THERE’S a little, handy booklet entitled, Handbook of truths
behind
the RH Bill, which I think is good to have for the campaign to clarify
this delicate issue that is now swamped with all sorts of confusing
arguments.
It focuses more on the medical, economic, demographic and legal
aspects of the issue rather than on its morality. And so, it is good
for those who want to reach out to those who are a bit allergic to
religious arguments but are more open to its more secular, scientific
or empirical perspectives.
I, of course, believe that the issue is first of all moral—the reason
why the Church is very much involved in it—before it is a medical,
economic or legal issue. But since people have different sensitivities
and attitudes, it would be good if they too can get hold of some
clarificatory materials that satisfies their preferences. This
handbook does that.
First of all, I wish to say that our first freedom, the most intimate
freedom we have is religious freedom, on which is based our sense of
morality, among other things.
It is not freedom of speech and assembly, nor even freedom to live,
since all these rights and freedom are based on our religious freedom.
I feel urged to make that clarification because when I read the
arguments used by some of our congressmen who voted on the issue in
the second reading, I now understand why many of them took what I
consider as wrong positions regarding the issue.
Their idea of our first and ultimate freedom can be reduced to
freedom to be oneself, as expressed in some allegedly absolute freedom
to life, expression and assembly, right to liberty, etc.
To me, it sounds like a freedom that does not talk about where it
came from and how it used to be exercised. It is presumed to be
self-generated or spontaneously created that in the end is like saying
that we too in our life, in our very being are self-generated and
spontaneously created. That’s, of course, a ridiculous presupposition.
In short, they are saying that there is no creator for us. There is
no God. This is a form of atheism that may be considered as practical
atheism, not so much the theoretical one, since it may not be formally
professed but is simply practically and consistently lived.
This, I think, is a point that needs to be ventilated more widely,
since this is not yet fully appreciated by many. That’s why we have an
understanding of democracy, supposedly based on freedom, that is
actually weak and vulnerable to be exploited by those who have power
in one form or another.
Going back to the handbook, it is a well-written piece by a team of
experts in the area of economics, demography, education and law. It
takes the issue to its deeper and wider implications, exposing the
hidden but clear maneuvers of powerful groups and ideologies averse to
supernatural faith and religion in general.
It is written by competent authors who are very much into the
intricacies of this issue. They are Dr. Bernardo Villegas, economist;
Miss Rosa Linda Valenzona, demographer; Jo Imbong, lawyer; Roberto de
Vera, economist; Raul Nidoy, educator; and Robert Cortes, educator.
Among the points taken up and developed, supported by relevant
studies and researches, are the following:
-The RH bill is harmful to the Filipinos because it endorses drugs
and other family planning supplies and techniques that have serious
deleterious effects to their physical health and to the environment.
-Pills and the IUD kill the human embryo.
-Pills cause serious environmental problems.
-The RH bill is harmful to Filipino society because its intent to
control population is based on wrong facts and wrong economics, and
naive to the negative social effects that will come in its train.
-It implies that a rapidly growing population causes hunger and
shortage of resources. It does NOT.
-It neglects the fact that societies that have aggressively pushed
for contraception are now suffering from a “demographic winter.”
-The RH bill is harmful to Filipino society because it violates the
Philippine Constitution and seeks to enshrine into law forced and
artificial ‘rights’ that may even threaten more basic and genuine
human rights.
Let’s hope that this handbook can contribute to a more meaningful
discussion and dialogue with everyone regarding the issue. We need to
be open-minded but clear about our views and positions that are
supposed to be grounded on well-established principles and
assumptions.
Let’s hope that this dialogue continues and leads us to its proper end.
the RH Bill, which I think is good to have for the campaign to clarify
this delicate issue that is now swamped with all sorts of confusing
arguments.
It focuses more on the medical, economic, demographic and legal
aspects of the issue rather than on its morality. And so, it is good
for those who want to reach out to those who are a bit allergic to
religious arguments but are more open to its more secular, scientific
or empirical perspectives.
I, of course, believe that the issue is first of all moral—the reason
why the Church is very much involved in it—before it is a medical,
economic or legal issue. But since people have different sensitivities
and attitudes, it would be good if they too can get hold of some
clarificatory materials that satisfies their preferences. This
handbook does that.
First of all, I wish to say that our first freedom, the most intimate
freedom we have is religious freedom, on which is based our sense of
morality, among other things.
It is not freedom of speech and assembly, nor even freedom to live,
since all these rights and freedom are based on our religious freedom.
I feel urged to make that clarification because when I read the
arguments used by some of our congressmen who voted on the issue in
the second reading, I now understand why many of them took what I
consider as wrong positions regarding the issue.
Their idea of our first and ultimate freedom can be reduced to
freedom to be oneself, as expressed in some allegedly absolute freedom
to life, expression and assembly, right to liberty, etc.
To me, it sounds like a freedom that does not talk about where it
came from and how it used to be exercised. It is presumed to be
self-generated or spontaneously created that in the end is like saying
that we too in our life, in our very being are self-generated and
spontaneously created. That’s, of course, a ridiculous presupposition.
In short, they are saying that there is no creator for us. There is
no God. This is a form of atheism that may be considered as practical
atheism, not so much the theoretical one, since it may not be formally
professed but is simply practically and consistently lived.
This, I think, is a point that needs to be ventilated more widely,
since this is not yet fully appreciated by many. That’s why we have an
understanding of democracy, supposedly based on freedom, that is
actually weak and vulnerable to be exploited by those who have power
in one form or another.
Going back to the handbook, it is a well-written piece by a team of
experts in the area of economics, demography, education and law. It
takes the issue to its deeper and wider implications, exposing the
hidden but clear maneuvers of powerful groups and ideologies averse to
supernatural faith and religion in general.
It is written by competent authors who are very much into the
intricacies of this issue. They are Dr. Bernardo Villegas, economist;
Miss Rosa Linda Valenzona, demographer; Jo Imbong, lawyer; Roberto de
Vera, economist; Raul Nidoy, educator; and Robert Cortes, educator.
Among the points taken up and developed, supported by relevant
studies and researches, are the following:
-The RH bill is harmful to the Filipinos because it endorses drugs
and other family planning supplies and techniques that have serious
deleterious effects to their physical health and to the environment.
-Pills and the IUD kill the human embryo.
-Pills cause serious environmental problems.
-The RH bill is harmful to Filipino society because its intent to
control population is based on wrong facts and wrong economics, and
naive to the negative social effects that will come in its train.
-It implies that a rapidly growing population causes hunger and
shortage of resources. It does NOT.
-It neglects the fact that societies that have aggressively pushed
for contraception are now suffering from a “demographic winter.”
-The RH bill is harmful to Filipino society because it violates the
Philippine Constitution and seeks to enshrine into law forced and
artificial ‘rights’ that may even threaten more basic and genuine
human rights.
Let’s hope that this handbook can contribute to a more meaningful
discussion and dialogue with everyone regarding the issue. We need to
be open-minded but clear about our views and positions that are
supposed to be grounded on well-established principles and
assumptions.
Let’s hope that this dialogue continues and leads us to its proper end.
No comments:
Post a Comment