RH-Bill in focus

Does the church have the right to voice out their opinion on RH Bill?
Yes, and it does not violate the separation of the Church and the State. It is still in the interest of the church to participate in these kinds of discussion since it is perceive as a duty to preserve their values, thus preventing any policies that might foil their long standing tradition/belief. And being an important key player, it is also their right and duty to give information to the public.

Now, are they relaying the right information?
Yes, because that information is based on their fundamental beliefs as a religious institution.

But in relaying those information are they fair?
First, we can’t expect things to be fair since we are fighting from opposite standpoint. Yes the Church may have propagandas. Yes the Church may claim that the bill is a work of evil. Yes the Church may use the power of its institution to bred hatred on the policy.


On a more critical point though:

1. Overpopulation: is it a myth?
- Some says that we are overpopulated that is why we need the bill passed. Then the opposite side says that the mere fact that we limit no. of children to be born (thus limiting mouths to feed) then we as if consider the unborn (or people in general) as liabilities which in fact be a great net asset.

My opinion: First Philippines is not overpopulated. It just so happen that our productivity (in terms of producing goods) is outpaced by the growth rate of our population. There is nothing wrong in a growing population since it can really be an asset. But to what extent can the state sustain such growth for it is consider as an asset? If it continuously grows (given limited resources) then we will probably be putting the general welfare in jeopardy.

But in a more important note: should we really look at this only in macro (effect in economy/country as a whole)? I think we should also look at the Micro as well (impact of it within the family). In my previous post I talked about that family size matters. In this case it matters because most of those with big families are living below poverty line. Is this compelling enough to push for the bill? I say yes basically on the side of educating families on Family Planning.

2. Who should teach couples about family planning?
-Some says the Church should teach them because its values are towards enriching family ties/strengthening family bond. Other says the state should be the one to teach them because priests know nothing about sex, etc.

My opinion: Both of them have the duty to educate couples. In the end what we seek to give to people are informed choices. It means that we give them the right to choose given all necessary information related to family planning are disclosed to the couples.

That is why the Church should educate them thru Pre-nuptial seminars about the toil and trouble of having a family. It is the responsibility of the Church to make them understand that the intention of sex is for procreation. At the same time, the State has the duty to fill in some missing puzzle pieces regarding family planning like the use of artificial contraception.

We empower the couple to choose. It is not that the State will lead the couples astray for using contraception. Let just say that this is a form of mitigating future harms that might happen brought about by too much passion between the couple.

3. Will this lead to Abortion, further Pre-marital sex, more single mothers, etc?

Some says that those countries who took a path which is similar to RH Bill actually experience more problems and further social decay like abortion, more pre-marital sex, more single mothers. These obviously thwart the claims of those in favor of the bill.

My opinion: May be it will lead to abortion. May be it will lead to more whores. The thing is, should we depend on situations that are yet to occur? Does the bill inhibits or create circumstances that will allow in the future Abortion? Not at all. It is even against abortion.

Pre-Marital sex is this a myth? In a more realistic look on society, we can’t deny that it happens. It will continue to happen because the moral fibers of society have been continuously distorted by western liberal ideas that we all freely accepted through modern media. It will continue to grow as long as we foster liberal ideas from the west even with or without the bill. That is why judging the bill on this ground is a little unfair. Since the bill is realistic enough to understand this fragile situation. It just so happen that the bill opted to go to the path of practicality.

I want to talk about other things but It can wait. 

This bill will still go a long way… A lot of Debate… A lot of Propaganda… This can be a defining moment for P-Noy’s administration.