|
|---|
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
The drama that is the RH Bill is nowhere near its end. Up until now, government and Church leaders are at war on whether or not they should pass it as a law. The dissimilar views coming from various sects and offices in the Church and in the government resulted to an indifference that has divided a nation that once prided itself from being one and united against all adversaries.
I am aware that majority of us Filipinos are in favor of the said bill; as a matter of fact, I was one of them. I should be glad that the government created a bill that will help prevent young and gullible teens like me from getting pregnant at a young age. But before I make a hasty generalization, I decided to take a good look at the other side of the coin to know how the Church, and those who are against the bill, views it.
I believe part of the reason why most of us are against the Church on this one is because of the manner to which they have addressed the issue. We cannot blame them, of course, for coming up too strongly against a bill that supports the use of birth control pills and contraceptives -- something that they, the Church, have been fighting against for so long. What makes it worse is that the person they once thought as their number one ally is the very person supporting the bill, and even challenged them to excommunicate him. So I guess we can understand what it must be like for the Church. Then again, issuing threats and hurling insults to RH Bill proponents weren’t the right way to have addressed the situation. Throwing stale bread back to its owner will make you the worse of the two evils (how ironic). With all due respect to our political leaders, I do believe that it was unwarranted for them to shun the Church out just because they are against it. Don’t get me wrong, I am perfectly aware of the principle of secularization, although I cannot see how that applies here. What I’m trying to say is that the government should stop using the separation of the Church and state as an excuse to shun the Church out just because they decided to stand up against a bill which they find perverse and faulty.
Going back to the RH Bill, which the president aptly renamed to as the ‘Responsible Parenthood’ Bill -- I assume the proponents wish to be discreet as to what the bill really aims to implement.
After further research (i.e. blogs, forums, news, etc.), and after thoroughly reading the bill, I have decided to go against it. I am not saying this to simply protect and defend my Catholic upbringing -- believe me, I’ve had my fair share of teen troubles -- but because I was taught never to jump into an injudicious decision without further analysis and study. While I agree with the government that our population is rapidly increasing at an alarming rate, I do not believe that passing a law that allows for the use of condoms, birth control pills, and contraceptives will help solve this problem. I have read the bill for a number of times and found a few loopholes and a number of parts that I believe needs to be amended, if not removed.
Allow me to highlight some of the propositions that have left me questioning the bill:
First is the implementation of sex education in both public and private schools within the country. I am, as a matter of fact, in favor of this proposition. However, it was stipulated on the bill that the [concept] of sex education shall be taught even to GRADE SCHOOL STUDENTS. Whatever happened to protecting the innocent minds of our youth? I came from an exclusive Catholic school for girls and have been taught sex education when I was in HIGH SCHOOL. Now ask me, did the photos of the male and female genitalia made me laugh, cringe, and say ‘eeew’? No. Did I think, during that time, that it was pornography? No. Did it make me overtly curious and make me want to try to be ‘intimate’ with the opposite gender? No, it did not. All of these are for the sole reason that our teachers believed that, as high school students, we are open-minded and mature enough to understand that what was being shown to us only intends to educate us. Now tell me, will it have the same effect on grade school students (ages 12 and below)? I don’t think so. At that given age, you are not satisfying their curiosity, nor are you educating them, but you are simply exploiting their minds and making their imaginations run wild, thus the children’s desire to explore and try it themselves.
You see the problem with us grownups is we sometimes tend to put too much malice on things that the youth wouldn’t even consider as malicious. You see two young tots walking hand-in-hand, laughing and playing, when all of a sudden the boy gave the girl a peck on the cheek. You immediately stop them and forbid them from playing with each other because “Mommy/Daddy says so”. As a result, you leave them questioning themselves: “What was wrong with playing?” At such an early age, they have been introduced the concept of ‘boyfriend-girlfriend’ and of sensuality. Whatever happened to just being FRIENDS? Do not blame the society for something that you, as a parent, could have prevented from happening.
And that, my dear political leaders, is the true essence of “Responsible Parenthood”. It’s not about teaching sex education to grade school students, nor giving out free condoms to help alleviate and/or lessen the number of unwanted teenage pregnancies in our country. It’s simply about teaching and instilling good morals and the right values to our children.
So instead of teaching sex education, not to mention spending Php369 billion, why not invest the money on educational and livelihood programs that aims to support out-of-school youth. Not only will it lessen the number of uneducated youth in the country, but it will also give them the opportunity to start a new and better life. This, in turn, will help lessen the chance of them marrying young and of getting pregnant at an early age.
Another area that I find unreasonable is the giving of free condoms in clinics and health centers, as well as making birth control pills and contraceptives more accessible most especially to the poor. What condoms and unnecessary medications? Food, clothing, shelter, and event a decent job is what the poor needs. Why give them something that can’t satisfy even their basic needs? Why pass a law that allows for the use of such medications when it is already available to anyone who wishes to use/purchase it (illegally or not)? Aren’t you aware that most of the contraceptives used by women nowadays are proven to have abortifacient effects? And that, I believe, violates Articles 2 and 15 of our Constitution, which is about the protection and sanctity of the unborn.
As much as I wish to leave religion out of this, I want to accentuate the fact that we live in a country where sexual intercourse is considered sacred; an act done only by married couples – not that the latter is still being observed by many, but let’s not delve into that. My point is that by giving out free condoms and contraceptives, the government is only making the concept of sex even more vague than what it is now. They are introducing the concept of ‘free sex’ by giving people, especially the male populace, the notion that condoms and contraceptives are utterly safe, it will not get anyone pregnant, nor will it give them STD. You are simply giving them the opportunity to fool around and cheat on their spouse. How can you be sure that these men will use those condoms on their wives and not on other women? Or isn’t that a part of your problem anymore? I thought so. So much for being a country that values the family and the sanctity of marriage.
Condoms and birth control pills may control the population at some point, but it will not entirely solve nor stabilize the continuous increase in our population everyday. We do not need a law that allows for the use of such medications, especially when it is not well thought of and when further research and study must be done.
The RH Bill is simply giving us the false notion that:
Over-population = Poverty
Thus: Over-population, injected by the RH Bill = Decrease in poverty
Are there any research and/or empirical evidences to support that analogy? Over-population is not the sole cause of poverty. True, it is a factor, but it is just one of the few that results to poverty in the Philippines. It seems that the bill’s proponent/s may have overlooked this fact. What about the fact that the Philippines in an underdeveloped country? And what about corruption? Oh, yes, the Big C.
President Aquino’s slogan during his campaign for presidency was, “Pag walang corrupt, walang mahirap”. A statement that earned him the trust of millions of Filipinos, and which paved his way towards presidency. Who can say no to a public servant who promises to help eradicate corruption? The president believes that passing the RH Bill as a law will not only decrease the rate of poverty in the country, but may also lessen the number of corrupt politicians in the government. How? Spending Php360 billion for free condoms and hospitalization for the poor, and cheaper birth control pills and contraceptives will not make corrupt officials better. Ergo, it will only make them worse.
And where, if I may ask, is the government planning to get the funds that will help support this law? From our VAT? So instead of providing jobs and other livelihood programs for millions of poor Filipinos, the government instead will supply them with “free” condoms and cheaper contraceptives. I don’t see the point of it all. I don’t intend to sound rude and inconsiderate, but as much as I am willing to help the poor, don’t you think that instead of teaching them how to become better and responsible individuals, you are making them more dependent on the government and on the upper echelons of the society by passing the RH Bill?
Enough with wasteful laws and irrelevant government spending, what we need is a law that will help alleviate poverty by providing the poor with educational and livelihood programs that will help them provide for and satisfy their everyday needs. So I say NO to the RH Bill. The president needs to divert his focus (i.e. time and government funds) on projects that can actually improve the economy and the quality of life of every Filipino.
I am aware that majority of us Filipinos are in favor of the said bill; as a matter of fact, I was one of them. I should be glad that the government created a bill that will help prevent young and gullible teens like me from getting pregnant at a young age. But before I make a hasty generalization, I decided to take a good look at the other side of the coin to know how the Church, and those who are against the bill, views it.
I believe part of the reason why most of us are against the Church on this one is because of the manner to which they have addressed the issue. We cannot blame them, of course, for coming up too strongly against a bill that supports the use of birth control pills and contraceptives -- something that they, the Church, have been fighting against for so long. What makes it worse is that the person they once thought as their number one ally is the very person supporting the bill, and even challenged them to excommunicate him. So I guess we can understand what it must be like for the Church. Then again, issuing threats and hurling insults to RH Bill proponents weren’t the right way to have addressed the situation. Throwing stale bread back to its owner will make you the worse of the two evils (how ironic). With all due respect to our political leaders, I do believe that it was unwarranted for them to shun the Church out just because they are against it. Don’t get me wrong, I am perfectly aware of the principle of secularization, although I cannot see how that applies here. What I’m trying to say is that the government should stop using the separation of the Church and state as an excuse to shun the Church out just because they decided to stand up against a bill which they find perverse and faulty.
Going back to the RH Bill, which the president aptly renamed to as the ‘Responsible Parenthood’ Bill -- I assume the proponents wish to be discreet as to what the bill really aims to implement.
After further research (i.e. blogs, forums, news, etc.), and after thoroughly reading the bill, I have decided to go against it. I am not saying this to simply protect and defend my Catholic upbringing -- believe me, I’ve had my fair share of teen troubles -- but because I was taught never to jump into an injudicious decision without further analysis and study. While I agree with the government that our population is rapidly increasing at an alarming rate, I do not believe that passing a law that allows for the use of condoms, birth control pills, and contraceptives will help solve this problem. I have read the bill for a number of times and found a few loopholes and a number of parts that I believe needs to be amended, if not removed.
Allow me to highlight some of the propositions that have left me questioning the bill:
First is the implementation of sex education in both public and private schools within the country. I am, as a matter of fact, in favor of this proposition. However, it was stipulated on the bill that the [concept] of sex education shall be taught even to GRADE SCHOOL STUDENTS. Whatever happened to protecting the innocent minds of our youth? I came from an exclusive Catholic school for girls and have been taught sex education when I was in HIGH SCHOOL. Now ask me, did the photos of the male and female genitalia made me laugh, cringe, and say ‘eeew’? No. Did I think, during that time, that it was pornography? No. Did it make me overtly curious and make me want to try to be ‘intimate’ with the opposite gender? No, it did not. All of these are for the sole reason that our teachers believed that, as high school students, we are open-minded and mature enough to understand that what was being shown to us only intends to educate us. Now tell me, will it have the same effect on grade school students (ages 12 and below)? I don’t think so. At that given age, you are not satisfying their curiosity, nor are you educating them, but you are simply exploiting their minds and making their imaginations run wild, thus the children’s desire to explore and try it themselves.
You see the problem with us grownups is we sometimes tend to put too much malice on things that the youth wouldn’t even consider as malicious. You see two young tots walking hand-in-hand, laughing and playing, when all of a sudden the boy gave the girl a peck on the cheek. You immediately stop them and forbid them from playing with each other because “Mommy/Daddy says so”. As a result, you leave them questioning themselves: “What was wrong with playing?” At such an early age, they have been introduced the concept of ‘boyfriend-girlfriend’ and of sensuality. Whatever happened to just being FRIENDS? Do not blame the society for something that you, as a parent, could have prevented from happening.
And that, my dear political leaders, is the true essence of “Responsible Parenthood”. It’s not about teaching sex education to grade school students, nor giving out free condoms to help alleviate and/or lessen the number of unwanted teenage pregnancies in our country. It’s simply about teaching and instilling good morals and the right values to our children.
So instead of teaching sex education, not to mention spending Php369 billion, why not invest the money on educational and livelihood programs that aims to support out-of-school youth. Not only will it lessen the number of uneducated youth in the country, but it will also give them the opportunity to start a new and better life. This, in turn, will help lessen the chance of them marrying young and of getting pregnant at an early age.
Another area that I find unreasonable is the giving of free condoms in clinics and health centers, as well as making birth control pills and contraceptives more accessible most especially to the poor. What condoms and unnecessary medications? Food, clothing, shelter, and event a decent job is what the poor needs. Why give them something that can’t satisfy even their basic needs? Why pass a law that allows for the use of such medications when it is already available to anyone who wishes to use/purchase it (illegally or not)? Aren’t you aware that most of the contraceptives used by women nowadays are proven to have abortifacient effects? And that, I believe, violates Articles 2 and 15 of our Constitution, which is about the protection and sanctity of the unborn.
As much as I wish to leave religion out of this, I want to accentuate the fact that we live in a country where sexual intercourse is considered sacred; an act done only by married couples – not that the latter is still being observed by many, but let’s not delve into that. My point is that by giving out free condoms and contraceptives, the government is only making the concept of sex even more vague than what it is now. They are introducing the concept of ‘free sex’ by giving people, especially the male populace, the notion that condoms and contraceptives are utterly safe, it will not get anyone pregnant, nor will it give them STD. You are simply giving them the opportunity to fool around and cheat on their spouse. How can you be sure that these men will use those condoms on their wives and not on other women? Or isn’t that a part of your problem anymore? I thought so. So much for being a country that values the family and the sanctity of marriage.
Condoms and birth control pills may control the population at some point, but it will not entirely solve nor stabilize the continuous increase in our population everyday. We do not need a law that allows for the use of such medications, especially when it is not well thought of and when further research and study must be done.
The RH Bill is simply giving us the false notion that:
Over-population = Poverty
Thus: Over-population, injected by the RH Bill = Decrease in poverty
Are there any research and/or empirical evidences to support that analogy? Over-population is not the sole cause of poverty. True, it is a factor, but it is just one of the few that results to poverty in the Philippines. It seems that the bill’s proponent/s may have overlooked this fact. What about the fact that the Philippines in an underdeveloped country? And what about corruption? Oh, yes, the Big C.
President Aquino’s slogan during his campaign for presidency was, “Pag walang corrupt, walang mahirap”. A statement that earned him the trust of millions of Filipinos, and which paved his way towards presidency. Who can say no to a public servant who promises to help eradicate corruption? The president believes that passing the RH Bill as a law will not only decrease the rate of poverty in the country, but may also lessen the number of corrupt politicians in the government. How? Spending Php360 billion for free condoms and hospitalization for the poor, and cheaper birth control pills and contraceptives will not make corrupt officials better. Ergo, it will only make them worse.
And where, if I may ask, is the government planning to get the funds that will help support this law? From our VAT? So instead of providing jobs and other livelihood programs for millions of poor Filipinos, the government instead will supply them with “free” condoms and cheaper contraceptives. I don’t see the point of it all. I don’t intend to sound rude and inconsiderate, but as much as I am willing to help the poor, don’t you think that instead of teaching them how to become better and responsible individuals, you are making them more dependent on the government and on the upper echelons of the society by passing the RH Bill?
Enough with wasteful laws and irrelevant government spending, what we need is a law that will help alleviate poverty by providing the poor with educational and livelihood programs that will help them provide for and satisfy their everyday needs. So I say NO to the RH Bill. The president needs to divert his focus (i.e. time and government funds) on projects that can actually improve the economy and the quality of life of every Filipino.
-XOXO-
Labels: Current Events, Government, Politics, RH Bill, Scribbles
0 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
