Thanks in advance

“I am assuming that the RH bill is for all religions and faiths. So if your religion or faith is against it then don’t do it.”
–Precisely, that is the essence of having a “Secular State”. A State that is legislating laws that doesn’t favor or discriminate any religious institutions. Laws that are applicable to ALL of its citizens regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, faith or lack thereof. So if you are a Teacher or an OB/GYN employed by the State. And the State recognizes that sex-ed and access to contraception are “rights” of its citizens. Then the State has all the right to ax you, if you are denying other citizens of his/her rights, based solely on the grounds of your religious(supernatural) belief. Like you say “…if your religion or faith is against it then don’t do it.”. QUIT. Blame your religion for the “guilt trip” and stop asking a “Secular State” to bend and follow every whim of your religion.
Also why is then a particular religious group, *cough* *Roman Catholic Church(RCC)* *cough*, is spreading misinformation and is meddling with the legislation of a Secular State? And acts as if they have a monopoly on morality and are paying taxes?

“I was just suggesting that there are other ways of achieving sexual gratification that does not need contraceptives and has a considerably lower chance of getting pregnant.”
–”Other ways” which are unfortunately labeled by the RCC as “intrinsically evil”. Ergo WE are moral, THEY are not. Or WE are “true”/”real” Catholics, THEY are not.
Anyways, yeah, I got it, I am no stranger to “Modular Catholicism”; e.i. choose/take/follow whatever suits your lifestyle/financial state as long as you still keep your business(donations, weddings, baptismals, funerals, house blessings, fiestas, etc.) with us. Pardon, but I am not just really fond of, of this “WE vs THEM” religious mentality. It’s an antithesis to Humanist values, ever heard of the term “Pogrom”?

“All I get from that is that it is not necessary to perform an abortion at that stage because for one, the mother did not know there was a fetus

and two, no need for abortion because the fetus was already aborted naturally.”
–Really? The numbers/statistics doesn’t bother you? You’re not experiencing any form of “Cognitive Dissonance”? I mean the way I see it, the RCC theology dictates(in 1968) that “life”(ensoulment actually) begins at fertilization and a zygote is as precious as any person. Yet modern empirical science (Reality/Nature) shows us that, as I quote once again: “Nature spawns these embryos freely, and throws them away casually, almost with the wild abandon that we produce gametes(eggs and sperm cells) in general.” Using the RCC’s theology then this is tantamount to mass killings of “innocent” zygotes, how precious are they now? Are you just taking/dismissing this information on faith? Or is this one of those times when the “all powerful” desert god of the RCC has a free pass on everything that he does? The “Might makes it Right” theology? Anyways I’m not compelling you to answer that personal question. Your consideration would be enough.

“The difference between getting an abortion or taking an abortive and the fetus being aborted naturally is the knowledge and intent. I mean there is nothing one can do if the fetus was not viable or did not successfully implant itself. It is an abortion if you deliberately took actions or medicines to ensure that any fetus has little or no chance to implant or kills the fetus directly.”
–See my earlier post, #52
Being raised on an egalitarian home, I believe that any person or institution that would deny this right from women and/or would demonize this “choice”, will be not be good on my book. Convince me(with “real world” evidence/rational reason) otherwise.
Also: “Imbuing fertilized eggs with rights isn’t a serious philosophical position, it’s a convenient rhetorical tactic to justify subjugating women.” –

-“The Scrambled Logic of the Egg-As-Person Movement” by Lindsay Beyerstein

”We are not taking about a finger nail or cyst or a toe here.”
–I believe you meant “talking”? Anyways, Yes, one is mainly keratin, another is a clump of misinformed cells(if you are referring to cancerous cysts), the last one is an external appendage. And there are no religious ideologies as far as I know of, that glorifies those body parts as being a person and proclaims that it has the same/equal rights as me. If there is, then let me know and I’ll be hacking away at it.

“The fetus has the potential to become a fully functioning human being.”
–Yes, but apparently not all, (WARNING! to the squeamish) “Sirenomelia”: usually with no kidneys. “Anencephaly”: no cranium. So what now does the theology of the RCC says about these “precious” fetuses? Should they be treated like a finger nail or cyst or a toe? Or a person?
Personally using their own theology it simply declares the capriciousness of their made-up desert god.

“A toe or fingernail, until science can grow a fully living human from a single cell, does not.”
–Theoretically it does can. Ever heard of cloning? Dolly, a sheep grown from a single mammary cell. Heck even chimeric human/pig embryos are possible now. –New Scientist:”Pighuman Chimeras Contain Cell Surprise”
But until religious organizations end this love affair with zygotes and fetal stem-cells and quits its meddling with scientists doing good research(that may cure cancers, genetic and auto-immune diseases), it may never happen.
I fully understand their grim, because a cloned human and even IVF babies of today, conflicts with their tenet of Ensoulment. They will have to concoct another story that is fully consistent with their medieval theology, if ever a human clone is born in the modern age. And theology can be very taxing indeed.

“So you see the unborn has rights from the moment of conception, it is in our constitution.”
–If only the authors of the 1987 Constitution had access to that 1997 published research and modern medical science. But it cannot be helped they didn’t have the foreknowledge. Unlike Sen.Sotto, citing outdated medical books from the 1970’s. –Rappler:”The Other Sins of Senator Vicente Sotto”
Like real science, laws are/should be open to revisions and amendments using the most up to date, “real world” information. The U.S. Constitution have gone through 27 of such amendments, so far. And I believe we are very much in need of one. Just because it is the law it doesn’t mean that it’s not open to questions/discussions/revisions. I know this may be hard to grasp for those who grew up dealing with the “absolute laws”/dogma of their religion. Where questioning equates to blasphemy. But this is how a democracy functions, this is not a theocracy.

“And as for funeral services, I know of people who have had Church funeral services for miscarriages.”
–So a dead zygote on a feminine-napkin/tampon could be accepted then? Wow! I even heard that for the right price, those who died of suicide, can now be admitted in Church for the funeral service. But hey “any business is business” right?

“Yes, for Catholics, just as Muslim leaders/priests also decide what is moral in their religion, ect.”
–”what is moral in their religion”, Yes, I totally agree, as long as it stays that way; “in their religion”. But when a particular religious group is influencing a secular State’s legislation, that will affect citizens of varying faiths/beliefs, then we have a problem. Would you agree if the State mandated that pork and meat products are illegal because of Islamic and Buddhist principles? NO.

“In fact, the laws we pass decides what the non-religious consider moral and immoral.”
–No. Religiosity and Morality are two different things and I think you’re conflating the two. There are atheist who breaks the law. There are religions with immoral principles and Secular Morality that doesn’t include any religious principles/supernatural reasons.
I believe we have a differing beliefs on the origin of morality. I for one believes that it is NOT through “revelation” but mainly through the Evolution of social animals.
–Click here

“So in a sense being non-religious is a religion in itself, the religion of non-religious.”
–Like “NOT collecting stamps” is like stamp collecting?
Being non-religious is the default position; a state of non-choice. The moment you choose a particular religion to follow, that action/choice would now automatically makes you a religious person.
Yeah, it happens especially when the term “religion” is loosely and vaguely defined and changes from person to person; argument to argument.

“Is there any evidence that first world countries have lower abortion rates and teen pregnancies or unwanted pregnancies because of

contraception use? See post #170 Shalimar”
–Abortion rates, none, it’s hard to determine statistically, would you report an action if it is being demonize by a powerful and obscenely rich religious organization? And be ostracized/stigmatized because of it? But on “teen pregnancies or unwanted pregnancies” and proper sex-education, there is. And I believe you agree that all three are intimately related. –Click here

I believe post #170 of Shalimar is pointing out the perceived lack of sex-education of kids born to Filipino parents in Greece, and not the high incidence of teen pregnancies of Filipino kids in spite of having an easy access to contraception. Shalimar can clear that up.

“There are also studies that show that population is not a determining factor in poverty levels.”
–Which one? On the other hand religiosity may be used as a determining factor of poverty levels. –Click here

“…as you put it, “The Holy Roman Catholic””
–Nitpicking are we? Mea culpa. Sometimes it’s difficult and errors creeps up when transcribing what is racing in my mind, into key-strokes. I believe you can relate. You’re also human after all.

“You are also very quick to point out the mistakes that, as you put it, “The Holy Roman Catholic” Church has done in the past. How about the mistakes that our government leaders have made? Some government officials and leaders have multiple families, affairs, are corrupt and yet you are willing to follow them. There are the people who have wronged you directly or indirectly in your lifetime.”

–And that is a perfect example of a “Red Herring” argument. The mistakes of the government officials or the moral standards of politicians that may/or not have wronged me directly or indirectly; that I may be willing to follow (I do not know how do have all this personal knowledge of me), IS IRRELEVANT as to whether or not the RCC have made mistakes in the past. All the while claiming it has moral superiority.

The mistakes of the RCC(a FACT), is not even my original point. I am merely pointing out the irony of your argument that “Just because other countries are doing it does not mean it is right and that we should do it too.” And yet at the same time you seem to be supporting a FOREIGN religion, and seems to be not questioning whether it is right or its truth-claims correct.

“The church of the medieval times is so different from the Church now, for one no more inquisition.”
–Uhmm, sorry to break it to you, but there still is; “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”. Old Ratzy even served as its Prefect once. A change in name does not imply its dissolution. E.g.: MECS –> DECS –> DepEd. If you are referring to the atrocities of the Spanish Inquisition(by/with the consent of the RCC); that it’s no longer being perpetrated today. I blame the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” of 1948, born out of Humanist values and not of the RCC. Besides it would be very bad for

the business for not supporting it. Especially after a Catholic ordered the extermination of 6 million Jews.

“When was the last time you were threatened with death by a priest for wanting to join another religion? “
–I couldn’t remember the last time. But when I was an impressionable young boy, every 5th Sunday of Easter when John 15:6 is read:

“If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.”

Can you conceive the effect of that on a child’s imagination? “Whole body, every square inch of skin being burned for not believing.” And they

say video games of today are too violent. Somehow “Born Again Xtians” are also parroting the same verse to me, waiting for a reaction that I do

not know. But when asked about this particular logical progression:
“An infinite love will not allow eternal damnation. An eternity of torture requires infinite hate”; they would slink away and leave me with leaflets/flyers, like telling me somehow that the leaflets/flyers will be better at conversation than them.

“I was just pointing out that being born poor does not mean that they are doomed to being poor all their lives.”
–Of course, no one is contesting that. This is not about Class Conflict or Poor vs Rich as being perpetrated/circulated by certain groups. Last time I checked, the Bill doesn’t include any systematic extermination of the poor, it’s about proper sex-education for better reproductive health and population control as a means to alleviate poverty.

“And I did not mean that it justifies uncontrolled population growth,nor am I belittling their suffering.”
-Point taken, but then it’s very hard to empower the masses when a religious principle that glorifies suffering, pain and poverty as a virtue is rampant.
“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.” –Matt. 5:5

“I do want a reproductive health bill passed…”
–Agreed

“… but not the current one with its flaws and vague generalizations.”
–Whose side is not giving up an inch? Stop the delaying tactics so that the Bill can go through the period of amendments, you know maybe change/revise it without “flaws and vague generalizations”.

Again thanks for reading and your consideration.

From what I have read on the RH Bill, one has to be mad to be against it.

I have one child and the financial implication of having one is felt by us and we are both professionals and living in a country where health care is free and (good) education is free.

What is the percentage of Filipino mothers leaving their children behind to work as nannies and domestic helpers in richer countries in order to provide for their children back home? If they had all the information about family planning, had access to contraception, would they have had so many children only to leave them with relatives and work abroad?

The argument that this will lead to loose morals? Really? Seriously? Isn’t it more ‘immoral’ to have children and not able to provide them with good nutrition, good health and future?

(I have not been to the Philippines since 1989, I have no desire to get involved with its politics, but personally, as a woman, this Bill is important. The UK’s NHS is not perfect, but when I was pregnant with my son, I did not spend a penny. I had my regular check ups, I was given leaflets to read and when I had back pains, I was offered weekly accupuncture. This is a state, with its imperfections, taking care of its citizens/tax payers, and I hope one day it will be like this in the Philippines too and this Bill is a good starting point as any).

Hi, Ross. When I mentioned “OTHER ways, and sexual actions (wink-wink) that …”, I am assuming that the RH bill is for all religions and faiths. So if your religion or faith is against it then don’t do it. I was just suggesting that there are other ways of achieving sexual gratification that does not need contraceptives and has a considerably lower chance of getting pregnant.

as to post #141 All I get from that is that it is not necessary to perform an abortion at that stage because for one, the mother did not know there was a fetus and two, no need for abortion because the fetus was already aborted naturally. The difference between getting an abortion or taking an abortive and the fetus being aborted naturally is the knowledge and intent. I mean there is nothing one can do if the fetus was not viable or did not successfully implant itself. It is an abortion if you deliberately took actions or medicines to ensure that any fetus has little or no chance to implant or kills the fetus directly.

Also, when you say “Would you still consider that a few clumps of cells has the same “rights” as the mother or any other person? ” We are not taking about a finger nail or cyst or a toe here. The fetus has the potential to become a fully functioning human being. A toe or fingernail, until science can grow a fully living human from a single cell, does not. Besides the “…the Philippine Constitution itself mandates that it shall “equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” (Article II, Section 12, 1987 Constitution)” from https://www.likhaan.org/content/dswd-position-protection-unborn-child-act-hb-13. So you see the unborn has rights from the moment of conception, it is in our constitution.

And as for funeral services, I know of people who have had Church funeral services for miscarriages.

“Wow! So the Catholic Church is the sole arbiter of what is moral and what is immoral?
What of the 1 billion Muslims, 1 billion Hindus, 700 million Atheists/Agnostics or Christianity’s other flavors? Where do they get their morals? Are they moral in the eyes of the Catholic Church?”

Yes, for Catholics, just as Muslim leaders/priests also decide what is moral in their religion, ect. In fact, the laws we pass decides what the non-religious consider moral and immoral. So in a sense being non-religious is a religion in itself, the religion of non-religious.

“How about this argument: “Just because The Holy Roman Catholic has been well established in Europe and everybody is doing and accepting it under the pain of death or excommunication, it does not mean it is right and that we should do it too.”…
The last US ship left Subic in 1992 that would make our country a truly independent nation of 20 years old and a Third World Country(a former colony). We didn’t have an Age of Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Scientific and the Industrial Revolution. Very young indeed. And that is why we should look at other countries with older histories, to learn from them. What works and what does not. And as a developing country, we simply cannot afford to take chances and make the same mistakes other older countries have endured, it would be a shame and an affront to History. ”

Exactly my point. Is there any evidence that first world countries have lower abortion rates and teen pregnancies or unwanted pregnancies because of contraception use? See post #170 Shalimar There are also studies that show that population is not a determining factor in poverty levels. You are also very quick to point out the mistakes that, as you put it, “The Holy Roman Catholic” Church has done in the past. How about the mistakes that our government leaders have made? Some government officials and leaders have multiple families, affairs, are corrupt and yet you are willing to follow them. There are the people who have wronged you directly or indirectly in your lifetime. The church of the medieval times is so different from the Church now, for one no more inquisition. When was the last time you were threatened with death by a priest for wanting to join another religion?

“That’s Selection Bias. How many “Manny Villar”s do you think the current pool of people; who are under the poverty line, would produce? Does this reasoning justifies their current suffering? Is it moral to further balloon their numbers in order to further increase the rate of producing “Manny Villar”s? ”

I was just pointing out that being born poor does not mean that they are doomed to being poor all their lives. And I did not mean that it justifies uncontrolled population growth,nor am I belittling their suffering.

As I stated my earlier post. I do want a reproductive health bill passed but not the current one with its flaws and vague generalizations.

These kids were mostly raised in Greece, have access to doctors and pills but their parent do not educate them.. I used to do it but I am barely there now..
My own gyno used to say, ” don’t these kids have mothers?”

Tito Sotto’s latest senseless pronouncements are equally tragic. Manny Pangilinan volunteered to resign when he was caught plagiarizing speeches of various personalities. One can only hope that Sotto will resign as he and his speech writers plagiarized someone’s blog.