sounds like a sustainable system.

          • So tell me what is it really you want your sexual health or sexual freedom? (: you've avoided the question once. Is it really about sexual HEALTH or sexual FREEDOM? If you were to chose which one?

          • What you are proposing is to deny access to contraceptives and education to people who demand for them and to people who are losing mothers, wives, and friends just to prop up a failing economy. The RH Bill is not a population control measure. Read it here. I dare you to show ANY provision that mandates population targets and curtailment of growth rates. I dare you to find anything about controlling populations.

          • Who says I'm denying them? I said that the DOH under the current framework is already doing the job. Do you see me stopping them? O_o Dare me? Buddy, I didn't churn out those figures from thin air. Take your case to the World Bank. So wait, are you agreeing that there is no such thing as overpopulation, given your statement there are no population targets?

      • A follow up question, if it is about Sexual Health, America sells condoms and contraceptives over the counter, how come the number of HIV/AIDS patients is relatively higher, as in higher, than in the Philippines where condoms and contraceptives are not sold over the counter? there are 300 Million Americans and 1million of them are living with HIV/AIDS, in the Philippines currently there are 100Million Filipinos and only 10,000+ are living with HIV/AIDS. Can you explain why America has alot of people living with HIV/AIDS when ironically there is sex education and contraceptives and condoms while in the Philippines the number of people living with HIV/AIDS is LOW when ironically there is no formal sex education and contraceptives and condoms are not distributed freely in the market?

        • Correlation does not imply causation. The variables that contribute to AIDS occurrence in the United States are complex and finding one variable that suits your bias doesn't prove your point. You'll find that car sales are also going up. The number of Hispanics in America is also increasing. Federal funding for education is going down. Now, do all these contribute to AIDS occurrence? Possibly. Show the causation and then we'll talk.

          • You still avoided the question.. why the number of HIV/AIDS patients still have not gone down despite the over the counter sales of contraceptives and condoms? AIDS death have gone down yet numbers continue to rise.

          • Show me that the same people getting access to contraceptives are the same exact people at risk for AIDS.

          • Can you even cite why the number of HIV/AIDS patients have not gone down in America? (:

          • [Can you even cite why the number of HIV/AIDS patients have not gone down in America? (: ]

            Poor implementation of AIDs programs for one, which is explained in-depth here: http://www.avert.org/america.htm

            And since Filozopher cites America, I would also like to point out that what is happening in the US is considered by health organizations as a full-blown epidemic. From my source:

            "Despite the seriousness of the epidemic, particularly in certain geographic areas and among certain demographic groups, America lacked a comprehensive plan on AIDS until 2010. President Obama had promised to rectify this during his election campaign by committing to the creation of a National HIV/AIDS Strategy. The Strategy, which was launched in July 2010, is structured around three core aims: reducing new HIV infections, increasing access to care and improving health outcomes for people living with HIV, and reducing HIV-related disparities and health inequities."

            One thing we can learn from the US' example is that we need to design a proper Anti-AIDs program here before the situation spins out of control.

          • I thought sex-education had ways to prevent the transmitting of STDs, HIV/AIDS? So how come it has failed?

          • Iwasan natin ang paggamit ng mga 'rhetorical question.' Ano po ang iyong suposisyon?

            Do you think that condoms actually increase the prevalence of AIDS? No, because that would be absurd and flies in the face of logic and common knowledge. Obviously, Mechai's initiative isn't working as well as it should.

          • Here's some maths. Let's say 1 MM practice "safe" sex using a condom that cuts the risk to say 5%. That would mean 50,000 would likely get infected. Now let's say 1,000,000 more engage in "safe" sex, that would mean 50,000 more would likely get infected. Now let's say the 2,000,000, thinking they engage in "safe sex" double their activity, then it would possibly double the total figure from 100,000 to 200,000. Makes sense in the Thai context to me. They call that the "ratchet" effect.

          • And we call your statistical ass-pulling "bullshit."

            Prior to their implementation of any comprehensive anti-AIDS campaigns, Thailand experienced approximately143,000 new HIV infections among its populace.

            Aggressive campaigns that included widespread distribution of condoms, instruction in their proper use, and STD education cut this figure down to just 19,000 in 2003, or just 13.2 of the previous prevalence rate of new infections.
            http://www.unaids.org/globalreport/

            Regardless of how you look at it, condom use as part of a largescale program worked, and the only reason for the recent rise of cases is due to a slowdown on the campaign.

        • @Thomas

          Let's take a closer look at the AIDs epidemic in the US, shall we?
          http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-06-08/opinion/174…

          Let's look at the pattern:
          1. Medical professionals warn of impending AIDs epidemic, and urge officials to provide funding for anti-AIDs programs.
          2. Right Wing-oriented President blocks move, and pretends AIDs is not such a serious issue.
          3. Millions die, but Reagan persists there is no danger, once again due to backing from his rightwing allies.

          Swap out the Catholic Church with Reagan's name, and what happened to the US in the 80s could very well be what will happen to us.

          • Ano talaga ang punto dito ang pagbibigay ng kalayaan sa pagtatalik at lahat maging maligaya o iligtas ang mga tao sa kahirapaan at sa pagkadaralita? Maraming paraan naman ang magagawa ng pamahalaan para maging maganda ang ekonomiya. tulad ng pagprioritize sa agrikultura.. Ang RH Bill hindi mapipigilan ang paglobo ng populasyon dahil hindi mo rin mapipigilan ang mga mag-asawa magtalik eh at meron bang populasyon na bumababa? Ayon sa World bank ang fertility ng bansa ay unting-unti bumababa, sa 2020 ito'y maging 2.1 eh bakit kailangan pa ng RH bill? Lagi na lang kayo nag-iingles dito. Parang di kayo pinoy.

          • [Maraming paraan naman ang magagawa ng pamahalaan para maging maganda ang ekonomiya. tulad ng pagprioritize sa agrikultura..]

            At bakit mo naman naisip na kung nai-prioritize ng gobyerno ang RH Bill, ay hindi nila maaasikaso ang mga programang agrikultura ng bayan? Ang sinasabi mo ay isang halimbawa ng False Dichotomy Fallacy.

            [Ayon sa World bank ang fertility ng bansa ay unting-unti bumababa, sa 2020 ito'y maging 2.1 eh bakit kailangan pa ng RH bill? Lagi na lang kayo nag-iingles dito. Parang di kayo pinoy. ]

            Tomas, pumunta ka sa ating mga ikswater's area. Ito ang maikikita mo: http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/101east/2…

            At hindi World Bank ang nagsabi niyan – ang nagsabi ay ang UN, subalit ayon sa kanilang pagtala, kulang pa rin ang ating ginagawa para sa ating mga kababayan: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/com…

            And no Tomas, just because you're talking in Tagalog doesn't make you any more pinoy than anybody else here. By your reasoning, since I've studied arnis for five solid years and boxing for 2 (Manny's sport, remember?), that makes me more pinoy than you 😉

          • Hindi naman pinoy ang boxing eh, at walang superiority sa pagiging pinoy.. Kulang nga ang ginagawa para sa ating mga kababayan DAHIL sa korrupsyon hindi sa populasyon. Kung ikakasa ang RH Bill sino ang mas makikinabang? Sabihini mo nga?

          • [Kung ikakasa ang RH Bill sino ang mas makikinabang? Sabihini mo nga? ]

            Women among the urban poor, duh.

          • Hindi, yung unang mauulanan ng PHP 3B a year. Wala pa namang success rate ang population control program na pag-uusapan a. Karamihanb ng mga bansang ipinilit suamma sa POCOM bandwagon ay Third World pa rin. Yung mga di na Third World … naghabol ng socioeconomic reform. Yung RH Bill, panay popcom para sa mahirap … pero sabay sasabihin na walang demographic target. Nakakadolkeng talaga ang pangako ng PHP 3B a year.

          • Sabihin mo nga sa akin ano talaga ang pangunahing problema sa bansa natin ang populasyon o ang korrupsyon?

          • [Sabihin mo nga sa akin ano talaga ang pangunahing problema sa bansa natin ang populasyon o ang korrupsyon? ]

            They're both valid problems, and each will require a different solution to address, though their solutions by no means contradicts each other.

          • Kahit ikakasa ang RH Bill nandyan pa rin ang Kahirapan at mga daralita dahil yan sa korrupsyon, hindi ang mga bata ang problema ng bansa kung hindi ang mga opisyales sa gobyerno na korrupt. Sabihin mo nga sa akin, noong bata ka pa ba, iniisip ka ba ng mga magulang mo na isa kang problema? Hindi ang kabataan ang problema ng bayan kung hindi ang korrupsyon.

          • Tax religions that meddle in politics, crack down on tax evaders, and remove pork barrels, and you can triple that amount.

            There. Problem solved.

          • Including those that support the RH Bill. I will mention this to Manalo. Thank you. By the way, I asked how you would spend it, not how to generate it. That's another juicy topic.

          • [By the way, I asked how you would spend it, not how to generate it.]

            I must say I can't really comment on that, on account I haven't done any extensive reading on government funding allocation, and I'm not about to delude myself into thinking I am.

            Would you like to take the plunge?

          • Well, that's it, guys. Let's close up all the schools and hospitals. Let's all focus on corruption. After all, we can only do one thing.

          • Well Garrick tell me, you don't believe in morality right? Then what do you consider corruption as? A natural act? You don't believe in morality, a constitution is based on morality too, therefore we don't need a constitution if morality does not exist? Morality does not exist therefore we don't need laws… anarchism?

          • Nah, RH Bill says let's give up teaching more morals & values to overcome corruption & let's teach them how to stop making babies. By the way, what country succeeded in its population control program & what were the parameters of success?

          • Of course it's always your moral code that must be followed—that sex is vile and every action must be approved by the medieval prescriptions of an anachronistic cabal of virgins.

          • I think they should also tax religions that support the RH Bill as well. I do notice you let the pharma cos. & the trapos get away. Proposal ko? Suportahan nyo muna ang repeal ng automatic debt payment appropriation act na automatic bumabayad ng halos kalahati ng budget sa pagbayad ng utong "with no questions asked". Dapat ma-adit ang lahat ng mga utang na yan & habulin ang mga kumamkam & nagnakaw sa yaman ng bayan. Mas-epektibop pa yan kesa isang milyung condom na bibilhin sa pharma cos.
            .

          • Excellent. Tax religions except your own. How generous of you. Again, this false dichotomy you rely on is getting tiresome. Yes, you can also do other things to improve the country. Also, fish swim and birds fly.

          • Most countries that enact an RH program measure success by the number of unwanted pregnancies they prevent, and the number of maternal deaths, STDs, and AIDs cases they avoid.

          • Golly, I see an inconsistency there. How do they know they prevent a pregnancy when it hasn't happened? Maternal deaths are preventable by obstetric care, not contraceptives — they're pregnant already. STDs & AIDS? Well Thailand & sub-Sahara Africa showcases are a failure then

          • Actually, the case of Thailand can be considered a success given the situation the country faced before widespread Anti-AIDs drives were implemented.
            http://www.avert.org/thailand-aids-hiv.htm http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,…

            Africa's situation is harder to grasp, on account of the difficulty of attaining accurate data in its regions: http://www.avert.org/aids-africa-questions.htm

            [How do they know they prevent a pregnancy when it hasn't happened? Maternal deaths are preventable by obstetric care, not contraceptives — they're pregnant already. ]

            Actually, if you educate women and give them access to modern birth control methods, you help them avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Ergo, no maternal complications.

            What you're describing, to use an admittedly wonky analogy, is mere treating the symptom rather than curing the source. And if you've actually cared to read the consolidated RH Bill, Section 6 already covers the matter of obstetric and neo-natal care.

          • Given your sources, I'd rather hear it from the Thais & Africans themselves. RH Bill covers "emergency" obstetric. I'm for "comprehensive" obstetric care. And rather than propose to spend PHP 3B a year, I prefer to clean up DOH & energize it by investing in its people than buy contraceptives from pharmas who give it for fre to their NGOs anyway. What do the pharmas want? More sales?

          • Wow. I never heard of this new discovery! The language you speak changes your nationality and genetics! I better go check if my passport changed colors.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

SUBSCRIBE

Stay Updated

Subscribe now

REPORT

Secularism Violations

Report here

one who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief; one who doubts or denies religious dogma

Contact us at [email protected]

© 2021 Filipino Freethinkers. All rights reserved.

Menu

Blog

Featured Articles