RH bill: Spawn of statism

330
2305

A DIFFERENT show of people-power was staged last March 25 at the Quirino Grandstand when the clergy and religious, pro-life groups, and the Church as a whole gathered to call for the abolition of the Reproductive Health (RH) bill.

During the Mass, attended by some 200,000 to 300,000 people, Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales called for respect for life and the junking of the RH bill. Cardinal Rosales said that despite the bill’s avowals of “responsible parenthood” and “sexual responsibility,” its bias for contraception and “safe sex” is very evident, so that it is hardly expected to foster authentic responsibility and discipline, two virtues, he said, that the people and the nation need. He added that people’s indifference to life, if not their utter disrespect of it, could lead to moral decay.

The Cardinal said life should be defended from conception: “Kapag hindi pinahalagahan ang buhay na iyan sa alinman o saan mang yugto ng buhay ng tao, (sanggol, fetus, matanda, malakas, o mahina) hinding-hindi igagalang ang buhay ng sinuman—at diyan kapag wala ng halaga o walang pagpapahalaga, wala ng magtatanggol sa buhay.”

The Cardinal’s remarks are a re-expression of what the Varsitarian has said in its last editorial (“RH Bill: Deadly, Anti-Constitution”). Despite its claim to being a lawful measure by its invocation of supposed constitutional principles and state policies, the RH bill is mum on the most important constitutional principle and state policy that should apply on any measure that seeks to regulate births, curb population growth, and introduce sex education—that 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.” (Section 12, Article 2) If one pits all of the questionable provisions of the bill against this proviso, one will recognize how the bill is in fact an attack on the 1987 Constitution that had been overwhelmingly ratified by nearly 80 percent of the population! One will agree with the Varsitarian that it is “deadly,” “anti-life,” “anti-family,” and “anti-constitution.” One will recognize that the RH bill is an attack on human dignity and the Filipino nation!

Oh, but contraception is not abortion, the RH bill proponents maintain. But only the truly dense cannot see through their smokescreen, their lie. In the first place, the bill makes a blanket approbation of all contraceptives, which it wants to be declared as “essential” medicines. Some of these contraceptives are technically abortifacients, even physicians admit that. Moreover, the bill compels medical workers to provide services to women suffering post-abortion complications, which is a condonation of abortion and violates the penal statutes on the crime. Much as mercy and compassion should be extended to women suffering from complications arising out of abortion, wouldn’t a law that forces medical practitioners to extend services to them, regardless of established ethical medical protocols, encourage other women to commit abortion, which is a criminal act? In short, doesn’t the RH bill in fact abet criminality?

Meanwhile, UST, maintaining its Catholic nature and character, released a statement last March 24 opposing the RH bill, saying it violates conscience and tramples upon religious freedom.” It said that any government-sponsored responsible parenthood program should be motivated by an “option for life and not against it. Backing the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’ stand, UST said natural family planning was the better option as it is “not only pro-life but also pro-poor and pro-women, since it does not endanger people’s health.”

UST is specifically opposing provisions in the consolidated RH bill or House Bill No. 4244, such as Section 9 which names contraceptives as essential medicines, Section 18 demanding all employers to include contraceptives in their employee’s economic package, and Section 22 that prohibits any person from “malicious engagement in disinformation about the intent or provision of this act.”

“This would mean that the purchase of contraceptives shall be the burden of all tax-paying Filipinos, even those who, in conscience, are pro-life,” UST said in its statement. “This is a violation of the freedom of religion, of freedom of conscience, and of freedom of expression.”

As much as how the mainstream media generally biased for the RH bill portray the rally and UST’s stand, both events evinced a growing awareness in the Church and society at large of the demonic ends of the bill, its utter disregard of life. Despite secularism and the pro-choice mentality of many Filipinos, it’s good to know that there are still Catholics and other Filipinos who belive in the sanctity of life and the right to life of both the born and the unborn.

Moreover, Filipinos are beginning to see the dark social-engineering dimensions of the bill. Contrary to what the authors of the bill have been trumpeting, the RH bill is not pro-poor. If it is, then there will be no need for the more than a billion of pesos that is planned to be spent during its initial phase. Filipinos are beginning to realize that the money for it would be better used to address directly the education, food and health needs of the poor. After all, the poor need food, clothing and shelter, not condoms and contaceptives. Filipinos are beginning to see that the RH bill authors and supporters are really Stalinist legislators who see the poor as sex-starved rabbits and blame the poor for their poverty.

In fact, family planning and population control were enshrined in the Marcos Constitution of 1973. Despite the widespread implementation of the draconian birth control law, poverty persisted, denying any correlation between population and poverty. On the contrary, the Philippine economy collapsed, which should show that poverty is caused, not by overpopulation (no such thing), but by corruption, mismanagement, and monopolistic and oligopolistic practices.

Now, Congress, backed by academics from the University of the Philippines (self-proclaimed leftist and nationalist) and Ateneo de Manila University (self-proclaimed democratic liberal and nationalist), both elitist and bourgeois institutions, want population control back! Their concourse should show that Statism exists, whether in the left or the right, and that Stalinists and fascists aren’t so strange bedfellows. In fact, for all practical purposes they’re cozy intimates. And from their act of consummation would issue the monstrous offspring—the RH bill, nothing less than the spawn of Statism.

330 COMMENTS

  1. “Moreover, the bill compels medical workers to provide services to women suffering post-abortion complications, which is a condonation of abortion and violates the penal statutes on the crime. Much as mercy and compassion should be extended to women suffering from complications arising out of abortion, wouldn’t a law that forces medical practitioners to extend services to them, regardless of established ethical medical protocols, encourage other women to commit abortion, which is a criminal act? In short, doesn’t the RH bill in fact abet criminality?”

    I think the quoted paragraph seems to be on the brink of being a sweeping statement. It is true that abortion is penalized under the Revised Penal Code, but the quoted paragraph seems to suggest that abortion is only intentionally committed by the mother, which is erroneous. Under the Revised Penal Code, persons who shall use any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman or those who, without using violence, shall act without the consent of the woman, are penalized for intentional abortion. Also, persons who shall cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally are penalized for unintentional abortion. Thus, by denying medical help to women suffering post-abortion complications in general, without classifying whether the abortion was with the consent of the woman or not, would have the effect of also denying medical help to women whose child was aborted without their consent.

    Furthermore, on the second sentence of the quoted paragraph, i.e. on the mercy and compassion that are extended to women suffering post-abortion complications, again, a distinction should be made between abortions that were with the consent of the mother and those without. Clearly, if the abortion was without the consent of the mother, all mercy and compassion should be extended to her. Not only that, medical aid should also be given. On the other hand, if the abortion was with the consent of the mother, is that reason enough that the State should deny her the medical aid that she requires? Is her violation of a penal provision condemn her from receiving medical attention? If that were the case, what image would that send to the people about our government? Not only that, how would the international community react to such a stance?

    • Question to you: Why is there a need to insert that provision? If a woman goes to PGH right now due to a post-abortion complication, is she going to be refused treatment? I don’t think so. The RH bill is not needed for that. If doctors don’t want to treat, then you can sue the doctors.

      • ” If a woman goes to PGH right now due to a post-abortion complication, is she going to be refused treatment?”

        In a word: PROBABLY.

        In more words: IF NOT OUTRIGHT REFUSED TREATMENT, SHE WOULD BE GIVEN SHABBY MEDICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT.

        There are not a few articles on, say, the Newsbreak website which would enlighten you, were you susceptible of enlightenment.

        But then, given the evident “standards” for “journalism” at your wholly esteemed school, I doubt you’d find Newsbreak and similar publications anywhere near credible.

        • Redundant. Check this out: Republic Act 9710

          Section 17. Women’s Right to Health. – (a) Comprehensive Health Services. – The State shall, at all times, provide for a comprehensive, culture-sensitive, and gender-responsive health services and programs covering all stages of a woman’s life cycle and which addresses the major causes of women’s mortality and morbidity: Provided, That in the provision for comprehensive health services, due respect shall be accorded to women’s religious convictions, the rights of the spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions, and the demands of responsible parenthood, and the right of women to protection from hazardous drugs, devices, interventions, and substances.

          Access to the following services shall be ensured:

          (1) Maternal care to include pre- and post-natal services to address pregnancy and infant health and nutrition;

  2. Seriously, when will you guys stop bashing other schools? Geez, do you guys have a self-esteem problem that you have to drag the names of other schools in your article? Talk against the bill itself, not the proponents.

    • They need to drag in other schools because they know their lackluster school is not going to make this crappy article worth reading. May nagbabasa lang dahil nanggegera na naman sila ng walang katuturan.

  3. Seriously, why do you have to include the names of other schools in your article? Do you guys have self-esteem problems? Geez, talk against the ISSUE not the proponents. That was the official statement of CBCP.

  4. So I’m anti-RH… So does that kinda reject you saying about statism from those certain schools???

  5. ‘wouldn’t a law that forces medical practitioners to extend services to them, regardless of established ethical medical protocols, encourage other women to commit abortion, which is a criminal act? In short, doesn’t the RH bill in fact abet criminality?’

    -seriously?! are you kidding me?! So you think that criminals do not deserve medical assistance because they might repeat the offense?! Ever heard of the Hippocratic Oath and Medical Ethics? Regardless of the RH Bill, a doctor should NEVER decline service to ANYONE, despite their economic standing, social status or criminal record.

    This whole article is based on the ‘right to life’ and its protection, and yet here you’re suggesting that mothers who are experiencing complications from undergoing abortion do not deserve the right to receive medical attention because they might repeat it again. Further, would a woman choose to have another abortion solely on the fact that she can receive medical attention again if things go haywire? I don’t think so. Deciding to get an abortion is not solely based on whether it is made available or not.

    Secondly, religious freedom is, as much as any right, relative to the rights of other people. It can be expressed as long as it does not infringe the rights of others. You state in your article that:

    “This would mean that the purchase of contraceptives shall be the burden of all tax-paying Filipinos, even those who, in conscience, are pro-life,” UST said in its statement. “This is a violation of the freedom of religion, of freedom of conscience, and of freedom of expression.”

    Talking about religious freedom, is it not in fact an imposition of your religion on other people who do not have the same moral foundations as you. If say I was a protestant who thinks that contraception is ok, wouldn’t it then be an infringement of my right to religion for your religious denomination to prevent the passing of a bill which can benefit me? Where’s my right? Or is the right to religion only reserved for Roman Catholics?

    lastly,

    ‘Their concourse should show that Statism exists, whether in the left or the right, and that Stalinists and fascists aren’t so strange bedfellows. In fact, for all practical purposes they’re cozy intimates. And from their act of consummation would issue the monstrous offspring—the RH bill, nothing less than the spawn of Statism.’

    – loose association, ’nuff said.

    • Maidagdag ko lang bukod sa buhaghag na generalization ng sumulat: wala nga bang karapatan ang kriminal sa makataong pagtrato (assuming credence to your argument that abortion indeed is a crime)?! Patay tayo dyan. Good luck.

      • ^Agree. Just because the RH bill espouses medical treatment for post-abortion patients doesn’t mean it espouses criminality. It simply recognizes that no one is exempt from basic human rights; a fact that some discriminatory doctors seem to forget. Consequently, it is criminal and immoral to refuse medical treatment to anyone.

        Even the police [claim to] rush wounded criminals to hospitals in recognition of this. Obviously, they are not being accomplices, accessories or enablers to crimes by doing so.

        • “it is criminal and immoral to refuse medical treatment to anyone.”

          — You said it. Therefore including it in the bill is a redundancy, unless pro-abortion lobbyists want to use it to their advantage.

  6. Bro, don’t you have spell check there? Where is your proof on “the University of the Philippines (self-proclaimed leftist and nationalist) and Ateneo de Manila University (self-proclaimed democratic liberal and nationalist), both elitist and BOURGEOIS institutions”

    I really don’t think you have the “authority” to generalize what the professors from other universities believe in.

    May I ask, is your opinion is what the whole student body of your institution stand for? Or are you just “forced” to write this (offending the Ateneo de Manila and the University of the Philippines)? :>

  7. Kaya ba binash ang UP at Ateneo kasi aminado kayong mas nakakalamang sila sa inyo, intellectually? Kung ganyan mag-isip ang Anti-RH bill supporters, I’m glad that I support the bill. 🙂 Wag kayo sarado mag-isip. Kung sa una pa lang may alternative solutions kayong binibigay, then there won’t be anything to discuss. Kapwa catholic institution pa naman yung isang school na siniraan niyo. Tsk.

  8. Kaya ba binash ang UP at Ateneo kasi aminado kayong mas nakakalamang sila sa inyo, intellectually? Kung ganyan mag-isip ang Anti-RH bill supporters, I’m glad that I support the bill. 🙂 Wag kayo sarado mag-isip. Kung sa una pa lang may alternative solutions kayong binibigay, then there won’t be anything to discuss. Kapwa catholic institution pa naman yung isang school na siniraan niyo. Tsk.

  9. First of all, I would like to take the opportunity to commend your wordplay on this article. Your use of ‘Statism’ in the place of ‘Satan’ was quite clever, and did articulate your stance effectively.

    Unfortunately, that is the last thing I would ever commend in this article.

    The first issue I have is with the author’s lack of information regarding its attacks on the RH bill. I do not mind the Varsitarian’s position at all—in fact, I respect it, with the expectation that they would respect mine in return—but I do ask that it provide evidence for the position. Some contraceptives are “technically abortifacents”, said the article, according to physicians. Which physicians, hospitals, groups said this exactly? This argument would have been valid, and would add a new dimension to the dialogue, had you named someone we can refer to.

    The second issue I have is with your position that the RH bill tramples religious freedom. ‘Religious freedom’ means that the State would be okay with me building a church for my religion, congregating with my fellow believers, and basically practicing what I believe in—as long as I don’t infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

    So in what way does the RH Bill trample religious freedom, exactly? The State passing the RH bill does not require all Filipinos, nay, not even all Catholics, to follow it. What it involves are a myriad of things, including this important implication: that if you’re Catholic, but want to use contraceptives or condoms, that you can do so, as a Filipino, under the said bill. The Church can excommunicate you, but as a citizen of this country, if this bill is passed, you are entitled to that right.

    The RH Bill—It’s like the State building its own schools and universities. Does it mean you have to go there? No. Does it trample the right of private individuals to build schools? Absolutely not. What it means is that people from across the country can go to schools built by the State in their own areas, and if they want to go to private universities to study, they can do as well. If students choose not to go to school, or to work after say, high school, why, they’re free to do so as they please, or as their circumstances allow.

    What the RH Bill does, is this: if you want any number of children, you can still have them. Two, three, five, six, twelve—it doesn’t matter. But for the people who might want some recognition or support for their choices, specifically that of how many children they will have, recognition or support which they might not be able to get elsewhere, there’s the RH Bill for you.

    Options.

    And personally, I believe the mere presence of possibilities for people gives this bill enough credence to be passed.

    Third, I find this discussion of the RH Bill entirely reliant on existing statements. While I have no doubt that the statements quoted have come from people who know about the bill, I wonder if this editorial is but a mere regurgitation of these statements, with a dash of the Constitution. I wonder if the author has read the actual bill itself, before writing this piece, given that these statements formed basis for the editorial, and not the bill itself.

    Fourth—the article said that the poor need “food, clothing, and shelter, not condoms and contraceptives”. Damn right, that’s what they need. But what if they would choose to use condoms and contraceptives—shouldn’t the government give them the opportunities to make that choice as well, regardless of what faiths say on the matter? The difference between a comfortable life and one in poverty, an education or a life in the streets, can be dictated by the seemingly simple choice to have a child right away, or to wait for a couple of years, when finances are much more stable and when parents are ready emotionally, physically, and psychologically as well.

    The current economic situation is not exactly stable, and the fact that college graduates from prestigious universities, such as this paper’s, have trouble finding jobs means that finances are hard to come by. The fact that people are still getting laid off also validates that point. If you believe, as I do, that children are an enormous investment on all counts—emotionally, financially, physically and otherwise—and that they deserve the best, then you would understand the pro-poor quality of this bill. The “pro-poor” quality of the RH Bill isn’t some PR buzzword the pro-RH bill supporters are using to peddle their beliefs along. It allows parents to get on their feet and be prepared, to give them time to think, without depriving them of their intimate activities, which couples are entitled to, should they wish to have them.

    What does this do? It keeps a father from robbing a bank, from overspeeding and causing an accident just to meet the boundary, or choosing to become a loafer. It keeps a mother or a sister from having to sell herself. It keeps a kid off the streets or out of schools. It keeps people from feeling threatened, and therefore pushing them into this ‘dog-eat-dog’ mentality and into actions they might regret.

    Again, options.

    I understand the Catholic/pro-RH stance on this issue. I understand the fears of men and women becoming blasé with relationships, with sex, with marriage, with families. I do. Who doesn’t have that fear? Today’s times have left us with stirring examples, most notably from the West. These fears are also not unfounded, and should be addressed.

    The Bible said: “Go forth and multiply.”

    But it did not say, “…to the point wherein basic necessities are unprovided, and basic rights deprived.”

    There are a lot of things that Catholics deem immoral, like pre-marital sex, but I believe it is also equally immoral to put a kid on the street and subject him to a harsh life he is completely unprepared for, because his parents could not have a condom.

    We should not blame the poor for the poverty, but nor should we blame the government entirely. We should blame a culture that does not allow its people to make its choices freely, whatever the choice may be. We should blame a culture that makes minority opinions feel unwelcome, and therefore, “wrong”. We should blame a culture wherein open-mindedness remains a rare practice.

    The solution to these fears is not to lash out at people who believe that options should be made available for everyone, regardless of their faith. What would work is that while Sex Ed classes are being taught, teachers should be telling their students not to be casual with sex, or that Guidance or Christian Living classes should tell students about how sex affects a person on all levels, including your self-esteem, which is why it shouldn’t be taken lightly. Or how about encouraging parents to communicate with their children better, and children to be more open about their lives to their parents. Maybe that would be a better solution to these fears.

    Fifth, as far as I know, UP and ADMU are not “self-proclaimed leftist and nationalist” and “democratic liberal and nationalist” universities. While there certainly are leftists in UP and democratic liberals in ADMU, I would think it a disservice to describe them in such general terms, as neither university has publicly stated that its entire population is composed of just such people. To say so is a gross reduction of these universities to mere stereotypes, instead of people which this editorial should be engaging in a civilized dialogue. In addition, despite being pro-RH, these universities have made no such sweeping and unwarranted generalizations on those who oppose the RH Bill. I could only hope that the author or the paper, at least, would accord the same respect with which it was given.

    (Note: Oh—and one more thing, just a minor quibble, so to speak. The word is ‘bourgeoisie’. I do hope the author would make the necessary correction, lest this become a focal point and distract others who, sadly, might choose to focus on such errors instead of the issue at hand.)

    • Some pills prevent ovulation. Some, however, prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus – it is then an abortifacient because the egg has already been penetrated by the sperm, and therefore already has the potency to cell-divide, in short, to start the process of growth. Only the inanimate do not grow.

      The bill is against religious freedom because it penalizes people who would speak openly against it. Section 28 of the the bill (too long, so I won’t paste it here) states that “any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act” shall be penalized “by imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six(6) months or a fine of 10,000 to 50,000 pesos.”

      Since I am a Catholic, and I firmly believe that condoms are wrong, I would naturally speak against it, an activity which can be labeled as “engag[ing] in disinformation.” I can then be imprisoned for doing so. Where is religious freedom in that, when I can’t speak something to which I am personally against?

      • Actually, no you can’t be imprisoned for speaking out against the RH Bill, on two counts. I believe the use of “malicious” in that section of the bill requires that you systematically set out to destroy someone’s reputation–in this case that of the RH Bill and its provisions–then you can be punishable for ‘engaging in disinformation’. If what you are saying is true–meaning it can be proven by people, documents, or other related evidence–it could help in removing the malice. In addition, your exercise of religious freedom is enough of a defence against ‘malice’.

        Please give the proponents of the bill some credit. I don’t think they would write a law which would send people to jail just because they wanted to know the effects of such contraceptives or because they do not approve of the bill.

        If you don’t believe in our judiciary system, then I think you should take comfort in the fact that this country prides itself in the value it places on freedom of expression, and I think by virtue of that right, you can speak out about your opposition to the bill.

        That was actually a valid question, and perhaps we should move on from issues of self-control or who has the right to what in whose body, into technical questions like these, imho.

  10. Maybe to debate with you the benefits of the rh bill is futile. You clearly have a stand and are not willing to back down at any cost. Nevermind that there were only superficial arguments in this article. But I do have to call you out on the inclusion and subsequent insulting of other universities. Your blind acceptance of stereotype astounds me. I am a student from UPD. I do not consider myself leftist. A lot of my friends would share the same sentiment. I would also like to see where you based the “self-proclaimed” leftist description, as well as our elitist position. Please, do explain.

    Respect goes a long way. Write about your opinion on the subject matter of your article. Dragging in other universities and to start making sweeping generalizations about its stance or studentry is frankly, not good practice.

  11. I expected better writing from the official UST publication.

    The tone and language of your writing, as well as the presentation of your arguments, come off as heated and biased. I guess I should have expected as much from the title alone.

    I know UST is very passionate when it comes to these things, but there is a line, once crossed, makes passion blind to everything else.

    I would have loved to read your article had it addressed the Pro-RH with a more calm and collected stance. As of now, it just feels like propaganda in the form of an angry blog post. Which is sad, because a lot of people will be influenced by this article, and all it will do is spread poison instead of awareness, regardless of whether they are Pro or Anti.

  12. you people, with your holier than thou attitudes act as if you’re always on the right, even bashing other peoples personal opinions, are the ones acting like demons and devils who whisper into peoples ears to make them follow you. God created us with free will to make our own choices. whether they be right or wrong is for Him to decide so what gives you the right to act like judge and jury to those schools you just bashed? you’re making this such an easy win for us by acting so childishly.

  13. “Much as mercy and compassion should be extended to women suffering from complications arising out of abortion, wouldn’t a law that forces medical practitioners to extend services to them, regardless of established ethical medical protocols, encourage other women to commit abortion, which is a criminal act? In short, doesn’t the RH bill in fact abet criminality?”
    – wow! kala ko ba pro-life ang stand niyo? denying women of such medical service is anti life na rin? and ‘encourage other women to commit abortion’?! ay isang malaking logical fallacy.

    “Now, Congress, backed by academics from the University of the Philippines (self-proclaimed leftist and nationalist) and Ateneo de Manila University (self-proclaimed democratic liberal and nationalist), both elitist and burgeoise institutions”
    -manggamit ba ng pangalan ng ibang university to prove your point?! what does that say about you? especially nanggaling pa sa official publication ng university. yung issue ang talakayin niyo wag ang mga taong nasa likod nito.

  14. both sides have a point…but this article really does have self-esteem issues by criticizing other schools…when you write an article, have a clear purpose…what is your purpose?

  15. “This is a violation of the freedom of religion, of freedom of conscience, and of freedom of expression.”

    Maybe you should think twice about your statements before you oh-so-recklessly dish them out like this. The RH bill isn’t forcing catholic men to wear condoms(which most of them do anyway). They are simply affording everyone access to these contraceptives, and information on how they may be used to prevent unwanted pregnancy and STDs.

    YOU are the ones whose views are going against religious freedom by forcing YOUR beliefs on us non-catholics. YOU are the ones suppressing the freedom of conscience by making people guilty of applying ways to better their health, saying it is a sin against God. And YOU are the ones taking our freedom expression by telling us that we do not have a right to speak out against your totalitarian, sexist, homophobic, and downright ridiculous demands on the government.

    And you can throw all the philosophical crap that you can manage to pick up in your books, but don’t you EVER call us Elitist or Burgeoise. Because most of those people you dismissively call “leftist” have seen faces of this society that you have never seen. YOU are the elitists, assuming that what you see applies to the whole country. That you are the standard by which all must live.

    Maybe you should get off your pedestal for a moment and see the real world. It doesn’t take much. You don’t even need to go outside your precious campus to see that people are not as virtuous and self-controlled as you’d like to believe. And we can all break out into songs and talk about how people can change, but seriously, you guys have had hundreds of years worth of trying to change society. And guess what? Your ways are not for everybody after all. Let someone else take over for once.

    PS: You have some serious editing problems. You might want to excommunicate your editor.

  16. First of all, it does not follow that these guys have low self-esteem that’s why they are mentioning other schools.

    Secondly, isn’t it ironic to dedicate money to a foreign-pushed policy of contraception when the real problem lies in the general mentality of corruption.

  17. So the philosophy of RH bill is that we must produce quality people in this nation instead of producing sex starved people who only end up as beggars on the streets, scavengers, or sellers of cheap items.
    It is really anti-poor and very judgmental. Im so sorry for the poor. this BILL is not for their benefit at all, it is for the comfort of the elites

  18. Point 1 – Great writing. Well-researched and I like the straight-out, in-your-face FACTS.

    Point 2 – Yeah! Philippines didn’t prosper under the Marcos administration. We went downhill from the very first day Marcos sat in office.

    Point 3 – Yup! Proponents of the RH bill all came from UP and Ateneo communities. They constitute, mmm what? 80% of the population.

    Seriously, get your facts straight. MINIMIZE, if you cant eliminate, your biases. For crying out loud, this is a school paper not a blog! Have you consulted the WHOLE UST community. I bet you haven’t. Before you write something like this and actually have the nerve to publish it, think twice.

    • UST has issued an anti-RH statement. Ateneo is also behind CBCP, according to Fr. Nebres. Did Ateneo consult the entire community? Duh.

      • ^This implies The Varsitarian is a mouthpiece of the school administration. Are you? I’m not from UST, but I was under the impression that campus journalism, whatever university it may operate in, is different from school PR outfit.

        This does raise the need for both schools to clarify what segment of the school they’re from when issuing statements. I doubt any school has a homogeneous stand on the issue. The Ateneo administration, at least, acknowledged in its statement that the student body and faculty do not unanimously share its stance; in fact, made it clear its students and faculty could make their respective stands on the issue.

        No school administration, or publication, should claim to speak for its studentry without any quantifiable consultation. They all still operate in a democratic country, after all.

        • Not necessarily. Just because people don’t think like you means they’ve become the mouthpiece of another.

          “No school administration, or publication, should claim to speak for its studentry without any quantifiable consultation.” Quantifiable consultation? Since when did newspapers conduct quantifiable consultations before writing opinion pieces? This is just plain ignorant. You don’t know what a newspaper is, don’t you.

  19. NAKAKAHIYA naman manggaling sa school na nangbabash ng ibang academic institutions at PINUPUBLISH PA.

    Hypocrites.

  20. I always thought that UST’s journalists and paper were one of best, but after reading this editorial, I guess I was wrong. I won’t comment on the issue itself since this was your point of view, but
    bashing other schools and labeling them as such is below the belt. Like what was said above, focus on the issue itself, not the proponents. What you’re doing is not a real editorial, but a whiny piece trying to pass for an editorial.

    • Well, Jesus did say His Father rewards the latecomers as well as the early adopters. (Seriously though, have you not been reading the Varsitarian for the last couple of years?)

  21. I am turning a deaf ear over what you said about my alma matter. I think being nationalist is not at all bad. I am taking it as a compliment–being nationalist. The part about Stalin, I will forgo but I must say that I am very curious. Coming from someone who reads the Bible, I never encountered a passage saying that people should not use contraceptives and that it’s a sin or that it’s anti-life. Or maybe this is not a matter of what the Bible says or what God says. So whose say is it and what does it really mean to be pro-life?

  22. 1. What happens to the children whom you so desperately want to be born when they are born into poverty, broken families, or incapable parents? Will the Church be there to support them, feed them, give them an education, and turn them into meaningful members of society?

    2. What happens to the poor who ask for the free health care the RH Bill seeks provision for? Will the Church provide the free health care they refuse the government to provide?

    3. What happens to the women whom the Church refuses to help, after they come to difficult decisions about children they did not plan for and cannot care for? Will the Church show compassion and help?

    The problem that the CBCP has is that this RH Bill has more to it than just contraception. It doesn’t even have provision for abortion, which is illegal, no matter how many priests insist that the RH Bill will make abortions legal. This Bill seeks to provide free healthcare and education to the poor.

    How dare so-called holy men call this bill anti-poor when being born is just the first step of life?

    There is an enormous difference between being pro-life, and pro-birth. Being born does not mean that the Church can wash its hands and say its job is done. What happens to the children after?

    I guess there are no answers for that, because the Church and all its priests just want people to be born. After that, they can fend for themselves right?

    • 1. You haven’t been around. FYI, the Church allows FAMILY PLANNING, using natural means. Yup. Planning. P-L-A-N-N-I-N-G.

      2. and 3. Did you ask your government where it spends the budget? Did you know that we have a 1.5 trillion budget annually? Can’t we spend more of that for the poor? By the way, the Church has orphanages, hospitals, charity institutions, parochial schools. It is a huge charity organization. So don’t you accuse an entire institution of not doing something about poverty.

      No abortion? have you heard of the IUD and its abortifacient effects? Some pills and their abortifacient and cancerous properties? Free healthcare and education? Are you serious? WHERE IS THAT IN THE BILL? Have you read it? THERE IS NOTHING THERE THAT WILL BUILD MORE HOSPITALS AND SCHOOLS. READ.

  23. First of all everyone has the freedom for speech if the Catholic Church cannot accept that fact then it cannot be respected back. They are not the only religion that exists in the Philippines more so the world. I am a Roman Catholic but I clearly remember that respect for other religion was taught to me back in my preschool and elementary days.

    If the Catholic Church thinks that they could have a command vote for going against the RH Bill or anything else — DREAM ON. This Religion would never be like other Religions (such as the INC – I really admire their unity) because if you look at the roots of the Catholic Church it is so damn dirty. Imagine the number of priests who have kids and things of that sort. And they have guts to actually dictate on what the people should follow. Now who is more of a dictator the Catholic Church or the late President Marcos? Also there should be a clear separation between the State and the Church. It is the right of the Catholic Church to make their own decisions BUT they should always remember that their right is also the right of the State.

    The hypocrisy of this newsletter is just too low, which is pushing me to be convinced of how UST as a university is. I don’t want to generalize but I really hope that this newsletter only reflects a few of the students, academicians and staff of the said university. Go ahead and bash UP and Ateneo, maybe its your way of releasing your jealousy because you didn’t get in any of the top 3 schools in the country. Maybe, just maybe the saying that UST really is UP Sana Tayo…

    Think before you write, or you weren’t taught to think? You were just fed with what you need to know? Open your eyes and stop judging. I believe that what your doing is NOT what your God wants.

    • I am a Thomasian and a pro-RH bill. This editorial saddens me. Are we not allowed to have our own stand anymore? I am very sure that there are other Thomasians who see the light in the RH bill.

      @P Sana T..kayo: Yes, I should have been in UP. I passed the UPCAT but chose UST due to a full scholarship granted to me.

      • Huh, who said you can’t have your own stand? Your ignorance saddens me. The official stance of UST is No to RH bill. Oh, how grateful you are to your alma mater! After a full scholarship, this is what you have become? How sad.

        • and this is a proof that he/she can have his/her own stand. yeah, you can have your stand… just be ready to be condemned.

        • I can’t get over the idiocy of this reply.

          It’s NEVER sad for a person to think with his own mind and make his own decisions. A person who makes his own stand is far more preferable than someone who promotes mob mentality.

      • Yup thats right, just be ready for all the “batikos” regarding each stand that you make. You have the right to make a stand… Anyway the title UpSanaT… kayo is just an old antic that has gone through decades. It would just really depend on how people would react and take it in =) Just like this article, anyone is free to comment and this is a healthy way to vent out our thoughts and opinions.

    • Your praise of INC betrays your double-standard. INC, for your information, DICTATES to it members who to vote for during elections. Gosh, can’t their members think? So damn dirty? Really? Check your stats. You’d be shocked. There are more cases of that nature in other institutions. The problem with you is you want to make excuses out of priests to do what you want to do. Do what you want to do, just don’t make us taxpayers pay for it with your RH bill.

      • I respect your opinions as well as the numerous opinions on this page and I’m hoping that you would respect others. With regards to INC yes they do command vote or as you call it “dictate”. We can never presume this because we are not part of their religion. It would be better if you look at the reason why people choose INC, then maybe just maybe we could find the real (factual) reason why they to such things. You may think that I make excuses out of priest but it is a fact that SOME priest really do have kids (I am judging them even if its bad to =p). I am not generalizing all priests though. I know priests who are pro and anti, i hear them out and they also listen to my arguments. I would just want to point out that the last paragraph of this article is just way too low… I think that this is the reason why this article has been getting so much attention, which leads me to asking is this a stunt to get noticed? Anyway I hope that the numerous comments enlightened you with how the pros see the bill. Just for both sides to listen and hear out how the other side thinks… Cos it has enlightened me on how anti people think =) but im still pro…

  24. Yes, you actually raised valid points.

    And you just muddied these points by being laughably biased.

    I can only beg the people behind this poorly disguised piece of “journalism”: LET THE REST OF US THINK FOR OURSELVES.

    • don’t lecture about journalism when you don’t even know what journalism is. This is an EDITORIAL, an OPINION piece. OF COURSE its biased. Just like other newspapers of the world that produce articles containing OPINION. Editorial – Definition “Usually a brief article written by an editor that expresses a newspaper’s or publishing house’s own views and policies on a current issue.”

      • I see how this is an Op-Ed material and how it will inexorably have biases. What I fail to appreciate is how this material needs to use ad hominem arguments – something which even a high school student is taught as being wrong, and something which any reputable persons engaged in publishing should know is something that is not worthy of publication. Since you’ve commendably cited a definition verbatim, perhaps you should further your research by reading up on how ad hominem arguments are unacceptable in any respectable piece of writing, journalistic or otherwise.

  25. I am from UST and I take exception to the patent insecurity displayed by this piece in having to resort to bashing other academic institutions. Is it not elementary that ad hominem attacks are fallacious? I submit that we are embarrassing, more than uplifting ourselves, as an institution (and worse, relative to other academic institutions that, rightly or wrongly, have been perceived as more prestigious) with a piece such as this. This is very unbecoming of the Varsitarian.

    • That is your opinion. On the contrary, this is very becoming of the paper, for calling wrong as wrong. Ateneo 14 twisted Catholic social teaching. UP inflicts its elitist views on the nation. There is no monopoly of ideas.

      • Calling wrong as wrong is one thing and branding individuals as elitists or boxing them on the basis of political beliefs is another. And I point this out just as I assert that branding anti-RH Catholics as “theocratic” is wrong, or just as much as I’d point out that branding priests as “pedophiles” is unacceptable.

        We owe it to ourselves to elevate the quality of our discussions and to not fall into the trap of convenient name calling. What I am saying is so basic, even high school students are taught that attacks against persons are fallacious. Now, to the extent that a piece that had to resort to personal attacks was published by a respected periodical, that is an error that has to be called out and an error which the Varsitarian is accountable for.

  26. I can’t believe that a school paper would resort to attacking other institutions. This is puerile and petty. Where is their sense of superiority coming from when their school produces such bad writers like the one who created this article?

    • That’s just your imagination. This is a debate, and so when the anti-RH are attacked, the pro-RH (academics from UP and Ateneo) should also be open for attack. Bad writing? Rewrite this article using the same arguments and let’s see why you think you are a better writer. Don’t use the word “created.” Creating is producing something out of nothing. use the word “wrote.” —> “Where is their sense of superiority coming from when their school produces such bad writers like the one who WROTE this article?”

      • You say, “the pro-RH… should also be open for (sic) attack.” So you mean that attacks against persons, i.e., ad hominem arguments, are perfectly alright? If yes, that is just baffling. As I understand it, basis English courses that are offered to (even) high school students identifies ad hominem arguments as fallacies of the most basic kind. If certain RH advocates resort to personal attacks, I will not justify them and call them out on that error. By way of a specific example, Sen. Santiago’s claim that priests do not have high IQs is a remark that’s far from impressive. Just the same, if one were to advance anti-RH arguments, such as this piece does, it is incumbent upon the persons asserting such arguments to make sure that he does not fall into fallacies. Oh, and just to point out, the use of the word create was perfectly accurate, a piece of writing is a intellectual ‘creation’ (see the Intellectual Property Code), hence it is copyrightable and protected under our laws (this is of course unless the person replying insists on a single ‘correct’ denotation of the word “create,” in which case, I invite him to consult a dictionary, and, as earlier mentioned, the Intellectual Property Code.

  27. It’s also worth noting that the author obviously does not know what he is talking about, in respect of the manner by which he attacks other academic institutions. He uses “leftist” and “nationalist” to refer to UP (albeit alleging that these are self-imposed labels). But is the author even aware of the basic configuration of the political spectrum? While leftists belong to the left of the spectrum (obviously!), nationalists belong to the right of the spectrum. Ultimately thus, the author ends up contradicting himself – something which he may not have intended but something which reveals an utter lack of understanding for that which he avers. I wonder if the author is even slightly aware of how broad the political left itself is.

    We can go on and on about how this piece is the best way to discredit itself, but beyond that I do not think that it is too much to ask that pieces such as this make an effort to present their arguments in an educated manner. Otherwise, and as we have seen, it will just end up embarrassing itself.

    • Obviously, “nationalist” here does not refer to Nazi. That’s why “leftist” was joined with “nationalist” by the world “and.” “Natdem” as distinguished from “SocDem.” Have you heard of the name of Ocampo/Maza’s party? Makabayan. Nationalist. Duh.

      • The reply obviously doesn’t get it. If at all, it comes off as nothing more than a belated comment by an apologist desperately trying to make sense of a glaring inaccuracy. Justifying the author’s error by saying nationalism and being leftist can be reconciled by citing Satur Ocampo’s Makabayan sound more like a clever afterthought than a genuine approximation of what the author actually said.

        The mere use of a conjunctive word such as “and” does not necessarily entail harmony. Merely using “leftist” and “nationalist,” even if joined by the conjunctive “and” does, ipso facto, mean that the author referred to (and comprehended) National Democracy. In fact, if the authored truly meant to refer to National Democracy, why didn’t he simply say “National Democracy”? Instead, the author chose to use such a broad and sweeping term as “leftist.” Again, it’s a clever way to make sense of what the author was trying to convey but belatedly trying to make sense of it is just too much of a stretch especially that the author simply used such broad and sweeping terms without any effort at educated qualification.

        As the person replying himself avers, advocates of leftwing ideologies in the Philippines are themselves divided – NatDems and SocDems, reaffirmists and rejectionists. To reiterate therefore, if the author was nuanced enough to be aware of such complexities, why resort to sweeping terms?

        True, groups like Makabayan have used ostensibly contradictory terms to describe the schools of thought to which they subscribe. And as these are their conceptual creations anyway, they are free to use oxymorons. Even Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party, pertaining, as it does to National Socialism (nationalism of course being perceived as rightwing and socialism as being leftwing) is a wordplay on ostensible opposites. But an oxymoron (properly used) is one thing, and an unenlightened use of big words is another. To reiterate an oft-repeated pint of mine, if the author were truly aware of the nuances underlying the language he used, then it is, at the very least, a clear case of not having literary sophistication that he will use a generalization like “leftist” instead.

        Further, granting arguendo that the author meant to refer to NatDems, that, at the the most, absolves him of ignorance in using the words “leftist” and “nationalist;” that however, does not absolve him of his fallacious resort to ad hominem arguments. I shudder to think that the Varsitarian has chosen to give credence to a piece that has to resort to attacks against institutions and the persons that comprise the same. I can see how the person replying can craft a clever defense for the author (but one that is nevertheless a manifest afterthought), but are we to excuse the author’s attacks against persons? (And yes “persons” is a proper term for UP and the Ateneo as they are juridical persons, read the Civil Code if you do not believe me.

        • I concur. The reply does sound like an afterthought. Assuming the author really intended to refer to Natdems – Satur Ocampo et al – then why would the article go on to describe the same people from UP as being elitist and bourgeois? I mean, hindi ba napaka-basic na antithetical ang leftist sa burgis? Going by the reply’s argument, that would be to say that Satur Ocampo and company are bourgeois. E hindi ba nung nakaraang eleksyon na tumatakbo sina Satur ay binansagan silang ‘komunista?’ Tapos ngayon, the same natdems will be placed in the same category as the very same class that according to Karl Marx – their intellectual ancestor – needs to be eliminated??? The great philosophers and political theorists of centuries past must be rolling in their graves!!!

          • Wag na nating piliting tama yung kitang kita namang mali.
            Sa title at last paragraph sabi “statism.” Ito and definition ng statism “the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.” Samakatuwid ang pinapahalagahan ng statism ay ang pangingibabaw ng estado.
            Ang nationalism naman ay tungkol sa pag-identify o affinity sa isang bayan (“nation”). Unang-unang itinuturo sa political science na ang nation (bayan) at iba sa state (estado). Kaya nga sa international law may mga tinuturing na stateless nations (Palestine) at nationless states (Vatican).
            Iba pa ang pagiging leftist. Ang “leftist” ay catch all term sa lahat ng ideolohiya na nasa kaliwa ng political spectrum. This is VERY braod and can refer to anarchism at its most extreme and left of center ideologies as a moderate form. What is common about them is a lack of preference for statist mechanisms. Kaya nga ang anarkismo, bilang pinaka-extreme version ng left-wing ideologies ay nananawagan na buwagin ang lahat at anumang aparato ng kontrol ng estabo o ng bansa, ie, magkanya-kanya na lang wala na lang gobyerno (medyop simplistikong paliwanag ito)
            Somewhere in the middle of the spectrum is liberalism kung saan ang pinaka-mahalagan konsiderasyon ay ang primacy ng equality at individual rights sa halip na mangibabaw ang estado (statism) o ang bayan (nationalism).
            Ngayon, ito ang problema sa article na to, what the article does is it takes so many different concepts – statism, nationalism, democratic liberalism, and leftist ideologies (read: plural) – throws them into one big pile, equates them with each other and uses them to refer / brand / categorize individuals from other academic institutions. As I’ve VERY BRIEFLY tried to explain the concepts and disparate and do not all equate with each other. It’s funny dahil maliban sa pasismo at pundamentalismo (extreme right forms of rightwing ideologies), practically ay iniinvoke na ng may akda ang BUONG political spectrum bara i-describe (batikusin) ang mga taga-ibang pamantasan.
            Hindi ko objective na magmalaki, pero bilang propesor ng political science, lumalabas na sadyang hindi nauunawaan ng may akda ang mga ‘fine details’ na kaakibat ng mga konsepto na kanyang ininnvoke. Simply put, ang pagiging liberal ay incompatible sa pagiging statist dahil paano nga naman magiging statist amng isang liberal kung para sa kanya ang may primacy ay ang indibidwal at hindi ang estado? O di kaya, paano magiging statist ang leftist kung ang pakay nga niya ay buwagin ang mga aparato ng kontrol ng lipunan?
            Syempre ang lahat ng ito ay mga ‘abstraction’ na kung saan ang konseptong nahuhulma ay depende sa posisyon ng mga nagsusulong sa kanila. At syempre, hindi naman clear cut ang mga ideoloohiya para hindi magkaroon ng blending at variation sa kanila. But even variations and blending must have some sense behind them, we do not just lump hem together and say, “statist!”

          • This is just stupid. The article criticizes UP and Ateneo for being elitist. Why? Because of their outstanding academic records? I doubt if it’s because people there are snobbishly rich, after all he’s including UP. Now, if intellectual elitism is an issue for him, the best way for him to debunk UP and Ateneo’s elitism would be to show intellectual prowess himself. But as it is, he has only shown his ignorance.

          • Analyze. Left or Right, they use State power. Hence, Left or Right, statist. Refer to the People’s Republic of China, and Nazi Germany.

          • Yet another uneducated comment. Napaka-superficial ng analysis. Just because leftwing ideologies find convenience in mechanisms of power does not mean they are statist. The comment fails to capture the distinction between totalitarianism, authoritarianism and democracy – a scale which is totally different from the political spectrum. Stalisnism and Nazism are both totalitarian but they are not both statist. Hindi po porke gumagamit ng mga aparato ng kapangyarihan ang isang ideolohiya ay statist na ito.

          • Splitting hairs. This is an opinion piece, an editorial, not a term paper. And in opinion pieces, opinion writers can opine that left and right can both be considered statist.

          • Wow. You guys are making a big deal out of nothing. What if the author simply preferred not to use the term ‘NatDem’? What is wrong with “leftist and nationalist” being used to refer to leftwing nationalism? Obviously UP is not a rightwing hotbed.

          • It matters because it reveals the author’s lack of understanding over something he claims to speak authoritatively on. Just like priests who are (SUPPOSEDLY) celibate claiming to know so much about sex. It reveals the author’s lack of credibility.

          • If the author simply did not use the word natdem, then it speaks of his failure (as a writer) to capture details and fine points which he should have been conscious of, especially considering that he was branding certain persons as being ‘leftist,’ ‘statist,’ ‘stalinist,’ etc. In short, siya naman kasi ang nag-bring up niyan at pinagmukha niyang alam niya ang sinasabi niya, so it goes to the weight of his arguments. It’s just like a color blind person insisting that im wearing yellow. Why should I believe him if it turns out that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about? So why should I believe the author about his conclusion that certain people are being statist or stalinist if he doesn’t even know the distinction between statism and stalinism?

        • Yes, I think the reply doesn’t get it. Fine, let’s say the author really intended to talk about natdems – who are after all “leftists” – but why does he go on to use the word statism? Statism is rightist. What’s really funny is that rather than successfully defend the author, the reply buries the author deeper in his own inconsistency. The reply says “Duh,” which smacks of intellectual arrogance, but as I see it, he only highlighted what’s wrong with the article.

    • How could the EDITOR of this site allowed the first line of the last paragraph to be posted???

      “…the University of the Philippines (self-proclaimed leftist and nationalist) and Ateneo de Manila University (self-proclaimed democratic liberal and nationalist), both elitist and bourgeois institutions,…”

      This is STEREOTYPING, I’m sure no Thomasian would like to be called a “self-proclaimed something.” This generalization is UNFAIR & UNJUST. I’m a proud Thomasian but I’m totally against that stereotypization. You might wanna post a retraction.

  28. The RH Bill reminds me of how people of long ago had buckets at the foot of their tables during feasts so they can vomit the food out if they were full already. They did not want to be full because they wanted to eat and eat and eat.

    That’s what CONDOMS exalt. To experience the pleasure of sex without having to have children, without the NECESSARY ‘CONSEQUENCE’ (as how being full is a consequence of eating) that sex brings.
    [although pregnancy is not only a consequence, it is in fact, a necessary object, as how nourishment is the object of eating]

    Not being able to DISCIPLINE oneself in sex, and that means to ABSTAIN from it, is but the TIP OF THE ICEBERG. Which means, a person not being able to help himself from having sex means he is a person of NO or LITTLE self-control.

    And self-control my friend, is what we need to PROSPER in this world:

    To control oneself from lazing around in front of the TV when there is work to do.

    To control oneself from saying bad words at someone when angry.

    To control oneself from staying in bed in the morning or else you’ll be late for work.

    To control oneself from strangling a person who has harmed you.

    TO CONTROL IS SELF-MASTERY

    That’s why some people are poor (some, not all) because they do not control their laziness. They would rather play tong-its or bingo than work.

    A person who cannot control sexual drive is not MASTER OF HIMSELF.

    And for Christ’s sake, a woman is FERTILE FOR TWO DAYS ONLY in a month. If a husband and wife believe their financial resources can’t support a child for the present, can’t they control for those TWO DAYS? Know then when those days are, instead of resorting to mutilating the fallopian tube or inserting rubber into a woman or taking in cancer-causing pills.

    Making condoms widely available is CONDONING the lack of self-control, sige lang, h’wag pigilan ang libog. Sige lang, ok lang ang mag tong-its buong araw. Sige lang, ok lang ang umupo maghapon at makipagchismisan. Sige lang, ok lang ang huwag pumasok sa trabaho kapag tinatamad. Sige lang, ok lang.

    I’m from UP Diliman, by the way.

    • ‘Cause if you were, you would have enough common sense that the RH Bill is not simply an issue of self-control. The use (or non-use) of a condom in an impoverished country like the Philippines has economic and social implications. Why do you think we’ve been debating about this for so long? Kasi we’re just contesting kung dapat bang magkaroon ng self-control ang mga tao? Uhm, no.

      I’m from UP Diliman too, by the way. I’m also from UST High School so you know I’m not doing this to prove my institutional loyalty, which this article is brilliantly pulling off.

    • So was Ferdinand Marcos. And several moronic classmates of mine. I’m glad I didn’t know you or I would need to adjust the number one on my list of morons.

    • …or even logic for that matter. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the compassion to lecture you, so I’m just going to ask a simple question: are you sure you know what you’re talking about? Now now, be honest. It’s already clear to everyone who’s read this comment that you don’t, so no need to hide it.

      How in the world did you get into UP Diliman in the first place? Just curious.

      • I’m so sorry, I only took Psych101 back then, and my grade wasn’t very high either, parang 2.00 lang ata. So, can you please tell me how aspects/lessons from basic psychology would support your anti-RH stance? That way, I can understand your side better and I would know where your arguments are coming from.

    • this comment had me… until “And for Christ’s sake.” as much as i agree with the main point of self-control, women’s “fertility” is not that simple.

      not all women know when they are ovulating. not all women understand what ovulation is. not all women can ovulate regularly without the use of medicines. not all women ovulate. not all women ovulate every month. not all women ovulate for exactly two days.

      this is something that differs from one woman to another. but it is something that needs to be explained and understood. (i’m how old already, but i only realized a year or two ago, just how important my ovulation is.)

      also, regardless of when a man and woman have sexual intercourse, there is always a risk of pregnancy. this risk is simply higher on certain days and lower during others, even with regard to contraceptives. and even if a woman controls her own sexual desires, it doesn’t mean people around her will do the same. what’s to stop a man from raping that women.

      of course, no matter how in control we may think we are, be it of ourselves or of our environment, we aren’t. true self-control is evidence of the Holy Spirit working in you, and the Holy Spirit comes from God. it is by God’s grace that we are able to control the desires of our flesh. without God, we truly are nothing.

      it all goes back to where you are with God. that is, if you believe in Him, in a God.

    • This is why I’m so embarrassed sometimes to come from UP Diliman as well.

      The widely touted diversity in UP Diliman’s students unfortunately also pertains to the intelligence, knowledge, and character of its recruits.

      • I’m sorry if you are embarrassed. But I do not share your embarrassment. I am in fact very proud for having come from UP Diliman, which has taught me to study things carefully and think critically about them before voicing out an opinion, otherwise, I would look like a fool.

        In line to what I have been taught, that of careful study, I read the RH bill (House Bill 4244) more than once, an activity not preferred by some on the account of the effort that reading the bill entails.
        I also read studies on demographics to see if such a thing as overpopulation exists. An article on National Geographic Jan2011 issue revealed to me that it does not, and that there is nothing to fear in how the population is growing because it is but a part of a so-called “demographic transition,” something which all nations go through. This is a process by which the population increases, doubles, and will, certainly, as backed by studies, either level out or fall at some point. There is therefore no point in overfixating on a problem which isn’t really a problem, but merely a part of a process. You might like to read the interesting article.

        I also read scientific studies on how the pills can cause changes in a woman, not only on her fertility, but also on how she chooses a mate (some use the pills for premarital sex) and how while using the pill, she ends up choosing a partner that is not biologically compatible. I can give you that article as well if you would like to read it. But then, aside from that, I’ve read studies and listened to medical doctors describe the carcinogenic effects of pills, etc. etc. etc.

        I could go on and on.

        I come here, not merely with an opinion, but with a well-studied stance.

        Some do not value study I guess as much as how UP has taught us, because they come here, voicing out their positions with their un-studied opinions for swords.

        • “… how while using the pill, she ends up choosing a partner that is not biologically compatible…”

          what does this mean? the pill turns straight women into lesbians? or does it mean they start engaging in bestiality?

          please clarify

    • Please, get off your high horse. And advertising that you’re from UP Diliman really does not do the University any good as they are know for cultivating THINKING people. Geez.

      It’s all about condoms for you and sex. Reproductive health extends to women who already gave birth or about to give birth. Think of that as you run around finding some useless cause to brandish your placards for.

      • I announced that I am from UP Diliman, not to draw attention to the prestige of it, but to the fact that not all people in UP Diliman, it being a multi-faceted community, are for the bill.
        Of course the bill is not just about condoms and sex. You are right, it is also about women and their future kids. It is also in fact about demographics, poverty, contraceptives, rights, freedom and a whole slew of issues. But you also can’t say it is NOT about condoms, because it is. My drawing attention to the condoms does not exclude the other issues. I however, for argumentative purposes, did not yet focus on them, as an article that would focus on too many things would come out disorderly.

  29. I already posted a comment, but I forgot to say this compliment, that this piece has been wonderfully articulated.
    GO GO GO GO GO USTE!

  30. hahaha. Funny how this blog entry made it in the school publication. Hahaha. Way to go UST/Catholic Church! Keep breeding more of this kind, this will surely help your business prosper.

  31. I can’t even believe that they have to literally copy-paste some contents from other website just to sound like that they really know what they are talking about. Pity. Can you at least write something original? 😛

  32. I commend Varsitarian for taking a stand, an anti-poor stand. At may gana pa kayong tawaging elitista ang ibang unibersidad. Marahil super proud ang alumni ng “prestigious” publication na ito.

    Overpopulation is not even an issue here, dahil hindi naman ito ang root cause ng kahirapan. Why do we need RH? Para sa libreng maternal healthcare for poor mothers and rights of women against domestic abuse. Hindi porket nasa UST kayo kailangan na ninyong maging polarized like the priests in your university. Use the power of your publication to make a change, not hinder change.

    • Nabasa mo ba ang bill? Libreng maternal healthcare? Ilang paanakan ang itatayo sa bill na ito? WALA. Rights of women against sexual abuse? Saang section yan? WALA. Mayroon na pong Magta Carta of Women. Matagal na. Ikaw ang anti-poor. Kasi sa halip na trabaho ang ibigay mo sa mahirap, imbis na tratuhin mo sila na may dignidad, ang gusto mo bigyan sila ng libreng condom, para di na sila dumami.

  33. A nonsense article such as this only deserves a HAHAHAHA as a reply. But because I’m from UP and I definitely know better than the writer of this article, I’d say, read beyond Sec 12, Art2 of the Constitution. There are 18 articles and more than a hundred of sections, come on. Pero kung hanggang Article 2 lang talaga kayo, Sec 6 states “The separation of the Church and State shall be inviolable.” Or read on and try to get to Article 3, Section 7 on the right of the people to information. Marami pang iba at P49 lang ang Constitution. Do some reading.

    • YOU do some reading. Did you read the bill? How about the provision forcing Catholic employers to give free contraceptives to employees? How about the provision forcing Catholic doctors to prescribe pills to patients under pain of punishment? How about the provision forcing Catholic schools to teach questionable sex-ed modules? Separation of Church and State pala ha. Separation refers to non-establishment. Non-establishment means there is no state religion. It does not mean clerics can’t participate in the public arena.

      • Non-establishment means the state should not ascribe to a set of religious beliefs. Therefore, the state should not be held hostage by Catholic belief.

        • Oh my. You guys should take some time to read. Here’s Bernas (1986 constitutional commission member):

          “When people see bishops or priests venturing into public or political life, the instinctive question that is often asked is: Is this a violation of the separation of church and state? The question is understandable because of the frequent use of the phrase ‘separation of church and state,’ and people often equate church with bishops or priests. But the negative command of the Constitution is addressed not to bishops or priests but to the state and those who exercise state authority. As to bishops and priests, the pertinent part of the constitutional command is the guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

          So insistent, in fact, is the Constitution on this freedom of religion that it goes on to add: ‘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 beneficiaries of this freedom include bishops and priests and clerics and ministers of religion of every kind. More than that, they are also protected by the freedom of speech and assembly of the Constitution.

          Am I therefore saying that, by all means, let clerics participate in the political arena? That is not what I am saying. All I am saying is that there is nothing constitutionally wrong when priests or bishops get involved in public affairs or politics.”

          • Precisely! So the leaders of the Catholic Church can be lobby and advocate for all they want but at the end of the day, the state has no obligation to follow everything that they say. In this respect, the Church should be treated no differently from any lobby group. The moment the state adheres to what the Church says as a matter of faith then the state inches its way closer to establishing a state religion and the non-establishment clause is violated.

          • Catholics, the devout ones at least, pray that the RH bill doesn’t pass because the RH bill:
            1. forces Catholic employers to give employees free contraceptives and RH services (and we thought this was about choice)
            2. forces Catholic doctors to perform “emergency” RH services or, otherwise, refer the patient to another doctor, even if they don’t want to
            3. forces Catholic schools to teach questionable sex-ed materials
            4. forces Catholics to shut up on their beliefs about RH or else be haled to court for malicious disinformation.
            Moreover, parents will lose parental right over an abused child, because the government must provide this abused child with RH services (whatever they are) even without the parents’ consent. There are many other pernicious provisions in this bill. And Catholics won’t be shut out of public debate just because people hate them.

      • Yes, you’re right that clerics could participate in the public arena, but they can’t dictate what ought to be. They cannot impose their religion to the matters of the State. You could interpret separation of Church and State that way, but it is not the only way to interpret it. Separation here also means that the Church cannot meddle with the affairs of the State. Guess what, the Catholic church was meddling with the matters of the State. Isn’t that a violation of the constitution?
        Have you even encountered a situation where a woman died just because she doesn’t have access to maternal health? Have you been in a community who were deprived of health care? Anti-advocates always sees RH as against their religion, that it is a stain in their morality, but have you ever looked at it as a means to protect and guarantee rights of women? The bill doesn’t only need reading you have to understand it, you have to see clearly what it is and who it is for.

        • ang galing mo! you took the words right out of my mouth. To the person you commented to: napapa-iling na lang ako while reading your arguments. it’s statements like your which make people not take the Catholic stand seriously…

    • Dude, I’m also from UP but I can’t say if I do know better than the writer. I don’t want to judge him by just one mere article.

      I also don’t think that the separation of the Church and State is an issue here. It is actually a violation of freedom of religion because Christians who actually follow the doctrine they are taught are forced to pay taxes that they do not want to pay since it is against Christian doctrine. Is not that repression of the Catholics? Not just the Catholics, but also the Muslims. So, is not it anti-religion even?

      I think the people themselves should buy the contraceptives if they want them. Natural family planning is free, they can use that if they don’t have the money. The state should rather use the funds for education, food, and healthcare if the problem of the poor is that they cannot provide these three things to their children.

      I am totally fine with paying taxes knowing that the money will go to these three key factors to economic prosperity for each family. Don’t blame the children. Blame our beloved corrupt politicians.

    • A nonsense article such as this only deserves a HAHAHAHA as a reply. But because I’m from UP and I definitely know better than the writer of this article, I’d say, read beyond Sec 12, Art2 of the Constitution. There are 18 articles and more than a hundred of sections, come on. Pero kung hanggang Article 2 lang talaga kayo, Sec 6 states “The separation of the Church and State shall be inviolable.” Or read on and try to get to Article 3, Section 7 on the right of the people to information. Marami pang iba at P49 lang ang Constitution. Do some reading.

    • correct! problema dito sa editorial ng varsitarian nagmamarunong e. in a previous article regarding the RH bill, the writer claims that separation of church and state applies only to the state and not the church. stupid lang. thomasian pa naman ako and this claims that it speaks for the thomasian community

  34. Wow, everyone wants to have his or her own opinions heard. :))

    I don’t like this one bit.

    Gee, I guess people abuse the human rights to speak out their minds with sassy comments. :))

  35. Tinuturo sa basic english courses (high school level) na mali ang ad hominem arguments. Lalong idinidiin ang kamalian nito sa mga writing courses at sa logic subjects sa college level. Samakatuwind dapat alam ito ng mga mag-aaral sa isang iginagalang na pamantasan lalo’t higit na sila ay patnugot iginagalang ding peryodiko nito. Ikaw man ay pro o anti-RH, taga UST man, taga-UP, Ateneo o high school student na gumagawa ng simpleng report, alam mo dapat na mali ang ad hominem arguments. Kahanay ‘yan ng non sequitur, begging the question, circular reasoning at kung anu-ano pang pagdadahilan na mali at walang kredibilidad. Katulad din ng plagiarism, ang mga tulad nito ay hindi dapat inilalathala. Bilang mga mag-aaral sa iginagalang na pamantasan, dapat ay alam natin ito, yan ay maliban na lamang kung sasabihin natin na mas marunong pa ang mga high school students na naturuan tungkol sa mga fallacies.

    • Ikaw naman, nakakita ka lang ng Ateneo at UP sa dulo ay pinakyaw mo na ang pagkokomento ng “ad hominem.” Paano naman ang mga naunang bahagi? Maraming valid points duon.

      • How conveniently escapist! Nai-point out ang mali sa artcile tapos tatakbo ka sa ibang “valid” points ng article? The author should meet the arguments head on and be accountable for his errors. That is, unless the author will suddenly disavow his own assertion. Bakit hindi sagutin ang allegation ng fallacy at sa halip ay tatakbo sa “naunang bahagi”? Doesn’t that constitute an admission that the author’s fallacy is indefensible?

      • Evading the question. Diba fallacious din to? 😉

        I think the allegations of ad hominem attacks are a very valid point, one which the author should answer for and one which this discussion should not lose sight of. After all, fallacies are indicative of an author’s credibility. While the ad hominem observation may not be a direct response to the points raised in the article’s earlier paragraphs, it is a significant collateral attack on the soundness of the article as a whole. Parang hearsay diba, regardless of what a witness says, the moment it’s identified as hearsay, it’s all thrown out of the window, it’s rendered inadmissible and the witness loses credibility.

      • I am anti-RH (in fact I graduated from a minor seminary) but I also happen to be from Ateneo (college). Let me point out how and why ad hominem arguments are just not acceptable. Yesterday, Fr. James Reuter (as reported by the Philippine Daily Inquirer) reprimanded Ateneo pro-RH professors, this is indicative of the Ateneo’s continuing stand (as asserted by Fr. Reuter) which remains consistent with that of the Catholic Church. And then I read about this article that claims that the Ateneo is “elitist and bourgeois,” and on what basis? Simply because it ALLEGEDLY does not conform to Catholic orthodoxy – something which Fr. Reuter’s statement clearly belies. But see, what this article did was only to irritate individuals who HAPPENED to belong to the criticized schools. What it did was only stir negative sentiments. The Church took offense when Carlos Celdran branded the clergy as “Damaso,” do we honestly think that itr makes us better persons that we use the same personal attacks? And really, can you blame the commenter for placing emphasis on how “ad hominem” arguments are destructive when the effects of attacks against persons are precisely that they alienate people and prevent fruitful discussion from being pursued. If the intention of the author was to present valid arguments then I applaud his intention, but I have to agree that personal attacks are something that he should take account for and something that the Varsitarian should watch out against on future occasions. If we really speak out of faith and out of sense of being Christian, then I think it’s upon us to take the high road and not use personal attacks.

    • “THE AD HOMINEM FALLACY FALLACY

      One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is “ad hominem”. It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don’t need it when they’ve got ad hominem on their side. It’s the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

      In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker’s argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn’t there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person’s arguments.

      Therefore, if you can’t demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can’t demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent’s sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

      Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal “ad hominem” are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.”

      HAHA!

      • This guy obviously doesn’t get it. He’s simply resorting to circuitous and unnecessary complications of something so manifest. Hindi pa ba obvious na personal attack ang nangyari? The problem with this is post is that it lacks common sense.

  36. I JUST READ THIS IN ONE OF THE REPLIES IN CARLOS CELDRAN’S BLOG ENTRY..I think this has a point…

    The RH bill basically aims to make use of tax payer’s money to purchase condoms and other birth control materials to be given free by our government health authorities. Even schools will be mandated to disseminate information population controls. End purpose of the bill is to reduce the doubling population of the country and make it manageable. But have the supporters of the bill considered this OTHER POSSIBLE MAJOR UNINTENDED SCENARIO OR OUTCOME?

    IF ACCEPTANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS POPULATION CONTROL IS VERY SUCCESFULL, THE PHILIPPINES WILL BECOME A MUSLIM MAJORITY NATION IN THE LONG RUN. GOODBYE ONLY CHRISTIAN NATION IN ASIA!

    WHY?

    Who are the active supporters and proponents of this bill? No one else but the present ELITE CHRISTIANS, INCLUDING CATHOLICS AND OTHER DENOMINATIONS WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FOR CHRIST! While these CHRISTIAN groups are trying to control their population, the MUSLIMS POPULATION KEEPS ON MULTIPYING. There is NO Muslim countries, with their state religion-ISLAM endorses birth control program. Sooner than you will expect, the Muslims will be the MAJORITY POPULATION IN THE WHOLE PHILIPPINES. Do you remember that in the early ‘70’s, nowhere you will see Muslim communities in Metro Manila, but now they are everywhere.

    Has anyone take a historical look at the population change in some Middle Eastern countries? Egypt, in the olden times was majority a Christian country. The rich Christians there practiced birth control by limiting the number of children to two and in the end, the Muslim population grown exponentially overtook their communities until they become minorities. This scene is duplicated in many communities in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria where once big communities of Christians thrives but all now were overwhelmed by Muslims population or even persecuted by the state religion. The demographic change towards Muslim majority in these Middle East countries, I admit though, is mainly by Islam conquest). But, no doubt, the Middle East Christians western view and practice of population control accelerated their population decline.

    If passed by the Congress, it could be considered as the start of timeline in the decline of Christian Majority in Philippines and President Aquino will be etched in our history as the one who started the demise of the only Christian country in Asia-Welcome Muslim majority Philippines.

    I am not against Muslims (I am an OFW in a Muslim country) but I want everyone to see the possible long run effect of what the proponents of this bills they are heading to!

  37. First of all, I would like to make this clear: I mean no offense and I am very fond of your school. I also know that, while I am Pro-RH Bill, there are (or may be) decent arguments against its passage even though I have yet to hear any. The intelligent arguments seem to have been drowned in the stupidity of others.

    But this… this is just wrong. I for one am shocked to see such blatant misinformation, such irrational and illogical arguments, and such horrid mudslinging. This should not be allowed to be published or even vaguely associated with the work of The Varsitarian, a respectable and honorable publication. As a concerned student of another university, I implore you to have this stupidity removed and spare your good university the shame of such shameless and capricious opinion.

    I am a student journalist myself, and I know for a fact that this is improper. And again, I must reiterate that I have great respect for this institution. But this is an outrageous embarrassment.

  38. Napakadaming alimango dito sa forum nato. NAKAKAIRITA KAYONG LAHAT. Imbes na dalhin sa mas mataas na lebel ang usaping ito at magkaron ng MAAAYOS na mga punto, eh ang ginagawa nyong lahat ay nag-babangayan! Kaya hindi umuunlad ang Pilipinas dahil imbes na i-acknowledge natin ang diversity of thoughts of the people and ponder about these, instead, we let our pride surface and discriminate each other’s origins, disrespect opinions and point out non-sense thoughts.

    Both sides (Pro-RH & Anti-RH people) have strong and weak points. For me, the government already gave the Church enough chances to address their concerns, and apparently they haven’t exhausted all their issues because of their strong opposition of the bill. WE DO NOT FULLY KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ON THE SERIES OF DIALOGUES BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE GOV’T.
    Yes, you may have heard some news, but I’m pretty sure they’re BIASED regardless whether it came from a Pro-RH or Anti-RH group.

    So as citizens of this beloved country, the least we can all do to understand the sentiments of both sides is to read and CAREFULLY ANALYZE the content of the LATEST RH Bill, Read the Constitution (which is only 49 Php) for reference, and be aware of the news.

    God Bless us all.

  39. You lump together fascism, stalinism, and somehow still manage to allude to democratic practices all in one paragraph. That says a lot about the quality of the accuracy of your knowledge of political science.

    As my Brazilian friend has commented after reading this, “you are still debating this at this day and age?” Yes because Brazil, the largest democracy in Latin America, the most ardent defenders of Catholic faith (more than the Spanish and Portuguese) have (a) created the divorce law as early as 1977, (b) accepted same sex marriage in 2011, and (c) rewrote their interpretation of the right of the unborn in 1998. So even the most Catholic of all have accepted modernity and changes in social structures.

    And most importantly, if contraceptives are available, and people know how to use the properly, we will avoid unwanted pregnancies and therefore less chance for them to commit abortion???

  40. You lump together fascism, stalinism, and somehow still manage to allude to democratic practices all in one paragraph. That says a lot about the quality of the accuracy of your knowledge of political science.

    As my Brazilian friend has commented after reading this, “you are still debating this at this day and age?” Yes because Brazil, the largest democracy in Latin America, the most ardent defenders of Catholic faith (more than the Spanish and Portuguese) have (a) created the divorce law as early as 1977, (b) accepted same sex marriage in 2011, and (c) rewrote their interpretation of the right of the unborn in 1998. So even the most Catholic of all have accepted modernity and changes in social structures.

    And most importantly, if contraceptives are available, and people know how to use the properly, we will avoid unwanted pregnancies and therefore less chance for them to commit abortion???

      • Well, all countries in the world have divorce laws except Vatican and the Philippines. Spain, Argentina, and Brazil have accorded rights for same sex couples. And most of all, contraception is literally FREELY accessible to the public across most countries which have majority of Catholics. What makes you think the Catholic tradition in the Philippines is the best and most progressive?

        And if you write an editorial, do bear in mind that some people actually study the differences among concepts like stalinism, democracy, fascism so this editorial is insulting to political scientists who spend years making nuanced arguments about the use of these words.

  41. I’ve been reading the arguments and while some seem circular in nature (let’s not bring religion into this please) I just have one question: has anyone thought of the Philippine’s population growth momentum? the Philippines’ total fertility rate is 3.2-3.3…the total fertility rate of SE Asia on average is 2.5, does that say something? While I’m against killing life, I do wish that people would pay more attention to the social consequences.

    The Philippines simply cannot afford to have more people. period. Approximately 11% of our country’s GDP is earned through remittances from OFWs, and if the world’s economies continue to weaken, then many of them will begin coming home. We’ve lost a lot of arable land due to natural disasters, and we simply do not have enough space, resources or money to properly provide for our rapidly increasing population. While I do agree that abortion is wrong, I believe that the mother should have a choice IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES (i.e. rape or medical reasons ONLY, like if the mother’s life is at risk as well).

    Thus I believe not in abortion, but in the use of contraceptives which will prevent a baby from being created. I do agree that this will most likely allow teens to have pre-marital sex earlier on (especially if they push for sex-ed in schools), but I believe that being made aware of the consequences and being given the knowledge will benefit teens more than keeping them ignorant.

    And please, I agree with Donna C. let’s all talk about this issue as adults? There is no need for name calling or pointing fingers, and treating others respectfully, even though others may not respond in the same manner, goes a long way towards working for a better solution.

    • Francisco Tatad:

      “Our population growth rate (National Statistics Office) is 2.04 percent, total fertility rate (TFR) is 3.02. The CIA World Factbook has lower figures — growth rate, 1.728 percent; TFR, 3.00.

      Our population density is 277 per square km. GDP per capita (PPP) is $3,400. Fifty other countries have a much lower density, yet their per capita is also much lower. Thirty-six countries are more densely populated, yet their GDP per capita is also much higher. Are the few then always richer, the many always poorer? Not at all.

      Our median age is 23 years. In 139 other countries it is as high as 45.5 years (Monaco). This means a Filipino has more productive years ahead of him than his counterpart in the rich countries where the graying and dying population is no longer being replaced because of negative birth rates.

      Our long-term future is bright, because of a vibrant and dynamic population.”

  42. He probably mentioned other universities to stir controversy regarding his blog post… and to start debates under the comments section–the students from different institutions being the participants.

    It increases viewership in a flash too, don’t you think?

    Cheap shot with the “self-proclaimed” tag too.

  43. First, please be careful in your choice of words. Phrases like “dark social-engineering dimensions and “he poor as sex-starved rabbits” does nothing to clarify important aspects of the debate or any part of the bill for that matter.

    Secondly, mentioning specific schools and describing them as
    “self-proclaimed leftist and nationalist” (UP) and “self-proclaimed democratic liberal and nationalist (ADMU)” has no bearing whatsoever in the issue. Are you suggesting that because one school is supporting the bill, that they want to have control over the entire population? Isn’t this too much of a leap?

    Third, I think you should reconsider your arguments based on the bill. The RH bill is not limited to providing the state with free condoms. This was just emphasized because of the disagreement on the matter. As was mentioned above, it primarily focuses on improving reproductive health. This is a major concern for women and for life. We don’t have enough of the facilities and the budget for pregnant women. Please take time to read about the services like these available in the country. Also, denying women of health services because of abortion, in my belief, is also anti-life (if you would like to come up with classifications). We have laws that address this crime, we do not need to withhold any health service from anyone because of this.

    Now to avoid distancing ourselves from the issue you can just directly point out what is wrong with the bill. Back them up with stats. If you don’t believe that this could alleviate poverty then provide another solution. Do not rest on provocative language and name-calling, this does nothing for you. If you truly believe that the bill does more harm than good, then present your points clearly. I recognize that this is an article for the opinion section but for you to be able to affect and convince people to join your fight, you have to show them that there is truly a fight.

    Ngayon, para sa iyo, bakit hindi dapat ipasa ang RH?

    • Did you read the editorial? I can point to 5 paragraphs there that pointed out what is precisely wrong in the bill. And please. The government has a budget of P1.5 trillion. TRILLION. And we have no money?

    • Obviously you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker the RH propaganda. Which logical fallacies? Methinks you’re just hiding behind the bush by crying “fallacy.” Learn to analyze. For example, the RH bill has a conscientious objection provision, BUT, it negates it by REQUIRING by law ‘that the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible’. (Sec. 21) So even if a Catholic or Muslim doctor refuses to perform a ligation, they are required to refer. People who conscientiously object must NOT be required to refer. They are already objecting.

      Another: The RH bill carries with it an oppressive punishment for people who will not comply with it, making disagreeing with it and teaching something contrary to it a crime. Section 21 of the RH bill says that “the ff. acts are prohibited: any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall knowingly withhold information or impede the dissemination thereof, and/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.” BUT- who defines what is correct or incorrect here? The RH bill and its proponents. If the RH bill proponents says that an IUD is not abortifacient, and abortion is not wrong, and that life does not begin at conception, all of which are totally wrong and against Christian principles, so when Christian health workers will teach about the sanctity of life and that life begins at conception, and that sex should only be between married couples, we will be violating the RH bill and committing crimes once it becomes law.

      Still, another: The RH Bill will require Christian churches and schools to provide reproductive health care services to its employees. All abortifacient forms of birth control, those that prohibit the conceived embryo from implanting in the uterine wall, are unacceptable to Christian teachings. The RH Bill will require employers to provide “reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers.” The RH bill will punish employers for not following section 17, which states: “all Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers. In establishments or enterprises where there are no CBAs or where the employees are unorganized, the employer shall have the same obligation.” So employers are required to provide reproductive health care to its employees! Remember, this will become a law. This will affect Christian, Catholic and Muslim employers, even Christian churches and schools, because our churches and schools have employees. Remember, intrauterine devices and some birth control pills are abortifacient, meaning they prevent implantation of an already-conceived embryo. Life begins at conception, therefore anything that kills an embryo or prevents it from implanting causes an abortion or death of the human embryo. As Christians, we know that life begins at conception. We reject any form of any birth control that kills a conceived life.

  44. Sa totoo lang, galit ang mga yan sa Varsitarian kasi hindi sila makapagsulat ng ganyan kagandang editorial. Yun lang yon!

  45. The RH Bill lets Filipinos choose, whether or not they will use contraceptives. hindi naman mandatory. yung perang gagamitin for that Bill ay investment para umunti ang population ng Filipinos, because in case you did not notice, sobrang daming Pilipino. Konti ang anak ng mayaman, sobrang dami naman sa mahirap. you know why? because poor people do not know that they can do something to prevent having lots of children. tapos the church will prevent the government from educating these people? ung natural na way ay di naman epektibo. wag kayong bulag, cause if it were effective, hindi sana tayo overpopulated. kung mas madami ang mahirap na kailangan pakainin ng gobyerno, there would be less money spent for each person. kaya nga nagiinvest sa RH Bill, para in the long run, konti na lang Pilipinong nangangailangan ng tulong at dahil mas maunti sila, mas madami ang pera na gagamitin sa bawat isa. puro kayo corruption, lagi na lang sinasabi na un ang puno’t dulo ng lahat. oo laganap corruption sa Pilipinas, pero laganap din ang populasyon na padami ng padami. e mas maganda nga kung inaalis lahat ng problema diba? problema tulad ng populasyon. and sa pagkakaalam ko,THE GOVERNMENT AND THE CHURCH ARE TWO SEPARATE INSTITUTIONS. kung ayaw ng church ng bill, then tell your followers that. but don’t prevent those Filipinos that want the Bill and need it. and don’t be selfish kasi hindi lang katoliko ang relihiyon sa Pilipinas. lahat ng pilipino maaapektuhan.
    wag na sana makealam ang church sa gobyerno. sana hindi beliefs nyo lang tinitingnan nyo. reality din sana.

    • oo pero sa RH bill:

      1. ang mga Katolikong employer ay kailangan magbigay ng libreng contraceptives sa mga empleyado;

      2. ang mga Katolikong duktor kailangan magreseta ng emergency contraceptive sa may gusto nito;

      3. ang mga Katolikong eskwelahan kailangan ituro ang mga questionableng sex-ed modules

      4. ang mga Katolikong mariin ang paniniwala laban sa RH ay di pwedeng magsalita laban dito kundi ay aakusahan ng “disinformation.”

      KULONG LANG NAMAN AT MULTA ang parusa sa mga Katoliko. So much for freedom, huh? TEKA, binasa mo ba?

  46. The RH Bill lets Filipinos choose, whether or not they will use contraceptives. hindi naman mandatory. yung perang gagamitin for that Bill ay investment para umunti ang population ng Filipinos, because in case you did not notice, sobrang daming Pilipino. Konti ang anak ng mayaman, sobrang dami naman sa mahirap. you know why? because poor people do not know that they can do something to prevent having lots of children. tapos the church will prevent the government from educating these people? ung natural na way ay di naman epektibo. wag kayong bulag, cause if it is effective, hindi sana tayo overpopulated. kung mas madami ang mahirap na kailangan pakainin ng gobyerno, there would be less money spent for each person. kaya nga nagiinvest sa RH Bill, para in the long run, konti na lang Pilipinong nangangailangan ng tulong at dahil mas maunti sila, mas madami ang pera na gagamitin sa bawat isa. puro kayo corruption, lagi na lang sinasabi na un ang puno’t dulo ng lahat. oo laganap corruption sa Pilipinas, pero laganap din ang populasyon na padami ng padami. e mas maganda nga kung inaalis lahat ng problema diba? problema tulad ng populasyon. and sa pagkakaalam ko, the government and the church are two separate institutions. kung ayaw ng church ng bill, then tell your followers that. but don’t prevent those Filipinos that want the Bill and need it. and don’t be selfish kasi hindi lang katoliko ang relihiyon sa Pilipinas. lahat ng pilipino maaapektuhan.
    wag na sana makealam ang church sa gobyerno. sana hindi beliefs nyo lang tinitingnan nyo. reality din sana.

    • Dr. Jesus Estanislao (google him):

      The bill aims at fewer babies being born in our land, under the premise that the fewer they are, the better off the Philippines would be: fewer mouths to feed, fewer children to educate, fewer people to care for. This premise looks at children—indeed at people—as mere liabilities. It turns a blind eye on the other side, that they can be—indeed often are—great net assets.

      The bill claims to make the road to development much easier: the fewer babies we have to provide for, the more resources we free up for investments, particularly for infrastructure. It forgets that the best investment we can make is on people, on a big natural base of human resources.

      The bill ignores one of the most pressing development issues now confronting Japan and a few other countries as well, including many European countries and soon also South Korea and China. Ageing of the population, arising from too few babies being born, is bringing about a demographic winter, which considerably darkens the long-term prospects of the economies concerned.

      • Really? Poor Japan! Poor Europe! They’re NOTHING compared to the glorious Philippines and our robust population!

        • Oh, yeah. They have big problems. People don’t like to have kids anymore. Governments are pushing people to have more babies. Their population is AGEING.

  47. For the first time in this country, a government did just that. What it had to do to curb population growth. How long has the Catholic Church been preaching for natural family planning? the evidence is in your faces, it does not work! The government, being the only entity in this country, (yes, not even the Church) that ought to look into all sides of an issue, ought to be non-secular, is finally starting to realize that the Catholic solution does not simply work! Hence, it started to look into other means. Bakit, Catholic church ba ang nagdedeliver ng social services? oo may social projects sila, pero sinisisi ba ng mga mahihirap ang pari kapag gutom sila? Hindi, gobyerno ang sinisisi! Kaya hindi dapat magalit ang Catholic Church when the government is starting to step up and do what it has to do. RH Bill is long overdue. Kung gusto nyo ng gobyerno na magaadopt strictly ng Catholic values, AT YUN LANG ANG PAKIKINGGAN NG GOVERNMENT, dun kayo tumira sa Vatican!

    • Oooops. Not supported by facts. From 3% decades before, population growth rate is down to 1.82%. By 2040, it’s going to be just 1%. Meanwhile, the percentage of poor people has gone down from 59% in 1960 to 26.5%.

      • The reply conveniently considers only rates (1.82%, 1%, 26.5%) while choosing to disregard the base. In other words, yes it’s just 1.82%, but 1.82% of what? A 90 million or so population? Contrast this with with the base applicable to the seemingly higher 3%. It’s not too much to ask for a balanced consideration of facts is it?

        • The population growth rate has slowed down and it’s irreversible, that’s the point. Now, let’s consider Total Fertility Rate (TFR), the average number of children per woman. It’s quoted by NSCB for the year 2010 at only 2.96 births per woman; a big decrease from the 2000 figure of 3.41 births per woman. Young couples are having lesser children than their elders (even in informal dweller areas), with many young couples saying they plan on having no more than 2 or 3 children (or much less than their elders who had 4-6 children per family.). The population is no longer exploding.

      • yes, i wouldn’t have said it if i did not read the editorial. it is well thought-out and clear. the editorial clearly pointed out why the RH bill is unconstitutional and anti-life.

  48. I am a graduate of UST and am now taking my post graduate at the Ateneo. I am ashamed that this editorial piece ever saw the day of light. If the writer of this editorial is a TRUE THOMASIAN, he would’ve exercised restraint in lambasting and generalizing both UP and ADMU. He would have also (and most importantly) used arguments that MAKE SENSE. Take for example the following quote

    “Moreover, the bill compels medical workers to provide services to women suffering post-abortion complications, which is a condonation of abortion and violates the penal statutes on the crime. Much as mercy and compassion should be extended to women suffering from complications arising out of abortion, wouldn’t a law that forces medical practitioners to extend services to them, regardless of established ethical medical protocols, encourage other women to commit abortion, which is a criminal act? In short, doesn’t the RH bill in fact abet criminality?”

    The conclusion of the writer of this article is that helping a woman who committed abortion to recover from the ordeal is tantamount to condoning abortion. SERIOUSLY? Do you not see the absence of logic in that? By analogy, the writer is saying that –> If a murderer is shot in a hot pursuit by the police and is rushed to the ER for treatment of wounds, the police are condoning the murders he committed. NASAAN ang pagiging Katoliko mo? AND did you RESEARCH AT ALL? Nasaan sa Articles 256-259 nakalagay na ang pagtulong sa babaeng nag-pa abort ay isang krimen?

    • Put up your own newspaper. Read this and do some thinking. You are naive and obviously are not aware that the law is subject to multiple interpretations. And implementation is a different thing, given the dubious language of RH.

      “Contrary to claims by RH bill proponents in Congress that abortion is not mentioned, the bill specifically mentions abortion in Sec. 4 in its definition of terms: It lists as the fourth element of reproductive health care the ‘prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications’. You may say, but it prevents abortion, what’s wrong? But why must ‘management of post-abortion complications’ be part of reproductive health? Abortion is a crime. Why must the RH bill specifically mention management of post-abortion complications? It specifies ‘abortion’ as the cause of the complication. What this does is that it sets apart induced, illegal, morally wrong, criminal abortion as a procedure or cause necessitating management. Why not just make it a more general ‘provision of emergency obstetric care to everyone who needs it’? The very fact that abortion is specified as the cause of the complication means that the RH bill condones abortion and gives it special treatment. Abortion is murder of the unborn baby and a grievous sin before God. It is the shedding of innocent blood. It is a crime under Philippine laws.”

    • Excuse me, you do not define what a Thomasian is. My question to you is, do we need to pass a Magna Carta for Murderers so that a murderer who is shot in a hot pursuit by the police and is rushed to the ER will be treated? Obviously not. Murderers brought to the hospital will of course be treated. Later they will be charged in court for the crime.

      • Like duh.
        I was merely saying that the writer’s argument that helping a woman who suffered abortion is tantamount to condoning abortion is as illogical as the argument that helping a murderer is tantamount to condoning his crime.

        btw, you are defeating the “logic” of your argument. Your statement reads “murderers brought to the hospital will of course be treated. Later they will be charged in court for the crime”

        What makes a woman who is guilty of abortion any different? Why is she not entitled to medical help?

        And sorry lang ha. Kasi bago ako gumraduate sa USTe ang alam ko may Three C’s ang isang Thomasian. COMPASSION,COMPETENCE, COMMITMENT. Does the branding of other schools and the argument that professional health workers must not be compelled to give medical aid to women who have suffered abortion pass the first standard? Let’s not get into the second standard kasi i’ll feel bad saying stuff i can’t take back. 🙁

        • Like, yeah. Don’t you get it? Women with post-abortion complications will be treated in hospitals any given day EVEN WITHOUT THE RH BILL. Why is this provision inserted, if not to provide an opening for those who would like to escape the penal provisions against abortion? You are correct. What makes a woman guilty of abortion any different? Abortion is murder. She will be treated for the complications, but she is still a murderer liable under the penal code. There are “established medical protocols” for that as stated in the editorial. In the same way, a murderer with gunshot wound will be welcomed in the hospital for treatment any given day, he doesn’t need a law for that.

          • you said “Why is this provision inserted, if not to provide an opening for those who would like to escape the penal provisions against abortion? ”
            The bill expressly recognizes that abortion IS illegal. How can this provision which merely wishes to clarify that “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” be a loophole by which those guilty of abortion can escape punishment?

          • Obviously, for you to think that this cannot be a loophole, you must believe that lawyers and RH implementers are all angels. And how can we not doubt that this can be a loophole? The lobbyists of RH are funded by foreign groups espousing abortion. The international definition of RH includes access to abortion. Hillary Clinton: “I’ve worked in this area for many years. And if we’re talking about maternal health, you cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.” There you go.

          • You could not have said it better 🙂
            Let’s not give up this fight. I love your “Magna Carta for Murderers.” Mag-iisip din ako ng iba, let’s see: “An Act Providing for the Welfare of Arsonists” para kung sakali masunog sila in the process of burning someone else’s property, may gagamot sa kanila. We really need such a law, don’t you think? When I become congressman, I will pass a bill like that, to protect the arsonists. Kundi, mamamatay sila. Kasi baka daw hindi sila gamutin sa ospital kahit mukha na silang barbeque.

          • That’s why the title is correct. RH bill wants to expand the powers of the state unnecessarily, an effort partly fueled by the obsessive hatred of certain sectors for what the Church stands for.

    • I don’t think the situation you raised of the murderer is a correct analogy.

      First, of course, we will help a woman, by all means, who encounters post-abortion complications. If a woman comes to a hospital bleeding after having inserted a hanger into her cervix in the attempt of aborting her baby (that’s how some do it, by the way), it is A DUTY FOR THE HOSPITAL or healthcare provider to treat her. It would be wrong for a hospital to refuse healthcare.

      That is a given. Meaning, WITH OR WITHOUT the RH BILL, doctors would help and treat a woman who would suffer complications.

      But here comes the problem. If the RH bill specifically announces, rather assures women who would undergo abortion that they will be helped in case they commit abortion, then it is sort of saying that in the event that you commit abortion, you need not worry. We are here to help you. That’s how Section 8 of House Bill 4244 (RH bill) makes it sound. To quote the bill:

      “Temporary facilities such as evacuation centers and refugee camps shall be equipped to respond to the special needs in the following situations: normal and complicated deliveries, pregnancy complication, miscarriage and post-abortion complications, spread of HIV/AIDS and STIs, and sexual-based violence.”

      The Varsitarian is not saying that a person who had undergone post-abortion complications should not be helped. They should in fact be helped. But it would be an entirely different thing to raise a “treatment” or “solution” to an act (in this case, abortion, something morally and gravely wrong) before it has been committed. In which case, it would really be condoning crime.

      The RH bill would be like of proclaiming to all murderers, to make my argument in line with your analogy: Hey all murderers, in case you get shot by the police, we have ready facilities to attend to you.
      Do you see how nonsensical it would be?

      But, in the case of a murderer who really was shot, then of course the hospital would treat him. What makes the RH Bill wrong is to ANNOUNCE SUPPORT or assistance to women with post-abortion complications, as if assuring the “murderer” that in the end, since facilities are available to treat her, then there is no need for her to fear to have her child aborted.

      • …Really. You make no sense. Promise. I really tried.

        You say:

        “WITH OR WITHOUT the RH BILL, doctors would help and treat a woman who would suffer complications.
        But here comes the problem. If the RH bill specifically announces, rather assures women who would undergo abortion that they will be helped in case they commit abortion, then it is sort of saying that in the event that you commit abortion, you need not worry. We are here to help you.”

        Sooooooo…. You ASSUME that GOOD healthcare is UNQUESTIONABLY AVAILABLE to post-abortion women. (Already flawed logic, AND no basis in reality at all.)

        But you don’t want a law to say that.

        Because we don’t want them to think that they will be able to get healthcare.

        Whew!! 1984, here we come! Doublespeak is alive and kickin’!

        And how exactly is the analogy flawed in the way you say it is? Isn’t it the same: “Oh thank God, even though I just killed someone and also happened to be injured, I can rest easy knowing I’ll get good healthcare even though I did something that’s supposed to be sinful in the eyes of God and man!”

        But I suppose murderers and rapists are SO much more virtuous and worthy of saving than those WHORES, right? Right???

        …But it’s okay. You tried. *patpat* I’m sure ga-graduate ka pa rin naman dyan e. Dun worreh, be happeh!

        • Aha — you assume that good healthcare will be UNQUESTIONABLY AVAILABLE when the RH bill is passed. WRONG. How many hospitals are going to be built by this bill?

          “But you don’t want a law to say that.” — We don’t want a law that will be used as a loophole for abortion. Right now, there is a law that will punish doctors for not doing their job. It’s called the MEDICAL ACT.

        • This is why your analogy is flawed, at least in my view:
          because the act of treating a murderer is not condoning the act of murdering. it is just performing a rightful duty, that of curing the injured, murderer or not, abortionist or not. However, PROCLAIMING BEFOREHAND the availability of such a service would be doing so.

          Let’s say, the government, in wanting to assert the welfare of would-be murderers would pass a law in their favor (of course the government wouldn’t do so, precisely because murder is a crime, and abortion is too) and say “For the welfare of all criminals, we will treat them after having been shot.” It would be nonsensical for the government to pass such a law, precisely because, they would be drawing attention to how they are in favor of murderers, And besides, as i pointed out, we really treat people when injured. Why would you make a law something that’s already been practiced since time immemorial?

          If however, you do make that a law, it would communicate this message: “In case you kill someone, we are here to treat you.” It’s something you cannot understand precisely because it is purely nonsensical. It also would be encouraging would-be murderers because it is saying “in case” when in fact there should be no “in-case” on the account of the act’s immorality.

          Btw, I already graduated from UP Diliman some years ago…Anyway, I do appreciate the time you took for going over my comments. I understand that you also strongly feel for this, and I admire people who can stand by their position, rather than be apathetic about the whole thing. We are all just concerned for the same issue, for the good of the women and the country and the poor, but for the lawmakers, I am not sure if this is really their real concern, because at this point, they deceive us in saying some parts of the bill have already been amended when in fact it hasn’t been yet. To see deceit even before something has been implemented means that there will be deceit later on. That’s why I feel for this also, because here we are, you, me, people on this website, trying to defend our positions on a bill which, for the Congress, is not about the issues we are passionate about, but for their personal gain. That’s all, I hope you understand.

          • But you are only assuming the [lack of legislative] intent of the post-abortion treatment provision. My interpretation was that it was placed there to nip discriminatory doctoring in the bud. Granted, doctors already have administrative regulations for that, but the provision could also serve as the basis for criminal penalties specifically against doctors who discriminate against post-abortionists, when the IRR is drafted for the RH bill should it be passed into law.

            Granted that abortion is a crime, or an assumed crime, this provision only underscores that criminals, or assumed criminals, are still entitled to humane treatment.

            “Proclaiming beforehand the availability of such a [medical] service” for criminals is not condoning criminality. If any law stated the availability of post-crime medical treatment, if any law decides to underscore criminals’ human rights, it’s just a simple statement of fact.

            And I doubt people will be encouraged to commit crimes just because a law states they will be treated if they get hurt. If someone told me “Hey! Let’s rob that house because if we fall off the roof or impale ourselves on the fence, we’ll still get hospitalized,” I’d still say “No, thanks. I have no dreams of being the world’s most stupid criminal.”

    • it seems that you didn’t get it right. why compel medical practitioners to take care of women suffering post-abortion complications when abortion itself is illegal? if the RH bill is indeed anti-abortion, it would be logical for the authors of the bill to delete that portion because it explicitly ABETS criminality.

  49. So by your own reasoning, physicians should likewise NOT care for injured or sick murderers, rapists, thieves, cheaters, adulterers…

    Hayaan niyo silang mamatay lahat! Now THAT’s a population policy we could agree on, no? It would also sure clean out our government! Kudos Varsitarian! Despite yourself you may have actually crapped out a laughably almost-valid point!

    • “The RH bill lists as the third element of reproductive health care the ‘proscription of abortion and management of abortion complications’, and in Sec. 3, it lists ‘care for post-abortion complications for women’ as its 9th Guiding Principle.This ‘management of post-abortion complications’ phrase is the most horrible part of the RH bill because of its utter disregard for the aborted baby’s life. And though the bill proscribes or prohibits abortion, it actually makes ‘management of post-abortion complications’ a reproductive right. Therefore, if the bill becomes law, any one can abort/kill their baby and they will be guaranteed the right to ‘management of post-abortion complications”.”

      • wow, you really… did not at all in any way address my preceding comment. hahahaha! nag-reply ka pa! go USTe!! ang galing galing niyo talaga!! wooh!!

      • Management of post-abortion complications?

        I ask you then– drugs are prohibited, YET, there are institutions that manage the complications/health hazards after using drugs.

        Does that mean that we are pro-drugs as well?

        To the point that you’d rather watch a woman who had undergone abortion to just suffer multiple complications, which are obviously fatal?

        To the point that you’d rather watch a person who was addicted to drugs to just suffer multiple complications, which are obviously fatal?

        • Of course we are not pro-drugs when we treat someone who has had complications from drugs.
          However, we don’t need a LAW calling for the care of drug-users, as much as how we do not need the RH BILL calling for the care for women with abortion post-complications, because MAKING SOMETHING A LAW draws a picture, sends a message we do not want sent.
          And besides, we already are providing healthcare for drug-users or abortion post-complications. No need for a law to state something obvious, unless their reason for MAKING THE LAW is to make us believe that abortion is okay, or will be okay.

      • Abortion DOES NOT only refer to termination of pregnancy as chosen by the expectant mother. ABORTION CAN BE INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL, in which case the latter is synonymous to miscarriage. Please try to read some medical dictionnaries or other related literature before coming to a conclusion that the RH bill is gibberish, anticonstituntional, anti-life, or what-have-you.

        Put yourself in a situation wherein your woman friend/family member is experiencing a difficult pregnancy, and is having complications which pose a threat to her life and to the baby’s as well — or better yet, if the woman has had a miscarriage. My mother has had a miscarriage, and was granted a post-abortion care. Can you conclude that my mother killed what was supposed to be my youngest brother? GET REAL.

        • Get real, too. Of course only intentional abortion is punished. Doctors are prohibited from assisting in an intentional abortion, or they will lose their licenses.

          Difficult pregnancies and miscarriages are obviously not the types of abortion deemed illegal. Hospitals will treat difficult pregnancies and miscarriages today, even without your RH bill, as you yourself have attested to — “My mother has had a miscarriage, and was granted a post-abortion care.” So, do we need a provision in the law for that?

    • Reading you comment just made my day. haha.

      Maybe we SHOULD just leave all the sick criminals to die. That might actually solve a couple of problems in our society. Let’s go one step higher, shall we? Aside from their right to medical care, we can just withdraw their rights to eat and drink, too. THAT would speed things up, I think.

      haha!

  50. You see, all who disagree with the RH bill are the “indios”. Stupid Filipinos still blinded by the catholic faith used by the Spaniards to make the Philippines their territory. That’s why we were called indios in the first place. STUPID PEOPLE.>.<

  51. oo nga naman, bakit tax ng mga Katoliko ang ipambibili ng contraceptives when it goes against their beliefs? but aren’t our Muslim brothers and even those belonging to other religions also paying taxes being used to put up Christmas lights along our main roads during Xmas season? even big Christmas trees in front of government agencies? or Christmas bonus for government employees?

    • Okay lang. We also declare Muslim holidays where Catholic employers are forced to pay overtime to those who have to or need to work to meet production deadlines, even if there are few or no Muslims in their companies.

    • Bakit, STRONGLY AGAINST ba ang mga Muslim sa mga Christmas lights, Christmas trees, Christmas bonus? Nagra-rally ba sila sa Batasan para hindi maset-up ang mga ilaw na yan? They don’t practice Christmas, but I’m not sure if they are STRONGLY AGAINST such things.

    • ^Also, our taxes house and feed murderers and rapists in jail facilities or in other custodial centers. We’ve never lobbied against that, or the lack of our consent for that budget allocation; why should we suddenly be so sensitive and victimized about taxes being used to buy contraceptives? It’s the least of a pro-life taxpayer’s moral conundrums. :))

      • Huh? Who wants murderers and rapists out of jail? Even Catholics don’t want that. Catholics want their taxes, which finance a whopping P1.5 trillion budget annually, to go to real solutions like education, jobs, infrastructure. Imagine, we have P1.5 trillion and people still say we don’t have money?

  52. Is it a problem to have more muslims than christians? Does the increase number of Muslims pertain to any catastrophic scenario? This statement is a mockery of both religions. first, it discriminates the Muslims. second, it tries to speak of the christian religion as based on nothing more than ancestry. It tells us that the faith we actually have is nothing more than spoon fed beliefs from our elders and not something we believe to be true by themselves. Let us not belittle the capacity of the human understanding to be able to choose which religion he believes is true. If christianity is indeed more truthful than the muslims, then the proper human person will choose it over the other.

    Further, i would think that this is something that should not matter in terms of legislating the rh bill. For one, the philippines is not just a catholic country but a pool of many religions. thus, it is unfair to declare the states stand only according to them – a such a law on the separation of church and state.

    Another thing, they have been arguing that the fund for RH bill is better distributed to the creation of schools, homes and all other amenities they would want to give to handle the needs of the growing population. This is a good plan… only in terms of short term goals. It may alleviate the needs of the current decade but what comes in the future when the population further increases. By then, we would need additional funds (probably double than what we currently need for the implementation of RH bill). What we actually have here is a long term cure for the population problem.

    People who read this or publish things from here are probably those from the academe. Thus, i hope that before trying to abide by the dogma of their university’s religion, better yet implement first their rationality and be able to analyze more rather than directly leaning to the what-bible-or-god-says-arguments. We should be reminded that God himself has given us the gift of our very rationality. Let us implement it for it is also through it that we may attain the truth. Whatever your stand maybe. I do believe that this is your way in finding the answer. 🙂

    • No one wants to wipe out Muslims, OK?

      Now, about your long-term solution. The real long-term solution is education. Studies have shown that more educated couples limit their children on their own. At any rate, the trend of declining population growth has become irreversible. In 1960, the pop growth rate was 3.01%. Now, it’s at 1.94%. The fertility rate is also down to 3.19 from 6.85 in 1960. People are having fewer children than ever before, as per capita incomes rise. Do you want our population to age at a faster rate, like what’s happening in Japan and Europe where people are not having children anymore? Then pass the RH bill.

      • The RH Bill seeks to educate the youth, especially those who have parents who don’t know better. As for having fewer children and per capita income, it’s the other way around. Per capita income rises BECAUSE they have fewer children.

        • The teaching of sexuality education is mandated under the DepEd Memorandum 261, a de facto policy that integrates it in various subjects and year levels.

          Per capital income can also rise when gross domestic product rises. Give people jobs, and they will create wealth. Give people school education, and they will themselves limit their children. For instance: “According to data from Demographic and Health Surveys for nine Latin American countries, women with no education have large families of 6-7 children, whereas better educated women have family sizes of 2-3 children, analogous to those of women in the developed world.”

  53. “…If one pits all of the questionable provisions of the bill against this proviso, one will recognize how the bill is in fact an attack on the 1987 Constitution that had been overwhelmingly ratified by nearly 80 percent of the population! One will agree with the Varsitarian that it is “deadly,” “anti-life,” “anti-family,” and “anti-constitution.” One will recognize that the RH bill is an attack on human dignity and the Filipino nation!”


    –> And you claim yourself a journalist? When you consider something, you should do so within the context of the times. Times have changed since the ratification of the constitution in 1987; remember that we’re already in 2011 so some parts in the Constitution may no longer be relevant given current realities. And the reality let’s face it is that we have a ballooning population, a significant percentage of which unfortunately is poor, many of which are uneducated and unenlightened as to how to make their lives better, that the government just can no longer fully support. While I give you credit for some of the agreements that you presented, I certainly am baffled and sourly amused by this one. “..attack on the 1987 Constitution that had been overwhelmingly ratified by nearly 80 percent of the population” PFFT. Wake up, it’s been more than twenty years since.

    I agree that it might be better for our resources to instead be directly invested in education and in bettering our social service institutions, but surely given our staggering problems and issues concerning rapid and successive pregnancies among the poor who just cannot afford more children, teenage pregnancies etc (e.g. **Philippine statistics on maternal deaths is too high, 162 per 100,000 births, which is almost three times the Philippine (development millennium) goal of 52 by 2015.), some form of compromise can be reached. I say it’s about time for us to formalize and pass into law regulations that concern our people’s reproductive health, and that we do it now. God, the first time this bill has been introduced was still back in 1998, and it’s now 2011. We need to move on people. The poor needs and has the right to be given the option to use the feats of science to their advantage if they so choose. And don’t misunderstand this, I myself am against abortion. But it seems that a problem lies with the very word ‘abortion’ and our definition of it. For me, it’s the removal of the fetus from the mother’s womb so the term is applicable only when a baby has already been conceived–and that is what I am–and you should be–against.

    **http://www.tucp.org.ph/news/index.php/2011/03/population-poverty-and-the-reproductive-health-bill/

    • Where is it in journalism that when journalists “consider something, [he] should do so within the context of the times”?

      This thing that you were referring to is not some thing. It’s the Constitution. You don’t tinker with it just because you find it inconvenient.

      The reason maternal deaths are high is because the government has simply failed to put resources into healthcare. And this us despite the fact that the annual budget is P1.5 trillion. Yes, trillion. Yes, we have moolaaah.

      Maternal care is laudable. Who doesn’t want to reduce maternal deaths? The problem is, this bill lumps together maternal deaths with many other things when in fact, the problem of maternal deaths can be solved without this bill. Let the DoH do its job.

      You also do your own research.A baby has already been conceived at fertilization. Fertilization=Conception. The RH bill will allow access to a full range of contraceptives, including the morning-after pill, which simply prevents the fertilized ovum from sticking to the uterine wall — hence the term abortifacient. So, enough of your hysteria.

  54. I am a 27yo young professional who wrote an undergraduate paper defending the Church on its involvement in politics (this was in the aftermath of EDSA II when the Church was being criticized for ‘politicking’) – take this mention of my background for what it’s worth.

    Now, consider these ladies and gentlemen:

    1. I’ve seen one comment below where one went on to lengthily claim that what happened here is not ad hominem – and he ends with “HAHA!” (whether or not that is accurate is another matter altogether). Now, ad hominem or not, the effect of this article has clearly been TO OFFEND individuals from other institutions. In other words, we can be very technical and all, but we cannot discredit the clear result that has arisen from this article. The most articulate of defenses can be written but against the clear fact that negative feelings have arisen out of this, there is simply no counter-argument.

    2. So that begs the question, ad hominem or not, did this article really further the merits of the Church’s arguments or did it only spread greater discord and ill-will?

    3. I don’t know about the other Catholics and Christians who have seen, read and commented on this article, but my understanding of Christ’s teachings is that it has been against proselytizing and bigotry. Did Christ not criticize the pharisees for their hardline stance on matters of faith? Did Christ not preach a message of tolerance, forgiveness and community? And was it not precisely Christ’s very vocal opposition to sanctimonious / holier-than-thou attitudes that brought him to disfavor with the religious authorities of his time – something that ultimately led to his death?

    4. I invite you to consider the adage, “the medium is the message,” that is, the manner by which something is said or an idea is conveyed will inevitably affect the value and weight of that message.

    5. Now granted that there is merit in the intentions of the article, was the article nevertheless un-Christian in the MANNER by which it delivered its intended message? Was the lambasting of other institutions really essential to a meritorious presentation of the article’s intended (if indeed intended) rational arguments? Or have these insults been nothing more than unnecessary surplusage that have caused, if not worsened already existing, divisions? Or worse, did the article not only alienate (as someone below pointed out) and drive away others who may already share or may be led to share the Church’s position? Talaga bang kailangang may banat pa sa mga taga ibang school? Or for that matter, kailngan bang may banat pa talaga sa kung sino mang ibang tao?

    6. Much has been said about the intricacies of fallacies and ethics in writing, about the status of or prestige associated with various universities and their pedagogies, there have even been (interesting, and I must admit, enlightening) discussions on political ideologies. But what it all boils down to is whether or not the article has been an effective advocate of the Church’s cause. As regards this, I humbly assert that the article has not been successful.

    7. Some would say, pro-RH advocates have aired insults and personal attacks too. I agree, and even the threads below are replete with this. But, and again I assert this with humility, is it not precisely the challenge of being Christians that we should not be vindictive / vengeful. Did Christ himself not discredit the concept of an eye for an eye? I suppose we can all realize that there is a line that divides legitimate self-defense from belligerent retaliation. As someone below pointed out, the essence of opposing the RH Bill is in asserting that we should not fall prey to our human passions. If that is so, then is not anger and the drive for retaliation also a human passion that we must control? Is not wrath as much of a deadly sin as are lust and gluttony?

    Taking the “high road” (as someone below puts it) is indeed very challenging, but I think, our Christian faith calls for nothing less than overcoming such an overwhelming challenge. After all, did not Christ himself win over his tormentors by a show of love and temperance rather than by an overwhelming show of force?

    • Lots of things wrong, especially No. 3.

      No. 1, Jesus said he could cause division. “I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing! There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is My anguish until it is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three; a father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

      Uhhhm, did you read the bible? Did you read the part where Jesus said, “You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good?” How about this: “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” Oooops, name-calling.

      St. Peter was really harsh: “Bold and arrogant, these men are not afraid to slander celestial beings….these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish…..They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done….They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood!….Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.”

      Also, when Christ entered the temple of Jerusalem, there was absolutely no show of temperance. He simply drove all the vendors out.

      How wrong is it to label UP academics leftists when the institution is itself a hotbed of the Left? How wrong is it to call the Ateneo liberal when liberals abound in it and it has produced liberals like Noynoy and Risa H.? UST and the Church don’t take issue when it’s called names, like conservative, orthodox, dogmatic. Enough of the appeal to pity.

          • I think that Christianity is better defined by peace advocates like Bishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador, Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo of East Timor, Martin Luther King, than by proselytizers and puritans. While Catholic clergy like Bishops Romero and Belo are beacons and exemplars of Catholic virtue, it is universally recognized that historical episodes like the inquisition, while perhaps having the best intentions (preserving the integrity and orthodoxy of the Church), is an example of the errors of the Church when it took excessively fundamentalist positions.

            There’s nothing wrong with preserving Catholic orthodoxy, but the moment it comes at the expense of respect for our fellowmen, I think that’s wrong. Why should we choose name-calling and bashing when we can instead follow the finer examples of Oscar Romero, Carlos Belo and Martin Luther King? Oscar Romero and Martin Luther King who were both assassinated for choosing the path of restraint and peace are now universally hailed as heroes, while Bishop Belo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

            In fact, let’s not go far, the recently beatified John Paul II is an outstanding exemplar of peace himself. Shot by an assassin he chose to forgive. Faced with an ideology like liberation theology, he criticized it as radical and remarked, in his opening speech at the Puebla Conference, “THIS CONCEPTION OF CHRIST, AS A… SUBVERSIVE…, DOES NOT TALLY WITH THE CHURCH’S CATECHISMS.” John Paul II described the way of conflict as “always a defeat for humanity.” ALL OF THESE EVEN AS HE NEVER LOST SIGHT OF DEFENDING CATHOLIC ORTHODOXY.

            Simply put, advocating our faith is not incompatible with peace, and given a choice between conflict and peace, why should we not choose peace?

          • I’m from UST and I have friends from UP and Ateneo. A friend from UP is now a seminarian and consistently write anti-RH blogs on his FB account. A friend from Ateneo was the secretary general of their Parish Youth Ministry, he is also consistent with the Church position. I myself am very active in the lector and commentator ministry of our parish. As a Catholic, I am very thankful for the influence of my friends from UP and Ateneo. So hindi naman siguro ‘ok lang’ na sabihing ang isang tao ay leftist palibhasa galing siya sa UP, o liberal dahil galing Ateneo, o elitista o burgis o stalinista dahil galing sila sa dalawang schools na yun. They are my friends and I will stand up against insults directed at them because of the simple fact that it’s not right to neatly put them in boxes or categories. Kahit anung anggulo natin tignan, mali ang mag-generalize.

          • I think it’s dangerous to be very literal with the bible, and to take quotes in isolation at the expense of the bigger picture. As in Law (statutory construction), legal provisions should not be read in isolation, but a law / statute should be read as a whole. As a famous jurist put it, “The key to the opening of every law is the reason and the sprit of the law – it is animus imponentis, the intention of the law makers, expressed in the law itself, taken as a whole. Hence to arrive at the true meaning of any particular phrase in a statute, that particular phrase is not to be viewed detached from the context.” But enough of law and let’s focus on the matter at hand. True the quotes cited by the reply are in the bible, but quotes cited in isolation invite danger. Here, it’s manifest that the reply cites them for the particular (note, limited) purpose of refuting the 27yo yuppie who posted the comment.

            In sum, I don’t think it’s proper to take those quotes (cited by the reply) in isolation and say, on the basis of them, that the basic Christian message of peace and communion as advanced by the 27yo yuppie are rendered nugatory, in the manner that the 27yo yuppie has espoused. It is basic that the fundamental tenets of Christianity are characterized by peace, humility, love, communion; and this is a message that is borne by the whole of the Bible (certain, ostensibly contradictory, statements notwithstanding).

            Thus, Isaiah, writing about the coming of Christ writes “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The PRINCE OF PEACE. Of the increase of his government and PEACE THERE SHALL BE NO END…” (Is. 9:6) The Beatitudes say, “Blessed are the meek, the merciful, the peacemakers.” (Matt. 5: 3-12). In fact, the Beatitudes’ idea of meekness, peace and tolerance are so defining of Christianity that the atheist Friedrich Nietzsche has made it a point to raise it as an issue against Christianity, saying that the Beatitudes are indicative of a Christian slave morality. But Nietzche’s statements aside, we know, because of our faith, that the Beatitudes do not preach self-destructive teachings. In fact, it is the same Christian faith that inspires us to persevere and sustain ourselves through life’s challenges – and this is what we call temperance.

            We can go on an on with this, Exodus 14:14 invites us to be serene in the Lord (thus a call for temperance), it says, “The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still.” Psalm 34:14 reminds us, “Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it.” Zechariah places primacy on the grace of God rather than on discord and conflict, “NOT BY MIGHT NOR BY POWER, BUT BY MY SPIRIT.” Psalm 44:6 warns us against over-reliance on conflict-based struggles, “I put no trust in my bow, my sword does not bring me victory.” Isaiah 59:8 warns of the consequence of not treading the path of peace, “The way of peace they do not know; there is no justice in their paths.” 1 Chronicles 28:3 even manifests God’s dislike for those who prefer the way of conflict rather than the way of peace, “You are not to build a house for my Name, because you are a warrior and have shed blood.”

            One would probably be amazed to realize that, as we have seen above, the Old Testament (that part of the bible which is associated with eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth) is filled with exhortations on peace, serenity and temperance. But beyond that are the even clearer words of the New Testament. Jesus himself very clearly said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…IF YOU LOVE ONLY THOW WHO LOVE YOU, WHAT REWARD WILL YOU GET? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?” (Matt 5:43-44). Further, in this particular quote, one will notice that Jesus never fails to be critical of tax collectors, yet even as he critical of them he has chosen to not drive them away. In fact, in comparing the the tax collector against the self-righteous religious leaders, Jesus goes on to say, “I TELL YOU THE TRUTH, THE TAX COLLECTORS AND THE PROSTITUTES ARE ENTERING THE KINGDOM OF GOD AHEAD OF YOU.” (Matt 21:32) This is proof that while Jesus criticizes, he does not alienate and instead remains warm and welcoming. Jesus goes on to exhort us to remain cordial with everyone, even with those whom we disagree, He says, “AND IF YOU GREET ONLY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, WHAT ARE YOU DOING MORE THAN OTHERS? DO NOT EVEN PAGANS DO THAT?” (Matt. 5: 43-44, 46-47). In Luke 6:27, Jesus says, “Love your enemies, DO GOOD TO THOSE WHO HATE YOU.” St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:33 tells of God “For GOD IS NOT A GOD OF DISORDER BUT OF PEACE—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.” In Romans 14:19, St. Paul calls upon us, “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.” St. Paul speaks of non-retaliation in 1 Thessalonians 5:15 when he says, ” MAKE SURE THAT NOBODY PAYS BACK WRONG FOR WRONG, BUT ALWAYS STRIVE TO DO WHAT IS GOOD FOR EACH OTHER AND FOR EVERYONE ELSE.” St. Paul’s words in 2 Timothy 2:24 cannot be any clearer, “THE LORD’S SERVANT MUST NOT BE QUARRELSOME BUT MUST BE KIND TO EVERYONE, able to teach, not resentful.” James 3:18 speaks of the reward for peacemakers, “Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.” And St. Peter, also cited by the reply nevertheless described Jesus in this way, “WHEN THEY HURLED THEIR INSULTS AT HIM, HE DID NOT RETALIATE; WHEN HE SUFFERED HE MADE NO THREATS” (1 Peter 2:23). Finally, St. Peter is categorical when he says, “All of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble” (1 Peter 3:8)

            As I said, we can go and on about this, I’m sure the Bible also has statements where God promises hellfire and brimstone against sinners, but to me, the bottomline is what Jesus himself said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” (Matt. 5:38-42) Now while, it is admittedly dangerous to be very literal about this quote, what is clear is the underlying message and this, to me, is the real message Jesus preaches, not rancor and ill-will, not retaliation and wrath.

      • this is really amazing. On the one hand is a commenter who chooses to go into the essence of being Christian, while on the other is an oppositor who berates someone for apparently not reading the bible. I won’t engage the latter in an argument because for those who have ‘mastered the bible’, there’s just no winning. But kudos to the first commenter, if not for the accuracy of what he said, then at least for managing to get beyond all the hatred. Now that’s Christian!

      • Wow! Such animosity. Sorry po kasi wala kaming doctorate in sacred theology para maging mga dalubhasa sa itinuturo ng simbahan. But really, to dismiss a politely written comment as a mere appeal to pity… that’s just arrogant.

      • It really is a challenge to control oneself. Brazenly displaying one’s biblical aptitude is PRIDE meethinks.

      • You might as well tell everyone who disagrees with you to burn in hell. Pero diba “judge not and you will not be judged.” Wag sana tayong masyadong mayabang. Yun lang po. Pasensya na sa mga magsasabing misguided ako. Simpleng kuru-kuro lang naman.

          • Err, I don’t think anyone lost sight of the fact that it is an Op-Ed piece, ie, kuru-kuro. And we are commenting so what’s your point?

      • “For the confusions around are mere reflections of what’s within me.”

        Others may choose to be combative, others may choose the path of peace. Tina-try kong himayin yung mga sinabi wala namang masama dun sa comment, ang dating sakin, simpleng pananalita lang naman na wag maging combative. Pero nasasa atin naman yan. Pero ako, tingin ko, yung taong kayang maging serene, siya ang nasa grasya ng Diyos.

      • Sir, I do not contest your intelligence. It seems na maalam nga kayo sa bible. Pero maganda yung point ni kuya, the medium is the message, e bilang napaka-malumanay niya, tingin ko nakapuntos siya dito. Pero ako lang naman yun at sino ba naman po ako at ano ba ang credentials ko tungkol sa theology?

      • This just smacks of intellectual chauvinism. It’s very tempting to say, “Ikaw na ang matalino sa bibliya.” Salamat na lang sa mga magagandang halimbawa, that way we can let cooler heads prevail.

      • Yes, and you would have us focus on CERTAIN verses that are divisive rather than the overarching message of love and peace?

      • It’s interesting how the reply cites Matthew 3: 7 (You brood of vipers…) when in that quote Jesus was referring to the pharisees and the sadduccees whom Jesus criticized precisely because they were SELF-RIGHTEOUS.

        • Of course there can be modern applications of Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees. But remember Christ condemned them for their refusal to accept his messiahship. That’s the original context. Should people fault the Church for upholding the teaching of Christ, the high level of morality he preached (i.e. “But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”)? Problem is when we don’t like the message, we simply dismiss it as self-righteous.

          • Err, who’s being dismissive, the commenter’s here who’ve taken pains to write laborious explanations or the ones who would just convenient use categories and insults? And that goes for everyone pro or anti-RH

          • “Problem is when we don’t like the message, we simply dismiss it as self-righteous.”

            Then this simply means that anyone, whatever his persuasion may be, may fall into the trap of being self-righteous. If some people ‘don’t like the message’ and act dismissive, then they are equally being self-righteous in the sense that they claim to know better. So that just puts us into square one, both sides being stubborn and refusing to allow for a more level-headed approach to discussions. The point of this entire thread is simple, let’s be level-headed, let’s be rational, we can be assertive but not aggressive, we can be firm without having to be hurtful. I admire most of the commenters who are now able to see beyond the superficiality of the semantics being used but are instead able to appreciate the reality that at the end of the day, no one is going to come out of this better if we choose to hurls insults at each other. Sige, let’e engage in mudslinging, how does that make us better than the most reviled politicians?

      • I abide by Church teachings (that means I oppose the RH Bill) but even this saddens me. Perhaps the biblical mastery of the person replying is admirable, amazing even, but it would have served him well to take the road of humility. Surplusage (to borrow the original comment’s words) of details aside, to me what matters is the essence of the original comment – that we can go about this peacefully, without having to be at each other’s throats. From all indications, the writer of the original comment is a devout believer who happens to see the way of peace rather than the way of conflict. And that’s very Christian. I remember a priest friend who, when my aunt asked him about Christian apologetics said, “Traditionally ginagawa po ‘yan pero ang mas maganda approach ay yung mahinahon na usapan, focus on shared values kaysa sa mga points of difference.” Siguro ang cliche pakinggan, pero give peace a chance. If we go for peace, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

      • I hope you guys devote the same kind of energy to these people:

        CARLOS CELDRAN: “just got chewed up and negged out by Bishop Bacani on GMATV. Wild. What an angry and bitter man… I think I need a chakra cleansing. Oof.”

        BETH ANGSIOCO: “The silent majority supporting the bill should now be counted. We need the hero in you to come out for this bill. Damasos controlling women’s ovaries should be no more.”

        Iloilo Representative JANETTE GARIN: “Hypocrisy in your institution is pulling you down..we object to the imposition brought about by stone-age beliefs not intended for the good of the many…”

        Rather than applaud the heresy of Catholic professors who like to get salaries from a Catholic and Jesuit university, I also hope the Catholics in this thread use their zeal in correcting the grievous mistake of the Ateneo 14 in twisting Catholic teaching to justify their claim that it’s perfectly OK for Catholics to use contraceptives.

        • I do not think the comments are losing sight of the error of the above-mentioned pro-RH advocates whenever they engage in name-calling. To me it’s clear that the common sentiment is, it’s wrong to hurl insults whichever persuasion one may hold.

          Be that as it may, the challenge nevertheless takes particular significance for Christians because that is the call of Christianity. I mean, if Celdran, etc. choose underhanded tactics then, I suppose that’s not very surprising precisely because they choose to not tread the Christian path. But Christians know better, can do better and they should show they can do better.

          Now, if Christians can do better, I think they can deliver their message more clearly and more effectively. Let me put it this way, yung mga aktibista na binabatikos ng article na to, why doesn’t anybody listen to them anymore? It’s because banat sila ng banat, lahat na lang imperyalista, lahat na lang pasista, tapos, pag nag-rally naninira ng mga gamit, nagpipinta ng graffitti na pader ng may pader, nambabato ng itlog (Esperon, 2006) o nambabato ng paintbomb (UPLB Chancellor 2010). Nakakaturn-off yung violent ways nila.

          Ikumpara natin sa mga peace advocate na gaya nina Gandhi, Oscar Romero tsaka Martin Luther King (na binanggit nung comment sa baba), diba mas malinaw at mas kahanga-hanga sila dahil hindi sila bumababa sa lebel ng karahasan o ng pang-iinsulto? In fact it’s precisely because of their meekness that they are held in such regard. Si Aung San Suu Kyi ng Burma, diba sa lalong panggigipit sa kanya ng rehimen ng Burma at sa lalong pagtitimpi niya nakikita kung gaano katama ang ipinaglalaban niya. As Christians we have the examples of so many Christian martyrs who took the high road and we recognize them as prime examples of faith and virtue for it.

          • Where were you ‘Christians’ when Ateneo 14 twisted Church teachings to mislead other Christians?

          • I know for a fact that there were “Christians” who engaged them in enlightened debates, wrote them letters, wrote articles in academic journals and rationally debunked their claims. “Christians” who did not resort to branding and insults.

          • These are Christians who will die for they faith, Christians who can exemplify their best virtues without having to be combative.

          • Shouldn’t Christians go on offense, sometimes? Sometimes? Especially when a bill such as this seeks to undermine their core beliefs?

          • I will say it again, I share the Church’s position (anti-RH). So, I agree, by all means lets be firm, by all means let us assert, by all means let us stick to our faith. But being firm is one thing, being stubborn is another. By all means let us attack the errors of their arguments. But let us retain our sense of being humane in doing so. Read below and you will read of a comment about a seminarian from who once studied in UP but now, as a seminarian, he writes anti-RH blogs; then contrast this with the generalized insults hurled at the WHOLE of UP and anyone or evreryone who is from UP (hotbed of leftists, etc). Now isn’t that unfair. By all means let’s make a stand for our faith, but let us remain decent in doing so.

          • Fair and decent for you is free speech for another. Saying ‘hotbed of leftists’ doesn’t mean each and everyone there is a leftist. Na-ah.

          • Thank you for not sharing what APPEARS to be the conclusion of some that saying that the institution is something applies to all affiliated with it. In all sincerity, thank you, God bless!

          • Well and good for you my friend that you see through the hasty generalization. But care to read below and the inexorable conclusion is that some have indeed chosen to generalize.

          • This is just pompous.

            Even a first year law student knows that the right to free speech is never absolute. For that matter, even an undergrad studying the Constitution knows it’s not absolute. Ever heard of “fighting words”? (Read Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 468 and don’t tell me I can’t cite US jurisprudence because Cong. Pacquiao cited Wisonsin V. Yoder 406 U.S. 205 when he was interpellating Cong. Lagman) Fighting words are not protected speech along with defamation, obscenity, inciting to riot, imminent threats (read about the clear and present danger rule). That’s why calling African Americans the “n-word” is considered hate speech and is not constitutionally protected. Ever heard of the term “red-tagging”? That’s a perfect example of insidious fighting words.

          • You expect that comment to be taken seriously? Incredible. Many newspapers around the world have used the words leftist, nationalist, elitist, and bourgeois to describe people and institutions. There aren’t enough jail cells in the world!

          • Spoken like a true lawyer. Please tell that to Manny Pacquiao, Noynoy Aquino, Lea Salonga, Risa Hontiveros, and other non-lawyers involved directly and indirectly in the RH lawmaking process.

          • This reply just took the statement out of context. A matter of jurispridence was cited. So ano, tatalon nanaman tayo sa ibang topic. Ang escapist naman.

          • Hindi ko alam kung pang-ilan na ako na nagsabi na nakakalungkot itong takbo ng usapan na to. care to notice how apart from the thread on top (yung NGO NGO) ito na lang ang tumatakbong thread? Yes, the thread wgere Christians are fighting amongst themselves. If you don’t mind, I’ll just hearken to the original post, that this is a call for sobriety and civility and to me, there’s nothing wrong with that. Now, lest we put ourselves in a situation where we will let ourselves be used by the cunning of the devil by having Christians fight among themselves, I do not see anything wrong with heeding the call for sobriety and focussing on what we can collectively gain rather than on what we all all lose if we end up divided and conquered.

          • You make a sweeping statement by citing newspapers the world over, as against s statement that even has citations of jurisprudence and you expect that to be taken seriously? Incredible. There’s just not enough books to educate people in the world.

          • It would have been nice if the response answered the argument squarely instead of making a blanking invocation of “newspapers around the world.”

          • OK, let’s ask our lawyer here to go to the prosecutor and file a complaint for the use of these terms. Then come back here and let’s discuss again.

          • Unconstitutional does not mean criminal. Ergo, going to the prosecutor cannot sole this matter. Again, useless to argue legal points with a non-lawyer.

          • So, tell me. What law was broken by the use of the term “hotbed of leftists”? NONE. Please. Free speech, attorney. It’s not absolute. But “hotbed of leftists” will cost journalists? They might as well not write at all.

          • The provisions of the Civil Code on Human Relations which call upon us to be careful even when we are exercising our rights. It exhorts us to tread carefully and not effend others’ sensibilities even when we are practicing our legally mandated rights. Art 26. thereof exhorts us to respect the personality and dignity of persons. “Red tagging” was an insidious practice whereby any oppositor to the government was given the blanket tag of communist. So yes, I submit that a measure of red tagging if not actually using the words “communist” veers dangerously close to hate s peech.

          • Let’s see if UP files a civil case for being described as a “hotbed of leftists.” Rapture will come but that won’t happen, attorney.

          • If someone spits at me but I choose the better part of valor and not file actions by just letting it go, does that make the spitting correct and perfectly alright? No, it doesn’t. I just happened to have chosen the better part of valor. Which is after all what this thread has been all about right? Taking the high road. So, it’s really nice of you to point out that UP can choose to just let this go. 🙂

          • First, you argue legal points and dismiss the other side for being a non-lawyer. Now you abandon that and talk about taking the high road. In the first place, “hotbed of leftists” is hardly a cause for action. No one is ever going to be sued for saying that.

          • Who abandoned it? I never said UP “cannot” do it, I never said that UP has no legal standing to do it. All I said was UP may choose not to do it. And at the end of the day, the right as to whether or not to sue remains their prerogative. And if it will not stand the test of litigation then we can all discuss “what ifs?”. But don’t jump the gun at the mere mention of “high road”.

          • You guys don’t get it. Uttering the word “hotbed of leftists” is not going to get anyone sued in court. NEVER. Google “hotbed of leftists” and see how many publications have printed that. Again, FREE SPEECH. Live with it.

          • You banner free speech and you spout “live with it” but you just can’t settle down and live with the fact that not everyone agrees with you can you?

          • So now who’s being excessively legal? E ang bottomline pala e klung may magde-demanda lang o wala e.

          • Hmmm, as I see it, it was the person arguing with the lawyer who kept on pushing for legalese (“What law was broken?”). He got his answer, and a good one at that (I never realized there was such a law that punishes alienating someone from his friends!). But when he got his answer, that yes, a law was indeed broken, he just dismisses it by saying for all intents and purposes, that UP is not likely to do it anyway. So clearly, a simple re-reading of the exchange shows that it was not the lawyer who conveniently discarded the legal line of reasoning. He was presented with a practical question? He gives a starightforward answer when he says UP probably won’t waste time, even as he also does NOT abandon the legal line by saying that letting it go doesn’t spitting alright (which means it;s still a ground for suing even if he chooses not to sue). So you see, it was the other guy who asked legal questions only to be the one to abandon it. If the lawyer ended up giving a practical more than a legal answer, then at most the lawyer humored him.

          • It’s interesting how someone just throws the line of reasoning out the window because he got a response that squarely addressed his question. The question got a more than satisfying answer. He dared the Micheal to specify a provision and Micheal did just that. But why the need to just blurt out “Let’s see if UP files” after getting an answer? That sounds evasive…

          • I am NOT a lawyer, but I hope this gets posted because I just really need to call out how irresponsible this statement is.

            The fact that no one will file suit doesn’t mean ok na. Tell that to the countless victims of crimes who are forced to suffer in silence. They do not file cases because of the dysfunction of the justice system. It’s expensive, it’s time consummning, it will burn you out, it’s emotionally taxing, it will take time from earning a livelihood, lawyers who examine you will make it look like you’re a liar, it can even be embarassing (like if you’ve been molested by a relative, OR, and yes I will say it, by a religious authority figure, or if you’re going to end up making a spectacle out of yourself as those on Face to Face do). And who are you to deny offended feelings to the people you bash if they do feel offended? E ano kung sensitive sila, they are still entitled to feel as they will feel. And so this statement is going to celebrate the inability to file cases! Just because those who were offended cannot or will not file cases you will revel in having gotten away with your bashing? So who is being excessively legal now if you will say that it only boils down to the actual filing of suit by UP? Sisingitan pa ng wisecrack na ‘rapture will come but UP won’t sue.’ How irresponsible!

          • This is begging the obvious and it’s just inviting a quarrel. Nampipikon lang eh. Sana walang ganito.

          • Actually, I have to agree that the use of words, even if not per se illegal, can be harmful. (Pardon me, I do not mean to hurt anyone but I just want to mention examples) This reminds me of branding Ilocanos as kuripot, Kapampangans as ugaling aso or that Cebuanos cannot speak clearly. Rightly or wrongly (but obviously more on the side of wrongly), these stereotypes have been ingrained in the Filipino psyche. Now chances are no one’s gonna get imprisoned for mentioning these. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that they do hurt feelings and that they can be dangerous to inter-personal relations.

          • Red tagging reminds me of the internment of AMERICANS who happened to have Asian ancestry during World War II just because the government was being paranoid that they were abetting the enemy. Red tagging reminds me of people being put in concentration camps because of their race or religion. Siguro ang daling i-trivialize ngayon because we don’t hear about the torments of the imprisoned Asian-Americans etc, but history’s lessons are clear on the dangers of intolerance.

          • Parang style din ng mga Pro-RH — lahat ng kalaban nila, dogmatic, blind followers, ultra-conservative, repressed, and what-have-you.

          • The comment above that started with “This is just pompous” started the legal gibberish. OF COURSE free speech is not absolute. You don’t have to lecture on us about that. But describing UP as “hotbed of leftists” can result in a civil case? Really?

          • The more of the same reply is more of the same. The person couldn’t just admit that saying “hotbed of leftists” is free speech. Nag-cite pa ng civil code! Ano ba yan!

          • At malamng hindi nga sila makakapag-demanda kasi nga gobyerno mismo ang nang-aapi. Di porke di makapag-demanda hindi mali ang ginawa sa kanila.

          • To the person who said “You don’t argue legal points with a non-lawyer.” Wow. How mature. 99.999999% of Filipinos are not lawyers.

          • Let me clarify. I’m talking about the likes of Bishop Romero and Martin Luther King, who will die for their faith and beliefs without having to be combative. And these are the kinds of Christians who will earn admiration and respect. THe likes of Gandhi are those whom humankind has admired for their peace. If you don’t believe me, read up on history.

          • Will prefer Saints Ignatius of Loyola, Thomas Aquinas, Dominic de Guzman any damn give time.

          • I hope this comment gets posted.

            I can’t help but notice how the comment cites Ignatius of Loyola (founder of the Jesuits and in effect, of the Ateneo), as well as uses “damn” in the same sentence.

            Now that’s my point exactly, others would conveniently dismiss Ateneo AS AN INSTITUTION as being elitist and burgeois and yet point to its founder and patron as an exemplar (more interestingly, alongside Thomas Aquinas). This EXACTLY proves the point about hasty generalizations. And what do we make of the use of the word “damn,” I;m sure we could, at least, avoid cuss words.

          • Damn is cuss? Really? Now let’s hope and pray those in the Ateneo live up to the ideals of Ignatius, who swore to defend the Pope’s teachings.

          • Akala ko ba free speech? That’s my fair estimation of the word. Am I not free to express myself?

          • This is such a juvenile reply to a perfectly rational point. Ever heard of the word tokenistic? Token posting does not constitute respect for speech.

          • Yes, this is so mature. Reminds me of toddlers who point at something while making belat. Come on guys! We’re better than this! Let’s not be petty.

          • Pretty soon someone’s gonna say “ne-ne-ne-ne-ne.” Sigh! Sinasadya na lang atang magpikunan e. How do we expect to win people people to our side if this is what the whole world is going to read?

          • So this is going to end up as a bout among patrons and personalities? Really? That’s just low.

          • Let not the author who said he prefers SAINTS Ignatius of Loyola et. al backtrack and claim that he never put them in competition with the other personalities that were mentioned by LF. That he even used the word “prefer” and wrote “Saints” in bold letters makes it clear that he was out to measure those three saints against the other personalities mentioned.

            This is really low, kanina-kanina lang it was Christians arguing among themselves, tapos ngayon we’re going to have saints and other Christian models compete with each other? I have to agree, that is low.

          • The guy up there was extolling Gandhi and Luther King. Can’t someone extol Ignatius? After all, he was a vanguard in safeguarding Christian doctrine. In fact, he famously said: “That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.” Let’s hope and pray the academics at the Ateneo, a Church institution, take that to heart. Otherwise, there is a term for them. I won’t mention it here, lest it spark another round of hysteria on so-called civility. Clue: It starts with the letter H. H as in “Here, take a look.”

          • Amazing how people can be selective noh? Someone cites a number of historical models and Christian figures to point to the value of peace. Somebody asks about where those Christains are when the Ateneo 14 came out with their stqatement. Let me first answer that, maraing Kristiyano ang sumagot sa kanila. Fr. Ben Nebres himself of the Ateneo rebuked them. AS REPORTED BY THE VARSITARIAN ITSELF. Tapos mag-gegeneralize about Ateneo??? Tapos gagamitin si Ignatius. You can’t just use arguments at yiur convenience.

          • I wouldn’t use the term rebuke, which means to “Express sharp disapproval or criticism of (someone) because of their behavior or actions.”

            The March 24 memo can be described though as pro forma: “We acknowledge their right to express their views as individual Catholics and appreciate their clear statement that their views are their own and not that of the University … At the same time, we recognize the right of our faculty, as individuals, to express their views and appreciate their clear statement that these views are their own and not that of the University.”

            Contrast that to the May 20 statement of the CBCP on the pseudo-Catholic group “Catholics for RH” or C4RH: “Public espousal of measures that directly undermine these non-negotiable principles of the Catholic faith is a sharp wedge that cuts the unity of the Church. Any Catholic who freely identifies himself or herself with this group gravely errs.”

          • Well, “rebuke” was the term used by the varsitarian itself when it reported what Fr. Nebres did.

            http://www.varsitarian.net/news/international_catholic_professors_rebut_ateneo_14s_pro_choice_stand

            If that’s just pro forma, that’s your opinion and I respect it. I mean, unless we pry into Fr. Nebres’ mind we will never know his real intentions. But for the sake of clarity, I just want to emphasize that the word “rebuke” is how the Varsitarian itself described Fr. Nebres’ actions

          • I don’t see what’s wrong with it being published in 2008. Coz really, if you go by that logic then the pro-RH people who are saying the Church is antiquated might as well be believed. The point was not so much to point to something new but merely to refer to something that the Varsitarian, as a matter of fact, actually said.

          • Funny how you criticize the Varsitarian and rely on its usage of the word “rebuke” at the same time. Ayos!

          • You’re the one who doesn’t get it. It’s a rhetorical technique, pointing out the inconsistency with the Varsitarian. See, here’s the Varistarian using the word, and here’s someone defending the Varistarian who admits it was said but says it was three years ago anyway. What a flimsy excuse! The point is they said it and therefore if they disavow it they are being inconsistent. If someone admits something, does make any reference to their admission by other people invalid? No it doesn’t so no one is being self-contradictory if they’re only citing the Varsitarian’s own words!

          • No one is disavowing or admitting anything. Someone said he did not want to use the term rebuke, and you set off. In this thread, you were the first to use the term rebuke. Someone faulted you for it. Whether or not the Varsitarian used the term three years ago is irrelevant.

          • It’s about time someone pointed out the unhealthy fixation with only 14 individuals from an immense institution. And this debate on rebukes is turning out to be a fruitless back and forth. E pareho naman nilang ginamit e! Nagpapalitan na lang nag akusasyon. But it’s interesting how this (sub)thread is rooted in the same unhealthy fixation with 14 people. So get over it! This is already laughable.

          • From an unhealthy fixation over 14 people in an institution of tens of thousands to an unhealthy fixation over a single word which (at least according to the link) was actually published anyway. Get real folks! Don’t you have less stressful things to do on a Saturday night?

          • Pansin ko lang po na wala namang pinatutunguhan tong mga debate sa napaka-precise na pag-unawa sa isa o iilang salita sa dami ng mga sinabi. May nagbanggit pa ng fixation, baka mamaya yan na ang pinagtatalunan. Ang akin lang naman e i-let go na natin. May mananalo ba? Mukhang wala namang bibigay e. Kaya nga nakakatuwa yung sinabi ng napakarami ng tao dito sa thread na ito, yung peace, serenity, sobriety, forgiveness, high road. Kate po ng Our Lady of the Abandoned, Sta. Ana! Easy lang tayo!

          • Enough of this! let’s be rational. i agree, there has been such an unhealthy fixation over 14 people. this is so myopic! I checked the link and it’s obvious that theological authorities have already proven them wrong. And here’s what’s amazing ha, NOBODY IN THIS THREAD ever said na tama yang Ateneo 14 na yan. May kumampi ba sa kanila, NO ONE. So where is the fixation with the Ateneo 14 coming from when nobody’s defending them anyway? what more do we want? The thread was all about peace and serenity tas pilit na ipapasok ng ipapasok yang Ateneo 14? The person who keeps on raising them is the one who is being divisive! He has made this discussion lose focus of the original message of peace that was orginally posted. are we out to state our arguments or are we out to prove others wrong because we derive personal satisfaction from that? diba ba pagiging vindictive na yan? that’s just pathetic. Sana hindi tayo ego for ego’s sake. I echo something raised by someone in this thread somewhere, ever realized how this is the only thread that’s moving, where Christians are breathing down each other’s necks? Tomorrow when I go to mass, I will pray, I will for wisdom. Oo papasukan ko ng bagong ideya. An dami nang sinabi about civility, etc. PEro kailangan din natin ng wisdom. Wisdom para hindi lang yung ‘alam’ ang mangingibabaw kindu yung talagang makakabuti.

          • I have no love lost for the Ateneo (for personal reasons), but even I have to agree that this is already too much of splitting hairs bordering on ridiculous. Kung sinabi nila, sinabi nila. Doesn’t matter if its 3 years ago, Did they retract? Unless they retracted the word stands. And someone pointing that out doesn’t make his point invalid, kasi nga ang linaw naman na sinabi talaga.

          • So, what happened after 2008? These Ateneo profs went on to write another statement three years later. Good thing the publicity was not the same.

          • The question is already being illogical, it’s not following the line of reasoning. We’re talking about the date when the Varsitarian published the word “rebuke” and whether or not that description stands scrutiny. What happened thereafter is totally extraneous. The simple point is, that the Varistarian used that word. If after three years the Ateneo 14 did not listen then let their consciences bear the consequences of their stubborness. But in so far as this discussion is concerned let’s not throw a hodge podge of topics.

          • And the person who insists on the Ateneo 14 is also just being stubborn. I can’t help but notice that he just can’t get over the 14.

          • In a thread that’s so long, there’s someone who just can’t get over the Ateneo 14. He uses the Ateneo 14 to justify a tag that was imposed on an institution with a population of tens of thousands!!!

            It amazes that no one has called attention to this. The evidence to the contrary is already obvious! Fr. Reuter’s statement a few days ago, Fr. Nebres statement (from as far back as 2008 – which if at all should be asign of merit rather than taken as a demerit because it means that from as far back as 2008, Fr. Nebres did something about this!)

            This is already circuitous and repetitive. The Ateneo 14 are just 14 individuals for crying out loud!!! Even if you add Ateneand like PNoy and Risa H or their allies you think that’s enough to generalize?! We’ve seen reasonable replies from people who describe viurtuous people from these institutions. So enough of this please! I concur with the people elsewhere in this thread. This is juvenile! Grow up!

          • Yes, enough of this. Someone is just FIXATED with 14 people from the Ateneo. Who cares about this FIXATION anyway when there are thousands upon thousand of others who comprise the university?

          • I am from UST (Engineering) and from Don Bosco. Patron ko si Thomas Aquinas at si Bishop Carlos Ximenes Belo ay Salesyano (Don Bosco priest) bago na-ordain na bishop. Hindi ko maintindihan kung bakit kailangan magkaroon ng competition sa kanila. Nakakalungkot na mauuwi sa ganito. Igalang niyo din naman sana kami na nagpapahalaga sa ibang mga Catholic personalities.

          • Ginagalang ko po. Nagtataka lang po ako na kailangan pag-kompetensiyahin ang mga santo ang modelo ng simbahan.

          • OK na kapataid, Wla tayiong magagawa, kung ganyan ka-dunong at may kakayahang sumukat ng mga Santo e, hindi natin kaya yan. God bless na nga lang naman.

          • Did you even read the editorial? “Their concourse should show that Statism exists, whether in the left or the right, and that Stalinists and fascists aren’t so strange bedfellows. In fact, for all practical purposes they’re cozy intimates. And from their act of consummation would issue the monstrous offspring—the RH bill, nothing less than the spawn of Statism.”

          • Yeah, nasagot na. Nasagot ng “AD HOMINEM!” “Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me!” “Don’t hurt my feelings!” “Ang bad nyo” “Bobo kayong mga taga UST”

          • Families from the middle to upper classes of society are typically smaller than poor families. Why is that?

            Perhaps because they are more educated, more aware, they know what options are available to them, they are able to absorb their current circumstance and reach a rational decision .

            People from the lower strata of society are more vulnerable to making the wrong decisions. Why? Because such impoverished circumstances make it so difficult to reach a rational decision.

            People in the upper classes of society exercise “population control” in the sense that they plan and decide how many children they ought to have. They have the means to make this decision: they are well informed and well versed in reproductive health; and should they choose it, contraception is available to them.

            Consider this, Is it fair that it is the single mother with no means who is left to raise a family of 12 children?

            Why should safe contraception (condoms for instance) and education in reproductive health be available only for those who can afford it?

            What is wrong with educating the masses rich or poor about reproductive health? What is wrong with teaching them that such a thing as contraceptives do exist? teaching them how these contraceptives are used, what the consequences are should they choose to use it, etc. What is wrong with making safe contraceptives universally available?

            We live in a democracy where people are free to make their OWN decisions and free to respect others decisions as well. Rich or poor. Why not educate the individual and let them decide how they would choose to live his/her own life.

        • See below and you’ll see all kinds of hate. Whether pro or anti-RH. I’m saying this irrespective of people’s positions. Pro-RH people calling anti-Rh as stupid, etc. Ang technical naman na hahanapan pa ng kung anong definition.

        • Must we be so fundamentalist as to dwell on minutiae and technical definitions. Just scroll down and you will see perfectly clear examples of hate from both sides of the fence. Let’s respect each other and have the basic courtesy by thinking that people know of basic vocabulary instead being all arrogant and say that people do not know the most basic of definitions.

        • Guys, my reading of the comment is that it’s a simple call for sobriety, which after all is perfectly reasonable call.

  55. Hillary Clinton confirms: Reproductive health means abortion

    In Abortion, Family Planning, Women’s Rights on April 5, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s rebuke of the Canadian government last week finally confirms what pro-family groups have been saying for decades: when they say family planning or reproductive health, they mean abortion.

    As rotating head of the G8 this year, Canada is leading efforts to promote maternal and child health in developing countries. These efforts will be the primary theme at the upcoming G8 summit in June.

    In outlining the initiative for the upcoming summit, conservative Prime Minister Harper specifically left out reproductive health topics, specifically abortion and contraception, preferring to focus on actual healthcare. The choice led to a national controversy and pressure from pro-abortion lobbies.

    In response to a campaign by a Canadian policy group, Harper did concede and include contraception in the initiative but refused to include abortion. The opposition Liberal Party then attempted, but failed, to force the issue by passing a parliamentary motion that would require Canada’s G8 initiative to include “the full range of family planning, sexual and reproductive health options.” Although the Liberal Party would not state that this would include abortion, it was clearly implied.

    Enter Secretary Clinton.

    Last Tuesday, Canada hosted a G8 Foreign Ministers meeting in Gatineau, Canada in preparation for the summit this summer. Clinton took the opportunity to chastise the Canadian government for, among other things, this policy on maternal health and abortion and clarify for everyone that reproductive health means abortion.

    When asked her opinion on the Canadian debate, Clinton responded:

    “I’m not going to speak for what Canada decides, but I will say that I’ve worked in this area for many years. And if we’re talking about maternal health, you cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.”

    There you have it. Reproductive health means abortion.
    For decades, we have been fighting the words “reproductive health” and “family planning” in UN documents, arguing that these words mean abortion. And for decades, our opposition has denied it. Well, they can deny it no longer. Clinton has made it clear that every document that includes the words “family planning” or “reproductive health services” is a document promoting abortion. Unfortunately, as our alert two weeks ago pointed out and this recent incident illustrates, the push to reduce international maternal mortality rates will only increase the number of documents and policies susceptible to this language.

    So thank you to Secretary Clinton for making the battle so clear. And thank you to Prime Minister Harper for standing for life and focusing on policies that save rather than take lives.

    • The comment may be correct in citing Sec. Clinton but it ignores one crucial facet of the Phillippines’ crafting of its OWN laws – sovereignty. In short, while Sec. Clinton may speak of a foreign conception of reproductive health, the Philippine legislature, being a branch of the government of a sovereign state, is free to design reproductive health as it deems fit. That the American model says something does not mean that the Philippine incarnation should be a mirror image.

      Our legal framework is filled with examples whereby we deviated from foreign models even as we share features with them. Our democracy borrow from the US the presidential rather than the parliamentary systems, and also a bicameral rather than a unicameral legislature. But ecen as our democracy is modelled after that of the US, we do not have a federal system, we have but one Supreme Court whereas in the US they have state supreme courts and a federal supreme court. In addressing Muslim secessionism we have adopted the concept of an autonomous region but this is not completely parallel to CHina’s one country, two systems approach which is being followed in the case of Hong Kong. Our Civil Code combines elements from continental jurisdictions while also adopting features of common law systems; moreover, in 1988 Book 1 of the Civil Code was replaced by the Family Code with the intention, among others, of adopting a Code that is more in tune to Filipino values.

      So clearly that a foreign model says something does not mean that the Philippines is bound to follow it in toto. The fact remains that the Philippines is a sovereign state. That is of course, unless we say that the Philippines is not truly sovereign and is but a puppet of the imperialist United States of America. But if we say that, aren’t we now falling into the same generalizing and lazy attitude of leftwing radicals that this article similarly criticizes?

      • But, can we be a little bit more skeptical? The RH lobby is funded by pro-abortion American NGOs. Is it unreasonable to suspect a hidden agenda? Isn’t it prudent to not to swallow the whole RH thing hook, line, and sinker? Don’t you think this bill is being pushed to lay the groundwork for the eventual legalization of abortion? This is legal framework they want to establish. And the RH framework includes access to safe and legal abortion. Hillary Clinton herself attests.

        • That may be so, but I submit that skepticism for skepticism’s sake is not healthy. To he who alleges lies the burden of proof. So we can just say, “baka it’s laying the groundwork.” And we can just say that because Sec. Clinton say’s so, then ipso facto that’s what’s going to happen. THe Revised Penal Code is clear, abortion is criminalized whether intentional or unintentional. In Law there is a principle that where the law is clear there is no room for extraneous interpretation, the plain of the law will stand. So hindi naman kaya paranoia ang concern sa abortion when our laws are so clear and categorical. I mean, is there anything clearer than specific words than define abortion as a crime and prescribe penalties therefor?

          • The Center for Reproductive Rights

            Our Mission

            For more than 15 years, the Center for Reproductive Rights has used the law to advance reproductive freedom as a fundamental human right that all governments are legally obligated to protect, respect, and fulfill.

            Our Vision

            Reproductive freedom lies at the heart of the promise of human dignity, self-determination and equality embodied in both the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Center works toward the time when that promise is enshrined in law in the United States and throughout the world. We envision a world where every woman is free to decide whether and when to have children; where every woman has access to the best reproductive healthcare available; where every woman can exercise her choices without coercion or discrimination. More simply put, we envision a world where every woman participates with full dignity as an equal member of society.

            Since 1992, our attorneys have boldly used legal and human rights tools to create this world. We are the only global legal advocacy organization dedicated to reproductive rights, with expertise in both U.S. constitutional and international human rights law. Our groundbreaking cases before national courts, United Nations committees, and regional human rights bodies have expanded access to reproductive healthcare, including birth control, safe abortion, prenatal and obstetric care, and unbiased information. We influence the law outside the courtroom as well, documenting abuses, working with policymakers to promote progressive measures, and fostering legal scholarship and teaching on reproductive health and human rights.

            We are legal innovators seeking to fundamentally transform the landscape of reproductive health and rights worldwide, and have already strengthened laws and policies in more than 50 countries.
            Our Issues reflect what a woman needs to direct her own life and make healthy decisions: Legal, safe, and affordable Contraception and Abortion. Good obstetric and prenatal care for a Safe & Healthy Pregnancy. Information about reproductive health that is free from Censorship. Funding for Reproductive Healthcare so that she can lead as healthy a life as possible even if she can’t afford services. And because some women are particularly vulnerable to discrimination and abuse, we pay special attention to the rights of Young People and women with HIV/AIDS.

            Our Regions

            # Europe>

            # Latin America & Caribbean>

            # Africa>

            # Asia>

            * Bangladesh

            * China

            * India

            * Malaysia

            * Nepal

            * Pakistan

            * Philippines

            * Sri Lanka

            * Thailand

            * Vietnam

          • By this comment’s own admission, it’s referring to an NGO and not to the sovereign Philippine Republic.

          • An NGO (among many other pro-abort NGOs) at the forefront of the RH lobby, in a legislature that is at the beck and call of lobbyists.

          • At the beck and call of lobbyists? SOrry but I can’t take that statement hook line and sinker. If that were true why are anti-tobacco measures still pending in the house? Why did we get only a watered down version of the Clean Air Act? Why won’t the P125 across the board legislated wage hike get ratified? For that matter, why has it taken at least 15 years for the RH bill to even reach this stage? That we are even having these dicussions today is proof positive that lobbyists do not ALWAYS get their way with Congress.

          • Now you’re talking. Of course you can be selective on which statements to take hook, line, and sinker. Let others do the same.

            Oh, I can also cite a listing of many bills passed and not passed as a result of lobbying. The 2003 Sin Tax bill was watered down at the beck and call of Fortune Tobacco and Philip Morris. The 2005 RVAT law was passed at the beck and call of our dearly beloved foreign creditors, the WB, IMF. The vehicle excise tax law was watered down at the lobbying of car importers. The Milk Code can’t pass because of the pharmaceutical lobby. The cheaper medicines law was watered down because the generics lobby was a lot stronger and they had a congressman, an industry insider, on their side. The Customs Brokers’ Act was passed at the instance of Customs Brokers. Wait, there’s more. The fiscal incentives act has been languishing because the big multinationals don’t want to lose their tax perks. The excise tax on softdrinks has also gathered dust because sugar companies and beverage firms don’t want to lose revenues. The 2001 EPIRA law was passed reportedly with cash going around. That’s just the legislative department. You can just imagine the kind of lobbying at the executive. I assure you, the RH lobby will try and try, until it succeeds.

          • Ever notice that you guys are saying practically the same thing? The triumph of one lobby group is the failure of another. If the P125 wage hike can’t get passed, that means labor groups are failing at their lobbying while employers are successful with their counter-lobbying. True, the labor groups are the proponents, but employers are also doing their own lobbying. It’s different sides of the same coin. The RVAT Law was passed because foreign creditors outdid people’s organizations, etc, etc. But see, here’s what’s funny, the RH Bill has lagged for 15yrs. AND, as I’m sure the anti-RH groups are hoping for this, they don’t want it to be passed. And assuming it does not get passed… Isn’t that a testament to the Church’s potency? So who’s the powerful lobbyist now, certainly, the past 15years points to no other but the Church. If the RH Bill gets passed now, then maybe than represents a shift in the balance of power, but that DOES NOT DISCOUNT THE FACT THAT FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS THE CHURCH WAS THE MORE POTENT LOBBYIST. More so if the RH Bill doesn’t get passed, now that’s really indicative of the effectiveness of the Church. See, it’s too easy to villify lobby groups when our example of lobby groups are tobacco companies, foreign creditors, big businesses. But the indigenous people’s organizations which succeeded in passing the Indigenous People’s Rights Act, they are also lobbyists. The environmentalists who pushed for the Clean Air Act, they are also lobbyists. The Health secretaries who sought to intervene in the placing of visual warning on cigarette boxes, they are also lobbyists. The public safety advocates who are pushing for urban planning with greater foresight in the wake of destructive earthquakes, they are also lobbyists. So the Church too is lobbying,and for that matter it has succeeded for over 15years! So far, it has been successful in opposing divorce and other pieces of legislation. And just the same, I’m sure that the Church will “try and try” to keep the RH lobby from failing.

          • Don’t muddle the issue. The abortion agenda is the topic here. Of course the Church will continue lobbying — its ABORTION the RH lobbyists want.

          • That’s what you’re good at, falling back into your settled suppositions whenever logical loopholes become apparent.

          • And aren’t you the one who’s muddling the issue? Read the thread from top to bottom and you’ll see a linear progression of arguments that ultimately led to someone saying that Congress is at the beck and call of lobbyists. Somebody just pointed out the interesting fact that there are always two lobby groups to a proposal – pro and con – and you cry “muddling the issue”? Well that’s just convenient.

          • We can’t do anything anymore when people, after having been informed that RH lobbyists’ intentions are not exactly lily-white, still decide to swallow the RH lobby propaganda without even a tinge of skepticism. Maybe their minds have already been made up. Well, it’s not taxes or infant formula we’re talking about here. It’s ABORTION.

  56. Fact: A 1996 analysis of worldwide epidemiologic data conducted by the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer found that women who were current or recent users of birth control pills had a slightly elevated risk of developing breast cancer.

    • And yet they want pills to be declared “essential medicines”!

      SEC. 10. Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines

      Products and supplies for modern family planning methods shall be part of the National Drug Formulary and the same shall be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national and local hospitals and other government health units.

  57. My stand on the RH Bill
    By: Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J.
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    1:49 am | Monday, May 23rd, 2011
    848 Share2716

    I HAVE been following the debates on the RH Bill not just in the recent House sessions but practically since its start. In the process, because of what I have said and written (where I have not joined the attack dogs against the RH Bill), I have been called a Judas by a high-ranking cleric, I am considered a heretic in a wealthy barangay where some members have urged that I should leave the Church (which is insane), and one of those who regularly hears my Mass in the Ateneo Chapel in Rockwell came to me disturbed by my position. I feel therefore that I owe some explanation to those who listen to me or read my writings.

    First, let me start by saying that I adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception even if I am aware that the teaching on the subject is not considered infallible doctrine by those who know more theology than I do. Moreover, I am still considered a Catholic and Jesuit in good standing by my superiors, critics notwithstanding!

    Second (very important for me as a student of the Constitution and of church-state relations), I am very much aware of the fact that we live in a pluralist society where various religious groups have differing beliefs about the morality of artificial contraception. But freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. It also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes. Hence, the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief. As the “Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church” says, “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups” and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.”

    Third, I am dismayed by preachers telling parishioners that support for the RH Bill ipso facto is a serious sin or merits excommunication! I find this to be irresponsible.

    Fourth, I have never held that the RH Bill is perfect. But if we have to have an RH law, I intend to contribute to its improvement as much as I can. Because of this, I and a number of my colleagues have offered ways of improving it and specifying areas that can be the subject of intelligent discussion. (Yes, there are intelligent people in our country.) For that purpose we jointly prepared and I published in my column what we called “talking points” on the bill.

    Fifth, specifically I advocate removal of the provision on mandatory sexual education in public schools without the consent of parents. (I assume that those who send their children to Catholic schools accept the program of Catholic schools on the subject.) My reason for requiring the consent of parents is, among others, the constitutional provision which recognizes the sanctity of the human family and “the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character.” (Article II, Section 12)

    Sixth, I am pleased that the bill reiterates the prohibition of abortion as an assault against the right to life. Abortifacient pills and devices, if there are any in the market, should be banned by the Food and Drug Administration. But whether or not there are such is a question of scientific fact of which I am no judge.

    Seventh, I hold that there already is abortion any time a fertilized ovum is expelled. The Constitution commands that the life of the unborn be protected “from conception.” For me this means that sacred life begins at fertilization and not at implantation.

    Eighth, it has already been pointed out that the obligation of employers with regard to the sexual and reproductive health of employees is already dealt with in the Labor Code. If the provision needs improvement or nuancing, let it be done through an examination of the Labor Code provision.

    Ninth, there are many valuable points in the bill’s Declaration of Policy and Guiding Principles which can serve the welfare of the nation and especially of poor women who cannot afford the cost of medical service. There are specific provisions which give substance to these good points. They should be saved.

    Tenth, I hold that public money may be spent for the promotion of reproductive health in ways that do not violate the Constitution. Public money is neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Muslim or what have you and may be appropriated by Congress for the public good without violating the Constitution.

    Eleventh, I leave the debate on population control to sociologists.

    Finally, I am happy that the CBCP has disowned the self-destructive views of some clerics.

    • … rather than be ashamed, they’ve made it a sort of proud tradition. I recall how the editors released a similarly-themed editorial back when the 14 professors from AdMU released their position paper support the original RH Bill. It would probably be better not to expect good journalism from this sheet moving forward, so as to avoid disappointment and disbelief.

      Side note: I wish they didn’t try to argue it from a Constitutional standpoint, because the reasoning they employed was simplistic and pathetic. Doesn’t speak well of their law school. The should have tried something else, like the bottom portion of this: http://wp.me/pU56P-1i

      • Editorials are opinion pieces. There are opinions that you like and opinions that you do not like. You are not the final arbiter on the constitutionality of things. Other people therefore are entitled to their own take on the constitution.

      • raggster clearly doesnt know what an EDITORIAL is. Like what someone opined in this thread, you are not the final arbiter of the constitutionality of things. So, please stop caterwauling like an envious loser. It was not only the Varsitarian who argued the unconstitutionality of some provisions in the RH Bill. Father Bernas has likewise pointed out some infirmities in the bill that do not conform with the constitution.

  58. Just a comment on the use of constitutional provisions on this article. The writer should read the constitution as a whole and not just cite a specific provision which he or she thinks support his or her position. the state is supposed to enact secular laws, free from the influence of any church- be it the majority or the minority religions.

    The Philippines as a pluralist state recognizes the diverse cultures and faiths that thrive in our land. We cannot impose our personal belief to other people who don’t share our principles. The bill only pushes for an informed choice on the matter of reproductive health. Catholics are not forced to avail of the services and information regarding modern methods of family planning if it is against their belief. All that the bill is asking is respect for the diversity of Filipinos.

    And btw, we, Iskolars ng Bayan, are not self-proclaimed leftists and nationalists. Let’s just say that we only know how to give back to the Filipino taxpayers whom we owe our education to. Please be careful in using labels for it may be misunderstood by your readers.

    • Informed choice — then full information is needed. Contraceptive pills can increase the risk of breast cancer. The pill can prevent a fertilized egg from sticking to the uterine wall, which is an abortifacient mechanism. IUD’s and the emergency contraceptive will become available in the market — and these are abortifacients. Moreover, there will be no respect for diversity when schools (even Catholic schools) are forced under the bill to teach questionable sex-ed materials, and conscientious doctors are forced to refer patients to others if the patients demand RH services in emergency cases.

  59. 1. Sanctity of Life cannot be denied by anybody, regardless of its religion or even absence of it.
    2. As ‘Gelo’ wrote in his comments, citing the “Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church” :Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.
    3. So if the Government passes a law that makes contraceptives (which prevents conception, doesn’t un-do conception, so not abortive) available, it gives its population the possibility to avail of them. It’s called Freedom of Choice. If “good” christians don’t want to use it because of their “moral values”, nobody forces them to avail to them. But at least those who decide to avail to them have the opportunity to do so.
    4. For me Sanctity of Life is having the moral obligation to assure that all people are given a decent life ! Everybody should have the assurance of having enough food so they don’t have to go hungry, are provided with enough clothing to give them dignity, are provided with sufficient education so they can build their own future. Parents, and any one else who get involved in un-controlled parenthood are IMMORAL, IRRESPONSIBLE and yes, CRIMINAL if they promote having children, knowing very well that the child will be condemned to a life of deprivation, poverty, hunger and misery.
    How can you possibly call yourself a person with good morals if you accept and support that 30+% of your fellow country men don’t have and will never have a chance for a decent, humane life.
    5. Didn’t Jesus, first and foremost, stand up for the poor, condemn those who denied them a decent life?!?! Think about that first and do something to give every living being a chance for a humane existance before you continue to condemn 100s of thousands more into an inhumane life of misery.

    Amen

    • Who’s endorsing uncontrolled parenthood? No one. The Church is in favor of family planning using natural means that cost ZERO. Contraceptives have been made available in LGUs, DoH, health centers. Access could be improved, but the bill is not needed. Many of its provisions are already in the Magna Carta of Women 2009.
      Finally, contraceptives have another important mode of action. There can be breakthrough ovulation, in which case the contraceptive simply prevents the ovum from sticking to the uterine wall. That will undo conception, which is a violation of the constitution. And we aren’t even talking about the emergency contraceptive and the IUD. These contraceptives are true abortifacients (imagine them in the hands of unmarried people, which is the intent of the bill). So don’t go lecturing as if the other didn’t know anything about contraceptives.

  60. The RH bill doesn’t mandate anything right? It makes things more accessible. It doesn’t say you have to use these things.

    I support any bill that gives the individual more control over their own lives. Abortion should be legalized, especially in the case of rape or incest.

    • Then what about the life created through the intercourse, whether caused by raped and incest? Isn’t that murder?

      In my opinion, the RH Bill, even though I see it as senseless since why would you legislate choice or even morality for any given matter, tolerates if not promotes stability of the population, whether seen in an economic, sociological or moral point of view.

  61. Even my professor (who’s a doctor from UST Hospital) is a staunch supporter of the RH Bill. I just rage whenever I see stupid articles like this.
    I want Catholic priests to live in the squatters’ area for a month and come back and defiantly say that they would still be Anti-RH Bill.

LEAVE A REPLY