Starting September 8, 2012, anonymous comments -- whether for or against the RH bill -- will no longer be permitted on this blog.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Simple reasons why the RH Bill should be opposed

(Out of respect for the sentiments of the author of this post, I'm closing the combox for this one)

by "Trish" of "Eat My Chalk Dust"

Conversations with pro-RH and watching debates on TV made me realize these new reasons why I’m against the RH Bill:

1) It condones negligent parents by saying: “Parents are irresponsible. Who else will teach the children on sex? The Government needs to intervene.”

2) It also condones corruption in government: “Alam naman nating mahirap pugsain ang corruption sa Pilipinas. When else will we start helping the poor?”

3) It demeans the ability of the poor to practice discipline in NFP. “Natural doesn’t always seem to work for the very poor that’s why they have 6-11 children ” – Karen Davila

4) For the sake of choice, the pro-RH wants the poor to choose between natural and Group 1 carcinogens (contraceptive pills), and provide the latter for free.

5) The pro-RH are “not aware” of the abortifacient nature of contraceptive pills. Their comment? “In my opinion, they are not abortifacients.” Now medicine has become a matter of opinion. Add to that the opinion on where life begins.

6) The pro-RH will always downplay the obvious connection of contraception and abortion as if they are two different advocacies in the real pro-life stand. They will not answer the question of Plan B if contraception fails.

7) Rep. Hontiveros’ idea of sex education is contradicting: A – bstinence, B-e monogamous, and C-ontraception. Why put abstinence and contraception together? Why A if there is C? Why C if there is A?

8 ) Carlos Celdran is one name-calling pro-RH. No need to elaborate. (Rep. Hontiveros needs to tame him down.)

9) The pro-RH camp would last resort to destroying the person (and the Church) in their defense. These politicians do not know how to engage in a sustained reasonable debate. Can they just stick to the issue?


Pro-RH: “If it is so great, then why hasn’t the church teach about it with vigor like what they’re screaming about it now?”
Me: “Naku, you put in the Church na into our discussion. I wanted to keep the Church out of it. Now that you mentioned it, let’s put the Church in.”
Pro-RH: “My bad. I thought your linking it to there stand [sic].”

10) “Iba ang moralidad niyo sa moralidad ko.” – Dr. Sylvia Caludio. Aba! Then why should we let you impose your morality that contraception and abortion are okay on us? Dr. Claudio by the way is the chairman of WGNRR, an organization that supports abortion. “[Dr. Claudio] and her org can promote it all she wants. I don’t, and will not start advocating it.” – Ms. Lea Salonga.

11) The RH Bill is filed under the Commission on Population and Development. But they push on health benefits. It should then be files under Health, di ba? I smell something fishy.

Why I support the Catholic Church in its fight against the RH Bill:

1) The Church believes that the poor are human persons who are capable of practicing discipline.

2) She has been consistent in her arguments against the RH Bill. There is no need for strategy changes.

3) They protect the real essence of the woman, her uterus, by keeping the dangerous pills from destroying it.

4) The Church does help save the women’s lives by not promoting Group 1 carcinogens (e.g. contraceptive pills).

5) She supports PNoy’s slogan: “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap.”

6) The pronoun for the Catholic Church is actually female.

7) The Church has always been pro-poor: Caritas. Visit the website, you’ll see the programs for the poor there. Some Catholics are active also in helping the poor: Gawad Kalinga.

A brief message for those who claim themselves to be Catholics but are pro-RH: Have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? For sure, you haven’t. I suggest you read it. It’s very reasonable. It is “faith seeking understanding.” Then, and only then, can we have a decent discussion involving the Church without destroying its credibility.

I am entitled to my own realizations, and these are just based on my experiences. For sure there are exceptions to these instances. When I sound like I am generalizing, I am only referring to the people I had been exposed to.

My blog, my rules. For a change, comments section will only be dedicated to understanding the side of those against the RH Bill. This blog will be dedicated to fully understanding the Anti-RH Bill side. I expect questions about and supporting facts for the Anti-RH stand in the comments section. Any comment posted that doesn’t follow the rules will not be posted.