IT’S really unnerving how so-called vanguards of morality oppose the Reproductive Health on the ground that it’s euphemism for abortion. Methinks that as its name implies, the health of a mother in particular and the family in general is best nourished by family planning, not irresponsible “planting.”

Doesn’t common sense even tell us that the Philippine population – now exceeding 89 million Filipinos (August 2007 national census) – is an abnormality? While we are just an ink blot in the world map, ours is already the12th most populous nation on earth! We have advanced two notches since ten years ago, 1998, when we were 14th with 75.3 million.

Coupled with the rise in prices of oil, rice, meat, vegetables and other basic necessities, the population problem is apparently aggravating the poverty problem. The latest bad news is that we are 5th with the heaviest concentration of hungry citizens.

Their exodus abroad for greener pasture has become the Filipino laborer’s favorite way to rise above runaway inflation, officially recorded at 11% (no thanks to EVAT), that belies President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s “nararamdaman na ang kaunlaran” claim.

At this time, our population must have already surpassed the alarming 90-million mark. If our growth rate stays at 2.3% annually our population could rise to 118 million by 2025. Let us sound the alarm.

Why has the Catholic Church taken the opposite step of indifference, calling the Reproductive Health bill “pro-abortion, anti-life.”

No less than Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), has attacked the bill, saying, “In the present rice crisis or price crisis of food supply, we must look at population not as the root cause of the problem. The social doctrine of the Church challenges society and government to regard population not as mere consumer but also to help and facilitate their becoming producers and formal businessmen. By completely eradicating corruption and restoring justice our government can empower population to keep the continuous flow of production and supply.”

On the other hand, in an interview with the Asia Times Online, Monsignor Hernando Carbonel, CBCP spokesman, debunked the population explosion as myth.

“It’s not the population that is the problem,” he said. “It’s the great disparity of wealth. If the wealthy would share what they have, then population would not be a problem.”

Tell that to the marines; not even the Church shares its collection with the poor.

That wistful thinking is easier said than done and is a myopic way of defending an undesirable situation where a poor couple makes more children than they can afford to feed and send to school. Malnourished and uneducated, as present-day Philippine reality shows, these unplanned children – assuming they survive hunger and hostile environment – grow up to be thieves, robbers, prostitutes and even killers for hire in order to survive. More often than not, the cycle replicates itself in the next generation.

Doesn’t the church realize that a worker making barely enough bread for himself is unfit to marry and multiply? The new family consequently becomes a burden, not an asset, to society.

Conversely and ironically, it is the rich in the Philippines who limit the number of their children to two or three to ensure their good future.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has taken the church stand, perhaps to appease the bishops who have been calling for her political exit.

Ironically, other predominantly Catholic countries like Portugal , Spain , Italy and Poland control their birth rates despite the clergy’s admonition to the faithful to refrain from using church-banned contraceptives.

How was life in the Philippines in the good old days when population density was small?

A chapter in the English translation of an 1853 book, Adventures of a Frenchman in the Philippines by Paul P. de la Gironiere, cites Pasig River as a health-rejuvenating body of water where the rich Spanish, English, Chinese and various mestizos paraded on boats and gondolas. The author wrote: “The newest and most elegant houses are built upon the banks of the river Pasig . Each house has a landing place from the river and little bamboo palaces serving as bathing houses to which the residents resort several times daily, to relieve the fatigue caused by intense heat.”

We can only see the same clean bodies of water today in sparsely populated rural riverbanks.

In the same book, the author detailed the per-province population of the Philippines according to the 1833 census. Of the total Philippine population of only 3,345,790, what is now Metro Manila had the highest with 285,039. The provinces of Iloilo, Capiz (including what is now Aklan) and Antique had 232,055; 115,440; and 78,250, respectively.

I was 10 years old and in grade four in 1960 when I first learned that the Philippines had a population of 30 million. This means that, between 1960 and today, the aforesaid population that took centuries to accumulate has tripled in only 48 years!

Thailand , on the other hand, which had about as many people as the Philippines in 1960, has only doubled its population. Predominantly Buddhist, Thailand has an active population management.

God forbid that the 90 million Filipinos today would triple in another half century when we might have to kill – like lions devouring a prey – or be killed in a mad scramble for food and potable water.

2 Responses to “Why am I for Reproductive Health bill?”

• 1
  christian alvarez
  December 18th, 2008 07:02

  if we just follow the natural procreation cycle, we wouldnt have to deal with this. the bad thing about this is that it somewhat promotes marriage outside sex, and that is a mortal sin. second, abortion is being allowed there. third, children will be taught “sex education”which was also introduced in the U.S., and now look at the children there with 9-year old pregnancies. that is the reason why people who support this bill are not anymore allowed to take the communion. if we overpopulate, God will take care of it by some natural way. anyway, if people only keep themselves busy, thay wouldnt have time for having too much children.
• 2
  Ipe Espinosa of Bacolod City
  February 1st, 2009 17:37

  Here are some of the potential consequences of the passage into law of the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill (HB O5043) which have dawned upon me; to wit:

  1.0 BIG BUSINESS, BIGGER MONEY. If RH Bill passes into law, condom suppliers may earn from the Philippine government (which will be mandated to distribute free condoms to 4.9 million youth aged 15-27), PhP 2.548 billion every year. (Or 4.9 million youth times 1 sex act per week times 52 weeks per year times condom usage of 1 piece per sex act times supplier’s price of P10 per piece of condom.) The assumption of a youth engaging in sex at the average of once a week, I am afraid, is in order and conservative. It will be unthinkable for a young student to obey the reminder of his RH teacher or older relatives that abstinence is the most effective birth control method when that young student is aware, the government is duty-bound to provide him or her with free condom for his or her sexual cravings anytime, anywhere. Condom supply is therefore a big business if RH Bill passes into law. Nevertheless, what is bigger money is when government canvassers, signatories of purchase orders, receivers of condom deliveries, as well as check payment signatories and releasers may connive with condom suppliers to price the condom at P 100 per piece instead of P 10. The over price of P 90 per piece of condom will be distributed among the involved government officials. Therefore, due to the passage of the RH Bill, there is an opportunity for a PhP 25.48 billion condom scam to happen.

  2.0 BOARS AND GILTS. These 4.9 million youth who are recipients of the government’s free supply of condoms may naturally crave for sex like animals (considering the additional enticement from the immodest mass media and the internet pornography). The young male may act like boar while the young female behaves like gilt that is in heat. This promiscuity or multiple sexual relationships, is probably just a take off point. The Law of Diminishing Extra Satisfaction (as adopted from the psychological and economic law of diminishing marginal utility) that governs pure human and animal endeavors including sexual relations will be fully operational. In other words, if sex will be a preoccupation of the Filipino youth, then the satisfaction that a young male derives having sex with female partner/s, will decrease or wane eventually. He then ventures to partner sexually with his fellow male/s to seek new level of satisfaction. He may push further by engaging in bisexual activities. But most likely he will end up as a pure homosexual. A young female may also follow the same path as she craves for sex and sexual satisfactions. She may graduate as a pure lesbian. But this scenario will not be glaring overnight. It will take a generation – ten years span. This may then translate to the need of a new advocacy – to support the passing into law of the bill on same-sex marriages and divorce in the country.

  3.0 POPULATION REDUCTION. The ultimate aim of RH Bill, I understand, is achieving economic prosperity (particularly for the poor) however through population reduction approach. In case the RH Bill is passed, its success will be measured therefore by, among others, whether its respective population reduction target (PRT) is attained. And the critical factor in attaining PRT is the effective distribution and use of condom of the 4.9 million Filipino youth in particular. Effective means here, making a condom available for free, on demand of the youth, either male or female, anywhere, anytime. As mentioned above, this will cost the Philippine government, PhP 2.548 billion every year. If the government will have limited or doesn’t have that amount of taxpayers’ money (for condom purchase and distribution) then the full attainment of the PRT will be jeopardized. Thus RH Law may prove to be ineffective to reduce population in the country. If this is the case, other population reduction measures or Bills will be therefore sought. So there will be a future need to support for the passage into law of Pro-abortion Bills as well as of Pro-euthanasia Bills.

  So then, to all the RH Bill advocates, if your support for the passage into law of RH Bill (which may lead to additional opportunity for corruptions in the Philippine government, to transformation of the Filipino youth as homosexuals and lesbians, to eventual murder of unborn babies and to future mercy-killing of senior citizens, etc.) makes your Mama proud of you, then go full speed ahead of your RH Bill advocacy. Otherwise, please resign as a RH Bill supporter and lobby harder for our legislators to vote against RH Bill.

Leave a Reply