REPORT Secularism Violations
Humor

Why the RH Bill is bad: The Real Truth behind the Supposed Truth about the RH Bill

Dustin Celestino
Dustin Celestino

I used to support the RH Bill. I no longer do. By the end of this document, neither would you. I have not supported the RH Bill since I attended a lecture in Megamall about the truth behind it. That lecture truly enlightened me. My only hope is that this holy light of enlightenment passes through your monitor screen, into your optical nerves, and into your heart so it can touch your soul (because the soul is in the heart). My intent here is not to antagonize Pro-RH people, but to enlighten – so listen up, you narrow-minded morons. Open your minds to the real truth…

The RH Bill will put Filipinos at risk of extinction, because, at its very core, the RH Bill is an extension of a secret, global conspiracy – a western attempt – to implement principles of eugenics on unsuspecting, inferior populations in order to exclude them from the human evolutionary process, at the end of which would, at the apex, summon forth THE MASTER RACE. Anyone who failed to see this after the lecture is ignorant. I advise him or her to do his or her research, better yet, do some soul-searching to discover the real truth, because the truth is in our hearts, we just have to listen to it.

Initially, my layman’s interpretation of the RH Bill led me to think that it was just a bill meant to help educate the uninformed about ways to prevent them from fornicating their way to a very bad financial situation. My ignorant mind devised 10 simple points as to why the RH Bill was right.

I thought:

1. The minimum wage – the lowest an employer can pay an employee – of a non-agricultural Filipino worker is P404.

2. If there were 20 working days in a month (because most people don’t work on the weekend), the average minimum-wage-earning Filipino would earn around P8,000 a month.

3. Let’s call that person, Joey. If Joey, like other human beings, ate food on a regular basis, he will spend around P70/day on food (and that’s a very, very conservative assumption). There are 30 days in a month, so I guess, that would amount to P2,100 a month.

4. But if Joey had a wife that he loved, he might want to feed her too. Feeding her would cost another P2,100 a month.

5. P8,000 – P4,200 = P3,800

6. If Joey and his wife rented a home, or used electricity and bathed from time to time, the amount left from Joey’s salary would be significantly reduced. Let’s say their utility bills and rent amounted to P1800.

7. P3,800 – P1800 = P2,000

8. P2,000 is a lot of money, but I don’t think Joey and his wife should have more than 3 children, right? I mean, I don’t have children, but just by looking at one, I can safely assume that they cost more than P1,000/month. Babies need milk, diapers, toys, immunity injections, baby medicine…

9. From this I deduced that babies cost money. If babies cost money, I theorized that having more babies would cost more money. And from this data, I observed that a person who spent a lot of money on children, but didn’t earn a lot of money, would soon be broke and unable to provide for both himself and his children. Another word for this broke situation is poverty.

10. I theorized that a person can avoid being poor by making less babies. So, I thought that steps should be taken to inform people about this very little known fact. I also thought that the government should make contraceptives accessible so that people who don’t earn a lot can properly manage the little resources that they have. That’s why I supported the RH Bill.

But now I know that I was wrong. And here are some of the reasons why I know that. By the way, before I continue, I must say that this is the truth, guys. In fact, it’s more than the truth. It’s the Catholic truth, which means that it’s truer and more true than the regular truth.

I know that the issue of the RH Bill is not a religious issue, but make sure you pay attention if you want your soul to be saved. Here are some of the things I learned from the lecture I learned:

 

“The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that the Philippines is overpopulated.”

I agree. I, myself, have observed that the Philippine is NOT overpopulated. In fact, if you use your common sense and think about it, you will realize a few things:

1. We are not overpopulated! Look at the mountains, the jungles, the caves and the ocean floor. There are no people there!

2. If we were really overpopulated, we would have trouble travelling. But if you go to EDSA, there’s no traffic. When you ride the MRT, it’s not packed with people.

3. Students in public schools are well educated because the teacher to student ratio is very low. In fact, because of our low population the government can basically guarantee that all public school students are provided books, notebooks and other school supplies.

 

 

“The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that contraceptives are good for mankind and women.”

1. I agree, the RH Bill is not good for women because it might draw a woman away from her one, true, universal purpose – the uninterrupted production of healthy babies.

2. Furthermore, the role of women in society and the universe is to make babies. That’s why God made women. That’s their sole purpose in life. They’re not good for anything else. Ever wonder why there are no women in the clergy? Because they’re not good enough.

3. Contraceptives would allow women to enjoy the benefits of physical intimacy while maintaining a successful and productive career, if she so chooses. That is so wrong. Only men should be able to enjoy that privilege.

4. Women should get pregnant every single time they have sex and only immoral women enjoy sex without the possibility of conception. In fact, a better alternative would be for women, in general, to follow the example made by Mother Mary – to learn how to conceive without having sex.

 

 

“The RH bill will put Filipinos at risk of extinction!”

1. I agree. If we pass the RH bill, we will become extinct, like dinosaurs. The dinosaurs are all dead. If we don’t want to be extinct, we should not pass the RH Bill. I mean, do you really want to be a dinosaur?

2. In my opinion, it wouldn’t even be far-fetched to speculate that the most probable reason the dinosaurs became extinct was because they used contraceptives.

3. Population decline is just bad for nations. Just look at the countries which have a declining population – Italy, Japan and Singapore. They’re in such a bad shape. The Philippines obviously has a better economy and has a higher literacy rate than these countries. In fact, many Italians, Japanese, and Singaporeans go to the Philippines for work. That only goes to show that a decline in population is bad for the economy.

 

 

“Our population is our biggest asset!”

1.  In my opinion, people should make as many babies as they can because the population is not a problem. In fact, the more babies a person has, the more assets he has. Forget real estate properties, stock investments, or Jollibee franchises. The real secret to increased wealth is babies.

2. If you have 15 babies, you’re practically wealthy because babies are assets:

2.1 If you need money, you can sell them.

2.2 If you can keep them alive until they can walk, they can one day beg for money in the streets – they’re going to have to anyway because there’s no way in hell you’ll be able to provide for all of them on your own.

3. If ever a person is not able to feed the 15 babies he made, it’s the governments fault, because it’s the governments sole responsibility to make sure that every Filipino baby is fed.

4. The best way a person can contribute to his country is to contribute to its population.

 

“The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that reproductive education and contraceptives will effectively reduce cases of abortion.”

1. Reproductive/contraceptive education will have no effect on the number of abortion cases. In my opinion, these abortion cases will not lessen because women will continue to have abortions regardless of whether they are pregnant or not.

2. Abortions cannot be prevented. It’s just something that women naturally do. Like shopping, for example.

 

“The RH Bill is wrong because it will make people participate in extra-marital and pre-marital sex.”

1. By approving the RH Bill, we as a nation, are practically encouraging our people to engage in immoral activities.

2. We must protect our moral values and reject the RH Bill. Because, currently, not a single Filipino engages in pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex. As soon as this bill is approved, Filipino people will run the streets naked and start a national orgy!

3. The root cause of extra-marital and pre-marital sex is one’s exposure to contraceptives. There is just something in contraceptives that people find very arousing.

4. In Western countries, men lure strange women into bed by showing them condoms.

5. If we ban condoms, absolutely no one would engage in pre-marital or extra-marital sex.

 

“The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that parents don’t teach their children about sex.”

1. The truth is that parents talk to their children about sex all the time. It’s so not awkward. The dad usually tells his children how he takes off all his clothes, does a sexy Tiger growl and makes sweet, sweet music with their mother’s body.

2. Also, a father usually advises his daughter that if she’s going to have sex with her boyfriend, she should use a condom. Sometimes the father even drives the daughter to the boyfriend’s house and waits for the couple to finish.

3. Filipino daughters don’t have sex without the father’s permission. Unwanted pregnancies or teen pregnancies never happen to Filipino girls. That’s why we do not need the RH Bill.

 

“The RH Bill is a conspiracy.”

1. It’s lies, all lies!

 

“The RH Bill is wrong because the priest said so, and priests are never wrong.”

The biggest reason why we should not pass the RH Bill is because the priests told us that we shouldn’t. As anyone should know, priests, men of the clergy, should be the authority on sexual and reproductive matters because they have the most knowledge and experience with sex and reproduction. They are true sexperts – legendary masters of erotic affairs. If you are a real Catholic, you would do everything they say, because they’re always right.

Related content

2865 comments

  1. “The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that reproductive education and contraceptives will effectively reduce cases of abortion.”
    The RH Bill's assumption makes more sense than what you have said.

    “The RH Bill is wrong because it will make people participate in extra-marital and pre-marital sex.”
    So what's wrong with that? Isn't it that sex is a great expression of exercising free will? Maybe it makes sense in your perspective because your religion doesn't teach you to exercise your free will by submitting to a remote God (or Satan), who takes away your free will.

    “Our population is our biggest asset!”
    Should you say that "Our population is our biggest asset to the imbalance of nature". Don't you think that the higher the human population the more we are consuming the limited resources and thereby depriving others? Don't you think that the resources of our world is limited? If it's not, why is it that many are poor and don't even have food? Don't tell me that it's the will of God, what an unfair kind of being is that.

  2. The bottomline is that I think you're just another guy brainwashed by your mad religion. A religion that is dead because of its absurdities and madness. Your religion should be left behind from the grave since it doesn't help humanity to move forward instead making it extinct.

    “The RH Bill is wrong because the priest said so, and priests are never wrong.”
    Do you think priests are never wrong? Don't be absurd. You can even find in Youtube the wrong doings of priests.

    “The RH Bill is a conspiracy.”
    You can't just say that it is a conspiracy just by saying "It’s lies, all lies!". Even a no-proof speculation that makes sense is acceptable. You sound like your dead religion who says, "Believe us and you'll be saved, else you go to hell".

    “The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that parents don’t teach their children about sex.”
    Have you done a survey or is there a survey about your answer, and where is it? I assume if there is, only 1 parent out of a thousandth would teach their children and out of that maybe 1 child out of a millionth would listen to their parent.

    • ..blaaah! blaaah! blaaah!..”all of you..!..go women and multiply!..”God is the only one who knows our future and none of you…!

  4. lahat kasi ng cnabi ng author dito puro kabaligtaran sa totoong ngyari…or in other term, sarcastic. most readers misinterpretedend or worse miscomprehend what the writer said…hehehe..wag na lang basta2 mag react kung di na gets…

  5. You made a very good article! The way you presented your point really amused me 😀

    Though from reading the comments that followed, it seems that the some people do not understand what you just said or are they just pretending to not understand? We will never know.

    However, there is still one thing that I cannot get right. People seem to be misunderstanding the whole point of why other people are against the RH Bill. It is like everyone is just making a laugh out of their statements and not really seeing what they want to say. If you want proof, read the article again and then talk to someone not from that talk. Talk to someone who is more open-minded about the bill but still stands against it. Believe me, there are people who are like that.

    To the people who are against RH-Bill, I think you should read the bill first and not solely rely on what you hear in the news. I myself was really against the RH-Bill until I read it. As I understood it, it will really help on solving the issues with poverty, though not to a good extent IF…
    Premarital Sex is dominant and we should accept it. Parents cannot always be with their children and the grown ones, maybe they already know what they are doing right? What we can do now is to help protect these people, and maybe by empowering sex education PMS will be reduced. Hope for the best guys.

    From what I can see, the Anti-RH Bill people are exaggerating the effects of the RH-Bill. Although there is still a possibility that there predictions will come true. No one knows what can happen and no one is really sure about the effects of the RH-Bill to the Philippines. But it is not only the Anti-RH Bill people who are exaggerating. As I said, the point of those who are against RH-Bill (who are a bit more open-minded) are missed and only being laughed about.
    I was reading this line while I was commenting:

    "Abortions cannot be prevented. It’s just something that women naturally do. Like shopping, for example."

    Where did you get this line? Its hilarious but is it really the stand of those people out there? I think not. People are just trying to give negative side effects, one that can be the possible outcome of the bill. Don't think that what their saying has no chance of happening, who are you? Are you from the future or were you gifted with the talent of predicting the future ACCURATELY? If not then, maybe you can think of what you will say next time you debate about this bill.

    The stand of the people against the bill are not illogical in any sense. It may not hold true for some cases but it will in some other cases. The same goes for the people who are pro RH-Bill. Nothing is universally true unless IT HAS BEEN PROVEN OTHERWISE. HAVE YOUR POINTS BEEN PROVEN? Neither side's points are proven. But before we test whether who is correct in their stands, and that is by approving the bill, maybe we can take into account the points of every side.

    If the bill is passed, then lets deal with it but then nothing will be successful or better yet, this country will still suffer if we do not work together and think that we are superior to others. People don't get the article? So what? Should we laugh at them and say that they are stupid? If you can live the life they live in a very excellent manner then laugh at them. You are fortunate that you had a fairly decent education, why not share it with them, without discriminating them. After all, the word discrimination, and the stand of the bill's authors against discrimination is fairly obvious.

    I am not against the bill as I have read it but it is still wise to consider some negative effects. Be open to those ideas for they are not illogical, it will be if you exaggerate them (this is for both sides). People are too biased towards their stands.

  6. TO THE CBCP/PRO-LIFE/ANTI READERS OUT THERE:

    If you really believe that the RH bill is illegal since, as you claim, it tends to legalize abortion and divorce, then file a case in an appropriate court to have the RH bill withdrawn and the authors criminally prosecuted for sponsoring a bill that is patently illegal. That way, you will have all the opportunity to present all your scientific studies to prove your case!

    Otherwise, please stop all these nonsense and spread of lies!

  7. During the sermon in last night's mass, the officiating priest took a dig once again at the RH bill and the "fake" catholics who support it. He said that "we now have people out there pushing for the legalization of abortion and divorce"! The worst thing is that priest used the pulpit to spread his outrageous lies (i.e., divorce has absolutely nothing to do with the bill) to over 300 people in attendance last night. The pro group should do something to counter this…

  8. Another favorite provision that the oppositors like twisting, like that UP professor in the grand debate (good thing I'm not an alumnus of that school cause I would have been extremely humiliated at having such kind of a professor, who kept repeating her academic affiliation as if that made her intelligent or infallible), is section 28 – Prohibited Acts. Imagine that "learned" member of the academe announcing on national tv that employers will be incarcerated/penalized for not following the RH bill, if passed! I mean, is she scaring the business sector or is just a plain idiot, like so many pro-lifers out there? A simple reading of that particular section would disclose the very specific actionable offenses that the bill, like any other law for that matter, prohibits and penalizes! And she's proud to be a UP professor? What a joke! No wonder she got a good dressing down from the other UP professor (the one from the pro group), who would surely make any alumnus proud…

  9. “The RH Bill is wrong because the priest said so, and priests are never wrong.”
    – and they are never really ignorant about sex because they have sex all the time. Ask the altar boys.

  10. I watched the latter part of the Grand Debate last night and got confused about two things:

    1) the oppositors claim, thru their own studies, that contraceptives in general, even condoms, are not 100% effective (I forgot the failure rate)! So, my simple mind would tend to ask, what happens if a condom fails? Wouldn't it result to a pregnancy (assuming all the requisite elements are present) or abortion? So, I am confused as to what they are arguing against?!

    2) in his closing statement, bishop bacani implored pinoys against having a colonial mentality by believing what the WHO said about contraceptives (that these are not abortifacients). But, wait! Aren't they likewise using foreign-authored studies to support their opposition to the bill (like their studies that say contraceptives are abortifacients, cancer causing, etc)? Isn't the cbcp remitting money to the vatican and obeying everything it says?!

  11. DO YOU STAND THAT PRIEST NEVER GET WRONG?

    HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT.. THEY CAN SELL THEIR CHILDREN, IF THEY NEED MONEY?

    RH BILL ONLY SHOWS THAT MANY FILIPINOS ARE IRRESPONSIBLE.

    DON'T BLAME GOVERNMENT IN PROVIDING THEIR NEEDS.

    FAMILY SHOULD FIRST PROVIDE NEEDS OF THEIR CHILDREN, IF THEY THINK THEY ARE UNABLE TO GIVE THE BASIC NEEDS TO THEIR CHILDREN, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE 'SEX'.

    THAT IS ONLY MY OPINION.

  12. CONTINUATION OF PREVIOUS COMMENT:

    In the most extensive study ever undertaken of pre-marital sex, based on data from four U.S. national surveys as well as additional interviews with men and women between the ages of 18 and 23, researchers Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker of the University of Texas at Austin observed the same effects as dominant features of young adult life. “Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying” Mark Regnerus, Jeremy Uecker Oxford University Press 2011 http://www.slate.com/id/2286240/ http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2011/01/19/young…

    Robert T. Michael, then professor at Stanford University, later founding dean of the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, established that contraceptive use was responsible for the largest component of the contraceptive-era increase in divorce.
    Robert T. Michael “Why Has the U.S. Divorce Rate Doubled Within the Decade?“ 1977 http://www.jstor.org/pss/2735005

    Divorce is so devastating that divorced men, even if remarried, and children whose parents divorce, on average die earlier than people who are not touched by divorce. http://www.howardsfriedman.com/longevityproject/&…

    I’m fairly certain he’s not an illogical, stupid liar who only reads the Bible.

    In addition, the Vietnam War has nothing to do with the dissolution of the family. There were more deaths in the Battle of Gettysburg than American deaths in the entire Vietnam War, and the American family obviously didn’t start falling apart right after the Battle of Gettysburg.

    Also, the size of the population has nothing to do with those statistics – a divorce rate is the current marriage to current divorce ratio. It is a percentage of marriages that end in divorce, not the number of divorces that occur."

    That second comment of mine was not even published. Why, I do not know.

  13. For Org59:
    (it's impossible to find my previous comments or even your comments saying I should re-post mine)
    The previous thread went as follows:

    Flourishingway:
    "Although I did find this satire humorous because it does successfully describe the lack of logic used by some anti-RH people. However, I think it would be more worthwhile to address the anti-RH people who do have logical arguments against it and use statistics to support their arguments. http://iopposetherhbill.weebly.com/

    Against it or for it, I guarantee you will learn something by reading what's on the site. I strongly recommend that you set aside the 20 minutes it should take you to read it, especially if you advocate informed choice and education."

    DOGMA:
    "Logical? Who are you kidding? I read it and it’s stupid. The article basically says that contraception has led to the dissolution of the American family since the 1960s. That’s the dumbest theory I have ever heard about the RH debate.
    A lot of things happened since the 1960s which might have contributed to that like THE VIETNAM WAR. I would think that a dead father would cause more discord in the home than contraception. This site you introduced is cherry-picking stats and misinterpreting them on purpose towards his agenda. A bad habit he developed probably from cherry-picking the Bible and misinterpreting it towards an agenda. What a fucking liar.
    Contraception is not the cause of the American sexual revolution. It was a consequence of that.
    As for the rapid sexual liberation in the 60s, here are other events that may have contributed:
    The Second-Wave of the Feminist movement
    Hollywood
    Rock and Roll
    The emergence of the sex symbol/sex icons Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Paul newman, and Elvis Presley
    Pornography
    Seriously, this site (http://iopposetherhbill.weebly.com/) should stop parading its stupid statistics. It shows the numbers but provides dumb reasons for the numbers. For one, the rise in stats could simply be attributed to a rise in population.
    There are more divorces now than the 60′s simply because there are more people now. And there are more divorces now because people are smarter now. They figured divorce is better than beating each otehr up in front of the children.
    This stupid site is religious. That’s all I can say about it. Its only arguments against the RH Bill are misinterpreted data and its own misinterpretation of the Bible. In other words, stupidity.
    Sana yung gumawa ng site na yan (http://iopposetherhbill.weebly.com/) magbasa ng ibang libro para hindi puro Bible laman ng utak niya. Sobrang bobo na kasi eh."

    Flourishingway:
    "I emailed the author of the article to see what his response to your comment would be. This is what he said:
    “The available information indicates that contraceptives are the dominant, if not exclusive, cause of the sexual revolution and ensuing decline of human welfare in societies that adopt them as a way of life:

    George Akerlof, one of the winners of the 2001 Nobel Prize for Economics, writing with two colleagues, established that the great contraceptive-era decline of marriage and increase in out-of-wedlock births is a direct result of contraceptives. Akerlof and his colleagues established that contraceptives have taken away the freedom of women to say No to sexual propositions, if they hope to have any relationship with a man. “An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States.” Quarterly Journal of Economics May 01, 1996| Akerlof, George A.; Yellen, Janet L.; Katz, Michael. Se ehttp://www.slate.com/id/2389/

    Economics professors Jesús Fernández-Villaverde, Jeremy Greenwood and Nezih Guner have used economic modeling to establish that the vast rise in out-of-wedlock births in the contraceptive era is due to the contraceptive environment in which people live. “From Shame to Game in One Hundred Years: An Economic Model Of The Rise In Premarital Sex And Its De-Stigmatisation,” 20 February 2010 :http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4649

    CONTINUED IN ANOTHER COMMENT (since I reached the word limit)

    • Now, this is much clearer than the earliest post. Like I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, one can justify anything, even using scientific studies to support one's claims. In the end, it's our very own brain that will determine if what the author is saying actually makes sense or not. To stress this point further, because I don't want to get bashed again for saying it (that studies can be manipulated to suit one's argument), one side cites the WHO study that says contraceptives are not abortifacients, yet the other side presents its own studies saying that these are not 100% effective and that they are cancer causing! In the end, it is the listener/reader that will decipher which study is hogwash and which actually supports which claim.

      • Wait, do you have a link for that WHO study? I've never heard of it, which = is surprising, and would like to take a look at it.Than= ks.From: [email protected]= mTo: [email protected]: org59 replied to your comment on = Why the RH Bill is bad: The Real Truth behind the Supposed Truth about the = RH Bill

        • Sorry I don't. But I asked Twin_Skies, an active member here who has a lot of links to various such studies, to help you out…

  15. How sad! 🙁 Kaya nga maraming mahirap kasi, napupunta sa kokonti ang yaman ng Pinas, lehitimong sobrang mahirap, nilalamangan pa, marami niyan sa amin. kawawa! Yun talaga ang punot dulo ng kahirapan, ang iab kasing naunang namulat sa edukasyon, inisahan ang mga wala pang alam. 🙁

  16. Well I think women should not be with men who disregards their and their children's wellness as long as he could have sex. In that way there is no need to acquire contraceptives that could also even harm the womans health . Women currently have the freedom over their bodies with regards to using contraceptives, there is no need for a law for that. Anyway wouldn't it be unfair to woman to have sex with their partners when they don't really want too, just because their partners want too, having economic problems in mind? I think RH Bill is not for the welfare of women, it degrades the dignity of women in society, its like women are just considered sex objects!

    • (I think RH bill is not for the welfare of women, it degrades the dignity of women in society, its like women are just considered sex objects!)

      I strongly suggest you go read the bill in its entirety…then read your comment again if it makes any sense at all.

  17. Regardless if I'm pro or Anti-RH bill, i commend the author's way in delivering his opinion. 🙂 To those who got confused with the article at first, don't fret. It only means that you were really trying to comprehend what the author's trying to convey right from the start. To those who didn't get the article at all, that's fine. It might just mean that you are firm with your convictions that not even words of sarcasm will get through you..

  18. Science has already proven that each man has diverse talents and IQ levels. Unawain na lang natin yung mga hindi nakaintindi dun sa main article, we might elevate ourselves higher than those we labeled morons and idiots by understanding them, enlightening them and not calling them by foul-names. Pagpasensyahan na lang natin sila dahil baka naging produkto sila nang ating ill-fated public school system.

    • I believe your intent was already addressed by the numerous comments posted here, both pro and anti, that were adequately supported with logic and facts. You'll just have to go through all the coments….

  20. The second argument is that the RH Bill should not be passed because it is impractical, due to the following:

    Another essential element to the RH Bill is the desire to manage and control population by encouraging people to just have 2 children, and providing the means to do this. This promotes a view that more people simply means more mouths to feed and that they are just a drain on resources. What the pro RH Bill people are saying, is that the country's poverty is caused by overpopulation.

    I argue that a nation's population is its greatest wealth. Why then should we attempt to control it?

    The world is at a point in its history where it has the most number of people, yet it is in the most productive period of wealth creation. In the last century alone we have seen many of the technological innovations in various fields such as medicine, transportation, telecommunications, agriculture, manufacturing, education, etc.. The problem is not that there are too many people. The problem is that income and wealth needs to be distributed more equitably.

    If population is the cause of poverty, then we asked the other team to explain the following facts:

    1. Japan has almost 50% more people, and a higher population density, than the Philippines. Yet, their per capita income is more than 8 times than that of the Philippines.
    2. The US has 3 times the population of the Philippines. Yet, their per capita income is more than 11 times than that of the Philippines.
    3. China has a population of 1.3 billion, more than 13 times than that of the Philippines. Yet China is growing at a rate of 9-10% per annum in recent years and per capita income is almost 2 times than that of the Philippines.

    They try to explain that these countries have advanced agricultural technologies and greater productivity. Well we say, whatever! The evidence above only goes to show that a country with a large population does not necessarily mean a country in dire poverty.

    Therefore, why waste resources in trying to manage population? It is simply not practical. In reality, these countries are more developed than the Philippines because they promote a spirit of enterprise and innovation among their people, and they provide the opportunities for this spirit to thrive. Where do you think the ideas and innovations come from? Isn't it from people?

    As such, instead of using taxpayers' money to manage population, the State should provide the conditions for greater income generation and equitable distribution. Just provide opportunities for employment and business to all through education, capital and a level playing field by curtailing corruption. Do you think a Filipino with the proper education and access to opportunities will go hungry? Why do you think that most Filipinos in other countries do well? It is because they have access to these opportunities.

    Finally, the third argument is that the RH Bill should not be passed, because it has provisions which are simply immoral, due to the following:

    As stated earlier, an essential part of the RH Bill is the use of taxpayers' money to distribute contraceptives, many of which are abortifacients. This is already an obvious argument to the bill's immorality inasmuch as it prevents life from happening and curtails the right of the unborn. With this, it is very surprising that proponents of the RH Bill even claim to be pro-life.

    But more than that, contraceptives also lead to other social problems.

    According to George Akerlof, who received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001, the widespread use of contraceptives inevitably leads to higher rates of divorce, single parenthood, abortion, drug abuse, and other social ills. His theory is backed up by a wealth of evidence from research in the US.

    Dr. Akerlof has demonstrated empirically what common sense should arrive at: That artificial contraceptives trivialize the very sacred conjugal act (or sex).

    Separating the purpose of expressing intimacy and love from the reproductive purpose of sex makes a man and a woman lose respect for one another as they treat one another as mere sex objects. This is an attack on the family, and being the basic unit of society, leads to the destruction of society. The study has shown that this loss of values results into a variety of other social problems, including poverty. A study entitled by Robert Rector published by the Heritage Foundation showed that being raised in a married family reduced a child's probability of living in poverty by 80%.

    Now, the function of the State and its moral obligation is to promote the common good of society. Thus, a bill that will lead many people to suffer in poverty, that destroys the family and society, is immoral.

    I therefore argue that the RH Bill is immoral.

    To recap, the proposition of the debate is: That the RH Bill should be passed. Again, while the RH Bill has many notable principles, it has many flaws as obviously seen from the arguments presented. The RH Bill is illegal, impractical and immoral. Because of this, the RH Bill should therefore not be passed.

    • rd4773: I admire your passion for defending what you've been told. I suggest you go to congress or to a pro-RH meeting and make your very-well written objections heard there.

      • Thanks sir, I am not sure if you’re being sarcastic, but thanks anyway.  Hehe.  I appreciate the exchange of ideas nonetheless.  This is what makes a democracy great.  I just felt a moral obligation to defend my views based on my values.  I hope there is a mutual respect among all for that.  We can have different views but we are united in trying to make our country a better place.

        • You're right! I was being sarcastic there and for that, I apologize. It seems we've reached an impasse, where you keep insisting on comparing our country with highly-developed countries, while I and Iwynn insist on using more comparable countries, like india and pakistan. Since neither side will budge, then I guess there's no recourse but to put an end to this, as continuing to argue till we turn blue in the face will be futile. Although I disagree with your convictions, I do respect your belief in them. So, there…

    • And while you're at it, why don't you file criminal charges against all these silly congressmen for even proposing to pass a bill that, according to you, is patently illegal. Include in your class suit Pres. Pnoy and all the millions of supporters of the bill…as for the supporters who are lawyers, accountants, etc., file administrative charges against them for being immoral or supporting a bill that you believe to be immoral.

      • While some provisions of the RH Bill is immoral and illegal, I have nothing against the supporters of the RH Bill.  Those are 2 different things sir.  This is a democracy and it espouses plurality in our society.  The discussion and exchange of ideas will hopefully lead to a better bill.  There should still be mutual respect for one another, despite having different views.  But I will still staunchly defend what I believe to be true and good.  This is my obligation as a Filipino citizen.

  21. While the RH Bill has many notable principles, such as responsible parenthood, family planning, participation of women and organization to government policymaking, women's rights, health promotion, and sustainable human development, it has however many flaws that warrant that it should not be passed.

    The RH Bill should not be passed because it is:
    1. Illegal
    2. Impractical
    3. Immoral

    Let me summarize the arguments.

    The RH Bill should not be passed because it is illegal, due to the following:

    Article 2, Section 12 of the Philippine Constitution, which is the highest law of the land to which all other laws must comply, states that the State "shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception." Rights are never absolute. Whatever right the woman or the mother may have, it cannot be enforced at the expense of curtailing the right of the unborn to life.

    An essential part of the RH Bill is the promotion, accessibility and availability of contraceptives. Listen, making contraceptives available is not family planning. It is only one of the means towards family planning. The end does not justify the means. Therefore, while family planning may be good, that does not automatically mean contraceptives are also good. In fact, while an ongoing debate, it is agreed by many in the medical field that many of the contraceptives being proposed for distribution by the government have proven abortifacient affects.

    According to medical embryology, there is no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed. Period. No debate. Thus, there is no more appropriate moment to begin calling a human "human" than the moment of fertilization (i.e. you can refer to http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryo….

    Many of these contraceptives (such as pills, IUD, injectables, "morning after" pill), while their supposed intention is to prevent fertilization, have an actual effect of preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus to prevent pregnancy. This is therefore abortion.

    As such, RH Bill violates the right of the unborn to life. The RH Bill is therefore illegal. All other issues that have been raised to say that the RH Bill has many positive elements and is beneficial to society, is therefore irrelevant, until this issue is addressed. Contraception, which enables the possibility of abortion and killing the unborn, can never be good and can never be legal.

    Pro RH Bill provide an argument that this should be the "informed choice" of the parents, that they should be given the freedom to choose. Freedom does not mean being able to do whatever you want. Freedom is being able to do what is right. One does not exercise his freedom, when he chooses to kill. Ask any one, this is simply wrong.

    • My comments on two points you raised: 1) real freedom is being able to do both right and wrong, although both have obvious consequences. If you curtail choices, like not being able do what's obviously wrong, then what freedom are you talking about? 2) I believe your contention about "protecting the life of the unborn" is an obvious stretch! In one of your comments, you mentioned that using a condom effectively prevents fertilization, thus "aborting" a possible life! If we buy such stretched argument, then we might as well pass a law that bans masturbation, cause every single time a guy jacks off, then he is effectively committing abortion, right?

      • I respectfully disagree on that.  I don’t know if it’s just semantics.  “Real” freedom is geared towards the good, it’s being able to do what is right, because together with free will, we were given the intellect to determine what is good or bad. That is why there are, as you mentioned, “consequences” to doing bad things, because precisely, you are not “free” to do it.  You are not exercising your “real” freedom when you choose to do what is bad, because if we were “free” to do it, there shouldn’t be any consequences.  That’s is why, conscience dictates we cannot kill, that is, we are not “free” to kill.Yup, I agree condoms are quite a stretch.  It took me a while to get a grasp on the concept.  But intuitively, you are meddling with the potential of life.  It could’ve been.  Yup, it’s a stretch.  But I’m really more concerned on the abortifacient stuff.  I don’t want to comment on masturbation cause I haven’t really thought about it.  And another thing, call me conservative, but while sex is pleasurable, I mean really pleasurable, I still respect women so much so that I don’t want to treat them as objects for my own pleasure, and I guess I don’t want to be treated the same way.  Suffice it to say that there was a study that linked contraceptives to attitudes like this.  Objectifying the other person and making sex trivial, so the study says, result in many other social problems, and even to poverty.  Quite logical to me.  The study was done by a Nobel laureate in economics who was an agnostic, so I doubt if he was moralizing.  But that’s an entirely different argument. 

        • Let me try to understand that last part of your post: if my wife asks me if I could use a condom cause she's not safe and, being a responsible husband/father, I oblige her, you mean I am disrespecting her, treating her as a mere object to satisfy my sexual cravings?! Wow! That's new! Wait now, I better apologize to my wife for treating her as a mere object all those times we used contraceptives so we won't have any more than the two kids we already have…

          • Hehe, I wouldn’t want to comment on that and I really didn’t intend to offend anybody.  But that’s what the study says.  Seems logical to me in theory though.  I wouldn’t actually know in practice ‘cause I haven’t actually gone around surveying people on what they feel about their partners when they use condoms.  I don’t know the study’s actual methodology, but it is an empirical study by a credible behavioral economist.  His name’s George Akerlof.

          • None taken. I just can't believe that you found that study logically sound in our cultural setting, enough to actually subscribe to it. Be that as it may, enough said…

        • We can argue ad infinitum about what constitutes freedom of choice. My simple point is that if you remove one side from the equation, then what freedom of choice are you referring to?

          • Sorry sa pangungulit, but I would just like to clarify, di ako mapakali e, hehe.  Freedom isn’t being able to do what you want, it’s being able to do what is right and good. You are not free to do what is NOT good, that would be anarchy, and that is precisely why it has consequences, as you say. You can however use whatever means you see fit, THEREIN lies your freedom (as you say freedom of choice), but it should always be for the good. You are not free to choose what is bad, and so you are not “free” to kill so to speak. You are not exercising your freedom if you do so.  I’m sure deep down you know this, ‘cause it’s written in our conscience.  Shut up na ako, hehe.

          • I would have wanted to comment further, but on second thought, let's leave this particular issue to rest, at least for the moment…

  22. this satirical article was really really well made. i have to admit that i was fooled into thinking that it was a serious article at first (i didn't see the category, so sue me). i was about halfway through when it dawned on me that maybe this was a clever satire. it just goes to show how good the author was. hell, there are a lot who even finished reading the article and didn't figure out the authors intent.

    • is agree..ur so true…i ws guilty of what you said…i had to finish reading everything before i realized that the author was not serious and then OMG i saw the category…humor…hehehe…

  24. Sumakit ang tyan ko sa kakatawa sa mga nakasulat sa article ng author. PERO sumakit ang ulo ko sa kakabasa ng mga comment. .. Baka absent sila sa school nung tinuro yung tungkol sa satire/ satirical articles. HAY.

  25. this is truly an eye-opener for people who are capable of understanding..

    with or without the RH Bill, it is still our OWN decisions that will matter IF we are capable of making the RIGHT decisions..

    then WHY are we afraid of the RH Bill? Even if they impose the use of contraceptives but if you dont want to use contraceptives then dont’! You won’t be imprisoned..

    with or without the RH Bill, we have our OWN choices in terms of morality..

    so why be afraid or oppose the RH Bill?

    Let them pass it.. it wont stop you from living your life the Christian way..

  26. even this post is a satire… it shouldn't make like this because this is a very serious topic that others need to be informed properly rather than encountering a sarcastic words…

    • it's wat u call artistic license… palusot kpa! sabihin mo u were too moronic to understand! u shud have read the article carefully before u made ur rebuttal. ayan tuloy nahalata masyado ang iyong ka**ngahan.

      • hindi ako nagpapalusot… sinabe ko ang totoo… eh kung isang tao lng ang magbabasa nyan he/she won't understand why and what the hell that person talking about if it's not on the right track…
        hindi rin po katangahan ang itama ang salita ng ibang tao at magbigay ng tamang impormasyon kesa sa sarkastikong impormasyong na pinagdedebatehan ng di maayos ng mga edukadong tao…
        sa palagay mo ano ang katangahan… ang pagiging sarkastiko sa impormasyon at maging katawa tawa samantalang ang tama ang nagiging mali..
        don't be foolish like u were educated yet u never used ur mind calling someone such word as katangahan…

        • it's futile to argue with someone who doesn't recognize his/her faults. even the genius of geniuses have mistakes to accept and take consequences of. that's what u call professionalism and responsibility. if u cannot accept and declare the fact that you have misinterpreted a good literary piece and throw the blame on the author for using such a technique, then, this will lead us to nowhere. the article was meant to give humor and at the same time enlighten those who still have not decided as to where they should side with. the author should not be blamed because you and many others don't understand and comprehend the way presented his thoughts.

    • HAHAH DUDE! YOU’RE SO FUNNY AND FUCKINGLY- STUPID!!!

      Even though you’re pointing out that you’re for the Bill, BUT STILL. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    • maaaaan, i think everyone in this thread would agree with me that your English is outrigt rancid! Hahaha! Sorry!

  28. I am amazed at how many people don't understand what they have just read. In addition, I am more amazed at the fact that they even call the author stupid and to the extent of contesting some of the author's satirical points.

    Ako po ay namamangha sa dami ng mga taong hindi naiintindihan ang kanilang binasa. Pero ako'y mas namamangha sa kanilang pagkutya at pagtawag sa may akda na bobo pati na ang pagkwestyun sa mga inilahad na mga punto ng may akda.

    Government Warning: Read carefully.

    Babala para sa mga bobo: Intindihing maigi ang inyong binasa.

    I made u guys a favor.

  29. are u born yesterday..?
    firstly u don't see the real thing here, like:

    1. minimum wage-non-agricultural wage is P404???
    ==come on, not everyday, farmer can have P404, they can't even have a 100 pesos.. they can only survive on what they have on their backyard, some vegetables for example. Most of farmers can't earn money worth of 8000 and if there are piles of electric bill to pay.. believe me my dear, coz' my family born being a farmer!!!

    2. “The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that the Philippines is overpopulated.”
    == philippine is overpopulated, aren't u walking on streets..? there's a lot of people that has no shelter and most people squat just to have a house.! philippine has a beautiful environment and u want to destroy it because we are not populated?. sea level has been claimed and make sky scrapers, mountains are flattened and make homes, now where the hell other living things (animals) go..? in your house..?
    i had studied in public school, and believe me, u don't like to be there, in one book i was sharing it with my two classmates and only one of us can only read. and 3/4 of the class doesn't know how to read and write. there are also no enough chairs available to seat on. and every time there are typhoon we are having a shower party inside the classroom.that's year 1996, and now it never changed and get more worst. the ratio of student in one classroom is 60-70 student per classroom which supposed to be 30-40 students only.! then how can students be well educated if they're too crowded in the classroom!!

    3. “The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that contraceptives are good for mankind and women.”
    ==contraceptives are very important my dear, u don't like ending up having a HIV right..? every women enjoy having sex but safe.. kaw nga mag enjoy ka makipagsex ng walang contraceptives tapos pa check-up ka..tignan naten!

    4. “The RH bill will put Filipinos at risk of extinction!”
    ==have u studied your history where does filipino came from..
    juz a clue PHILIPPINE is a MELTING POT, now don't talk about extinction because filipino's are out there most of us!

    5. “Our population is our biggest asset!”
    ==PERSONALITY and KNOWLEDGE is our best asset
    and beside human is not a pig than can have lot's of babies and juz sell them.

    6. “The RH Bill is wrong because it assumes that reproductive education and contraceptives will effectively reduce cases of abortion.”
    ==it is not women naturally do. it's what man did… they abort it because they don't like to have it, it's not right time for a women to have a baby on a young age..

    7. “The RH Bill is wrong because it will make people participate in extra-marital and pre-marital sex.”
    ==when ur in an intense relationship expect that there are sex going on, with or with our contraceptives people are out there enjoying there sex life..so don't be fool. BECAUSE SEX NEVER STUDIED IN A HOUSE NOR SCHOOL. parang ganta " anak wag mo ipapasok yang t— sa p— ng babae ha, see that is why there's no sex education in a house, so most of young people now study it in the dark.. DEAL WITH IT!!

    8. “The RH Bill is wrong because the priest said so, and priests are never wrong.”
    ==since the spaniards introduce roman catholics in our country it never left interfering on government business. don't live in the past, that's why our country is still down because we most care about what the church says rather than what are best for the people.
    priest does wrong, what do u think they had children or rape local women..shame on them..!
    IF PRIESTS ARE NEVER WRONG, then why they can't feed those all people who can't eat 3 times a day and give shelter to those homeless, they CAN''T!! because they're only focus onto cleanse someone sins and pray.
    kaya nga madalas nilang sabihin humayo kau at magpakarami..at ginawa naman ng pilipino bilang masunurin..

    • For me, this is the most entertaining comment I've read thus far. On the other hand, it is a sad and pitiful condemnation of the state of our public school system!

      • haha kunti lang…kahit wrong grammar at least i made my point…napaka shallow mided naman kasi ng nagpost na toh.. i give him a big and long DUUH!!!

        • Shallow-minded.

          From a guy who doesn't know what sarcasm was if he was slapped silly with it.

          Right.

          • Hi there. Florishingway is asking for a link to a WHO study that says contraceptives are not abortifacients. This particular study was cited by the pro group during the Grand Debate show. Can you help her out? Thanks.

        • Kaibigan, bago mo sana tinira yung may akda sana siniguro mo na tama pagkakaintindi mo sa nabasa mo, dahil mas lumabas kang kahiyahiya. Mabuti na lang nakatago ang iyong mukha at iba ang iyong pangalan lolz.

  30. " 2. If you have 15 babies, you’re practically wealthy because babies are assets:

    2.1 If you need money, you can sell them.

    2.2 If you can keep them alive until they can walk, they can one day beg for money in the streets – they’re going to have to anyway because there’s no way in hell you’ll be able to provide for all of them on your own.

    3. If ever a person is not able to feed the 15 babies he made, it’s the governments fault, because it’s the governments sole responsibility to make sure that every Filipino baby is fed. "

    – are you a satan? selling your own baby? and allow them to beg in streets? and after you make so many child, you will put the blame on the government why you cannot feed your children? hello! at the first place, it's your fault why you have that many children. Family planning is what i recommend than using these contraceptives. . . .your points are somehow contradicting..

  31. I can't believe that this is now the 2nd link that Google spits out if you search for "RH Bill", right after its wikipedia entry. Good gravy, this is destined to be a cult classic

  32. CALLING ALL INTELLIGENT READERS OUT THERE:

    If you got a good laugh from reading this article, try reading some of the articles posted at the other side's portal! My appendix almost burst from extreme laughter after reading a letter from a 16yo! For fear, I just couldn't risk reading the other articles. But, don't take my word for it…go ahead and check it out and let me know if I wasn't stating a fact!!!

  34. …i have nothing to say…u guys mentioned them all..BUT I LEARNED A LOT…tnx…i will be reading more of these later during my free time…it’s more entertaining and informative as well..KUDOS!

  35. Great article!!! People read about “satire”, then read the article again.

    If you still don’t get it then your parents should have used contraceptives.

  36. Some guys here live under a rock.
    Take a good look at the statements and the category and give the author a little more credit, guys.
    Whoever in his right mind believe priests are always right about sex ?
    Heck, they supposed to be celibate retards.

  37. Oh, okay. I get it. You're being ironic.

    "Students in public schools are well educated".

    That's a truth though. I hope you're not being ironic there.

  38. I agree with the first statement. but this:

    ". If we were really overpopulated, we would have trouble travelling. But if you go to EDSA, there’s no traffic. When you ride the MRT, it’s not packed with people."

    What? There's no traffic in edsa and the mrt is not packed with people? Maybe you're talking about an Edsa and MRT found in another country, but not in the Phil.

  39. What the F***ck…Dude, can you live under the ocean?"1. We are not overpopulated! Look at the mountains, the jungles, the caves and the ocean floor. There are no people there!", If you could live under the ocean, i'd agree with you.
    "3. Population decline is just bad for nations. Just look at the countries which have a declining population – Italy, Japan and Singapore. They’re in such a bad shape. The Philippines obviously has a better economy and has a higher literacy rate than these countries. In fact, many Italians, Japanese, and Singaporeans go to the Philippines for work. That only goes to show that a decline in population is bad for the economy." <—HAHAHA…you stupid shitsu…I am not anti pinoy but I think this statement is way over your head…where have you been? our economy is better than that of Italy? Japan? Singapore? ARE you kidding me…any statistics to back this up?

    • The author is a stupid shitsu? At least he can write a good satire which you obviously don't understand the meaning of, otherwise how do you explain your comments?!

        • serious balls you have. couldn't've asked for enlightenment BEFORE calling names, could you? because if you're past the dinosaurs bit and you're still not laughing (or just plain getting the point) then you're the stupid shitsu.

          • yes chugachuga…i have balls…wanna lick'em? hahahaha and i like calling names…chugachoops…hahahaha

          • Don't have time, yet you have time to read the other comments and reply! Fine, if you still didn't get it by this time: the article is a satire, where the author used a lot of sarcasm to mock the anti group's justifications for blindly opposing the bill. Yes, Kalbo1029, the reasons he cited here are not his. Perhaps his use of sarcasm and exageration threw you off. Hope that answers your query!

    • @kalbo1029

      Steps to enlightenment:

      Step 1: STFU
      Step 2: Read up on the definition of sarcasm
      Step 3. Read the article again
      Step 4: Don't forget to breathe
      Step 5: Crawl into a cave

      • twin-skies: did not I ask for org59's opinion and not yours? hahahaha…STFU? Skies_Twin F*ck Up? hahahaha…"Read up on the definition of sarcasm" – mind reading that for me? is that all you got? hahahahaha

        • kalbo, idol kita! ang galing mo! natatangi kang nilalalang! ipagpatuloy mo yan dahil may tama ka!

        • Dear readers, this is why you are NOT supposed to leave your stash of weed and nitrous oxide lying around in the open.

    • ..it seems that you need a thorough explanation, since your brain is too dull and your body's too lazy to comprehend what the article is really all about..and also, i'll share you some tips when reading in this site:
      1. First, bring a dictionary. Or open a dictionary website.
      2. Check the category of the article. This article is categorized under 'HUMOR' (get it?).
      3. Read the article. Not just once, as many times as you can.
      4. Check the comment section. Read as many comments as your brain can manage.

      ..now for the explanation..the article is a satire. it means that the author used sarcasm, irony, ridicule, etc. He twisted some facts on purpose. And, satires don't really need statistics, because their purpose was to ridicule and enlighten.

      ..also, i'll advise you not to call names..and don't lower other people to your level (you know, by calling them stupid, idiot, etc.)..

    • ..oh, and another advise. Try to read Jonathan Swift's works, like 'Gulliver's Travels'. Well, if your not lazy, like some of filipinos who, instead of finding work; choose to gamble, drink, have sex, and beat other people; because, that's what your comments indicate.

    • ..because of you and all other people like you, i am more convinced that we really need the RH bill..hahaha

  41. hgahahahaha..nakakatawa talaga ang author na to..but you made a very GOOD JOB..now i know kong anung klasing tao ang mga anti RH..hahahahaa

  43. I'm guessing most of the commenters here also think Jonathan Swift really liked to eat Irish babies.

  44. Man some people in here are dumb as hell!!! Get a clue people before post a comment!! Kk?

    And to the author ur brilliant!!! Bravo!!

  46. dustin, you're an absolute genius! you got the anti rh bill arguments pinned down. 😉
    haven't laughed this hard in weeks.xD

  47. (sigh)… brainwaves are being spread too thinly with all the extra brain matter cropping up… (sigh)
    what a waste…

  48. Jesus, the Author is being sarcastic in his statements… You people need to understand first what you’re reading, before you would waste your time answering each point the Author has stated…..read carefully guys…

  49. I would like to comment on the following:

    1. I agree, the RH Bill is not good for women because it might draw a woman away from her one, true, universal purpose – the uninterrupted production of healthy babies.

    *Hello!!! Women are still humans. Not pigs!!

    2. We are not overpopulated! Look at the mountains, the jungles, the caves and the ocean floor. There are no people there!

    *Clear this out. What you are mentioning might be for the preservation of the natural beauty of the country and the protection of the ecosystem and the environment.

    3. Students in public schools are well educated because the teacher to student ratio is very low. In fact, because of our low population the government can basically guarantee that all public school students are provided books, notebooks and other school supplies.

    *Learning goes with application. Well educated? It depends on the teacher. Please restate the teacher to student ratio phrase.

    4. In my opinion, people should make as many babies as they can because the population is not a problem. In fact, the more babies a person has, the more assets he has. Forget real estate properties, stock investments, or Jollibee franchises. The real secret to increased wealth is babies.

    *There might be truth in this statement. However, you're forgetting the present. You're just thinking of the future. Too shallow-minded of you.

    5. Women should get pregnant every single time they have sex and only immoral women enjoy sex without the possibility of conception. In fact, a better alternative would be for women, in general, to follow the example made by Mother Mary – to learn how to conceive without having sex.

    * Again, women are not pigs for enjoyment. They are HUMANS!!! And they are not Mother Mary. God created women and gave them the gift giving labor to a child thru sex.

    6. I agree. If we pass the RH bill, we will become extinct, like dinosaurs. The dinosaurs are all dead. If we don’t want to be extinct, we should not pass the RH Bill. I mean, do you really want to be a dinosaur?

    * This is the age of humans. Not dinosaurs. Filipinos wont be extinct unless 100% of the population are killed.

    7. If ever a person is not able to feed the 15 babies he made, it’s the governments fault, because it’s the governments sole responsibility to make sure that every Filipino baby is fed.

    *It's solely the parent's fault. Not that of the government. The parent's made the baby. Not the government. So it's the parent's responsibility for bringing the baby into this world.

    8. By approving the RH Bill, we as a nation, are practically encouraging our people to engage in immoral activities.

    *That's why sex education is there. And the problem is with the person being educated. Too narrow-minded if not shallow minded.

    9. We must protect our moral values and reject the RH Bill. Because, currently, not a single Filipino engages in pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex. As soon as this bill is approved, Filipino people will run the streets naked and start a national orgy!

    *WRONG!!! Open your eyes!!! Not a single Filipino engaging in pre-marital sex or extra-marital sex? Before this RH Bill came, there's already a lot Filipinos engaging in pre-marital sex. Look at the GRO's? Pimps? Gigolo's?

    10. If we ban condoms, absolutely no one would engage in pre-marital or extra-marital sex.

    *There's already engagement of pre-marital sex even before condoms and contraceptives came.

    11. Contraceptives would allow women to enjoy the benefits of physical intimacy while maintaining a successful and productive career, if she so chooses. That is so wrong. Only men should be able to enjoy that privilege.

    * Women are not equal to men. But women are to be treated as special. Not as pigs.

    12. Filipino daughters don’t have sex without the father’s permission. Unwanted pregnancies or teen pregnancies never happen to Filipino girls. That’s why we do not need the RH Bill.

    *What you think is what you do. You're sick.

    13. “The RH Bill is wrong because the priest said so, and priests are never wrong.”

    *I would like to make a VERY big notion on this.The priests are never wrong? No wonder there are priests who does immoral sexual acts. Not all priests are right. They're still imperfect human beings. They are still prone to mistakes and temptations.

    • To imaginativeGuy:

      When will this idiocy end? Use your "imagination" and understand what the author is trying to convey! Better yet, read the comments section so you'll see who is shallow minded.

    • OMFG… we really need that Bill more than ever… (sigh).
      …it's hopeless I tell you… (deeper sigh).

    • You have joined the dozens of idiots who didnt get the the author's message.

      This article keeps reeling in the fish… AND you're one of the Biggest! hahahahah

    • i would've said imaginitiveguy was being satirical himself, but i couldn't stop laughing about "Filipinos wont be extinct unless 100% of the population are killed" yet! best example where comments are more entertaining –funnier — to read than the article.

  50. In the news last night, a great, infallible, moral, asshole, I mean, former something (bishop or archbiship) stated on national TV that "population in the Phils. is not a problem, but poverty"! To prove his point, he compared our country with China and Italy, where the former, despite its huge population, does not have poverty. So with the latter, despite its small population!

    This AHole conveniently forgets that china, being communist-run, can very well dictate on its people, who have no choice but to abide, lest they be… He forgot that not too long ago, china instituted a 1-child policy which was followed strictly, even if corruption in that country was minimal. This policy (population control) was relaxed much later when progress was able to support an increase in its population. As for italy, I don't have much info about that country so I won't comment, though I'm pretty sure it also has a segment of its population that many will consider as "poor"…

« Older Comments Newer Comments »

Comments are closed.

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