The People must know

Golden Banner

Column Title: Let’s think together

Article Title: The People must know

Columnist: Cleb B. Calimutan

 

In a survey made it appears that sixty nine percent (69%) of the Filipinos agreed the use of artificial contraception, twenty four percent (24%) are not sure and only seven percent (7%) of the Filipinos have the same conservative position with the Catholic Church which remains very strong to go against the artificial contraception. This is because the Church knows something that the people do not specially on the moral side of family planning. In the Humanae vitae of Pope Paul VI the Church constantly says that artificial contraception is wrong. Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Birth Control, Catholic Answers). Before 1930 the Protestant goes with the mind with the Catholic Church, but on the Lambeth conference the Anglican was pressured and started to sway their position now the Catholic Church is the only largest institution opposing artificial contraception.

 

            Why the Church says contraception is wrong? Primarily, since it defeats the purpose of sex which is designed by God for procreation and not an end of the act. It is a blessing from God intended to create a new life in the bond of matrimony, there must be love and respect, and not for self gratification only. The people must know this thing to have a good view of life and love in the family.

 

            If the Filipino couple are given the change to choose between natural and artificial they would prefer the artificial one, for it is convenient and easy. Unlike the natural method that it takes time for them to know with great accuracy, they need to be educated in the holistic aspect of family planning. And since most of the Filipino are not oriented with the importance of the natural family planning they would choose the artificial method. But I do believe that if they only know the reality of both the natural and the artificial they would choose probably choose the natural one.

 

            It remains that education is the best solution of problems, for in it that there is awareness that inclines proper decision making. The people who knows what is right from wrong are those who can discriminate them properly and as a Christian country it is deemed that everybody must get involved in proclaiming the truth and what is the best for the people; since this is not only a problem of a few but for all of us, knowing the truth makes a difference thus Jesus said, “the truth shall set us free.”

The Condom Condemnation

Golden Banner Publication

Column Title: Let’s Think Together

Article Title: The Condom Condemnation

Columnist: Cleb B. Calimutan

Date: November 10, 2010

 

 

            Some parts of the world are rejoicing including the pro RH Bill passed in the Philippine congress, for just one reason that seems to be the most awaited and the most exciting when the Pope said, “condom is okay?” I think it’s a big “No way” specially to the pro lifers. The Church never changed her position against artificial contraception. However I deemed it necessary to clarify some point of view for the sake of the concerned readers.

 

 

            Concerning the Papal opinion; the Pope is infallible when he speaks “ex cathedra” as the supreme pastor of the Roman Catholic Church and defines a doctrine concerning faith and morals. Any opinion that he may express without the necessary condition of his infallibility is not binding. The Church remains a pro lifer the Pope did not intend to change the stand of the Church for a long time  regarding artificial contraception which is never  suggested as an option to be used by the couple that plans a good family.

 

 

            Nonetheless the Church would deal things on a case to case basis for it is the whole person that is the most concern of the issue. The best example is abortion that which the Church never allows however if the baby inside is dangerous most specially to both the life of Mother and the baby that none of the two may survive if pregnancy continues then this indirect  abortion is allowed in this very extraordinary case, however the Pope was implying something very different of what the anti lifers had construed. The pope was interviewed by Peter Seewald that can be read in the  “light of the World” a book length interview of Pope Benedict XVI of which when he was ask concerning the issue of the fight against the banalization of sexuality, that sex must be an expression of love within the context of marriage the Pope made the following statement:

 

 

             “There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.  But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.

Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?

“She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

 

            The emphasis of the Pope is the case of a “male Prostitute who is going to use a condom” this is not about sexuality within marriage, this is about the male prostitute starting to be awaken from his promiscuous condition whereby he is transmitting the deadly virus and as his first step of moral sense he is going to use a condom. The Pope did not suggest that the male prostitute must wear a condom, but, if and only a male prostitute uses a condom, there is then the first step of moral sense in him. The Pope did not made a suggestion that condom is a prevention of AIDs nor it is commendable for family planning it is not in the mind of the Pope and the whole Catholic magisterium it is only in the mind of those who are anti life that looks anything they can make use to promote their evil cause.

In the fight against Aids the Catholic Church recommends abstinence and among any institution all over the world the Catholic Church champions in this field without much ado. In some other parts of the book it is said, “I had the chance to visit one of these wards and to speak with the patients. That was the real answer: The Church does more than anyone else, because she does not speak from the tribunal of the newspapers, but helps her brothers and sisters where they are actually suffering. In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.” (An excerpt from Light of the World, Peter Seewald’s book-length interview with Pope Benedict XVI From Chapter 11, “The Journeys of a Shepherd,” pages 117-119: excerpted by Dr. Janet E. Smith).

 

 

            The Church upholds the truth and love, she never changes her principles as easy as what  the other people are thinking, the Holy Spirit abides the Church and safe guarding her least she fall into error. Concerning the fight against artificial contraception that is because the Church consider all aspects of human life, the natural method is open for pregnancy, open for life, but the artificial one is not open for pregnancy it is anti life.  Moreover the Catholic Church upholds the dignity of all, the Husband the wife and the life inside the womb of the mother, insuring that whatever measure the couple should take, the baby, unexpected maybe, is safe and its possibility is welcomed by the couple. The Church reflects Gods justice and love, let’s think straight always and together.

 

 

 

A Discussion With A Pro-RH Bill Supporter

A Discussion With A Pro-RH Bill Supporter

By Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso

 

This happened on Facebook and I think it is a good idea that I will share this to everyone; written in black is quoted from the Pro-Rh Bill advocate in written in red is my response.
Pro-RH Bill: Fun arguments by CBCP and the like when they themselves done follow the teachings of the bible most relevant with worshiping a man made idol i’ll make it into tagalog, gumagawa ng REBULTO. Though shalt not commit IDOLATRY which means do not worship or pray to anything man made and Idols are man made. Might tell you if you read the bible. John 14:6 says I am the way the truth and the light NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME AND NOT YOUR MAN MADE SAINTS. *cough* Calunsod *cough*.
Me: I cannot afford not to comment on your status. As much as I respect your opinion, allow me to correct some of your misconceptions about the Catholic faith.First and foremost you are correct in saying that the Bible prohibits worshiping idols and carving images of idols. In Ex.20:3-5 it is clear that God prohibits worshiping of idols and the creation of their images. However, God allowed the creation of images of angels on top of the Ark of the Covenant Ex.25:18 and the temple where people of the Old Testament is full of images in which it was God who ordered the creation thereof (1 Kings 6:29).

“The walls on all sides of both the inner and the outer rooms had carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers”. 1 Kings 6:29

While the people of God are wandering in the desert God ordered Moses to create an image of a bronze serpent. (Num.21:8-9)

What can we learn from this? It basically tells us that there are two kinds of images. Images that were prohibited by God such as the pagan deities (we do not see any pagan images inside the Church). And the images of saints and angels in which God did not prohibited.

Nowhere in Catholic teaching ever teach nor encourage the worship of images of idols or saints.

We do believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6) that is why in the Holy Eucharist the center of the worship ceremony is Jesus Christ not Mary and the saints. However, the Bible also says that The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15-16) henceforth if we want to know more about Christ and become close to Christ we have to heed the teachings of the true Church for faith comes from what is heard (Rom.10:17). May God Bless you.

 

Pro-RH Bill: I get your point but tell that to your delusional devotees that are overzealous on enforcing their beliefs on other people as well as interfering on the processes in the Law of the Land. Eucharists are now are interfered basically for POLITICAL STATEMENTS made by and for the CBCP. Where is the SEPARATION BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND STATE? If the Catholic Church can’t even respect that then might as well TAX the Church. Its already gone and long since the time of the DAMASO’S and the Hypocrisy. Even Oscar Cruz calling out “Civil Disobedience” what you want you get what you don’t want you interfere with.
Me: [I get your point but tell that to your delusional devotees that are overzealous on enforcing their beliefs on other people as well as interfering on the processes in the Law of the Land.]People of the faith have the moral obligation to oppose a law that is detrimental to the life and dignity of all human beings. It is those who are in favor of RH BILL who imposes their belief on others by making it a law obliging everyone to obey what they believe under the precept of law.

[Eucharists are now are interfered basically for POLITICAL STATEMENTS made by and for the CBCP. Where is the SEPARATION BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND STATE? If the Catholic Church can’t even respect that then might as well TAX the Church.]

The separation of the Church and the State does not entail absolute separation rather, the Church nor the state will not interfere in matters that are purely political or religious. Thus in the Constitution the state is prohibited from espousing or favoring a specific religion. However, it does not prohibits the cooperation of the state and the Church. When the Legislative branch of the state interfered in matters pertaining to morality they are the ones who is violating the separation of the state and the Church because they are imposing a law which is contrary to the moral beliefs of the Filipino people. Remind you that even in our constitution religious beliefs are being respected, thus obliging any person to act contrary to his belief is unconstitutional. There are provisions in the RH BILL that violates the fundamental right of a person. And this fundamental right is protected by our 1987 constitution and that is the right to exercise ones religious belief.

[Its already gone and long since the time of the DAMASO’S and the Hypocrisy. Even Oscar Cruz calling out “Civil Disobedience” what you want you get what you don’t want you interfere with.]

Yes Damaso is long gone because clergies nowadays espouses the example of Fr. Florentino, civil disobedience is justifiable and is an inalienable right of a person if such laws that were implemented are detrimental to his life, dignity and morality. It was through civil disobedience that the Negros were freed from slavery.

Pro-RH Bill: What fundamental right may that be? The right to live? THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE CLAUSE WHERE IT STATES THERE IS ABORTION.There was no clause in forcing the RH Bill on Everyone, and Contraception was already available in the market long ago, it only helps on providing sufficient contraceptives on part of the mass that can’t afford it. Then you would be making the case on why not spend the Bill on helping people improve on their livelihood? The Government has already a lot of those and still it may be or not justifiable for the cost and the corruption that may happen within the Government.

Civil Obedience on behalf of the Church is NEVER and i repeat NEVER JUSTIFIABLE. You make use of the members of your congregation as PAWNS for the CBCP’S own interest. Then after that the CBCP will make make a say on the Issue which makes the line between the Separation between the Church and State has gone Blurry.

” There are provisions in the RH BILL that violates the fundamental right of a person. And this fundamental right is protected by our 1987 constitution and that is the right to exercise ones religious belief. ”

Again this is never ever forcing itself on everyone, EVERYBODY HAS A CHOICE AND THIS WAS GIVEN TO THEM. Di pinagpipilit ito sa mga tao kung magpaparticipate sila, specially when it came to Sex Education which for me is a need these days, KULANG ang guidance ng parents sa mga teenagers lately and it lead to more frequent teenage pregnancy. We were all teenagers once and don’t try to be a saint that curiosity never best us in many ways.

DAYS OF DAMASO Long gone? RUMOR MONGERING, SCANDALS THAT WERE SHUN. Dream on.

Me: [What fundamental right may that be? The right to live? THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE CLAUSE WHERE IT STATES THERE IS ABORTION.]Of course it is not stated in the said provision because it is directly contrary to the constitution. However, the promotion of contraceptive pills and IUD which both are not only prevents conception but also acts as abortifacients. They might not have specific clause which legalizes abortion yet the mere fact that they are promoting the use of contraceptive/abortifacient medicines and devices is tantamount to promotion of abortion under the precept of “essential medicines” to where these medicines and devices where classified. What fundamental right was violated? Under our constitution in Sec.1 Art.III on the bill of rights it says,

Art.III Sec.1 No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of Law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Isn’t it true that an aborted infant is deprived of his life and liberty? When a fetus or a zygote is aborted due to the use of pills and IUD are they not depriving such a person of his life and liberty? I cannot think of what to call a person who disagrees with this obvious truth. Clearly this is violation of a person’s fundamental right. Furthermore, the Constitution also protects another fundamental right, the freedom of religion.

Art.III Sec.5 No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for exercise of civil or political rights.

When health professionals under the penalty of law are coerce to teach or educate his client in using artificial contraception even if it is against his religious belief are they violating his fundamental right? Employers are force to distribute contraceptive pills to their employees even if it is against their religious conviction are they not violating his fundamental right? Are they not forcing these faithful to betray their own conscience for the sake of their so called law?

[There was no clause in forcing the RH Bill on Everyone, and Contraception was already available in the market long ago, it only helps on providing sufficient contraceptives on part of the mass that can’t afford it.]

There is a clause in H.B 4244 (Consolidated version) which forcing the RH BILL to everyone. H.B 4244 Sec.21 forces employers to provide reproductive health services. And by reproductive health services it includes the distribution of contraception. If such an act is contrary to the religious belief of the employer are they not violating his fundamental right as protected by the Constitution?

Aside from the employers, health care professionals faithful to their belief are also coerce to betray their conscience.

H.B 4244 Sec.28: Any healthcare service provider, whether public or private, who shall:

(1) Knowingly withhold information or restrict the dissemination thereof, or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on reproductive health, including the right to informed choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-safe and effective family planning methods;

under this section a health professional who refuses to educate his client on how to use artificial contraception will be liable to the law even if it is against his religious belief to teach and spread the use of these contraceptive measures. Isn’t it clear that this law prevents the individual from freely exercising his religious belief? And under the precepts of our Constitution is it not clear that hindering the individual from exercising his religious belief is a violation of his fundamental right as stated in the constitution?

[ Then you would be making the case on why not spend the Bill on helping people improve on their livelihood? The Government has already a lot of those and still it may be or not justifiable for the cost and the corruption that may happen within the Government.]

The government lacks the funds for education and health care, how many times have we heard that we lack books, chairs and classrooms for our public schools? What about the government hospitals? If not for Japan under the JPEPA agreement the Southern Philippines Medical Center in Davao City will not have the funds for renovating its buildings. And government hospitals lack sophisticated instruments, supplies and man power, you know why? Because they lack funds!

[Civil Obedience on behalf of the Church is NEVER and i repeat NEVER JUSTIFIABLE. You make use of the members of your congregation as PAWNS for the CBCP’S own interest. Then after that the CBCP will make make a say on the Issue which makes the line between the Separation between the Church and State has gone Blurry.]

And by whose authority do you say that civil disobedience in behalf of the Church is never justifiable? You might have forgotten your history class. Who was that person who initiated the People Power that ousted a dictator? It was Cardinal Sin! It was this person who called people through radio veritas to go out in the streets! People Power is an example of civil disobedience! Who where there in the front line facing the tanks with flowers and rosaries? It was the priests, nuns and believers!

[Again this is never ever forcing itself on everyone, EVERYBODY HAS A CHOICE AND THIS WAS GIVEN TO THEM. Di pinagpipilit ito sa mga tao kung magpaparticipate sila, specially when it came to Sex Education which for me is a need these days, KULANG ang guidance ng parents sa mga teenagers lately and it lead to more frequent teenage pregnancy. We were all teenagers once and don’t try to be a saint that curiosity never best us in many ways.]

Section 21 and 28 of H.B 4244 (consolidated version) clearly forces an individual to act against his religious convictions and against his conscience. Sex education for elementary and high school students is not appropriate because they don’t have the maturity of an adult to know what is right and what is wrong. We are all teenagers once and we all passed in the state of curiosity however if one’s curiosity is guided to know which one is wrong and which one is not then such an exercise of curiosity is blameless.

The Fr. Florentino nowadays out numbered those of Damaso. Why focus your attention to the Damasos and not on the Florentinos?

SEX, CONTRACEPTIVES AND COMPLICATED PREGNANCY

SEX, CONTRACEPTIVES AND COMPLICATED PREGNANCY

by Prof. Ramon Gitamondoc, CFD National President

Visitation – A pregnant Virgin Mary visiting St. Elizabeth

  • Brothers, sino ang online po dito?
    Can I ask in my preparation for my Debate,,

    Diba po ba ang SEX is procreation and a porcess of life?
    and naturally it is reserved for husband and wife so eto ang question ko.

    What if ang wife po may complication sa pregnancy does the husband needs to use contraceptives to prevent her from being pregnant?

    • The use of contraception is intrinsically evil and therefore no circumstance will justify its use. Contraception violates the two intrinsic meaning and purpose of the conjugal act. It violates the unitive meaning whereby the both spouses give to each other wholly and without reservation. In using contraception one is withholding from the other a part of himself or herself and that is his manhood or her womanhood. It violates the procreative meaning since it willfully prevents the openness to the transmission of life which God has willed in creating man male and female. A basic principle in moral theology is that the end does not justify the means. In the case cited above I think the prudent action to follow would be for the couple to talk openly to each other and if they are both Catholics and faithful to the Church then this will not present so great difficulty. They can both exercise continence or avail of natural methods which are proven to be almost 100 percent effective. They should devote their time in prayer and trust in God that if they follow his will God will bring out the best for them in the end. In case the wife becomes pregnant then they should avail of the necessary medical attention in order to provide the needed support for both mother and child. Directly willed abortion is never an option.

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

By: Bro. Marwil Llasos, O.P

 

Mary said “Yes” to Life: Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mother of Life, pray for the defeat of the RH Bill


The Reproductive Health Bill is Unconstitutional


            The Reproductive Health Bill (House Bill No. 4244) in its entirety is unconstitutional because its very premise is at war with the philosophy embodying the 1987 Constitution, dubbed as the Pro-Life Constitution.

The RH Bill proponents hail it as a solution to poverty in our country. They insist that the RH Bill will spare children, especially those who are unwanted, from a life of poverty. The RH Bill will save mothers from emotional trauma brought about by child bearing. These arguments are not new. They were already discussed and voted on the floor of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. The result is the present Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution:

“Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

Constitutionalist Rev. Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., in his annotation on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, expresses the sense of Article II, Section 12 that it “denies that the life of the unborn may be sacrificed merely to save the mother from emotional suffering or to spare the child from a life of poverty.”[1]The commonsensical and constitutional solution to the problem was stated by Fr. Bernas, thus: “The emotional trauma of a mother as well as the welfare of the child after birth can be attended through other means such as availing of the resources of welfare agencies.”[2]


Atty. Marwil N. Llasos reads “The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary” by constitutionalist and member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission Rev. Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.


What does Article II, Section 12 seek to achieve? Fr. Bernas answers that the provision was intended “primarily to prevent the state from adopting the doctrine in the United States Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade which liberalized abortion at the discretion of the mother any time during the first six months when it can be done without danger to the mother.”[3]


Clearly, the provision constitutionally outlaws abortion. There’s no chance that abortion can ever be legal in this country as long as the 1987 Philippine Constitution stands.

Abortifacients kill human life!

 

But what about the RH Bill? Does it promote or facilitate abortion? The answer is a categorical Yes. While the RH Bill purports to recognize abortion as illegal and punishable by law [Sec. 3 (9)], it however mandates “[a]ll accredited health facilities [to] provide a full range of modern family planning methods” [Sec. 7]. Thus, the RH Bill is inconsistent as best, duplicitous and hypocritical at worst.

Atty. Marwil N. Llasos defends life and the Constitution under the gaze of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the unborn and patroness of the Philippines

While the RH Bill recognizes abortion as illegal, it nevertheless allows the use of the “full range of modern family planning methods. The RH Bill does not specify or list what these methods are; hence, they could include the IUD (intra-uterine device), the morning-after pills,[4] and even manual vacuum aspirators[5] – all of which are known abortifacients!

Copper IUDs prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus.[6] Hormonal IUDs slow down the growth of the uterine lining thereby making it inhospitable for fertilized eggs.[7]

Prayer Power Rally Against the RH Bill on August 4, 2012 (1:00-7:00 P.M.)

Morning-after pills, otherwise known as Plan B pills, is described as “the backup plan for times when your birth control method has failed, has been forgotten, or you weren’t on any form of birth control, and you don’t want to get pregnant. Whether you’ve missed a few pills, the condom broke or slipped off, or you forgot to insert your diaphragm.”[8] The Plan B pill can be taken up to 72 hours after “unprotected sex.” But what happens within 72 hours? Is it possible that the sperm has already fertilized the egg? Yes. And what does Plan B do in that eventuality? “If the egg is already fertilized, it prevents the egg from attaching to the uterus” (implantation).[9]

Contraceptives promoted by the RH Bill

Manual vacuum aspirators cannot hide its pretense as a mere contraceptive. It is in fact an instrument of death – an earlyabortion machine.[10] Is this among the “full range of modern family planning methods” (Sec. 7) or the “full range of methods, facilities, services and supplies” (Sec. 4) sanctioned in the RH Bill? The Bill is deceptively and fearfully silent.

Plan B Pills prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus thus killing it

The above examples of contraceptives within the RH Bill package prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterus. Where does the Constitution come in in this regard? The 1987 Philippine Constitution categorically, unmistakably and unequivocably commands the State to protect the unborn “from conception.” Fr. Joaquin Bernas comments that “[t]he unborn’s entitlement to protection begins “from conception,” that is, from the moment of conception.”[11] What is the Constitutional intent? Fr. Bernas expresses it: “The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception and that conception takes place at fertilization.”[12] It is crystal clear that the constitutional definition of conception is fertilization, not implantation. Human life begins at fertilization; thus the fertilized ovum has human life and the State has the constitutional obligation to protect that life.

Instruments of death: Ipas machine vacuum aspirator

Fr. Bernas concludes that Article II, Section 13 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution “reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.”[13]The RH Bill militates against this constitutional mandate.

On August 7, 2012, when the members of the House of Representatives make a crucial decision on the RH Bill, they must be reminded of their oath “to uphold and defend the Constitution.” To vote in favor of this unconstitutional bill is a betrayal of their sacred oath and of the trust of the sovereign Filipino people.

 
The 1987 Philippine Constitution is a legacy of EDSA and CORY. We will go back to EDSA to remind the President to honor that legacy. It is the legacy of his mother that we want to preserve.

Anwering RH BILL Advocates

Anwering RH BILL Advocates

 By Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso

 

The following are the counter arguments for the top 6 arguments used by RH BILL advocates to spread their lies and poison the minds of innocent Filipinos.

Argument # 1: The Philippines is overpopulated

The battle cry of proponents of RH BILL and its principal sponsors both in congress and the senate is that the Philippines is already overpopulated and this is the root cause of poverty. Their battle cry will be vindicated if the Philippines is truly overpopulated. The projected population of the Philippines in 2010 is 94.01M1 and according to the advocates of RH BILL we are dangerously overpopulated and sooner or later our country will be plunged into irreversible poverty. The assumption that we are overpopulated is entirely baseless, their only evidence for their belief that we are overpopulated is the numerical value of our population other than that is simply false assumptions. They keep on telling people through mass media that we are overpopulated yet they did not provide us with any parameters for knowing that we are truly overpopulated. Demographically we are not overpopulated since our population growth rate is steadily declining and there are still a lot of uninhabited spaces for us to live in. The National Statistics Office noted that since 1995 up to 2025 our population growth rate is plunging from 2.32% to 1.4%2 aside from that our total fertility rate is also going down from 3.7 in 1998 to 1.5 in 2025 3just enough to replace the population. These two statistical indicators prove that our population is declining, but how do we explain the latest statistical data that shows the growth of our population from 94 million in the year 2000 to 97 million in the year 2012? The increase in our population is the effect of the increase in growth rate 10 or 20 years ago. The declining growth and fertility rate of the recent statistical data will have its effect 10 to 20 years from now. Basing on these statistics the idea that we are overpopulated is far from reality. They only make use of the overpopulation argument in order to make it appear that there is a need to control the population, but in reality we are not overpopulated and overpopulation is a myth!

1http://www.census.gov.ph/
2http://www.census.gov.ph/data/publications/pif2012_in_CD.pdf

3http://www.census.gov.ph/data/publications/pif2012_in_CD.pdf

 

Argument # 2: Population spawns poverty

The basic logic behind this argument is that as our population increases it will also increase the poverty rate of our country, in other words the causative factor of poverty is population. Furthermore, they also argued that in order to combat poverty we must control our population. Although the intention of our lawmakers in confronting the problem of poverty is good yet they are throwing a wrong solution to a real problem. Population control is not a solution to poverty, common sense tells us that there can also be poverty in a small population. Population is not our enemy as a matter of fact it is the reason why our economy is still intact in the ongoing global crisis. Economist Bernardo M. Villegas, Ph.d wrote “Lessons are being learned from the ongoing global crisis. One of them is that a large and young population can partly insulate a country from ill effects of global recession.1” In a global perspective population has no relation with poverty, there are countries that has even greater population than us, yet, they are more progressive and has less population in poverty compared with us. The following figures prove my point.

Comparison of Population
Comparison of Poverty rate

Basing on these statistical data it tells us that there is no correlation between population and poverty. As we have seen the first four countries namely China, India, United States of America and Japan have a higher population compared to Philippines. However, looking at its poverty percentage Philippines has a higher poverty rate compared with the other countries. This data proves two things, an increase in population has no connection with poverty and an increase in population can bolster economic growth. Clearly the arguments used by proponents of RH BILL cannot hold water upon close scrutiny.

1Bernardo M. Villegas, Ph.d, Positive Dimensions of Population Growth, p.32, 2011

 

Argument # 3: The RH BILL is advantageous in preventing unwanted pregnancies1

There is a principle in medicine “treat the cause not the symptoms”, treating the symptoms of a disease will only temporarily alleviate the person’s discomfort. But, once the effect medicine runs out the symptoms will reappear again. The same principle applies in preventing unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. “Unwanted pregnancy” is a symptom of disease called promiscuity, once you treat promiscuity there will no longer be “unwanted pregnancies”. Human being becomes “unwanted” if they are a result of illicit affair and promiscuity. Thus, in order to prevent “unwanted pregnancy” we must exhaust all possible means to prevent promiscuity and illicit affairs. Teaching the youth how to use through sex education how to use various artificial contraception in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases will only make it worst because you are not condoning promiscuity but encouraging it. Telling the youth to use condoms to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases is tantamount in saying that it is not wrong to engage in premarital sex as long as you don’t get pregnant and will protect yourself from diseases. Premarital sex is wrong not only for moral reason but because it is contrary to our nature as human beings. Sex outside of marriage and for the purpose of gratification rather than the transmission of life is a perverse act. Dr. Sigmund Freud wrote “It is a characteristic common to all the perversions, that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual act is perverse – if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently.2”Freud argued that a sexual act becomes perverse if its aim is no longer reproduction but gratification. In teaching the youth how to avoid pregnancy and attain gratification by the use of artificial contraception proponents of the RH BILL are teaching them how to become perverts.

1Crossroads Liberates, Holy Cross of Davao College, p.8

2Sigmund Freud, Introductory Lectures On Psychoanalysis, p.226, Allen & Unwin

 

Argument # 4: Promotion of condom use can lessen the cases of H.I.V infection and other sexually transmitted diseases.

The department of health June 2012 report stated that, “Sexual contact was the most common mode of HIV transmission, accounting for 94% of all reported AIDS cases.1” With this given fact the proponents of the RH BILL proposed the promotion of condom in order to prevent the transmission of HIV (the virus the causes AIDS). Though their intention in preventing the spread of HIV is good, however they are using a wrong solution to a real problem. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) admits that condom use cannot eliminate or prevent the transmission of HIV, it can only reduce the risk of transmission. The CDC reported “Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission. To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly. Inconsistent use can lead to STD acquisition because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse with an infected partner.2 Notice that the CDC said that it can only reduce the risk of transmission but it will never totally prevent its transmission thus even if condom is use consistently and correctly there is always the possibility of transmission. With this problem on hand the CDC concede that the most effective way to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV is through abstinence and monogamous relationship; “The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.

3 Most people who are infected with sexually transmitted diseases are those who are living a promiscuous lifestyle like those who engage into premarital sex, adultery, prostitution, homosexual acts and having ,multiple sexual partners. The only solution in preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV is to avoid a promiscuous lifestyle.

1http://www.doh.gov.ph/sites/default/files/NEC_HIV_June-AIDSreg2012.pdf
2http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

3http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

 

Argument # 5: Promotion of contraception will decrease maternal death rate

This is another laughable argument used by proponents of RH BILL, they argued that preventing pregnancy will considerably decrease maternal death rate. Let’s us get our facts straight, according to the Department of Health the top 10 mortality rate in the Philippines are a.) Diseases of the heart, b.) Diseases of the vascular system, c.) Malignant neoplasms, d.) Accidents, e.) Pneumonia, f.) Tuberculosis, g.) Chronic lower respiratory diseases, h.) Diabetic mellitus, i.) Certain conditions originating in perinatal period and j.) Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis.1 Perinatal period is defined as a period immediately before and after birth. The perinatal period is defined in diverse ways. Depending on the definition, it starts at the 20th to 28th week of gestation and ends 1 to 4 weeks after birth.2 The Department of Health noted that the top 5 causes of maternal death are a.) Complications related to pregnancy occurring in the course of labor, delivery and puerperium, b.) Hypertension complicating pregnancy (Eclampsia), c.) Post-partum hemorrhage, d.) Pregnancy with abortive outcome and e.) Hemorrhage in early pregnancy.3 Every pregnant mother is at risk in developing either one of this complications, thus the best way to prevent and reduce the risk of having these complications is not to prevent pregnancy that as if pregnancy by itself is a disease. Improving our health care system especially health centers and additional special trainings for health professionals can considerably reduce maternal death rate because we are now more prepared in prevention and management of perinatal complications. To follow the logic of proponents of RH BILL it would be like saying “Let’s not send poor children to school so that we will not have shortage on classrooms!”.

1http://www.doh.gov.ph/node/198
2http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7898

3http://www.doh.gov.ph/kp/statistics/maternal_deaths#2006

 

Argument #6: The RH BILL do not espouse abortion

Pro-life advocates are often accused of being deceivers and liars for exposing the hidden agenda of RH BILL which is abortion. Admittedly there is a provision in the RH BILL that explicitly state that abortion is still illegal, but why do we still keep on insisting that the RH BILL is promoting abortion? It’s because it classified the pill and I.U.D under the ambiguous term essential medicine. The Pill is both contraceptive and abortifacient, the Pill works in four ways a.) It suppresses ovulation, b.) It alters cervical mucus to help block sperm entering the cervix, c.) It alters the lining of the womb to prevent nidation (imbedding or implantation) and d.) It alters the movement of fallopian tubes, delaying the passage of ovum, reducing the possibility of fertilization.1 The 3rd effect of the pill which is the prevention of implantation is no contraception but abortifacient. Life begins at conception and what is prevented from being implanted in the womb or uterus is a fertilized egg which is already a human being. If not implanted the fertilized egg will die which is also tantamount to abortion. The Intrauterine Device (IUD) also acts in the same way it prevents implantation of the fertilized egg because it makes the womb or uterus not conducive for implantation. Possibly this is the reason why they classified these abortifacients as essential medicines so that it will no longer be questioned by the public.

THESE ARE THE MOST COMMON ARGUMENTS USED BY PROPONENTS OF THE RH BILL IN ORDER TO BOLSTER THEIR POSITION. BUT EVIDENTLY UNDER CLOSE SCRUTINY THEIR ARGMENTS CANNOT HOLD WATER.

1Christine de Stoop, Contraception The Hidden Truth, p.118, 2000

NGANONG ANGAY’NG IBASURA ANG RH BILL?

NGANONG ANGAY’NG IBASURA ANG RH BILL?

Hinikay ni Bro. Celestino “Lesty” F. Cubol

Catholic Faith Defender

Black Nazarene Chapter, Cagayan de Oro City

 

 

Ang mga sakop Simbahang Katoliko – ma-obispo man, ma-pari, o ma-laygo – adunay dakong katungod ug kaakuhan sa pagpadayag ug pagsangyaw diha sa publiko sa ilang gitawag og moral beliefs batok sa unsa mang tawhanong kalihokan, ilabina diha sa talandugon kaayong mga desisyon sa pag-umol og mga balaod nga makaapekto ug makaguba sa kinabuhi ug moralidad sa tawo.

Walay kasupakan diha sa prinsipyo “Separation of Church and State” alang sa usa ka Pilipino, o usa ka sakop sa Simbahang Katoliko, ang pagpadayag sa iyang hunahuna ug pagbati kabahin sa pagka-imoral sa abortion, homosexual acts, paggamit sa mga artificial contraceptives, pag-legalize sa divorce ug same sex marriage, ug uban pa – ug kon kini pagahimoan og mga lakang alang sa pagmugna og balaudnon, executive decrees, o dili ba kaha, judicial pronouncements.

Ug kining maong katungod ug kaakuhan nga akong gihisgotan, nabatunan usab kini sa mga sumusunod sa ubang mga relihiyon, sama sa mga Protestante, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism ug uban pa.

Ang mga otoridad ug mga sakop sa Simbahang Katoliko wala manghilabot sa mga kalihokan sa gobyerno. Mibarog ang Simbahan tungod sa IMORAL nga isyu nga giatubang karon sa Reproductive Health (RH) Bill nga hugtanong giduso karong panahona sa Palasyo sa Malacañang, ug pipila ka mga magbabalaod sa Kongreso.

Mao may kanunay nga gipasiatab sa mga pro-RH Bill, nga dili kuno angay nga manghilabot ug mobabag ang Simbahan sa lakang sa gobyerno sa pagpalabang sa maong balaodnon, kay tataw kaayo ang nakalatid sa Article II, Section 6 sa 1987 Philippine Constitution, nga adunay panabulag sa Simbahan ug sa estado.

Dili man ko abugado, apan alang kanako, wala na kinahanglana pa ang lawom nga pagtuon sa balaod aron mapasabot nato ang sangputanan niining isyuha. Aniay pipila ka mga punto nga akong ipasupot aron sa paghatag og husay niining isyu nga gisakyan sa mga pro-RH Bill. Una, diha sa prinsipyo sa “Separation of Church and State,” wala may usa relihiyon nga rekognisar ang estado aron maoy modominar diha sa pagpadagan sa panggobyerno. Ikaduha, wala nangayo’g badyet ang Simbahan diha sa gobyerno alang sa iyang misyon ug kalihokan. Ug ang ikatulo, dili man ang mga pangulo sa Simbahan ang nagpadagan sa pangagamhanan sa Pilipinas.

Kining mga puntoha maoy ugat-hinongdan nganong gibulag ang Simbahan ug ang estado tungod kay kaniadto nag-usa pa man ang duruha, diin ang mga otoridad Simbahan maoy nagdominar ug nagdumala sa gobyerno sibil. Ngani karong panahona, aduna pay mga nasod sa kalibotan nga nag-usa pa ang ilang simbahan ug ang ilang estado – sama sa mga Arab ug Islamic countries.

Sa laing bahin, dili gayod absoluto ang panabulag sa Simbahan ug sa estado. Kay ang Simbahan gigamit man sa gobyerno sa pagproseso sa mga marriage contract ug mga birth certificate nga trabaho man unta kini sa gobyerno. Ug kung adunay dautang mga panghitabo sulod sa Simbahan – sama panaglit sa krimen – mahimo mang mohilabot o misalgar ang gobyerno.

Ug labaw sa tanan, walay probisyon sa atong balaod nga nagdili sa usa ka otoridad, o sakop sa Simabahan sa pagpadayag sa iyang makitang sayop diha sa gobyerno. Ang usa ka obispo, o pari, usa gihapon ka Pilipino ug usa ka lumolopyo niining nasura, ug may katungod sa pagpadayag ug pagsangyaw sa iyang pagbati, pagtuo, hunahuna, ug uban pa, kay gigarantiyahan man kini sa atong Konstitusyon – sa Bill of Rights.

Ug ang Simbahang Katoliko, ingon nga pundok nga tinukod ni Ginoong Jesu-Cristo, aduna siyay gahom ug dakong kaakuhan diha sa iyang social teaching ug prophetic mission sa pag-denounce o pagbadlong sa unsa mang mga evil acts ug daotang mga panghitabo  diha sa katilingban, ug labaw sa tanan, diha sa panggobyerno. Kung wala pa nagpakabana ang Simabahan, unsa na kahay nahitabo ug dangatan niining nasura?

Karon, aniay pipila ka mga mahinongdanon, ug bug-at nga mga punto nganong angay nga ibasura kining kontrobersiyal nga Reproductive Health Bill. Ako kining nakutlo gikan sa mga panid sa lindog ni Rev. Fr. Alberto S. Uy sa Saint John Vianney Theological Seminary.

  1. GIPASANGIL SA GIDAGHANON SA MGA PILIPINO ANG HINONGDAN SA KAPOBREHON SA NASOD.  Ang pagkapobre sa atong nasod adunay daghang katarungan ug hinongdan. Kini sama sa katapol, kalulang sa edukasyon, kawalay kahigayonan sa pag-angkon sa maayong trahano, sayop nga pagpadagan sa gobyerno, ug uban pa. Dinhi sa Pilipinas, ang labing dakong hinongdan sa kakabos sa katawhan dili ang gidaghanon sa mga tawo kun populasyon, kondili ang pagpanghukhok ug pagpangawat sa mga pulitiko diha sa panudlanan sa gobyerno. Sumala sa mga respetadong world organizations, ang atong nasod mawad-an og kapin kun kulang sa 400 bilyones pesos matag tuig tungod sa graft and corruption. Kon wala unta kawkawa, ug kon gigamit pa unta sa maayong paagi ug nadapat sa husto ang maong kwarta sa atong gobyerno, dili na unta mag-antos ug dili na madisgrasya o mamatay tungod sa tumang kalisdanan ang daghang mga inahan ug mga kabataan dinhi sa atong nasod.

Dili ang Simbahan ang angay’ng tulisukon, pasanginlan ug basulon sa mga social problem nga giatubang karon sa atong nasod. Kay kaakuhan man sa atong gobyerno ang pagsulbad niining mga problema nga giatubang sa atong sosyedad – sama sa kalisdanan, kawalay trabaho, kakulang sa edukasyon, pagmahal sa presyo sa mga batakang palaliton, ug uban pa.

 

Ngani sa America, nga giingong 98% sa mga kakabayen-an ang migamit og artificial contraceptives, mas nagkadaghan man hinoon karong panahona ang ihap sa pamilyang gipanggutom o naglisod. Sa kamatuoran, halos midoble ang gidaghanon sa mga pamilyang nagpahimulos o nagsalig na lamang sa Emergency Food Program (EFP) sa ilang nasod, gikan sa tuig 2007 hangtod 2009. Base sa pagtuon sa US Department of Agriculture, ang ihap sa mga gipanggutom misaka na sa dul-an sa 5.6 million gikan sa 3.9 million ka mga pamilya. Nautingkay ug nadiskobrihan ang nasangpit nga figure gumikan sa gihimong pagtuki Kongreso sa America sa dugang pundo sa Food and Nutrition Assistance Program sa ilang nasod, alang sa mga pobre nilang katawhan.

 

  1. 2.      WALA MAGLANTAW SA TINUOD NGA KAHIMSOG SA TAWO. Ang RH Bill nagdasig sa artificial contraception – nga napamatud-an nang makadaot sa espirituhanon ug lawasnong kinabuhi sa tawo. Diha sa espirituhanong bahin, ang artificial contraceptives maoy makaagni, ug mahimong behikulo sa daghang imoral nga mga binuhatan – sama sa premarital sex, adultery, abortion, promiscuity, ug ang panagbulag sa managtiayon, o ang pagkatay-og ug pagkalusno sa pundasyon sa pamilya. Samtang diha sa lawasnong aspeto, ang pills, depo-provera injectable, IUD ug uban pang artificial birth control methods, adunay daghang mga side-effects sama sa abnormal nga pagdugo-dugo sa mga kababayen-an, pagtaas sa blood pressure, ectopic pregnancy, sakit sa kasingkasing, ug labaw sa tanan, kanser sa taguangkan ug sa suso sa inahan.

 

  1. 3.      HINONGDAN SA ABORSIYON. Ang RH Bill magdasig ug hugot nga nagduso sa artificial birth control methods sama sa pills, IUD ug depo-provera injectable nga gitawag og mga “abortifacients.” Isipon kini nga abortifacient tungod kay ang mga artificial contraceptives makalaglag sa bata nga atua migitib sa sabakan sa inahan. Kini nga punto hugot kining gipanghimakak sa mga supporter ug nag-propagate sa RH Bill, tungod kay alang kanila, ang kinabuhi sa tawo magsugod dili sa panahon sa conception o panagtagbo sa binhi sa lalaki ug sa itlog sa babaye, kondili, diha na kuno sa implantation, o sa higayon diin motapot na ang fertilized egg didto sa sabakan sa babaye. Apan sa pagtuong Katoliko, ang kinabuhi nagsugod diha gayod sa fertilization o sa conception. Mao usab kini ang gisitar sa Batakang Balaod sa Pilipinas – diha sa Article II, Section 12 sa 1987 Philippine Constitution. Ug sumala sa column ni Bernardo M. Villegas sa Manila Bulletin, nga napublikar niadtong Disyembre 17, 2010, siya nagkanayon: “In the Philippine Constitution of 1987, conception is defined as fertilization, the moment the egg is fertilized by the sperm. This was the majority decision (32 to 8) of the members of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 convoked by the late President Corazon Aquino” (Views/Comments/Features, Manila Bulletin, p. 11).

 

Samtang ang Philippine Medical Association (PMA) ug ang Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) nagkauyon usab nga ang kinabuhi nagsugod diha gayod sa panahon sa fertilization, diin kini ang hinongdan nga kinahanglang protektahan ang mga “unborn babies” ug mga “innocent lives” nga atua pa sa sabakan. Ang panag-uyon sa PMA ug sa CBCP niining mga puntoha, napatik o namantala sa front page mismo sa Philippine Daily Inquirer niadtong Disyembre 8, 2010. Tungod niini, ang RH Bill dili lamang IMORAL ug dakong supak sa kabubot-on sa Diyos, kondili supak usab kini sa batakang balaod sa atong nasod.

 

  1. 4.      MAGDASIG SA CONTRACEPTIVE MENTALITY. Ang RH Bill mag-agni sa mga managtiayon nga limitahan ang gidaghanon sa ilang anak – diin ang labing daghan – usa o duha lamang ka mga bata. Ingon usab niini ang gihimo nga pagdasig sa ubang mga nasod – sama sa Europa, America, Japan ug South Korea – nga karon naghambin na’g dakong problema sa ilang nagkatigulang nga populasyon. Sabton nga ang populasyon karon sa maong mga nasod mas daghan ang mga tigulang kay sa mga batan-on. Ug daghan na sa ilang katawhan karong panahona ang wala nay gugma o gana sa pagpanganak, tungod kay mahadlok sila sa mga responsibilidad isip mga ginikanan. Labot pa, naay daghang mga managtiayon nga dili na gustong makabaton og anak, tungod kay lunlon pakighilawas na lamang ang ilang gipasulabi. Kining maong problema gitawag kini’g “contraceptive mentality” nga nagsugod o nagsumikad diha sa pagkontrol sa pagpanganak. Kining maong mentalidad migamot na pag-ayo diha sa ilang sosyedad.

 

  1. 5.      MAGHATAG OG SAYOP NGA KASIGUROAN. Ang mga tawo o grupong nagduso sa RH Bill nagkanayon nga ang artificial contraceptives, sama sa pills ug condoms, nakapakunhod kuno sa kaso sa unwanted pregnancy ug sa abortion. Kining maong argumento, layo ra kaayo kini sa tinuod. Gani, ang America ug ang Europa, kinsa hugot kaayong naggamit sa mga artificial contraceptives, adunay minilyong kaso sa aborsiyon matag tuig, ug kini nagkadaghan pa karon. Naniguro usab sila nga pinaagi sa condom mogamay kuno ang kaso sa AIDS dinhi sa nasod. Lain na usab kining bakak nga propaganda sa mga pro-RH Bill.  Kay didto mismo sa Africa, diin gipabaha ang mga condom, wala gayod masulbad ang kaso sa AIDS. Gani mas nagkadaghan pa hinoon ang mga kaso sa AIDS sa maong nasod karong panahona. Sa pagkatinuod, ang pagdisiplina sa kaugalingon ug ang pagkamatinud-anon sa atong kapikas sa kinabuhi, ug ang pagtuman sa Gospel of Life ni Cristo, mao ang makapahunong sa pagdagsang sa AIDS, ug uban pang makatakod nga mga sakit gumikan sa pagpatuyang sa sex.

 

 

  1. 6.       MAKADAOT SA INOSENTENG PANGHUNAHUNA SA MGA KABATAAN. Hugot nga giduso sa RH Bill ang sex education ngadto sa linghod ug inosente pang mga kabataan, sugod sa grade 5 hangtod sa high school. Pinaagi sa mandatory nga pagtudlo sa sex education, ang mga kabataan makamao, o mahibalo na sa mga butang nga dili pa unta angay nilang masayran – nunot sa linghod nilang pangidaron. Ang sekswalidad, usa kini sa sensitibo nga aspeto sa kinabuhi sa tawo nga angay’ng amomahan ug ampingan pag-ayo.  Ang mga responsible ug maayong mga ginikanan dili gayod makatugot nga ang sex education sa ilang mga anak basta-basta na lamang isalig sa ubang mga tawo nga kwestiyonable usab og kinabuhi. Pinaagi niini, ang Simbahang Katoliko nagtuo nga ang mga ginikanan maoy labing angayan nga maghatag og sex education sa ilang mga anak, nga pinasibo sa ilang pangidaron, nga puno sa mga values o maayong mga pagtulon-an.

Mao mang guy gipasiatab karon sa mga nagduso sa RH Bill nga pro-life kuno ang maong balaodnon. Lain na usab kining pagpanglingla sa mga pro-RH Bill.  Kay unsaon pagka-pro-life sa RH Bill nga wala namay kinabuhi nga mahimugso kay himoon man niining baug ang tawo, ilabina ang mga managtiayon?

Ang atong mga kadagkoan sa Simbahan nag-awhag kanato nga mag-ampo kita alang sa kalamdagan sa atong gobyerno, ug sa mga magbabalaod nga nagpaluyo niining maong balaodnon. Ug kon dili man gayod kapugngan nga mapalabang kining RH Bill, unta, ang gitawag og “sanctity of human life” pabilin ug padayong maprotektahan.

Para kanako, kini ang bug-at nga mga katarungan kung nganong kinahanglan nga ibasura sa Kongreso ug dili angay’ng suportahan sa katawhan ang RH Bill.

 

 

 

 

Exposed: Three pro-RH groups backing legalized abortion

Exposed: Three pro-RH groups backing legalized abortion

Retrieve from: http://cbcpforlife.com/?p=3477

MANILA, September 5, 2011–At least three non-government organizations have been found to be espousing the legalization of abortion in the Philippines, as senators resumed floor debates on the controversial “reproductive health” (RH) bill Monday.

One of the sponsors of Senate Bill No. 2865, Sen. Pia Cayetano, did not deny that groups such as the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP), the Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights (WGNRR), and Likhaan have been campaigning for legalized abortion, under interpellation by Sen. Vicente Sotto III.

Sotto pointed out that FPOP got US$617,000 (P26 million) in funding from the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) – the world’s largest abortion provider – last year.

FPOP’s website carries a document titled “Medical and Service Delivery Guidelines for Sexual and Reproductive Health Services,” which describes medical and surgical methods for inducing abortion.

“[E]fforts should be made to inform the public that abortion is safest when performed early, and women who seek abortion should be encouraged to attend as early in the pregnancy as possible,” the document on the FPOP website states.

FPOP is also on the listing of “Sexual Health Services and abortion clinics Worldwide” by the Dutch abortion group Women on Waves (WoW). WoW takes women aboard hired ships to undergo abortions in international waters, to escape national laws banning abortion.

WoW states on its website: “If you live in a country where there is no access to safe abortion services and you would like to obtain a medical abortion with Mifepristone and Misoprostol, please go to Women on Web. This is an online medical abortion help service that refers to a doctor who can provide you with a medical abortion.”

Mifepristone and Misoprostol are abortion drugs, and both are not legal in the Philippines.

Providing how-to instructions for abortion

Likhaan, meanwhile, published last year a Filipino translation of the book “Where Women Have No Doctor,” Chapter 15 of which has a section titled “Mga Ligtas na Paraan ng Pagpapalaglag.” The book is available to the public on the Likhaan website.

Tinatanggal ang binubuntis sa pamamagitan ng paghigop, gamit ang ispesyal na tubo (cannula) na pinapadaan sa puwerta at cervix pa-pasok sa matris. Puwedeng gawin ito na hindi pinapatulog ang babae, pero minsan, iniiniksyunan ng gamot sa cervix para makatulong sa sakit. Sa manu-manong proseso (manual vacuum aspiration o MVA), tinatanggal ang binubuntis sa pamamagitan ng ispesyal na heringgilya (syringe). Kung hindi, gumagamit ng maliit na makinang de-kuryente,” the book states.

Mayroon na ngayong mga gamot na nagagamit ang mga doktor at health worker para magpalaglag. Pinapaimpis ng mga gamot ang matris at pinipiga palabas ang binubuntis. Ang ilang gamot ay nilalagay sa loob ng puwerta … ang ilan ay iniinom, at ang ilan ay iniiniksyon. Kung tama ang gagamiting gamot o kumbinasyon ng mga gamot, ligtas at mabisang paraan ito,” it adds.

Pushing abortion acceptance despite being unlawful

The Manila- and Amsterdam-based WGNRR, headed by UP professor Dr. Sylvia Claudio, talks about its “Abortion Rights Advocacy” on its website:

“Throughout its almost 30 year history, WGNRR has made abortion advocacy a priority.”

The Claudio-led group’s “specific goals” include the investigation of “ways to improve access despite the law,” sharing of “experiences and strategies about how to confront religious fundamentalists,” and finding the “best practices for linking abortion rights to other social justice and human rights campaigns.”

Sotto pointed out that the RH bill provides an “open door” to abortion – Section 3 paragraph i. The provision states: “While this Act does not amend the penal law on abortion, the government shall ensure that all women needing care for post-abortion complications shall be treated and counseled in a humane, non-judgmental and compassionate manner.”

“People and organizations behind it, as far as I’m concerned, are the difficulties I am encountering [in this bill],” Sotto said.

“IPPF has lobbied worldwide for the legalization and repeal of all laws preventing legal access to abortion,” he added.

In reply, Cayetano said: “The fact that an organization has made statements inconsistent with public policy does not prevent them from making statements consistent [with public policy].”

Using a poor analogy, the pro-RH senator said that even if Osama bin Laden supported policies against climate change, environmentalist Sen. Loren Legarda wouldn’t want to be associated with the brains behind the 9/11 attacks.

Sotto, however, retorted: “Climate change – everybody will agree to that. Eh ito contraception and abortion eh!” (Dominic Francisco)

I.U.D. DILI ABORSIYON?

I.U.D. DILI ABORSIYON?

Hinikay ni Bro. Celestino “Lesty” F. Cubol

Catholic Faith Defender Black Nazarene Chapter,

Cagayan de Oro City

 

 

Mga minahal nakong mga magbabasa, ania akong ipaambit nganha kaninyo kining column o lindog ni Rev. Fr. Alberto S. Uy, ang Teyologo sa Moralidad dinhi sa Arkidiyosesis sa Cagayan de Oro.  Ako kining gihimo aron inyo usab nga mabasahan ang puno sa pagtulon-ang sinulat o katesismo ni Fr. Uy, nga napatik sa mantalaan sa Arkidiyosesis nga mao ang “Bag-ong Lamdag.”

 

Naikag ako pag-ayo sa matahom nga lindog ni Fr. Uy, mao nga ako kining gipublikar dinhi sa akong lindog nga “Veritas Ad Veritatem,” ubos sa pamasin nga maedukar kita, ug makahatag kini kanato og kalamdagan ug kadasig diha sa pagpabangon, pag-amping, pagpanalipod ug pagpreserbar sa integridad sa atong moralidad.

Ania ang mabulokon ug puno sa pagtulon-an nga lindog ni Rev. Fr. Alberto Uy:

Pasiuna

Daghan sa atong mga kababayen-an karon ang migamit o nagpataod og IUD, ubos sa tinguha nga malikayan ang pagkamabdos. Apan wala sila masayod nga kining IUD, magsilbi dili lamang isip kontraseptibo kondili isip abortifacient, o makapalaglag sa bata nga atua pa sa sulod sa taguangkan sa inahan. Aron nga ato kining masabtan, atong ipatin-aw kung unsa ang IUD, unsa ang iyang mga lihok ug ngano nga kini usa ka paagi sa aborsiyon, ug unsa ang kadaot nga mahatag niini sa panglawas sa mga kababayen-an.

 

Unsa ang IUD?

Ang IUD, acronym kini sa pulong nga Intra-Uterine Device. Usa kini ka gamay nga himan nga hinimo sa plastik nga nagporma og letrang “T”. Ipasulod kini ngadto sa matris, o sabakan sa babaye agi sa iyang kinatawo aron mapugngan ang pagkamabdos o pagkaburos. Ug ang binag-o nga IUD adunay sagol nga aktibong kemikal nga sama sa progesterone ug kobre (copper) nga makatabang sa pagpugong sa pagmabdos.

 

Unsa ang mga lihok sa IUD?

Adunay duha (2) ka mga lihok ang IUD. Una, makapugong kini sa pagpanamkon (fertilization) o panagtagbo sa binhi sa lalaki (sperm) ug sa itlog sa babaye (egg). Ang kemikal nga nag-uban o anaa sa IUD, mao ang moguba sa proseso sa pagpangitlog kun ovulation sa babaye, diin mahimong lagtok o hagkot kaayo ang duga kun mucus sa babaye. Sa laktod, mopilit ang mucus sa babaye diha sa iyang matris. Tungod niini, maglisod na sa paglangoy ang binhi sa lalaki diha sa uterus kun matris sa babaye. Samtang ang copper wire nga giputos sa IUD, mao ang makapaluya ug makapatay sa binhi sa lalaki. Sa ingon niini nga paagi, ang IUD, usa ka matang sa kontraseptibo. Ikaduha, ang IUD maoy makaingon, o maoy hinongdan nga dili makatapot ang bag-ong naumol nga kinabuhi (approximately a week-old) ngadto sa sulod sa sabakan sa inahan. Kasagaran, ang bata anha mogitib o maumol sa fallopian tube sa babaye, ug hinayhinay kining mobiyahe padulong sa taguangkan sa inahan, diin adto kini magpuyo sulod sa siyam (9) ka bulan sa dili pa siya ipanganak o ihimugso sa kalibotan. Apan ang IUD nga ibutang sa sabakan, maoy molihok aron ang bata o kinabuhi nga naumol dili makapahiluna sulod sa taguangkan. Kay ang kemikal nga nagauban o anaa sa IUD, maoy mopauga sa endometrium – diha sa kilid o bungbong matris (uterus lining) – nga mao untay mohatag og pagkaon sa bata. Gumikan niini, wala gayoy purohan nga mabuhi ang bag-ong namugna o naumol nga kinabuhi sulod sa sabakan sa babaye. Labot pa, ang IUD, mura usab kini og silhig diha sulod sa taguangkan sa babaye nga maoy hinongdan nga malaglag ang linghod nga kinabuhi nga migitib sulod sa matris sa usa ka babaye. Sa ingon niini, ang IUD usa gayod ka paagi o matang sa ABORSIYON. Sa nauna na natong column, atong gipasabot nga ang Batakang Balaod sa Pilipinas ug ang Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), lakip na ang Philippine Medical Association (PMA), adunay hiniusang baruganan nga ang kinabuhi sa tawo magsugod diha sa panahon sa fertilization o conception, kun panagtagbo sa binhi sa lalaki ug sa itlog sa babaye – ug DILI sa implantation kun sa panahon nga motapot na ang fertilized egg sa uterus sa babaye. Kay diha sa panahon sa fertilization, usa na ka SAGRADONG KINABUHI SA TAWO ang migitib diha sa sulod sa taguangkan sa inahan. Ug sanglit ang IUD molihok man sa pagpatay ning maong kinabuhi pinaagi sa pagpauga sa lining sa uterus ug pagsilhig sa fertilized egg sulod sa sabakan sa inahan, kini angay lamang nga pagatawgon og ABORTIFACIENT o tiglaglag kun tigpatay sa usa ka inosenteng kinabuhi nga nagsugod na unta paggitib ug paglipag sulod sa sabakan.

 

Unsa ang kadaot nga mahimo o ikahatag sa IUD sa lawas sa babaye?

Gawas sa pagpatay sa migitib na untang kinauhi, ang IUD naghatag usab og dakong kadaot diha sa panglawas sa babaye. Ang mga batid sa medisina nagpamatuod nga ang IUD usa sa mga hinongdan sa abnormal sa pagdugo-dugo sa babaye (hemorrhage); sa pagkadaot sa iyang bat-ang (pelvic infection) ug pagkasamad sa iyang matris.

Panapos

Atong nasabtan nga ang paggamit og IUD, dili lamang usa ka paagi sa pagpugong sa pagmabdos, kondili, usa ka buhat sa pagpatay sa inosenteng kinabuhi diha sa sulod sa sabakan sa babaye. Ug gawas niini, ang maong buhat makadaot sa lawas sa babaye ug makahimo niyang sterile o dili na makapanganak. Sa laktod, ang babayeng naggamit og IUD mahimong baug. Ato na lamang panghinauton nga pinaagi niining hamubo nga katesismo, ang mga babaye o ang mga inahan, maglikay na sa paggamit og IUD ug makakat-on sa paggamit og mga pamaagi nga subay kun uyon sa desinyo ug kabubot-on sa Diyos – diha sa pagplano sa gidak-on sa ilang pamilya. Ug kini mao ang natural nga metodo nga dili supak sa balaod sa kinaiyahan, ug labaw sa tanan, dili supak sa kakabubot-on sa Diyos.

OBJECTION & ANSWER on RH bill

By: Bro: Fernando Presillas

 

 

OBJECTION #I:
The bible was not written by God according Sen. Miriam Santiago?
ANSWER:
Technically and scientifically she was right. As Filipinos, we all believe and agree that the constitution of the Philippines is the fundamental law of the land though it was only a product of human legislators in congress and senate or whatsoever. And pretty-well, as doctor of Divinity, she knows also that the bible is the Word of God written in the languages of men as what she learned from Catholic school and of the fundamental teachings of the Church.

 

CHURCH DECLARATION THAT THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD:
The Bible, as the inspired recorded of revelation, contains the word of God; that is, it contains those revealed truths which the Holy Ghost wishes to be transmitted in writing. However, all revealed truths are not contained in the Bible (see TRADITION); neither is every truth in the Bible revealed, if by revelation is meant the manifestation of hidden truths which could not other be known. Much of the Scripture came to its writers through the channels of ordinary knowledge, but its sacred character and Divine authority are not limited to those parts which contain revelation strictly so termed. The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) that the sacred and canonical character of Scripture would not be sufficiently explained by saying
that the books were composed by human diligence and then approved by the Church, or that they contained revelation without error. They are sacred and canonical “because, having been written by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, that have God for their author, and as such have been handed down to the Church”. The inerrancy of the Bible follows as a consequence of this Divine authorship. Wherever the sacred writer makes a statement as his own, that statement is the word of God and infallibly true, whatever be the subject-matter of the statement.
BIBLE REFERRENCE:
Though the Bible was written in the languages of men, but it is the will of God that His words be heard through the mouth of His chosen people called Hagiographers.
a)Heb.4:12”For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword..”
b)2 Pet. 1:20-21”Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.”
c)Heb.1:1-2 “In the past God spoke to our ancestors many times and in many ways through the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us through his Son..”(GNB)
d)Mal 2:7 “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.”(KJV)
e) Rom 15:16 “of being a servant of Christ Jesus to work for the Gentiles. I serve like a priest in preaching the Good News from God, in order that the Gentiles may be an offering acceptable to God, dedicated to him by the Holy Spirit.”(GNB)
f) Gal 4:14”You despised not, nor rejected: but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.”(DRB)
g) 2 Co 13:3 “You will have all the proof you want that Christ speaks through me. When he deals with you, he is not weak; instead, he shows his power among you.”(GNB)

 

 

OBJECTION #II:
The Catholic Church violated the fundamental laws of the land regarding Declaration of Principles and State Policies Article II, Section 6 that says:”The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. The separation of Church and state.”
ANSWER:
• The principle of separation of church and state is often cited by many persons in all sorts of situations. From traditional politicians trying to surreptitiously push a morally questionable population control program, to anti-clerics who want to monopolize debate in important issues, the principle of separation is employed whenever the Catholic Church, or any other religion, speaks out and steps on a few toes.
• The separation of church and state is sometimes thought of as a “wall” separating the affairs of the two. Those who follow this thinking usually claim that religion should have nothing to do with the affairs of men. They would probably also say that religious belief should not influence the crafting of laws, affect the actions of public officials, or even be part of public debate. Instead, government should be neutral towards all religions and be totally secular in nature.

The Philippines is currently governed by the 1987 Constitution, which states in Article II, Section 6:
”The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”
In Article III, Section 5, the Constitution also states:
“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”
The Philippine Constitution therefore in that it specifies two points governing the relationship between the state and religion. First there is an “establishment” provision which prohibits the establishment of an official state religion or a state-favored religion. 2nd there is the guarantee of protection of the free exercise of religion.There is no mention, however, of a “wall” separating religion and government. More importantly, there is nothing that mandates that religious belief cannot be a consideration in the crafting of laws and public policy, or that it be kept out of public debate, or that public officials must abandon religious beliefs in the performance of their duties. It can be argued then that the idea of a “wall” separating church and state really has no constitutional basis.The document itself speaks of keeping the state from adopting any religion or imposing the same through any coercive means. It does not, however, state
that religion can have no role in public life.The purpose of separation of church and state is to defend religion from federal interference, not the other way around.
Some have even gone so far as to claim that separation of church and state means that religious leaders including priests and ministers cannot run for public office. This is plain religious discrimination and has no legal basis in the Philippines.
The Catholic Church itself discourages priests from participating in partisan politics since such participation may divide the flock; but this is not a constitutional or legal prohibition, and the Church can also allow it in some cases. As far as the law goes, there is simply no provision whatsoever in the Philippine Constitutions that prohibits priests and ministers from holding public office. The bottom line is that the principle of separation of church and state is to guarantee religious freedom by preventing oppression by the government but not to silence the church. Yet it seems that there are those who would rather use it as a means to keep the Church from pointing out errors and exposing wrongdoing.
This is the reason why Pope Benedict XVI has spoken of an “intolerant” secularism that begins by excluding religion from the public sphere and ends up so extending that public sphere that the individual conscience is left with no room for religious belief.
Total separation of Church and State means total separation from God because Christ is the head the Church is His body. A government without a Good is helpless and will not prosper in all his plans.
a)Eph.5:23 For a husband has authority over his wife just as Christ has authority over the church; and Christ is himself the Savior of the church, his body.
b)Sirac 10:4-5”The Lord sees to the government of the world and brings person to power at the right time. The success of that person is in the Lord’s hands. The Lord is the source of the honor given to any official.
A true Christian leader will not separate God from civil obligation. To separate God and the Religion He founded, the civil government become a Godless human institution and it is unconstitutional because we implore the aid of God in our PREAMBLE of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines to wit:”We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
Rom 13:1 “Everyone must obey state authorities, because no authority exists without God’s permission, and the existing authorities have been put there by God.”(GNB)
Joh 19:10-11 “Pilate said to him, “You will not speak to me? Remember, I have the authority to set you free and also to have you crucified.” Jesus answered, “You have authority over me only because it was given to you by God
1Ti 3:15-16 “But if I delay, this letter will let you know how we should conduct ourselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion: He appeared in human form, was shown to be right by the Spirit, and was seen by angels. He was preached among the nations, was believed in throughout the world, and was taken up to heaven.”(GNB)
Act 4:19-29”But Peter and John answered them, “You yourselves judge which is right in God’s sight—to obey you or to obey God. For we cannot stop speaking of what we ourselves have seen and heard.”(GNB)
Christ Himself expressed His faith at all times. He didn’t hide behind any sentimental notions of “keeping one’s faith a private matter” or political correctness.

 

OBJECTION #III:
Sabi nang mga Iglesia ni Cristo,” mali ang interpretation ng mga Catolico sa Gen.1:28 na magparami ng anak. Ibig sabihin niyan controlin ang panganganak. Ito po ang sabi ng biblia:
(TAB) “At sila’y binasbasan ng Dios, at sa kanila’y sinabi ng Dios, Kayo’y magpalaanakin, at magpakarami, at kalatan ninyo ang lupa, at inyong supilin…”(ang salitang”at inyong supilin” ,ibig sabihin pigilan ang panganganak at gagamit ng contraceptibo.”
ANSWER:
• Anong klasing “Iglesia ni Cristo?”Seguro “Iglesia ni Cristo MCMXIV?” Dahil ang tunay na Iglesia ni Cristo ay ang Iglesia Catolica ayon sa turo mismo ng kanilang Pasugo Magazine:”True Church of Christ is the Catholic Church. “Even secular History shows a direct time link between the Catholic Church and the Apostles leading to the conclusion that the True Church of Christ is the Catholic Church” Pasugo Magazine July-August 1988, page 6”
• Iyon ba talaga ang turo nila?Hindi ko narinig eh? Pero kong totoong turo nila yan, maling-mali ang kanilang interpretation at salungat sa katotohanang inihayag sa biblia. Balikan po natin ang sinipi nilang sitas ng Bibliang Tagalog translation. Ito po ang full text ng Gen.1:28
(TAB) “At sila’y binasbasan ng Dios, at sa kanila’y (sinabi ng Dios, Kayo’y magpalaanakin, at magpakarami, at kalatan ninyo ang lupa, at inyong supilin; )at magkaroon kayo ng kapangyarihan sa mga isda sa dagat, at sa mga ibon sa himpapawid, at sa bawa’t hayop na gumagalaw sa ibabaw ng lupa.”
• Klarong-klaro po dito na hindi ang pagdadalang tao o pagbubuntis ang dapat supilin kundi ang lupa.Sa English translation po ay mas lalong malinaw.
(CEV) “God gave them his blessing and said: Have a lot of children! Fill the earth with people and bring it under your control. Rule over the fish in the ocean, the birds in the sky, and every animal on the earth.”
• Dito po ating napatunayan na tao ang controlin at hindi ang pagdadalang tao.(”Have a lot of Children! Fill the earth with people”)
• (GW) God blessed them and said, “Be fertile, increase in number, fill the earth, and be its master. Rule the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that crawl on the earth.”
To you Sr. Joanne and to those who are seekers of truth, I think I have done my part to answer and clarify the stand of Cong. Manny Pacquiao and all oppositions concerning the interpretation of Genesis 1:28. So let us be one in defending life and truth who is Christ himself (Jn.14:6). St. Paul says,”
2 Co 13:8 “Non enim possumus aliquid adversus veritatem sed pro veritate- For we can do nothing against the truth: but for the truth.”

SEN.MIRIAM DEFENSOR AGAINST CONG.MANNY PACQUIAO:

By: Bro: Fernando Presillas

 

I welcome the truth that Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago is one of the brightest Senators in our times when it comes to legislation and legislative scrutiny. Yes, Pacquiao is far behind compared to her academic expertise. But sometimes God uses simple person for the truth to prevail so that the wisdom of God will be revealed. You have observed that Manny Pacquiao, indulging in a legislative debate, has no capability like other congressmen as what many of us have in mind because he was not a lawyer. But look what happened? It uncovers some hidden truth as what you have observed intellectually regarding the hidden agenda behind the RH BILL 4244.

 

Through his interpellation the Filipino people were able to know that it was not true that the provisions regarding two child policy and sex education for grade five to fourth year high school were amended as claimed by Edcel Lagman. RH Bill author’s misleading claims of amended provisions was uncovered by Pacquiao on that very occasion.
The Lord never leaves anyone who promotes life and the truth of the gospel as long as he is honest and sincere. The bible says:
Luk.12:11-12 “When they bring you to be tried in the synagogues or before governors or rulers, do not be worried about how you will defend yourself or what you will say. For the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”
1 Co 1:19-21” The scripture says, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and set aside the understanding of the scholars.” So then, where does that leave the wise? or the scholars? or the skillful debaters of this world? God has shown that this world’s wisdom is foolishness! For God in his wisdom made it impossible for people to know him by means of their own wisdom. Instead, by means of the so-called “foolish” message we preach, God decided to save those who believe.”
1 Co 1:25-29 “For what seems to be God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and what seems to be God’s weakness is stronger than human strength. Now remember what you were, my friends, when God called you. From the human point of view few of you were wise or powerful or of high social standing. God purposely chose what the world considers nonsense in order to shame the wise, and he chose what the world considers weak in order to shame the powerful. He chose what the world looks down on and despises and thinks is nothing, in order to destroy what the world thinks is important. This means that no one can boast in God’s presence.”
I was also informed that Sen. Miriam Santiago receives a doctorate of Divinity in the Catholic Church. But this does not mean she has the authority over the Catholic Church as teacher and official interpreter of the bible. In fact the bible says that the role of women in the Church is not to rule over men in matters of teaching authority. Their role is to assist and not to lead. And if they are not needed they must keep quiet.
Phil. 4:2-3”Euodia and Syntyche, please, I beg you, try to agree as sisters in the Lord. And you too, my faithful partner, I want you to help these women; for they have worked hard with me to spread the gospel, together with Clement and all my other fellow workers, whose names are in God’s book of the living.
1 Tim. 2:10-14 “But with good deeds, as is proper for women who claim to be religious. Women should learn in silence and all humility. I do not allow them to teach or to have authority over men; they must keep quiet. For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and broke God’s law.”
Regarding Sen. Miriam Santiago’s commentary on Gen.1:28, Pacquiao was right in his own senses because his interpretation is the interpretation of the Church founded by Christ. I think it was only Pacquiao’s deliberation that the good Senator commented. But as to the text being quoted (Gen.1:28), I beg to disagree with her and sided with Pacquiao who was just telling the truth not only what the bible says but what the bible means if just to prove that this text is against the promotion of depopulation as embodied in the RH BILL 4244.

 

The following 61 translations and versions of the bible translated by both Catholics and Protestants testify that Gen.1:28 literally refer to the propagation of mankind.

1.(AOV) En God het hulle geseën, en God het vir hulle gesê: Wees vrugbaar en vermeerder en vul die aarde, onderwerp dit en heers oor die visse van die see en die voëls van die hemel en oor al die diere wat op die aarde kruip.

2.(ASV) And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 3.(BBE) And God gave them his blessing and said to them, Be fertile and have increase, and make the earth full and be masters of it; be rulers over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing moving on the earth.

4.(BCN) Bendithiodd Duw hwy a dweud, “Byddwch ffrwythlon ac amlhewch, llanwch y ddaear a darostyngwch hi; llywodraethwch ar bysgod y môr, ar adar yr awyr, ac ar bopeth byw sy’n ymlusgo ar y ddaear.”

5.(Bibeln) Och Gud välsignade dem; Gud sade till dem: “Varen fruktsamma och föröken eder, och uppfyllen jorden och läggen den under eder; och råden över fiskarna i havet och över fåglarna under himmelen och över alla djur som röra sig på jorden.”

6.(Bishops) And God blessed them, and God sayde vnto them: be fruitefull, & multiplie, and replenishe the earth, & subdue it, and haue dominion of the fisshe of the sea, and foule of the ayre, & of euery lyuing thing that moueth vpon the earth.

7.(BUL) И Бог ги благослови. И рече им Бог: Плодете се и размножавайте, напълнете земята и обладайте я, и владейте над морските риби, над въздушните птици и над всяко живо същество, което се движи по земята.

8.(CBK) A požehnal jim Bůh, a řekl jim Bůh: Ploďtež se a rozmnožujte se, a naplňte zemi, a podmaňte ji, a panujte nad rybami mořskými, a nad ptactvem nebeským, i nad všelikým živočichem hýbajícím se na zemi.

9.(CEV) God gave them his blessing and said: Have a lot of children! Fill the earth with people and bring it under your control. Rule over the fish in the ocean, the birds in the sky, and every animal on the earth.

10.(CUV-S) 神就赐福给他们,又对他们说:「要生养众多,遍满地面,治理这地,也要管理海里的鱼、空中的鸟,和地上各样行动的活物。」

11.(CUV-T) 神就賜福給他們,又對他們說:「要生養眾多,遍滿地面,治理這地,也要管理海裡的魚、空中的鳥,和地上各樣行動的活物。」

12.(Dansk) og Gud velsignede dem, og Gud sagde til dem: “Bliv frugtbare og mangfoldige og opfyld Jorden, gør eder til Herre over den og hersk over Havets Fisk og Himmelens Fugle, Kvæget og alle vildtlevende Dyr, der rører sig på Jorden!”

13.(Darby) And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over every animal that moveth on the earth.

14.(DRB) And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.

15.(DSV) En God zegende hen, en God zeide tot hen: Weest vruchtbaar, en vermenigvuldigt, en vervult de aarde, en onderwerpt haar, en hebt heerschappij over de vissen der zee, en over het gevogelte des hemels, en over al het gedierte, dat op de aarde kruipt!

16.(ESV) And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

17.(FDB) Et Dieu les bénit; et Dieu leur dit: Fructifiez, et multipliez, et remplissez la terre et l’assujettissez, et dominez sur les poissons de la mer et sur les oiseaux des cieux, et sur tout être vivant qui se meut sur la terre.
18.(FLS) Dieu les bénit, et Dieu leur dit: Soyez féconds, multipliez, remplissez la terre, et l’assujettissez; et dominez sur les poissons de la mer, sur les oiseaux du ciel, et sur tout animal qui se meut sur la terre.
19.(FPR) Ja Jumala siunasi heidät, ja Jumala sanoi heille: “Olkaa hedelmälliset ja lisääntykää ja täyttäkää maa ja tehkää se itsellenne alamaiseksi; ja vallitkaa meren kalat ja taivaan linnut ja kaikki maan päällä liikkuvat eläimet”.

20.(GEB) Und Gott segnete sie, und Gott sprach zu ihnen: Seid fruchtbar und mehret euch und füllet die Erde und machet sie euch untertan; und herrschet über die Fische des Meeres und über das Gevögel des Himmels und über alles Getier, das sich auf der Erde regt!
21.(Geneva) And God blessed them, and God said to them, Bring forth fruite and multiplie, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule ouer the fish of the sea, and ouer the foule of the heauen, & ouer euery beast that moueth vpon the earth.
22.(GLB) Und Gott segnete sie und sprach zu ihnen: Seid fruchtbar und mehrt euch und füllt die Erde und macht sie euch untertan und herrscht über die Fische im Meer und über die Vögel unter dem Himmel und über alles Getier, das auf Erden kriecht.
23.(GNB) blessed them, and said, “Have many children, so that your descendants will live all over the earth and bring it under their control. I am putting you in charge of the fish, the birds, and all the wild animals.
24.(GSB) Und Gott segnete sie und sprach zu ihnen: Seid fruchtbar und mehret euch und füllet die Erde und machet sie euch untertan und herrschet über die Fische im Meer und über die Vögel des Himmels und über alles Lebendige, was auf Erden kriecht!
25.(GW) God blessed them and said, “Be fertile, increase in number, fill the earth, and be its master. Rule the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that crawl on the earth.”
26.(HKB) És megáldá Isten õket, és monda nékik Isten: Szaporodjatok és sokasodjatok, és töltsétek be a földet és hajtsátok birodalmatok alá; és uralkodjatok a tenger halain, az ég madarain, és a földön csúszó-mászó mindenféle állatokon.

27.(HOT) ויברך אתם אלהים ויאמר להם אלהים פרו ורבו ומלאו את־הארץ וכבשׁה ורדו בדגת הים ובעוף השׁמים ובכל־חיה הרמשׂת על־הארץ׃
28.(IBIS) Kemudian diberkati-Nya mereka dengan ucapan “Beranakcuculah yang banyak, supaya keturunanmu mendiami seluruh muka bumi serta menguasainya. Kamu Kutugaskan mengurus ikan-ikan, burung-burung, dan semua binatang lain yang liar.
29.(ICE) Og Guð blessaði þau, og Guð sagði við þau: “Verið frjósöm, margfaldist og uppfyllið jörðina og gjörið ykkur hana undirgefna og drottnið yfir fiskum sjávarins og yfir fuglum loftsins og yfir öllum dýrum, sem hrærast á jörðinni.”
30.(INR) Dio li benedisse; e Dio disse loro: “Siate fecondi e moltiplicatevi; riempite la terra, rendetevela soggetta, dominate sui pesci del mare e sugli uccelli del cielo e sopra ogni animale che si muove sulla terra”.
31.(IRL) E Dio li benedisse; e Dio disse loro: ‘Crescete e moltiplicate e riempite la terra, e rendetevela soggetta, e dominate sui pesci del mare e sugli uccelli del cielo e sopra ogni animale che si muove sulla terra’.
32.(ITB) Allah memberkati mereka, lalu Allah berfirman kepada mereka: “Beranakcuculah dan bertambah banyak; penuhilah bumi dan taklukkanlah itu, berkuasalah atas ikan-ikan di laut dan burung-burung di udara dan atas segala binatang yang merayap di bumi.”
32.(JPS) And God blessed them; and God said unto them: ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.’
33.(KJV) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
34. (KJV-1611) And God blessed them, and God said vnto them, Be fruitfull, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and haue dominion ouer the fish of the sea, and ouer the foule of the aire, and ouer euery liuing thing that mooueth vpon the earth.

35.(KJVA) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
36.(KJVR) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
37.(LBLA) Y los bendijo Dios y les dijo: Sed fecundos y multiplicaos, y llenad la tierra y sojuzgadla; ejerced dominio sobre los peces del mar, sobre las aves del cielo y sobre todo ser viviente que se mueve sobre la tierra.
38.(LITV) And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the seas, and over birds of the heavens, and over all beasts creeping on the earth.
39.(LXX) καὶ ηὐλόγησεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς λέγων Αὐξάνεσθε καὶ πληθύνεσθε καὶ πληρώσατε τὴν γῆν καὶ κατακυριεύσατε αὐτῆς καὶ ἄρχετε τῶν ἰχθύων τῆς θαλάσσης καὶ τῶν πετεινῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ πάντων τῶν κτηνῶν καὶ πάσης τῆς γῆς καὶ πάντων τῶν ἑρπετῶν τῶν ἑρπόντων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
40.(MKJV) And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it. And have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heavens, and all animals that move upon the earth.
41.(NBLH) Dios los bendijo y les dijo: “Sean fecundos y multiplíquense. Llenen la tierra y sométanla. Ejerzan dominio sobre los peces del mar, sobre las aves del cielo y sobre todo ser viviente que se mueve sobre la tierra.”
42.(Norsk) Og Gud velsignet dem og sa til dem: Vær fruktbare og bli mange og opfyll jorden og legg den under eder, og råd over fiskene i havet og over fuglene under himmelen og over hvert dyr som rører sig på jorden!
43.(PBG) I błogosławił im Bóg, i rzekł do nich Bóg: Rozradzajcie się, i rozmnażajcie się, i napełniajcie ziemię; i czyńcie ją sobie poddaną; i panujcie nad rybami morskimi, i nad ptactwem niebieskim, i nad wszelkim zwierzem, który się rusza na ziemi.
44.(PJFA) Então Deus os abençoou e lhes disse: Frutificai e multiplicai-vos; enchei a terra e sujeitai-a; dominai sobre os peixes do mar, sobre as aves do céu e sobre todos os animais que se arrastam sobre a terra.
45.(RDCT) Dumnezeu i-a binecuvîntat, şi Dumnezeu le-a zis: „Creşteţi, înmulţiţi-vă, umpleţi pămîntul, şi supuneţi-l; şi stăpîniţi peste peştii mării, peste păsările cerului, şi peste orice vieţuitoare care se mişcă pe pămînt.”
46.(ROB) Şi Dumnezeu i-a binecuvântat, zicând: “Creşteţi şi vă înmulţiţi şi umpleţi pământul şi-l supuneţi; şi stăpâniri peste peştii mării, peste păsările cerului, peste toate animalele, peste toate vietăţile ce se mişcă pe pământ şi peste tot pământul!”
47.(RST) И благословил их Бог, и сказал им Бог: плодитесь и размножайтесь, и наполняйте землю, и обладайте ею, и владычествуйте над рыбами морскими и над птицами небесными, и над всяким животным, пресмыкающимся по земле.
48.(RV) And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
49.(SDK-L) I blagoslovi ih Bog, i reče im Bog: rađajte se i množite se, i napunite zemlju, i vladajte njom, i budite gospodari od riba morskih i od ptica nebeskih i od svega zvjerinja što se miče po zemlji.
50.(So) Oo Ilaah waa barakadeeyey iyaga; oo Ilaah wuxuu iyaga ku yidhi, Wax badan dhala oo tarma, oo dhulka ka buuxsama, oo ka sara mara dhulka, oo xukuma kalluunka badda, iyo haadda hawada iyo wax kasta oo nool oo dhulka kor dhaqdhaqaaqa.
51.(SRV) Y los bendijo Dios; y díjoles Dios: Fructificad y multiplicad, y henchid la tierra, y sojuzgadla, y señoread en los peces de la mar, y en las aves de los cielos, y en todas las bestias que se mueven sobre la tierra.
52.(SSE) Y los bendijo Dios; y les dijo Dios: Fructificad y multiplicaos, y llenad la tierra, y sojuzgadla, y señoread en los peces del mar, y en las aves de los cielos, y en todas las bestias que se mueven sobre la tierra.
52.(SVD) وَبَارَكَهُمُ اللهُ وَقَالَ لَهُمْ: «اثْمِرُوا وَاكْثُرُوا وَامْلاوا الارْضَ وَاخْضِعُوهَا وَتَسَلَّطُوا عَلَى سَمَكِ الْبَحْرِ وَعَلَى طَيْرِ السَّمَاءِ وَعَلَى كُلِّ حَيَوَانٍ يَدِبُّ عَلَى الارْضِ».
53.(TAB) At sila’y binasbasan ng Dios, at sa kanila’y sinabi ng Dios, Kayo’y magpalaanakin, at magpakarami, at kalatan ninyo ang lupa, at inyong supilin; at magkaroon kayo ng kapangyarihan sa mga isda sa dagat, at sa mga ibon sa himpapawid, at sa bawa’t hayop na gumagalaw sa ibabaw ng lupa.
54.(TKJV) พระเจ้าได้ทรงอวยพรพวกเขา และพระเจ้าตรัสแก่พวกเขาว่า “จงมีลูกดกและทวีมากขึ้น จนเต็มแผ่นดิน จงมีอำนาจเหนือแผ่นดินนั้น และครอบครองฝูงปลาในทะเล ฝูงนกในอากาศ และบรรดาสัตว์ที่มีชีวิตที่เคลื่อนไหวบนแผ่นดินโลก”
55.(TKK) Onları kutsayarak, “Verimli olun, çoğalın” dedi, “Yeryüzünü doldurun ve denetiminize alın; denizdeki balıklara, gökteki kuşlara, yeryüzünde yaşayan bütün canlılara egemen olun.
56.(UBIO) І поблагословив їх Бог, і сказав Бог до них: Плодіться й розмножуйтеся, і наповнюйте землю, оволодійте нею, і пануйте над морськими рибами, і над птаством небесним, і над кожним плазуючим живим на землі!
57.(Vamvas) και ευλόγησεν αυτούς ο Θεός• και είπε προς αυτούς ο Θεός, Αυξάνεσθε και πληθύνεσθε και γεμίσατε την γην και κυριεύσατε αυτήν, και εξουσιάζετε επί των ιχθύων της θαλάσσης και επί των πετεινών του ουρανού και επί παντός ζώου κινουμένου επί της γης.
58.(Viet) Đức Chúa Trời ban phước cho loài người và phán rằng: Hăy sanh sản, thêm nhiều, làm cho đầy dẫy đất; hăy làm cho đất phục tùng, hăy quản trị loài cá dưới biển, loài chim trên trời cùng các vật sống hành động trên mặt đất.
59.(Vulgate) benedixitque illis Deus et ait crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram et subicite eam et dominamini piscibus maris et volatilibus caeli et universis animantibus quae moventur super terram
60.(Webster) And God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living animal that moveth upon the earth.
61.(YLT) And God blesseth them, and God saith to them, `Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over every living thing that is creeping upon the earth.’

 

The above quoted 61 Catholic and Protestant translations and versions of the bible prove that Pacquiao is biblically correct because his stand is the interpretation of the Church founded by Christ (New Book of Knowledge Vol.16 P.287).

Regarding interpretation of Gen.1:28, it does not favor RH BILL to depopulate people. Let us allow the bible to explain God’s message:

1.(ASV) And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..
2. (BBE)God gave them his blessing and said to them, Be fertile and have increase, and make the earth full..
3.(CEV) “God gave them his blessing and said: Have a lot of children! Fill the earth with people…”
4.(DRB) “And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth..”
5. (Geneva) “And God blessed them, and God said to them, Bring forth fruite and multiplie, and fill the earth..”
6. (ESV) “And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth..”
Take note of the following translations with the meaning:
• Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth..
• Be fertile and have increase, and make the earth full..
• Increase and multiply, and fill the earth..
• Increase and multiply, and fill the earth..”
• Bring forth fruite and multiplie, and fill the earth..”
• “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth..

 

What is the real and literal meaning of the text translated in different versions of the bible? The answer is not Pro- RH BILL because it is a command from God. The bible has the answer:


1. (GW) “God blessed them and said, “Be fertile, increase in number, fill the earth..”(increase in number? God is against depopulation promoted by RH BILL 4244)
2. (GNB) blessed them, and said, “Have many children, so that your descendants will live all over the earth..”(have many children? God is against 2 child policy of the bill)
3. (TAB) At sila’y binasbasan ng Dios, at sa kanila’y sinabi ng Dios, Kayo’y magpalaanakin, at magpakarami, at kalatan ninyo ang lupa..”(think of it, magpalaanakan kayo).
Address to all Catholic women and to those who care for them: Do you want to be saved on judgment day? Then follow God’s instruction. Anyway, we are only passengers in this world (Col.3:1-3), all of us will die (Sirac 7:36). Are you really a true follower of Jesus? Then you must be ready sacrifice if you wanted to(M.16:24). Are you ready to face and avoid the wrath of God on judgment day? You are reminded by God if you are a pro-lifer or against life.
Deu 32:6 “Is this the way you should treat the LORD, you foolish, senseless people? He is your father, your Creator, he made you into a nation.”
Mat 16:26 “For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?”
Motherhood is a gift from God especially given only to women. Those who are not afraid of responsibilities of motherhood will inherit blessings and salvation from God not from the RH BILL 4244.
1Tim. 2:13-15 “For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and broke God’s law. But a woman will be saved through having children, if she perseveres in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”
The Church stand is of God:
a)Eph.3:10-12”That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church, according to the eternal purpose which he made in Christ Jesus our Lord: In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.”
b) 1Tim. 3:15“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”
c) Mat 18:17-18” And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
d) Luk.10:16 “ He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.”
e) Jn. 10:12-16 “But the hireling and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming and leaveth the sheep and flieth: and the wolf casteth and scattereth the sheep, and the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. I am the good shepherd: and I know mine, and mine know me. As the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father: and I lay down my life for my sheep. And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd.”

 

 

Reproductive Health And Population and Development Act

Reproductive Health And Population and Development Act

Fr. Nerl Salugsugan

 

Ilang araw na lang at gugunitain na ng sambayanang Pilipino ang pagdiriwang ng ika -113 taon ng araw ng kalayaan ng Pilipinas. Sa araw na ito inililipad tayo sa nakaraan upang magbalik tanaw sa napakahalagang pangyayari sa kasaysayan na naganap sa ating bansa,ang pagwawagayway ng bandila ng Pilipinas at kasabay nang pagtugtog ng pambansang awit sa Kawit, Cavite bilang simbolo ng pagsilang ng kasarinlan ng bansang Pilipinas. Sa pagbabalik sa mga pahina ng nakalipas, ipinamalas ng mga magigiting na pilipino ang kanilang katapangan upang sumilay ang liwanag buhat sa madilim na kinasadlakan ng kalunos-lunos na bayan ni Juan dela Cruz. Ang pagsasariwa sa kagitingan ng mga pilipinong nakipaglaban ay nagbibigay sa atin ng lakas at determinasyon upang magkaisa at manguna sa anumang hamon na hinaharap natin sa kasalukuyan at maging sa mga darating pang panahon.Maging inspirasyon ang pagsasakripisyo ng ating mga ninuno upang palakasin ang Republika ng Pilipinas na pangunahing sandigan na kumikilala at nagbibigay ng pagpapahalaga sa dignidad ng bawat pilipino, lalong-lalo na sa usaping pampamilya, na siyang pundasyon at pinakamahalagang salik ng ating lipunan.

Ngayon ang bansa ay humaharap sa sa isang malaking hamon na kung hindi magkakaisa ay maaring pagmulan ng pagkakawatak-watak ng sambayang pilipino. Pinag-uusapan ang pagsasabatas sa isang panukala, ang Reproductive Health And Population and Development Act o mas kilala bilang RH Bill. Layunin ng panukalang ito na palawigin ang pangkalahatang paggamit ng iba’t ibang uri ng reproductive health care services kasama na ang artificial use of contraceptives. May apat na kadahilanan kung bakit itinutulak ang pagpapasabatas nito, una sagot sa lumulobong populasyon na dahilan ng kahirapan, pangalawa, upang maging ligtas ang bilang ng mga namamatay sa pagbubuntis, ikatlo, limitahan ang mga kabataang maagang nabubuntis, at panghuli para makaiwas sa pagkalat ng HIV at STD sa pamamagitan ng pagbibigay ng mga condoms at uri ng contraceptives.

Bilang isa sa mga pro-life advocates, mariin kong tinututulan ang panukalang ito at ibahagi ang mga dahilan kung bakit ako ay nakikiisa sa panig ng simbahan at ibat ibang religious sectors na kontra rito. Una, hindi ang populasyon ang dahilan kung bakit patuloy tayong nakararanas ng kahirapan, kundi ang malawakang kurakutan at paglustay ng pondo ang siyang dahilan upang patuloy tayong mabaon sa hirap.Maglalaan ang gobyerno ng 3 bilyong piso upang ipambili ng ibat ibang contraceptives tulad ng condoms at mga kagamitan upang mapigilan ang pabubuntis ng isang ina. Saan manggaling yang pondong iyan? sa pera ng taong bayan. Lulustayin ng pamahalaan ang pera ng taong bayan sa pamamagitan lamang ng pagbibili ng mga contraceptives. Kung yang 3 bilyon na yan ay ilalaan na lamang ng pamahalaan sa ibang proyekto na lubhang mahalaga tulad ng pagbibigay trabaho, pagpapagawa ng mga paaralan at libreng edukasyon, o pagpapatayo ng mga tirahan para sa mga nasa squatters area ay tunay na mapapakinabangan pa ng sambayanang pilipino. Malaking bentahe ang paglaki ng populasyon sa pag-unlad ng ekonomiya ng Pilipinas, kaya ang dapat pigilin ay ang korupsyon hindi ang populasyon. Pangalawa, mas delikado ang paggamit ng mga contraceptives measures dahil may abortifacient effect ito na makapipinsala sa buhay at kalusugan ng nagbubuntis maging sa kanyang supling. Bakit hindi na lang ilaan ang pondo sa pagpapataas ng sahod ng mga duktor at nars at hindi ang pagtrato sa mga nabubuntis bilang sakit na dapat iwasan. Pangatlo, ang RH bill daw ay layunin upang limitahan ang maagang pagbubutis ng mga kabataan sa pamamagitan ng pagtuturo ng sex education sa paaralan. Lalong nakakabahala ang ganitong pamamaraan sapagkat lalong darami ang bilang ng mga kabataan na mabubuntis kapag naipatupad ito. Sa panukala, nakasaad na sisimulan ang pagtuturo sa Grade 5 tungkol sa sex education. Bakit hindi na lang ibigay sa mga magulang ang responsibilidad sa paggabay sa kanilang anak tungkol sa usaping ito. Mahalaga na ang pamahalaan ay magsagawa ng mga programa na tutulong sa mga magulang at kanilang mga anak sa pagpapahalaga sa buhay at pamilya.

Ikaapat, layunin ng RH bill na magpakalat ng condoms para maiwasan ang STD at HIV. Makasisiguro ba tayo na sa pamamagitan ng pagbibigay ng condoms maiiwasan ang mga sakit na nabanggit na ito? Malamang hindi rin. Bakit hindi na lang magsagawa ng programa ang pamahalaan na magbibigay impormasyon upang maturuan ang mga kabataan sa pre marital sex at isulong ang katapatan ng mag-asawa.

Isang bansa ngayo’y nahahati dahil sa usaping may kinalaman sa buhay at dignidad ng bawat pilipino. Kung noon ang mga ninuno natin ay nagsama-sama, nagkaisa at nagbuwis ng buhay para makamtan ang kalayaang matagal nang ipinagkait ng mga dayuhang yumurak sa ating lahi. Ngayon kakaibang laban naman ang ating hinaharap, At ang labang ito ay mas matindi pa kung ihahalintulad natin noon, sapagkat kapwa pilipino ngayon ang siyang ating kalaban. Mga pilipinong hindi kumikilala sa kahalagahan ng buhay at dignidad ng bawat pamilyang pilipino.