Archive | September, 2012

Mass: Not For Your Personal Entertainment

30 Sep


I Love this Pope. 🙂


Oh Dear, Dear Kids…

27 Sep

Wow! I can’t believe I’m saying this now! How time flies and now I can call College students “kids”… ugh! But on to the subject at hand: Ateneans have, apparently, joined in the whole RH Bill thing and have given their support. Well, some of them. After reading the Guidon article, I thought it best to engage the reasons that these Ateneans are saying that justify their support for the said bill quoting from the Guidon article.

“A lot of Filipino mothers also die daily due to childbirth complications, something which I believe the RH bill can greatly reduce.” – Gio Alejo, Sanggunian President

OK, childbirth complications cause maternal deaths. What should we do? Pro-RH Bill Answer: Reduce pregnancies! That has always been my question regarding those that support the bill: why do they insist on reducing pregnancies as a means to reduce maternal deaths instead of better maternal health care? Is pregnancy a disease?

“I find it constitutionally sound and necessary given the plight of the poor,” he said. “To deny the need for it… is to be foolish and out of sync with the realities of today.” – Vinno Lee, Economics Senior

Emphasis mine. Really? What need does the RH Bill provide that we do not have? People need food, shelter, and clothing. Education, yes. But RH Bill is not just about education. If this is all that there is to it, then let DepEd handle it and I will definitely support it with their age-appropriate curriculum. But it is not.

“I personally see the RH bill as a means to assert people’s rights to be provided by the state the rights to reproductive health.”- Moses Albiento, Alliance of Student Leaders Chairperson

“The bill, by its nature, offers freedom of choice for its citizens, as it supports both natural and artificial family planning methods, making both more accessible without mandating that either one be used, and therefore leaving this choice up to each individual citizen,” – Sanggunian statement

What rights are we talking about, exactly? Right to ‘reproductive health’ eh? The freedom of choice? When has that choice been curtailed? Does that right not exist today? In fact, this justification doesn’t hold because, as one article says,

Bawal bang bumili [ng pills]? Hindi bawal. Mahirap bang bumili? Naka-distribute ‘yan, umaabot pa sa bundok. Hayaan niyo na ang mga pharmaceutical [companies], sila na ang mag-distribute. That’s their marketing challenge,” he added. “But don’t get government to do the distribution and spend my money for that.
“Is the Church forcing people not to use contraceptives? No, you are free to use them. But don’t expect the Church to keep quiet and be remiss in its mission to proclaim the Truth,” – Ed Sorreta, ProLife Philippines

This was during a forum at the National Institute of Physics in UP Diliman. I wish I was there to listen to the arguments.

If you are pro-RH Bill, then you would have read Sections 2 and 3 that essentially takes the “Rights approach” into rationalizing this bill. Atty. Pangalangan takes this “rights-based approach” during the said forum and here’s what the article said:

“every human being is recognized as a person and as a right-holder,” her [Pangalangan] remark that everyone from the moment of birth — not from conception —  is entitled to human rights, angered the audience. 

That was a big revelation for me. Was it the same for you as well? Dear, dear… a mother has more right than an unborn child — that’s the rights-based approach for you, dear Ateneans.

While I cannot discount their desire to uplift the condition of the poor, I cannot comprehend how they could use their reasons to justify their motivation to support the RH Bill.

Rappler’s TalkThursday with Edcel Lagman on RH Bill: lies and misinformation.

26 Sep

I wonder if Bishop Chito Tagle would ever get into Rappler’s TalkThursday and explain the truths about the RH Bill. 🙂

Anyway, I’ve seen some replies by Rep. Lagman, the principal author of HB 4244, and I see his slip showing in his answers.

1. Lagman: I am a Catholic. When I was in school, I was an acolyte and a sacristan. We can support the #RHBill in good conscience.

No, Congressman. You CANNOT support something that is pro-contraception and still be a Catholic. A Catholic by name, perhaps, but not a good one. Maybe the right way to state his answer is “We can support the RH Bill in good conscience given that I haven’t really studied theology and have any idea if my conscience is well-formed or not.” Besides, being an acolyte and a sacristan or serving in the altar make you a knowledgeable Catholic. I’m not even sure if you understand what’s going on during the mass!

2. It will reduce abortion by 85%. That’s a huge number. We have about 500,000 abortions in the PH.

It probably would since we will be reducing ‘unwanted pregnancies’ but what will society become after we have practically legalized sex without responsibilities?

My theory is this: if we are to remain a Catholic nation, then abortion rates would definitely decrease. If we are to be like Singapore who are more concerned about personal, financial growth and their careers, then abortions would remain constant, if not increase.

And if we change society into something that thinks sex without responsibilities is OK, then it will only be a matter of time when this law will be repealed and include abortion as part of reproductive health.

3. That is the hallmark of the bill: freedom of choice.

Are you telling me, Rep. Lagman, that RIGHT NOW, I don’t have a choice? I’m not free to make a choice? RIGHT NOW, I don’t have the freedom to choose whether to use a condom or pills or IUD or NFP? Are you telling me, Rep. Lagman, that my freedom of choice in choosing which method of family planning depends SOLELY in your RH Bill?

4. RH Bill is not a bill on population control. Population control is anathema to the central mark of RH Bill, which is freedom of Choice

Funny how you would choose ‘anathema’ Rep. Lagman. 🙂

And to say that population control is only ‘incidental’? What is Section 3.g.2.? 3.g.4? 3.m? 3.n seems to target THE POOR specifically — that by reducing their number, we uplift their lives? Really?

I’m actually disappointed with myself because I couldn’t edit this earlier. This was supposed to be posted on the 2nd week of August and I couldn’t make room for it because of work! But I hope I got some of those points and what I think are wrong with Rep. Lagman’s thinking.