“I don’t want to use a condom. Using a condom means I’m just using you for sex.”
That’s what my friend’s boyfriend told her when she suggested protection. She thought it was romantic. When he found out she was on the pill, he was insulted and asked her, “Why? Are you afraid of having my baby?” After they broke up, during the requisite mourning period, I listened to her talk about the highlights of her just-ended relationship, and concluded the guy was a chauvinist ass. She had no idea, for some reason, and the fact that I could still see his douchiness despite her sugar-coating (she still liked him) meant he must’ve been more of an ass than I could determine from what she was telling me.
That was almost a decade ago. Since then, my observations of my friends’ relationships have brought me to the conclusion that there were more guys like that out there. And these friends are mostly from middle-income families, and dated men who were more or less in the same income bracket, with the same level of education. I remember when I was little, I asked our laundrywoman why she had so many kids. She told me that whenever she refused to sleep with her husband, he’d accuse her of having an affair, so she just gives in to him. She didn’t even mention contraception or family planning, and I’m pretty sure she wasn’t too aware of either their existence or that they applied to her. I’m tempted to generalize and say that my friend’s ex’s and our laundrywoman’s husband’s attitude is typical of Filipino men’s attitude towards women’s choices regarding reproduction and sexuality, but I won’t because (1) I want to be an optimist, and (2) I like to hang out with more enlightened men, and these guys make me optimistic.
And then Manny Pacquiao decided to join the Reproductive Health Bill debate.
An undisputed national hero and distinguished gentleman representative from Sarangani, Manny Pacquiao was staunchly against the RH Bill. He quoted the Bible, and said, in effect, that any attempts to curb reproduction was against the will of his god. While we’re not sure how the personal religious beliefs of this pregnancy-challenged man have to do with us uterus-carrying citizens, people pointed out that his wife Jinkee has admitted to being on the pill. Now he’s bragging that he made his wife Jinkee stop taking pills and have more kids. (I wonder if my friend would’ve found this romantic too.)
Now if Cong. Pacquiao’s constituents meant to elect someone who insists on controlling his wife’s reproductive health choices, I suppose that’s democracy for you. What puzzles me is this: Pacquiao is an international superstar. He has fans all over the globe. He’s a celebrity’s celebrity; Hollywood big shots are falling over themselves to meet him. Why oh why does he not have the sense to hire — or listen to — a public relations agent or firm who will tell him that this sort of misogynist douchbaggery isn’t going to be good for his reputation? Granted, it’s nothing close to Mike Tyson’s conviction for rape, but for us Filipinos, this is an insult to women in general, and not because Pacquiao’s a boxing superstar but because he is an elected public servant who is tasked to improve the lives of his constituents — male and female. It’s difficult to expect him to protect women’s rights and welfare when he seems unconcerned about flaunting his blatant sexism all over the place.
The Pacquiaos are luckier than most Filipino couples — they actually have the choice of buying any form of legal contraceptive there is. Hell, they can buy an entire condom factory if they want to. Not everyone has that luxury. A lot of families are so poor they can barely afford three meals a day, much less birth control pills (mine are less than PhP 50 for a whole month’s pack) or condoms. The Reproductive Health Bill is mostly to help them, to give them a choice on whether to have 1, 2 or a dozen children. Or none, if that’s what they prefer. And the Pacquiaos can afford to feed, clothe and spoil the heck out of their four children. If they have two dozen more kids, the Pacquiaos can give each of them a mansion with servants. Thousands of families in the Philippines can barely afford to feed theirs. All Cong. Pacquiao can talk about is his god’s will, not even trying to propose solutions to the problems of families having to feed more kids than they can afford. Or the problem of an average of 11 women dying every day due to birth complications. Not all those who are anti-RH Bill are opposed to artificial contraceptives in general, and they don’t have to be. Cong. Pacquiao didn’t have to flaunt his staunch opposition to pills, but he seems to be trying to show off for his church’s bishops, so much so that his wife’s reproductive choices had to get dragged into this. Jinkee Pacquiao now says she’s against the RH Bill and that she has stopped taking pills. Her husband says they fought over the issue of her taking pills, but that they’re of one mind now concerning the issue of contraception, and one wonders if Manny Pacquiao, national hero and boxing superstar, will make sure to get her pregnant soon just to prove it.
Tania writes about stuff at The Entropy Blog.
Resources:
Jinkee Pacquiao says Pacman didn’t know she took birth control pills before – Spot.PH
Pacquiao: Jinkee and I fought over RH bill – Yahoo! news
Pacquiao slips RH advocates’ jab on Jinkee’s pill use – Inquirer.NET
Pacquiao opposes RH bill while Jinkee pops birth control pills – Philippine News
Jinkee stopped taking birth control pills, Pacquiao says – GMA News
I won't refute your statistics, but rather your use of such data to compare it with our country's situation. The 3 countries you mentioned are highly-developed countries, the US being the biggest economy in the world, Japan being in the top 5 and China, though still classified as a developing country, can very well be lumped together with the US and Japan. So, at a glance, it seems that you're comparing a grape with an apple!
A country's population, whether it's over or under, should be equated with that country's ability to support social programs for its citizenry (health, etc.), economic activities (enough employment opportunities for everybody, easy access to credit to spur entrepreneurship, etc.) and infrastructure. Now, on those 3 points alone, can you honestly say that the Phils. is of equal footing with the 3 countries you used as your example?
Nope we aren't and that's my point. There are countries with larger populations who are better off than us. Let's find out why and address the difference. Obviously it's not population, then why control it? Their large populations are even assets because they are markets, hence the growth of China and India. Respectfully, I think we are better off focusing on education, productivity, providing opportunities for business, giving a level playing field for all, etc.. Increase people's incomes rather than try to control population. It's harder, but it's more sustainable in the long term.
I don't agree with the "increase people's incomes" part. Wages shouldn't be mandated by the government. People have a right to agree on what amount they want to work for, as is the case in practically all countries with free markets. We are actually one of the few countries that has a minimum wage law. If we want more people to have jobs, we should abolish this, and let the market decide how much to pay and for what kind/amount of work. Just saying.
Sorry I didn’t mean mandate wages. I don’t agree with that too. I meant give people a means to earn, and earn more.
The RH bill has some good clauses especially on the part regarding maternal health but then again it might be used as an excuse for our "honest" lawmakers to make another buck. The burden of implementation and funds will now be shouldered by the poor Filipino taxpayers. With the rising cost of basic commodities, our poor fellowmen will now resort to the easy way out and that is the RH bill. But first, what we need is economic liberalization and remove the 60/40 clause in the Constitution.
Correct ka dyan! But I honestly doubt if even those with access to the Net has the "correct" info about these things!
Just wanna clear out that I'm PRO. And that we really don't get each other's points here. Maybe I'm just too liberated or "fortunate", if that's how you wanna put it.
"Kung gusto, maraming paraan. Kung ayaw, maraming dahilan."
i wanted to spare myself from unnecessary trouble, so I sought help. Free of charge. That's all.
I rest my case.
Unfortunately, not all poor married women, the real subject of the bill, are as educated and resourceful as you are or have the means to google what they need to know. The bill tends to educate "correctly" those plain housewives to have to tend to their countless children, the huge number of children being proof of their lack of, or wrong info they got from friends/neighbors/hilots/etc.
A Lot of the readers here believe that overpopulation is not the problem, but poverty! Let me pose this question to them then: if the country had only, say 50M people and not 90M+, wouldn't the overall situation be better? Wouldn't there be much less street children, if any at all? Wouldn't the teacher-student ratio be much lower? Wouldn't traffic be much liveable and bearable? Wouldn't each citizen get better services from our government (perhaps lower overall taxes due to a smaller population)? Wouldn't even the lowliest of our laborers have a better opportunity to clothe, feed their reduced number of children? Would corruption still be as pervasive when political dynasties would most probably no longer exist (no more squatters to build up one's political base), dumb politicians would no longer be elected to office, etc? Would there still be a need for an RH bill when most citizens, if not all, would then be more productive?
Just wondering…
Huh? Well answer me this, if "overpopulation" is the problem, then please explain these 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.
When is a country "overpopulated"? Who is to say? You?
[…] off my ass and write something for our org’s website. From FilipinoFreethinkers.org — National misogynist hero: An undisputed national hero and distinguished gentleman representative from Sarangani, Manny […]
He is no different from those who blindly follow what the clerics say, no matter how silly, stupid, idiotic, fallacious, inconsistent, etc. (i ran out of adjectives…) they sound. Then again, perhaps some Catholics are just too afraid of being "excommunicated", or thrown in jail for being "terrorists", or being exorcised or burned at the stake for being "satan", or of losing their spouse because of their "marital problems"….
I keep wondering about a few things :
why people always bring up the moral issue with the law..
I believe the law should be based solely on fairness and equality and not morality which is a very subjective issue. (what is moral for me may be immoral for you).
Why are people so afraid of this bill?
Its not like it forces people into using contraception, I'm pretty sure medical experts will not allow false/incomplete information to be passed around regarding the use of such products, along with the knowledge brought by educating the masses. when it comes down to it, the consumer will always bear the burden of decision whether to use it or not.
Why are we so afraid to educate our young?
sure we can say that parents should be the ones teaching children about the birds and the bees, but what about the parents who don't or don't have the time to do so, where do these children learn about sex? their friends, films, posters, magazines etc which all portray sex as something of pure pleasure without educating them of the consequences.
Bill or no bill, no one is or has the right to force anyone to use or not use products already available even before this bill presented itself. The individual will always be the one to choose.
yan ang hirap sa macho culture natin. anong magagawa ni Jinky kundi sumunod sa kagustuhan ni Manny
natatakot sya na iwan sya ngayong sanay na sya sa buhay-mayaman. di man lang tinanong panig ni Jinky kung gusto nya pang magka-anak ulet. wala ba syang say?
nahihinayang siguro sya sa bagong figure nya care of Dr. Bello. Body-Tite ata yan!
di rin kaya gumamit ng condom si Manny nung sila ni Krista?
it’s ur opinion, this is mine.
now, the pro says it’s needed, but do they really think so? Overpopulation is not the problem, it’s poverty. poverty is not caused by overpopulation, its lack of knowledge. if the money going to be spent on all these contraceptives were to be used in projects concerning education and welfare of others (and i mean living things, not just humans), used to eliminate the corrupt and the evil. if this money, this power to change lives were used for the real good of people, to teach them values, morals, etc. don’t you think we could grow into a country much better, much safer, much richer?
*making the world a better place doesn’t start in the government you know? it starts from our home, from us. if we are disciplined enough, this won’t be a problem.
*I know that seeing others make a fool of themselves is quite enjoyable, don’t you think? that’s why politics and showbiz is entertainment. crab mentality talaga mga pinoy nu? 😛
Dear moron who is known as justme,
Have you even read the bill? Most of it is in fact about sex education and awareness, and extended maternal health services for women in RP. The key words here being EDUCATION and KNOWLEDGE, which makes it all the more ironic that you'd oppose the bill. Contraceptives cover only a small portion of the bill in its current form, which pretty much negates your accusation that most of the money will go there.
[making the world a better place doesn't start in the government you know? it starts from our home, from us. if we are disciplined enough, this won't be a problem.]
Several years of increasing maternal deaths and illegal abortions tells us that we do have a problem. While good values do start at home, they can only be formulated through informed choice, ergo sex education.
I'm tending to agree with the sex education part. But it isn't clear to me that the state-funded contraception part will work. While the U.S. is a completely different place from the Phil, its interesting that state-funded contraception has been accompanied by an increase in the incidence of abortions and unwanted pregnancies. Also, the women who have had abortions and unwanted pregnancies, at least in the U.S. and in Britain, were shown to be part of the demography who did have access to state-funded contraceptives; hence, only a small percentage can blame their unwanted pregnancy on their inability to access state-funded contraceptives.
So, with respect to the RH bill, it's a very real risk that tax payers' money will be wasted (on the contraceptives). But, on the education component of the bill, probably not so much. It seems to me that the former will result in a more sexually permissive culture, while the latter, at least ostensibly, won't fall into this rut. I'm sure that both sides can meet halfway.
And I hope nobody attacks me for this post.
[While the U.S. is a completely different place from the Phil, its interesting that state-funded contraception has been accompanied by an increase in the incidence of abortions and unwanted pregnancies.]
Are you sure?
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/01/11/ind…
Following the increased prevalence of contraceptives in the US starting in the 70s, there has been a long-term decline in abortion rates.
The funny thing is that their rates stalled around the same time the Bush administration attempted to allocate more state funding into abstinence-only education in public schools
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/27teen.html
[Also, the women who have had abortions and unwanted pregnancies, at least in the U.S. and in Britain, were shown to be part of the demography who did have access to state-funded contraceptives; hence, only a small percentage can blame their unwanted pregnancy on their inability to access state-funded contraceptives. ]
Citations please.
Twin,
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/06/14/nat-6417/
In the above link, you will find more references below the article.
Also, its an interesting article since it criticizes the 'guttmacher' institute in its liberal interpretation of the data. Ofcourse, they may try to dispute this, but I haven't read any so far.
On my inclusion of Britain, I was repeating what Peter Hitchens argued in a debate he did on abortion. I'm sorry, but I forgot where I was able to read that, so I can't provide a link at the moment.
[Also, its an interesting article since it criticizes the 'guttmacher' institute in its liberal interpretation of the data. Ofcourse, they may try to dispute this, but I haven't read any so far. ]
You present a site that's explicitly Pro-life/Right Wing in intent, while slapping the Guttmacher as "liberal."
Typical. Remind me again why I should take your counterpoint seriously?
More on Lifenews.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/groups/lif…
[On my inclusion of Britain, I was repeating what Peter Hitchens argued in a debate he did on abortion. I'm sorry, but I forgot where I was able to read that, so I can't provide a link at the moment. ]
Post statistics dude. An off-hand quote does not count as evidence.
[You present a site that's explicitly Pro-life/Right Wing in intent, while slapping the Guttmacher as "liberal."
Typical. Remind me again why I should take your counterpoint seriously? ]
Here's one reminder: Because what you just said is an ad hominem. If there is a flaw in their argument, then point out the flaw. Besides, I was careful to tell you that you can find more references below the article.
[Post statistics dude. An off-hand quote does not count as evidence.]
— I'll try to. I'm trying to remember what site I was able to read that. Maybe later.
And, when I said "liberal", I wasn't alluding to a political predisposition. I meant that rather literally. Just saying.
That doesn't change the fact you're parading around Lifenews as if it counts as a credible source. What's next? Fox News? World Nut Daily? Whale.to? Jill Stanek's Blog?
That doesn't change the fact that when left with no counter argument, you resort to ad hominems.
I'm not against the RH Bill as a whole, I just feel queasy about some parts of it. I think the education component will be really helpful.
And what part of my reply is "ad hominem"? that I called out your source as a flawed one?
When you dismissed the information on the link because it was "Pro-life/Right Wing".
[When you dismissed the information on the link because it was "Pro-life/Right Wing". ]
Given my dealings with the Pro-Life here in RP and the US, I'd say calling them a bunch of shameless liars is being polite.
And calling them "shameless liars", unfortunately does not address any argument they've made on the issue.
Of course calling them a liar won't address their argument, silly rabbit.
We call them shameless liars AFTER we prove that they lied.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/09/30/lif…
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/groups/lif…
I take that link you gave (www.rightwingwatch.org) and raise you the comments of one 'Steven Ertelt' below at the article's comment section.
What comment section? And yeah, your argument is basically that Right Wing Watch is not credible in attacking LifeNews' lying, because Steven Ertelt says so, who btw runs Lifenews.
Yes, I see you reasoning now. Most circular.
You need to actually go the link you gave and read the comments of Steven Ertelt.
[your argument is basically that Right Wing Watch is not credible in attacking LifeNews' lying]
— No, my argument is that its possible that they're not actually "lying". You could at least stop the overt straw manning.
[No, my argument is that its possible that they're not actually "lying". ]
Misinterpreting data counts as lying.
Do read the links before you accuse me of resorting to an ad hominem – there is plenty of evidence of LifeNews' balatant disregard for the facts just so it can push its anti-choice agenda.
Calling a spade a spade, or in this case, a shitty source a shitty source, is not an ad hominem. It is simply stating fact.
[Do read the links before you accuse me of resorting to an ad hominem – there is plenty of evidence of LifeNews' balatant disregard for the facts just so it can push its anti-choice agenda. ]
— Then point out the evidence you've been able to ascertain is LifeNews's "blatant disregard for the facts" in this particular argument.
Because it still seems this whole new thing you've just said is simply another ad hominem.
1.Person A makes claim X.
2.Person B makes an attack on person A.
3.Therefore A's claim is false.
[Then point out the evidence you've been able to ascertain is LifeNews's "blatant disregard for the facts" in this particular argument. ]
Here we go: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/09/30/lif…
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/groups/lif…
Try to read the links this time. This is the third time I posted Right Wing Watch.
Well here you are pointing out what you think are "LifeNews's blatant disregard of the facts" –which is kind of you.
However, calling people shameless liars would still be an ad hominem, since it scarcely addresses any argument that's on the table. Maybe they are, and you rightly call them such, who knows.
[Maybe they are, and you rightly call them such, who knows.
Feigning ignorance on your own source's track record for lying, despite somebody directing you more than once to evidence, doesn't your argument either.
I see you love putting thoughts in peoples heads.
I've directed you to the comment section of the article you linked to, where someone happily answered the author on her "mis representation" of the 'lifenews' article.
Ofcourse, I don't actually have the time to go through everything Steve said and check if it holds any water, so I won't be banking on that just yet.
But I certainly was not "feigning" anything. Don't get your panties in a bunch over a simple comment that seemingly questions one component of the RH Bill. It makes you look ridiculous.
WHO, UNFPA, WB, ADB and other economic/medical institutions says otherwise. Who are we to believe? A prolife site or internationally accepted institutions.
Is this about the sex education or the state-funded contraception? I've read many sites that show sex education does in fact work, so I am not against it.
Contraceptives work too, when coupled with sex education.
In fact, just about every health organization worth their salt will couple any comprehensive family planning program with contraceptives use. I find it strange that you'd appreciate sex ed, while ignoring the latter.
Because the latter, I believe, tends to lead to a more sexually permissive society, while the former ostensibly doesn't. Oh the strangeness!
[Because the latter, I believe, tends to lead to a more sexually permissive society, while the former ostensibly doesn't.]
Of course, because what you "believe" and what the facts say are one in the same!
I'm confused. Arguing that state-funded contraception will lead to more promiscuity is different from arguing that it will lead to more unwanted pregnancies.
What exactly are you arguing against? Both? The former is heavily supported, the latter, probably not as much. Or the one's who do support it are "lying", apparently.
[Arguing that state-funded contraception will lead to more promiscuity is different from arguing that it will lead to more unwanted pregnancies.]
Point taken. Now can you prove, as you have earlier asserted, using a credible study that state-funded contraception = promiscuity?
I hope a comment is not an attack to you! So here goes –
There seems to be a misconception between the sex-education component of the bill and the giving away of contraceptives. The former aims to educate the young on sex, in general, and the ills of teenage pregnancies on the other. The former aims to educate the poor married wives (the marginalized poor that is) who may not understand reproductive health issues. And, ONLY if they so choose to ask for free contraceptives (since they can't obviously afford to buy these) will they be provided, free of charge.
As for your belief that promiscuity is a result of sex education, I disagree! The mere knowledge of one's anatomy, etc. will not make one promiscuous. On the contrary, it tends to make one more aware of the dangers of having wrong knowledge (like how many promiscuous teens you know correctly know when they are safe or not?) about sex. Promiscuity is a result of a lot of factors – cultural influence, liberal upbringing by parents, peer influence, etc. The objective of of SexEd, if conducted properly, is to make them more responsible teens.
Hi!
No I said giving out free contraceptives may lead to a more sexually permissive culture. I didn't say that sex education would lead to more promiscuity. In fact I agreed that sex education will help. But that giving out contraceptives is another way of saying, its O.K. to have sex without the confines of marriage.
[No I said giving out free contraceptives may lead to a more sexually permissive culture. I didn't say that sex education would lead to more promiscuity. In fact I agreed that sex education will help. But that giving out contraceptives is another way of saying, its O.K. to have sex without the confines of marriage. ]
Once again, you're just making a baseless conjecture. Care to back it up with some hard evidence?
("…giving out free contraceptives MAY lead to a more sexually permisive culture") – this statement MAY be valid if the state will hand out free contraceptives to any tom, dick and harry it meets in the street, including 10yo girls/boys. But, if the target of the bill's 'free contraceptives' components is the marginalized poor wives (note: already married) who may already have several kids, how can it lead to a more sexually permissive culture?
Well if that's the "target", then I guess you're right. If it does in fact give contraceptives to any "tom, dick and harry it meets in the street on the street who asks for it" then I have a point.
[If it does in fact give contraceptives to any "tom, dick and harry it meets in the street on the street who asks for it" then I have a point. ]
That still doesn't prove that it leads to increased promiscuity. In fact, it's the other way around – an aggressive contraceptive and sex ed program has been linked to decreases in unwanted pregnancies, unwanted births, and maternal deaths.
You're setting the bar low if you're saying it doesn't lead to more promiscuity. Many study shows that it does. (the link I gave you is one). If your argument is that it doesn't lead to more "unwanted pregnancies, unwanted births, and maternal deaths." then you would be on firmer ground. But again, that's exactly what's being disputed in the link I gave. However, you're right to say that those findings can be disputed, and I would appreciate any article you can point to that would do just that.
You're link was caught lying about Guttmacher's data more than once.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/09/30/lif…
Let's not be easily swayed by "studies" cause you and I know that studies can easily be manipulated to suit one's own needs/purposes. Plain old common sense tells us that a teener has the "tendency" to become promiscuous not because she was given a condom or birth-control pill, but because of a lot of other possibilities: her bodily hormones make her sexually aware, lack of or no parental guidance, hanging out with the wrong group of friends during her formative years, drugs, etc. The mere sight or possession of contraceptives will not drive her to have sex with the first guy she meets in the street, but rather her lack of knowledge of its consequences, etc.
[Let's not be easily swayed by "studies" cause you and I know that studies can easily be manipulated to suit one's own needs/purposes. ]
Coming from a guy who just a few minutes ago tried to pass off LifeNews as a credible source, that's comedy gold 🙂
That comment didn't come from me. You owe me an apology for this one.
[Let's not be easily swayed by "studies" cause you and I know that studies can easily be manipulated to suit one's own needs/purposes. ]
org, the thing is that our RH Bill was created based on the very same studies that you're dismissing.
Twin_Skies: The reference to "studies" was in answer to miguel's arguments about promiscuity due to free contraceptives. I doubt very much if the proponents of the bill would include any doubtful or fabricated studies just to support its passing, unlike those who oppose it. So, no argument there.
The problem is that miguel has yet to cite a study backing his assertion. It's all conjecture at this point.
But still, thanks for clearing that up.
Besides, one doesn't need to read any scientific study to accept the following facts: our country, a 3rd-world one, is the 9th in population; the poorest pinoys are the ones with so many unschooled, uneducated and malnourished children; these poor childrens' mothers are uneducated as to reproductive health and have no means to prevent any more pregnancies. All one needs is pure common sense and open eyes and mind.
Another relevant study was made by George Akerlof, who received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001. He found out that 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. I don't know if promiscuity was mentioned, but the social ills mentioned here are even worse. The guy is an agnostic, so I highly doubt if he is moralizing.
I believe the intent of the bill is to give out free contraceptives to adult females of child-bearing age AFTER they have been properly educated on reproductive health and the various choices they have if they so choose not to have any additional children. The contraceptives will not be rammed down one's throat if an irresponsible couple opts for more children than what they can possibly raise responsibly. There simply is no imposition here, as what others mistakenly believe.
Very good answer. I may be changing my view on the bill then. Thanks for that.
You're welcome. If you have other misgivings about the bill, you're free to share them…
Yeah, I wonder why prolifers insist that the bill will forcefeed BC pills to the poor mothers.
My cousin was also anti-RH, he changed his view pretty quick when i said it was not pro-abortion. Apparently some prolifer told him that it was an abortion bill.
Exactly why there are a lot of misinformed people out there who could easily be convinced otherwise by simply telling them the "real" facts, as opposed to the idiotic facts cited by the anti group (I can't believe I have just redefined the word fact!hehe). Imagine the number of misinformed people out there who could easily beef up the pro group's ranks…
Well, because in the States, after teaching highschool students how to put condoms in bananas, they then go about passing around condoms to those who will need it. Now, it may be different here, teachers here are unlikely to be passing around condoms to their students, but that's what happens in the States. And if that's not being sexually permissive, then I don't know what is.
[Now, it may be different here, teachers here are unlikely to be passing around condoms to their students, but that's what happens in the States. And if that's not being sexually permissive, then I don't know what is. ]
I'm not sure if you noticed this, but filipino teens are ALREADY sexually permissive even without the existence of an RH program to educate them on proper condom use. The results can be seen in our rising teen pregnancy rates:
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/…
And furthermore, what you call it "promoting sexual permissiveness," I call sex education that works. And I'm not the only bloke who thinks so:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/0612…
What is different here is that we are decades behind in using a solution that's already been proven on several occasions to work, just because a couple of sanctimonious moron think it offends their bronze-age morality.
So you're saying that giving out condoms to students won't make them more promiscuous, since they're already promiscuous to begin with.
Sure, you can cite many articles that say giving out contraceptives stops the incidence of unwanted pregnancy, but this part of the thread right here was about whether advocating condom use would make people more promiscuous. Intuitively, it certainly would seem to be the case. People are more likely to use a gun if you give them one.
[Sure, you can cite many articles that say giving out contraceptives stops the incidence of unwanted pregnancy, but this part of the thread right here was about whether advocating condom use would make people more promiscuous. Intuitively, it certainly would seem to be the case. People are more likely to use a gun if you give them one. ]
So who's pretending to ignore evidence that's against their opinion? Funny, you were accusing me of the same schtick a few posts ago.
[Intuitively, it certainly would seem to be the case. People are more likely to use a gun if you give them one. ]
And how is this related to your own point on condoms? Your own examples cited that highschoolers were first educated in proper condom use.
In turn, I cited reports indicating that said education is having a positive effect in curbing teen pregnancies, which I honestly think is a far more sensible gauge of an RH education program's success, as compared to "morality-driven" programs.
You not only failed to counter my point with contrary evidence, but you are now outright claiming it doesn't matter to you and you'd rather rely on your intuition.
So who's the biased one now, moron?
[So who's pretending to ignore evidence that's against their opinion? Funny, you were accusing me of the same schtick a few posts ago. ]
— I wasn't saying your articles were all wrong. I was saying that it was beside the point of my particular comment which you responded to.
[And how is this related to your own point on condoms? Your own examples cited that highschoolers were first educated in proper condom use. ]
— My point was that they are more likely to use what's given to them.
[In turn, I cited reports indicating that said education is having a positive effect in curbing teen pregnancies, which I honestly think is a far more sensible gauge of an RH education program's success, as compared to "morality-driven" programs. ]
— Yes, but, again, you're missing the point. In this particular thread, I was saying that promiscuity will likely increase, not unwanted pregnancy.
[You not only failed to counter my point with contrary evidence, but you are now outright claiming it doesn't matter to you and you'd rather rely on your intuition. ]
— No, I'm claiming that you are conflating two topics: contraceptives effect on unwanted pregnancies, and contraceptives effect on promiscuity.
[So who's the biased one now, moron?]
— See, I was afraid this was going to happen. It has now devolved into name-calling. That's why I said " I hope I don't get attacked for this", and I explained my side as congenially as possible. But apparently, people like you can never get out of this childish rut of resorting to name-calling.
[but this part of the thread right here was about whether advocating condom use would make people more promiscuous.]
And how is this of any relevance to an RH program? A good program is not anybody's moral arbiter, and does not judge them if they're too "promiuscuous" or not.
And even if the teens were promiscuous, what would you rather do, prevent them from getting access to family planning devices? Yeah, that works.
[And how is this of any relevance to an RH program? A good program is not anybody's moral arbiter, and does not judge them if they're too "promiuscuous" or not. ]
— The Bill's legislative intent seems to want to be everyone's moral arbiter. Why don't you read it. It borders on welfare-statism –which I'm actually fine with. So morality has a lot of relevance to the RH program.
[And even if the teens were promiscuous, what would you rather do, prevent them from getting access to family planning devices? Yeah, that works.]
— If contraceptives make them more promiscuous, but decreases the incidence of abortion and unwanted pregnancy, then I'd rather be fine with free contraceptives. (as is the case being made in this article http://education.newsweek.com/2010/12/03/should-b…
But the downsides (sexual promiscuity) are there, lets not pretend they're not.
[So you're saying that giving out condoms to students won't make them more promiscuous, since they're already promiscuous to begin with. ]
No, I'm saying that education on proper condom use, AND education on the risks involved in irresponsible sexual behavior (which is covered in the bill) will tremendously help reduce teen pregnancies.
As for promiscuity, I wouldn't know. Do you?
[No, I'm saying that education on proper condom use, AND education on the risks involved in irresponsible sexual behavior (which is covered in the bill) will tremendously help reduce teen pregnancies]
— So you keep saying. Which is tangential to what I said, which you responded to above.
ooops..the "former" in the 3rd sentence of the 2nd paragraph should read LATTER.
Again it is not THE solution it is ONE of the solutions.
crab mentality? really? jealous of pacman's fame and glory. maybe. but we know a moron when we see one. a good boxer: no contest; the best! intelligent and a good politician: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahahAHHa!!!11!. the Inquirer said it best: it was like he (lagman) was explaining matters to a kid (manny).
Let us put it this way. He is a congressman, an international celebrity and proclaiming the will of god. The more he spouts out bull the more he's going to be scrutinized. The higher the pedestal the easier it is to see the stupidity.
and what we see is a fanboy who sees manny cannot do wrong. Manny fools around its ok he's my hero. Manny spends 4million on one single gift. Its ok he's my hero. Manny makes himself look like an idiot; its ok he's my hero. Manny endorses casinos; its ok he's my hero. Sorry alot more people have brains than blind hero worship, as pacman would say it: YOU KNOW.
idol na idol ko c pacman.. pero im pretty sure na hnd nya naiintndhan o hnd naipaliwanag sknya ng maaus ang both sides of the issue.. bka nrinig lng nya na "imoral" ang RH Bill, ngng anti na sya.. just because ayw nyang mgng imoral..
Your comment was reported by someone and I thought it was only fair for you to see the reason they gave. Yes, this is an actual complaint and not a poorly composed joke.
“Everyone has a point about RH Bill, but everyone has already read the content of RH Bill? i think ang ilan hindi, Cong. Manny as an elected official has the responsibility with RH Bill…and i believe manny is a true man, some filipinos teasing him, annoying him right now about his stands and he knows some of his fans will be disappointed but he dont cares because he believe and his faith is in our Almighty God..nnPlease to all people who write some sarcastic words to those who believe that RH Bill is one of the solutions of our country’s problem, just read the content of RH Bill…before writing and say anything.nnRH Bill is educating everyone and promoting to everyone to use contraceptives so that their love makings wont bring of having a baby because they are not ready for the responsibility, what does it means, meaning you can do sex without love just for the sake of your “LIBOG” and so you are using your wife just for the sake of it? how dare you pro RH Bill..nnSTOP CORRUPTION! is the solution Jail the corrupt official, implement fairly our laws…good education starts in our home not in our Government…”
uhhh ok, i guess? lol *confused
May I ask, Mr Garrick, what YOUR stands are on RH bill, morality and religion? Just wondering po. =)
Funny you should ask that because I’ve just published an article touching on that. I also wrote two other articles: https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/10/04/aquino… and https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/11/29/the-mo… with similar content. But to be brief, I think religion is harmful. To the extent that it helps people, it only appeals to our common human solidarity and there is nothing unique or special that any religion can bring to the table that is not available to anyone else. As for morality, I do not see why we have to believe anything on insufficient evidence in order to be kind or to cooperate with fellow human beings.
Hmm I see.. Twisted, but makes sense.. Spoken like a real UP student. 🙂
Will find time to read your articles. Thank you.
Bakit? Hindi ba nag-eenjoy yung wife nya? :)) Nothing wrong with "libog" (hey, you wouldn't be around either if not for it) and nothing wrong with a man and his wife enjoying sex without worrying if 9 months from now they'd be responsible for another life.
sana hnd nlng sya nkialam.. sna hnd nlng sya nkinig sa mga tao.. =(
@abbyvierneza – hmm I believe he is in congress for a reason. The RH bill is immoral as it is. For the sake of argument, kahit hindi natin tignan ang moral issues the RH bill still does not make sense. Pilit igiit nang pro RH na overpopulation ang problema na lulutasin nang RH bill pero ilang studies na ang nagpapatunay na di totoo ang overpopulation. Poverty ang problema…pero hindi birth control ang sagot kundi corruption. Why not imbes sa birth control ibigay ang budget ilaan na lang sa food provision? Hindi ba mas makatao iyon?
not just birth control… it can also be used for birth spacing and timing. kung bata pa kayo at may anak na kayo, pano pa kayo makakapag-ipon para sa kinabukasan ng pamilya nyo? pauutangin ba kayo ng simbahan, aber? pede bang iwan ang sanggol sa mga pari at gawin day-care sila habang nagtatrabaho kayo? hindi lahat ng magulang kayang kumuha ng yaya!
[he RH bill is immoral as it is. For the sake of argument, kahit hindi natin tignan ang moral issues the RH bill still does not make sense. ]
Let's look then. Do tell us how it is "moral" to deny women access to birth control, education, and other vital maternal health services.
[Poverty ang problema…pero hindi birth control ang sagot kundi corruption. Why not imbes sa birth control ibigay ang budget ilaan na lang sa food provision? Hindi ba mas makatao iyon? ]
Hey, good idea. While we're at it, let's also eliminate funding for public education – DepEd is one of the most corrupt gov't offices anyway, and free schooling is seriously overrated.
Reduce funding for DPWH as well, since we will lessen the schools, we won't need the roads going to them.
I'm sure the savings won't end here. let's just eliminate our government as a whole and be a Vatican Colony! YAY!
You have a point, and I agree with it. Isa pa, I believe that the RH Bill is really not necessary. Kasi may RH Bill o wala, mtgal ng gngamit ng mga pinoy ang family planning and contraception methods.
Yeah, because everyone can afford modern contraceptives and sex education.
Yeah.. Tska sa pgkkalam ko, hnd nman tlga pnagbbawal ang contraceptives e.. They're all available over the counter..
Hindi lahat ng tao kaya makabili. At karamihan walang alam. Hindi target ng RH bill ang mayaman. Ang target nila mahihirap na walang kamuang muang.
All I said was that they're available over the counter. I agree on your point tho 🙂
I’m sorry. I should have said that I was being sarcastic. Do you really honestly and truly believe that every person can afford contraceptives and sex education when some can’t even eat one decent meal every day?
I don't think I ever said that everyone can afford it but no, I don't believe so. But I believe that you can acquire sex education/knowledge for free, it's just a matter of being resourceful.
"Resource" being the key word there. Poor people have less of those.
Likhaan, an NGO that works closely with the slum communities here in RP, has already heard plenty of the people they treat ask for sex education, because they either don't have the money to buy books to educate themselves, or are simply too busy etching out a living to look after their families to have time to look for said sex education programs.
You have the advantage of having the time and the resources to be on the net to discuss such matters. Remember that not everybody is as fortunate.
lol poor or not, you got parents right? you got family, you got friends. you don't need to Google these stuff, come on people. Hey I know I'm young, might not know a lot but everything I know, I got from my family and friends. Free to ask around, that's all I'm sayin.
parents? most parents in this country try to avoid even the word "sex" in conversations because it is immoral.
and friends? you would get information from them but not all of them are very trustworthy sources.
pano kung lahat ng kaibigan mo wala ring alam? pano kung puro libog lang alam nila?
hindi nga lahat ng tao may "resources" para malaman ang mga yan. napakalaki ang posibilidad na kakaunti or pwede ring wala sa kanilang may alam tungkol sa mga contraceptives.
..hahaha..that's right..parents won't teach their children a sensitive subject like sex education..and not all friends are reliable..as you said..
..you said it all..i don't know what else to say..hahaha
Kaya nga. Kasi kahit naman mahihirap kayang-kayang bilin yan eh. Tsaka well-educated sila. Tsaka may access na naman sila sa maternal health care.
/sarcasm
We really need the tag.
“I believe he is in congress for a reason”
The reason being he’s insanely rich and popular. No one voted for him because he was smart. The guy gets hit in the head for a living, I wouldn’t count too much on his judgement.
“hindi birth control ang sagot kundi corruption”
Actually isang problem yung corruption, but I get what you’re trying to say. Sana lang nung kasagsagan ng pangungurakot ni GMA hindi sya kinampihan ng CBCP ano? Kunsabagay, gaya nga ng sabi ng CBCP tungkol sa RH Bill: pera-pera lang yan :))
though i, too, believe that the issue or root of it isn't just over population and indeed it is poverty and corruption is what is driving our country to the ground, it doesn't mean that i don't believe that the education of our poor and giving them a choice will not assist in the situation. this is part of that bill, education. hindi naman nila isasaksak sa baga ng mga babae ang pills at pwersahang isusuot sa mga lalaki natin ang condom eh, distribute lamang, if they choose to use it that's THEIR CHOICE.
so ayun na nga hindi equitable, take note, equitable instead of equal, ang distribution of wealth and resources sa ating bansa, hindi parin dapat natin ipagkait ang kaalaman tungkol sa paggawa ng bata. let the people decide.