RH bill: a bill that assumes that men cannot control their passions

RH Bill deception: anti-reproduction, anti-women, anti-prosperity
Dr. Quirino Sugon

June 23, 2012 (from his blog Monk's Hobbit)

Reproductive Health Bill is a deception: it is not for reproduction but for contraception. A woman is sexually healthy if she can conceive a child. This is a simple, objective definition, so I don’t know why the RH Bill wishes to muddle this by adding the woman’s psychological and social well-being. Is pregnancy a sickness that must be cured or the hope of our nation that must be supported? Is pregnancy a privilege only of the rich and not of the poor? Is pregnancy an invention of man and not a gift to be thanked for? Many women who cannot conceive turn to IVF treatment costing fortunes but with low chances of success, resulting to many fertilized embryos dying or remaining frozen in test tubes. Many women who are rich do not wish to have children because this will divide their wealth and double their figure. And many women who wished to stop pregnancy with pills suffered breast cancer.

The RH Bill claims that it is pro-women, but it is actually anti-women. Contraceptives makes sex-before-marriage easier: the woman is not anymore assured of being married by the man, for there is no more pregnancy that shall act as witness to the promises of love made in the heat of the night. Contraceptives makes sex-outside-marriage easier: the wife is not anymore assured that his husband is faithful, because there is no pregnancy that shall cry out scandal in the entire neighborhood. Where does men enter into the picture in the RH Bill? Nowhere. RH Bill assumes that men are weak: they not strong enough to control their passions. RH Bill assumes that men are dumb: they can’t understand the mathematics of the woman’s fertility cycle. And RH Bill assumes that men don’t earn enough: they can’t support a family of eight. This is an insult to men in general and husbands in particular.

The RH Bill promises a prosperous future with only one or two children per family. But without children, there would be no laborers in the fields, workers in the factories, soldiers to defend our country, and priests to offer masses. There are only schools without children, industries without workers, barracks without soldiers, and seminaries without priests. Two children work hard to feed a family of six, which includes their parents and grand parents. The pension system collapses, and the government will be forced to raise the retirement age to 70 or 80 or even 90. It’s a bleak future: the collapse of the Western civilization due to its cultural suicide of not having babies. As Rachel cried out to Jacob: “Give me children or I shall die!” (Gen 30:1)

Thus says the LORD:

In Ramah is heard the sound of sobbing,

bitter weeping!

Rachel mourns for her children,

she refuses to be consoled

for her children—they are no more. (Jer 31:15)