RH Bill. Yes or No?

[ValCaskett]

PRO RH BILL

[Chr1s]

Pro RH bill ako. Good health and welfare. 

[pinoybrusko]

grabe baka next time mabalita, 10 year old nanganak na 

[Hitad]

yung iba pa sa kanila sinisisi ang gobyerno pero anak naman ng anak. lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[carpediem]

Today I met a 34 year old mother who has an OB score of Gravida 12 Para 10  (7229) = 12 times nabuntis 10 times na nganak. who was consulting for her 1st pre-natal checkup......

ANO BA YAN! Wala ka na bang ginawa kundi gumawa ng bata??!!?

meron! magsimba!

[Dumont]

Yes!

[ctan]

Kilo, we're in the position to advice these women. :-) kahit na anong sabihin ng RC with regards sa RHbill, kung effective nating ma-educate sila, gawin na natin. :-)

[Chris]

I have read the RH Bill carefully the other day.

I'd like to point out the the bill has very good intentions such as reducing population, educating people, improving care for pregnant women, upgrading hospital facilities etc...

But I do not agree with everything that is written there and I understand why the Catholic church is against it. There are a few sections that are against the church's teachings and the church needs to voice out its stand on the RH bill.

I'm not a legislator, but I was thinking that maybe the government and the church can arrive with a compromise?

[Chris]

Okay, first things first:

I'm posting here NOT because I'm debating nor am I pretending to be a Saint, but I'm posting here just to share what I remember from my Theology and Catechism class in college and how I think it relates to the Church's disagreements over the RH bill.

I read the full version of the bill here: http://www.pngoc.org/Download%20Section/HB%2096%20as%20filed.pdf

I *think* that these are the parts of the RH bill that the church does not like. Pay attention to the texts in BOLD:

At the heart of the bill is freedom of informed choice. Neither the State nor the Church has the authority to compel the people or the faithful what family planning method to adopt. The choice belongs to parents and couples, particularly to women who have the inherent right over their own bodies.

The State shall promote, without bias, all modern natural and artificial methods of family planning that are medically safe, legal and effective.

While nothing in this Act changes the law against abortion, the 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.

SEC. 16. Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education

Age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall be taught by adequately trained teachers in formal and non-formal educational system starting from Grade Five up to Fourth Year High School using life-skills and other approaches.

Church's stand:

Although we have freedom of choice, the Church believes that life and the human body is sacred and the temple of the Holy Spirit.

AFAIK and from what I learned in Theology 101, the Church does not approve artificial contraceptives due to the following reasons:
1. Sex is meant to procreate and not a means for recreation
2. Artificial Contraceptives will promote casual sex and sex, according to the Church is for married couples only. The church only supports natural family planning methods.


Although I agree that post-abortion care should be given to women who undergo the procedure, the Church is afraid that this might be a "precursor" to legalizing abortion.

The mere fact that there is a support for post-abortion procedures, women might start to think that it is safe to undergo abortion procedures (even if illegal) because they can seek for post medical assistance if the operation is not successful then deal with the legalities later. Whereas in the past, and in the pre-RH bill era, women were more afraid to undergo abortion procedures because they know that they have no hospitals to go to if the procedure fails for fear of getting caught by the authorities.

Lastly, the compulsory sex education from grade 5 - 4th year highschool is a no-no to the Church and even to some parents. Remember that grade 5-6 pupils are within the 10-12 year old range and they may be too young for that.

Morever, children do not grow and mature at the same pace so what is too early for some to attend to sex ed, may be too late for the others and vice versa. Maybe sex ed for highschool pupils is ok. If you come to think of it, age 11 may be too early for some kids and they may not even be ready to understand sex ed. Think of yourself when you were age 10 or 11, do you think you were ready and would understand sex ed at that time?


As I see it, the Church's stand regarding RH bill is more on issues pertaining to morality, but in terms of provisions regarding medical care, the bill is really quite good. This is the primary reason why I mentioned that *maybe* they can arrive with a compromise.

And let me repeat: I'm not playing a saint, I'm just sharing what I know regarding the POV of the church. Hope this helps

[Chris]

Thanks Kilo, very good points indeed. If the RH bill becomes a law, sex education should be carefully tailored depending on the maturity of each student.

And yes, the Catholic point of view is of course, meaningless and nonsense to other religions and they cannot impose it to non-believers.

However, the Catholic Church has to do its job to voice out its opinion since its members and its faithful are looking up to the clergy to explain the stand of the Church in terms of morals surrounding the RH bill.

The Catholic Church can do demonstrations and such but at the end of day, they are still separate from the State. A few members of the clergy even think that the RH bill will be signed into law in no time due to the president supporting it. All the Church can do is to tell its faithful what they think is right and what they think is wrong, after all the clergy are the successors of the apostles of Christ - and that's the Catholic point of view.

[carpediem]

This is good. INC and other religious groups are pushing for the RH Bill.
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=679615&publicationSubCategoryId=63

[marvinofthefaintsmile]

the sister of my father have 15 children. Manyak ung panget na asawa nun.., We're not close. Hahaha! Worse, they aren't even rich enough to hold with such massive children. The siblings were mostly in their 20s na and some are already married.

[ctan]

Kanina habang nagdo-door-to-door vaccine kami for anti-tigdas, i saw several families in shanty houses with 5 or more children. Kanina rin sa health center, there were a couple of pregnant women, ang isa G7P5(5014). Ibig sabihin niyan, pang 7th time na niyang pagbubuntis, 5 beses nakapanganak, 5 sakto sa buwan nung ipinanganak, isa nalaglag, 4 ang currently buhay na anak. Bakit siya buntis ngayon? Kasi laging lasing si mister niya at naghahanap ng sex ng walang proteksiyon. Kung sana lang may RH Bill...

[arthur_allen30]

Kanina habang nagdo-door-to-door vaccine kami for anti-tigdas, i saw several families in shanty houses with 5 or more children. Kanina rin sa health center, there were a couple of pregnant women, ang isa G7P5(5014). Ibig sabihin niyan, pang 7th time na niyang pagbubuntis, 5 beses nakapanganak, 5 sakto sa buwan nung ipinanganak, isa nalaglag, 4 ang currently buhay na anak. Bakit siya buntis ngayon? Kasi laging lasing si mister niya at naghahanap ng sex ng walang proteksiyon. Kung sana lang may RH Bill...

oo nga naman

bakit hindi nila

maintindihan yun hehehehe......

[joshgroban]

pero kahit isa anak nila malamng di rin sila aahon sa hirap kung di nila renew mind nila