Population Control Issues

[3cr]

Vatican Stand On Condom Use Weakens CBCP Stance On Reproductive Health Bill
http://affleap.com/vatican-stand-on-...uctive-health/

Pope Benedict XVI’s declaration regarding the use of condom has sowed widespread confusion among Roman Catholic followers.

Some people have been disappointed because the remarks had put them, especially the strict defenders of its teachings like the Catholic Bishop Of the Philippines (CBCP) has weakened and put them into an awkward position at a time that the Reproductive Health bill is still being heard in Philippine Congress.

Benedict’s declaration could open a doorway for married couple to use condom as an artificial birth control which the church has banned it due to moral issue.



The Truth about Catholics and Condoms
http://www.religiondispatches.org/ar...s_and_condoms/

As the XIX International AIDS Conference comes to Washington D.C., the issue of condom use to prevent the spread of HIV will certainly be a central topic of debate. For many involved, the statement that Pope Benedict XVI made in 2010 still resonates. In a great leap forward for the Catholic Church, he said that using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV can be “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

The fact that it came from the Pope meant not only that Catholics could feel comfortable using this tried-and-tested HIV prevention method, but that the many Catholic-run health care centers might start incorporating condoms into their official HIV prevention programs. Sadly, however, we still hear some members of the Catholic hierarchy trying to take back the Pope’s words and doing their best to prevent condoms from reaching people who need them. But it’s important to hold onto the truth. Pope Benedict did affirm that condom use can help prevent HIV—reflecting the prayers and activism of Catholics the world over who were affected by HIV/AIDS or stood in solidarity with those who were. I would like to see the Pope go even farther in his affirmation of condoms and other life-affirming reproductive health care.

The backlash after the Pope’s groundbreaking statement in November 2010 was swift and widespread. Bishop Juan Antonio Martinez Camino, secretary general of the Spanish Bishops’ Conference, declared that the use of condoms “always” takes place “within a context of immorality.” Kenya’s bishops also dug in their heels, declaring that the Pope was merely remarking “on something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use [condoms].” Their objection was similar to that of Leonard Paul Blair, bishop of Toledo, Ohio, who argued that the Pope was merely speaking about a “hypothetical situation” in his choice to focus on a male prostitute using a condom.

Sadly for Bishop Blair, the Vatican spokesperson Father Federico Lombardi confirmed that the Pope intended his words to apply whether “you’re a woman, a man, or a transsexual.” Equally important, however, is the fact that the Pope chose as his first example an individual who really exists. There are indeed sex workers all over the world, male and female. A living, compassionate Church acknowledges realities like these and asks: what are the moral choices available for such a person? As Bernard Longley, archbishop of Birmingham, said, “the Pope chose his words carefully so that one could see how conscience works within an individual.”

Worldwide, the Catholic Church provides approximately 25 percent of all AIDS care—to married women and men, single people, LGBT individuals, and yes, sex workers. Officially, none of this treatment recognizes that these individuals’ consciences may dictate that condoms are a life-affirming, responsible choice. The principle of the Pope’s words has yet to trickle down into practice.

Catholic health care has been in the AIDS fight since the beginning, and it has succeeded in bringing anti-retroviral treatment to thousands. But it balks at one challenge: helping people live long, healthy lives as sexual beings. Now that people are living longer, healthier lives with HIV, justice demands that they must have the means to protect themselves and their partners with condoms. This must hold true for those living in some of the world’s most remote regions or in impoverished areas, or where Catholic health facilities are the only option.

South African Bishop Kevin Dowling, whose diocese has been devastated by AIDS deaths, has spoken out many times in favor of condoms, because “the issue is to protect life.” Portuguese bishop Januario Torgal Ferreira, was quoted as saying that “there are obviously circumstances where prohibiting condoms is to consent to the death of many people.” Many Catholics the world over agree. A 2007 poll found that the majority of Catholics in five countries agreed that “using condoms is pro-life because it helps save lives by preventing the spread of HIV.”

The hierarchy’s reluctance to acknowledge facts already grasped by ordinary Catholics is nothing new. And despite those stubborn bishops who argue otherwise, good Catholics can, and do, use condoms.

There is no possible moral reason to prevent any person from following their conscience about condoms. Rather, every treatment provider has the ethical obligation to either provide condoms, or make referrals so that patients can get them elsewhere, and countries that are major sources of funding for the prevention of HIV/AIDS must not let a few bishops at the top hinder the global effort simply because they continue to fight change within the Church.

In 2010, the Pope made an important first step in a journey that the leaders in the Church must make towards a compassionate, realistic view of safer sex and condom use. Like any voyage, the first step is the hardest, but those of us in the Church hope and pray that our leaders will have the courage to undertake this pilgrimage. There’s too much at stake to let this life-affirming message get drowned out.

[3cr]

Catholics, condoms and the RH bill
Inquirer
http://opinion.inquirer.net/33521/ca...nd-the-rh-bill

Well, what do you know… It seems that President Benigno Aquino III’s brief mention, almost in passing, in his State of the Nation Address of the importance of “responsible parenthood” lit a fire under the bottoms of the House and Senate leadership.

Now the long-delayed Reproductive Health bill is “on the verge” of passage, at least according to the long-suffering lobby groups, and it’s all hands on deck!

Of course, the Catholic bishops and their adherents, all those who believe in keeping Filipino women “barefoot and pregnant,” can be expected to wage their own counterattack. But since everything that can be said has been said on this long-delayed bill, I think the House and the Senate are more than ready to finally vote on the measure.

Just a reminder, though: The Filipino public has long made its sentiments on reproductive health heard and loudly articulated. The only question remaining is: Who do our legislators listen to? Will it be the Filipino people, as expressed in public opinion surveys dating back to well over a decade? Or will it be a small elite composed of Church folk and their supporters?

Congress is reaching the crossroads, and let’s hope it proceeds in the right direction.

* * *

While we’re on the topic, I do still hold out hope that our Filipino bishops and their followers on the issue of reproductive health will come around to changing their minds and easing their vociferous opposition to the idea of giving women (and men) the means to decide their reproductive fate.

I say this because Pope Benedict XVI did say in 2010 that using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS can be “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.” This was, wrote Jon O’Brien in a recent issue of “rd” or Religion Dispatches, a daily online magazine, “a great leap forward for the Catholic Church,” which previously condemned the promotion of condom use (deeming condoms “immoral”) even to prevent the spread of disease.

Before I go on to discuss O’Brien’s article, titled “The Truth About Catholics and Condoms,” let me clarify here that O’Brien (whom I have met personally) is the president of Catholics for Choice and a leader of the “Condoms4Life” campaign, just so you’d know where he’s coming from. And that “rd” says it provides “a forum for journalists, scholars and advocates to share their expertise and inform the conversations that shape our lives and our democracy.” Judging from its lineup of articles, “rd” seems to cover a wide range of beliefs and opinions.

The Pope’s statement, says O’Brien, could have meant “not only that Catholics could feel comfortable using this tried-and-tested HIV prevention method, but that many Catholic-run health care centers might start incorporating condoms into their official HIV prevention programs.”

But even after the Pope affirmed the use of condoms to help prevent the spread of HIV, “we still hear some members of the Catholic hierarchy trying to take back the Pope’s words and doing their best to prevent condoms from reaching people who need them.”

Some bishops sought to reinterpret the Pope’s statement, with some applying it only to a narrow scope in his original message, insisting that Benedict was speaking of a hypothetical situation regarding a male prostitute. But incredibly, the Vatican held fast to the Pope’s original meaning. Vatican spokesperson Fr. Federico Lombardi “confirmed that the Pope intended his words to apply whether ‘you’re a woman, a man, or a transsexual.’” But what O’Brien finds equally important is that the Pope chose “as his first example an individual who really exists. There are indeed sex workers all over the world, male and female.”

Reflects O’Brien: “A living, compassionate Church acknowledges realities like these and asks: what are the moral choices available for such a person?”

Worldwide, writes O’Brien, the Catholic Church provides approximately 25 percent of all AIDS care, and yet, “the principle of the Pope’s words has yet to trickle down into practice.” And while Catholic health care has provided anti-retroviral treatments to thousands, “it balks at one challenge: helping people live long, healthy lives as sexual beings.”

* * *

“The issue is to protect life,” says South African Bishop Kevin Dowling, whose diocese “has been devastated by AIDS deaths.” Many Catholics agree, with a 2007 poll finding that the majority of Catholics in five countries agree that “using condoms is pro-life because it helps save lives.”

We’re not just talking about HIV/AIDS and condoms here, I believe. The benefits of reproductive health services have long been established, and their necessity, in light of our worsening data on child and maternal health, need no longer be proven.

O’Brien says that “the hierarchy’s reluctance to acknowledge facts already grasped by ordinary Catholics is nothing new.” Neither is the power of Church leaders to stand as obstacles to change, even if that change is beneficial to society and to human beings. We can only pray that the bishops look deep into their hearts and consciences to acknowledge that condoms—and the whole range of reproductive health services—can and do save lives. That condoms and reproductive health are in fact life-affirming.

[Parchie]

I remember James Taylor's line in his song "Shower the People":

"One thing can lead to another; it doesn't take any sacrifice. Oh, father and mother, sister and brother, if it feels nice, don't think twice,"

I loved the song but it tells people to disregard everything if what you're doing "feels nice". That sense of safety wearing that plastic suit makes people everything is all taken cared of. But when you think you got it all figured out, think again! A quick RCA will tell you that wearing armor is never a sure fire protection, avoidance is. Weren't we told there are always chinks in every armor?

[Parchie]

Originally Posted by Lithiumite

Pope Benedict Finally Drops Catholic Ban On Condoms, Weakens CBCP Stand Whom Against The RH Bill

The Vatican has been in fierce opposition to the use of all contraception including condom, it is for this reason why the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) is against the Reproductive Health bill (RH bill).


However, this time Pope Benedict has ended the Catholic church absolute ban on the use of condoms after the Pope realized that its usage can reduce the risk of infection from AIDS.

What the Pope Really Said About Condoms


By Howard Chua-Eoan Saturday, Nov. 20, 2010

The headline around the world was that the Pope was finally allowing the use of condoms in certain circumstances. The news came after an Italian newspaper broke an embargo on a book-length interview with Benedict XVI by the German journalist Peter Seewald, perhaps the only popular interlocutor whom the Pontiff, in his previous role as a Cardinal, has cooperated with on such a scale.

Benedict's so-called condom concession was not a huge one. He still proscribes the use of condoms as contraception (as he does the birth control pill). His specific example, that of a male prostitute choosing to use a condom in a conscious choice to prevent HIV infection, is couched as "a first step in the direction of moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants." Benedict seems to imply a scale of good and bad intentions — from the indiscriminate use of condoms and other contraceptives to the idea of preventing the spread of AIDS to following the teachings of the Catholic Church. Condoms are not the ultimate solution or the prescribed Catholic way, he reiterates, though Benedict allows that there is little the church can do to prevent anyone from acquiring condoms. Still, he insists that "the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality ... the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love."

Benedict's statement about condoms is part of Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Sign of the Times, Seewald's far-ranging, six-hour interview, which is to be published by Ignatius Press. The Pope supplies often frank and personal responses. Indeed, Benedict admits that he was "provoked" by a reporter's question during a 2009 press conference that called the Catholic Church's approach to AIDS "unrealistic and ineffective." He responded to the question by defending the enormous amount of work done by religious organizations worldwide in treating "AIDS victims, especially children with AIDS." "The Church does more than anyone else," he told Seewald. "And I stand by that claim." (See "The Trial of Pope Benedict XVI.")

Seewald and the Pope discuss numerous subjects, from the church's child-abuse scandal to homosexuality to papal retirements to the Book of Revelation. For the most part, Benedict is surprisingly open, though unsurprisingly wedded to orthodoxy, even as he defends it spiritedly. At times, he is almost relativistic, preferring to read the Bible in symbolic ways rather than with a hard-edged literalism. For example, while he says that Christians must always look forward to the coming of Christ, it must be in a continuously spiritual way, and that a believer must not look for that return "in a chronological sense," which "would be false." Indeed, the Pope argues against a literal interpretation of the biblical book so often used by doomsayers to herald the end of the world. "The important thing is that every period open itself to the presence of the Lord." (See TimeFrames and how religion has shaped the contemporary world.)

And yet he can cite the Bible and tradition in iron-clad ways, for example, in the case of female priests. Benedict reiterates his predecessor John Paul II's position: "The Church has 'no authority' to ordain women. The point is not that we are saying that we don't want to, but that we can't" — that is, because there is no biblical or historical basis for it. Even though he says that "Jesus brought women into a closer relationship with him than had been thinkable before his time," he says women can shape the church in more powerful ways than men without having to be priests.

In the interview, the Pope defends priestly celibacy, which he describes as "an affront to what man normally thinks" and thus an ideal approach to the kingdom of heaven. And while he does not deny that gay men and women have civil rights, he says that "homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy would lose its meaning as a renunciation." (Homosexuality, he repeats, "remains contrary to the essence of what God originally willed.")

He admits that the abuse scandal is a terrible crisis. "As a result the faith as such becomes unbelievable, and the Church can no longer present herself credibly as the herald of the Lord," he says. He discusses at some length the scandal in Ireland and how "it was a surprise [to him] that abuse also existed on that scale" in his native Germany.

That admission, however, brings up an unanswered and perhaps unasked question about an incident that occurred during the Pope's brief administration of the church in the German city of Munich when he was Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger. In 1980, Ratzinger personally authorized the transfer of an abusive priest, Peter Hullermann, from another part of Germany to his own archdiocese, ostensibly for therapy. But just days after his arrival, the priest was allowed to serve among the flock. Hullermann was convicted of subsequent sexual assaults in 1986. The Vatican insists that, like other Archbishops, Ratzinger wasn't responsible for the parish assignments of priests, even those with a history of abusing children.

In the interview, the Pope says something that seems tangentially relevant. "It is never permissible ... to steal away and to wish not to have seen it and to let the perpetrator continue working. It is therefore necessary for the Church to be vigilant, to punish those who have sinned, and above all to exclude them from further access to children." But it is curious that the text of the interview does not address the Hullermann incident explicitly. Seewald has not responded to a TIME query about whether the Hullermann case came up during his conversation with Benedict XVI.

Seewald broaches the idea of resigning, which many of the Pope's critics called for when revelations about the abuse crisis peaked in April. Benedict is adamant in his response: "When the danger is great one must not run away." But the 83-year-old Pontiff does say that, contrary to perceived papal tradition, Popes should be able to consider resignation. "If a Pope clearly realizes that he is no longer physically, psychologically, and spiritually capable of handling the duties of his office, then he has a right and, under some circumstances, also an obligation to resign." And Benedict, who admits that he does not use an exercise bike that was set up for him, tells Seewald that "I also notice my forces are diminishing."

Early on in the interview, Seewald calls Benedict "the most powerful Pope of all time" because of the church's burgeoning army of believers the world over. But Benedict dials it down. "Among those 1.2 billion Catholics are many who inwardly are not there," he says. "Stalin was right in saying that the Pope has no divisions and cannot issue commands. Nor does he have a big business in which all the faithful of the Church are his employees or his subordinates ... In that respect, the Pope ... is a completely powerless man."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...#ixzz25yj6SqLk

[3cr]

Originally Posted by anakngpasig

gusto ko yung sinabi ni Italian Cardinal Mario Martini - the catholic church is "200 years behind".

more

Yup ako din agree ako sa sinabi niya. Nagpakatotoo lamang siya.


Cardinal Martini’s last cri de cœur
Times of Malta
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles...de-c-ur.436134

When the members of the College of Cardinals stand up to recite the Veni Creator it becomes very obvious that some stand head and shoulders above the rest. On closer scrutiny one notices that a couple tower over and above all the rest. Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini was one such cardinal.

Cardinal Martini’s criticism of Church structures is a heartfelt appeal for the resurgence of a relevant Church.

- Fr Joe Borg

I met Cardinal Martini in 1990 during a conference for Catholic communicators held in Bangkok. The cardinal of Italy’s capital city of television pluralism was invited to speak about the Church and the media. He had just published Ephphatha, Be Opened, a pastoral letter discussing the role of communication in a society situated between “the absolute incommunicability of Babel and the promise of communication found in Pentecost.” This is a profound pastoral letter on the fundamentals of communication based on a God who is the personification of the communicating community called Trinity.

At the time, Martini was also in the process of publishing another pastoral letter – The Hem of His Garment – about the relationship of the Church and Christians to the media. The inspiration of both pastoral letters was the Bible; which was the inspiration of all his works.

The healing of deaf and mute man in Mark, 7, 31-37 is the centrepiece of Ephphatha, Be Opened! The story of the woman healed after touching the hem of Jesus’s garment (Mark, 5, 25ff) provided the basis for the cardinal’s reflections on the media. His reflections take the form of a series of imagined conversations and unusual perspectives: from the living room, from the rooftops and from a satellite. This analysis from different points of view gives us a unique appraisal of a subject of the utmost importance for the Church.

Since then I ‘met’ Martini every year during my annual retreat. I was always accompanied by one of his books. These were generally the transcripts of retreats he has delivered himself. His books about Abraham, David, Mary, Paul and other Biblical figures provide deep and original insights based on the Bible as well as enlightening spiritual guidance.

Martini’s great love and tremendous knowledge of the Word of God provides us with the key to understand him, his actions and his contributions – sometimes controversial – to the media and the Church. Pope Benedict XVI perfectly summarised Martini as the “man of God, who not only studied Sacred Scripture but loved it intensely, making it the light of his life.” As a man of the Word he listened to its Speaker. He listened and dialogued with great openness of heart with all others: believers and non-believers.

As an attentive listener he became conscious of the limitations of the words he knew and enriched himself with the words of others for he believed that neither he nor the Church he loved had all the answers. Together with others he searched for these answers within and outside ecclesial structures. He was no lover of omertà; not one intent on behind the door dealings and discussions. He was not afraid to speak publicly about the Church, warts and all. His public utterings, especially when critical were his cris de cœur; acts of love in themselves for the Church he loved.

Martini lived the basic Christian attitudes of courage, openness and joy when confronted by new phenomena. This contrasts sharply with the attitude of fear, closure and panic that characterises Church men and women of lesser stature than the cardinal though, at times, of similarly important institutional positions. The latter hide behind rigid structures and degrade theology to an ideology of control for they are afraid of a theology that liberates.

During a special Synod of Bishops in 1999 Martini made waves when he proposed the convocation of a new council to unravel “doctrinal and disciplinary knots” such as shortage of priests, the role of women, the laity and the discipline of marriage. He was not afraid to tackle controversial issues head on. After all, his motto on his coat of arms read: “For the love of truth, dare to choose adverse situations”.

In a 2006 dialogue with Italian bioethicist Ignazio Marino in L’Espresso, Martini was not afraid to say that condoms could be considered as a lesser evil in combating Aids particularly for a married couple. In a 2008 book-length interview titled Night time Conversations in Jerusalem, Martini stated that Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae which taught that artificial birth control was morally wrong, led many Catholics to distance themselves from the Church.

In his last book, Believe and Know, he comments in a very straightforward and crisp way on artificial procreation, embryo donation and euthanasia. The local debate about IVF should be enlightened by the words of this Italian sage and prophet.

He loved the Church and loved it till the very end. His final act of public declaration of love for her was his interview given a short while before his death and published in Corriere della Sera after his demise as his will and testament.

In this last interview, Martini called for a “radical transformation” of the Church, arguing that Catholicism today is “200 years out of date.” He asks whether we are afraid of proposing faith and courage as the way forward.

“The Church is tired, in prosperous Europe and in America. Our culture is out of date; our churches are big; our religious houses are empty, and the Church’s bureaucratic apparatus is growing, and our rites and our vestments are pompous.”

His last earnest cry is an appeal for a solution to “the tiredness of the Church” calling for a “radical transformation, beginning with the Pope and his bishops”.

Cardinal Martini’s criticism of Church structures is a heartfelt appeal for the resurgence of a relevant Church; that is a Church which makes a difference in the lives of everyday people. His appeal comes from a deep yearning that the Church becomes the point of reference of contemporary society.

All Catholics should play an important role in this respect. His last public words contained in this interview/testament challenge all of us:

“I have a question for you: What can you do for the Church?”

We are not neutral bystanders. We are the Church.

[3cr]

Lagman demands vote on RH bill now
Inquirer
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/266540/...on-rh-bill-now

MANILA, Philippines – One of the authors of the reproductive health bill demanded Saturday that the controversial version be put to a vote now, regardless of whether opponents were satisfied or not with its latest permutation.

Albay Representative Edcel Lagman made the statement as he lamented the hardline stance that some of those against the measure, including lawmakers and Catholic clergymen, continued to take despite offers of a compromise by the bill’s proponents.

“The intransigence of those opposed to the RH bill has torpedoed the forging of a viable and reasonable compromise on the measure,” Lagman said in a statement.

“The House of Representatives has been left with no option but to proceed considering the proposed amendments in order to pave the way for final voting,” he added.

According to him, voting on the bill has been stalled long enough, and this has come at the expense of the poor and the marginalized who need the services the proposed legislation would provide.

“The process of legislation must come to an end in a final voting so that Filipinos will find out whether their representatives in Congress are guardians of the people’s will or centurions of Church orthodoxy,” he added.

House leaders said they wanted to pursue talks between supporters and opponents of the reproductive health bill, including officials of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, in order to hammer out an acceptable version of the measure.

The talks are supposed to be held after the House has finished passing the 2013 budget this month, but hardliners are not expected to participate.

Proponents of the bill, as part of a compromise, said they were willing to limit the provision of contraceptives to the poorest of the poor households, with the items to be provided only on an as-needed basis. This is to ensure that these households would have access to the things they need to be able to space their children.

The suggestion was made in response to opposition to the bill on the basis of widespread distribution of contraceptives using government funds, as well as the position of some oppositors that they respect the rights of couples to determine the number and spacing of their children.

The reproductive health bill seeks to provide contraceptives and family planning service to Filipinos in order to reduce maternal and infant deaths and allow couples to determine the number and spacing of their children. It also provides for mobile health clinics, barangay health workers, and emergency obstetric care.

But Lagman said even without compromises, the bill was already acceptable to the majority of Filipinos.

“The RH bill in its pristine form has been acceptable to the overwhelming majority of Filipinos as documented consistently by periodic surveys, with 71 percent of Catholics endorsing the enactment of the bill,” he said.

The bill is going through the period of amendment in the Senate and in the House, although in the House, not one amendment has been introduced on the floor because of delays caused by privilege speeches by opponents of the measure.

[3cr]

Special session on RH bill sought
Manila Standard
http://manilastandardtoday.com/2012/...h-bill-sought/

Proponents of the Reproductive Health Bill urged the House of Representatives on Saturday to hold a special session and immediately pass the highly-divisive measure.

The call came even after Malacanang said on Friday that President Benigno Aquino III has adopted a hands-off policy on the issue, and had decided to allow partymates in the Liberal Party in Congress to work out a compromise with anti-RH bill proponents.

Palace spokesman Ricky Carandang said the president will not “meddle” on the affairs of Congress, despite a plea from lawmakers for him to step in and break the impasse in his own Liberal Party at the House.

“At this point, we leave it to the House and the Senate to work out whatever deals or com promises they see fit as far as the RH bill is concerned,” Carandang said.

On Thursday, Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales III urged the President to lead his party in the same way he did when the Palace instigated the ouster by impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona.

But Carandang ruled out an active role for the President, saying he had already made his position known on the subject many times.

Ifugao Rep. Teddy Brawner Baguilat Jr., one of the major proponents of the RH bill, said he believes that the approval of the RH bill during the present Congress is “realistically workable.”

“The Senate is on the verge of period of amendments and that should challenge us to do so in the House,” said Baguilat, chairman of the House Committee on National Cultural Communities.

Baguilat added that there was no need to hold a special session since both Houses of Congress are on right track as far as the timetable for the approval of the RH bill is concerned.

“But if the bill gets hostaged by parliamentary tactics, we may need a week of session just devoted on RH,” Baguilay told the Manila Standard.

The House has formed a technical working group with the Senate and ‘reasonable’ members of the Catholic church to work on the compromise version of the measure.

“The intransigence of those opposed to the RH bill has torpedoed the forging of a viable and reasonable compromise on the measure,” former minority leader and Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman had said earlier.

In a statement, Lagman said the Lower House has been left with no option but to proceed and consider the proposed amendments in order to pave the way for a final voting.

[3cr]

Fr Bernas refutes bishop's RH claims
Rappler.com
http://www.rappler.com/nation/12130-...op-s-rh-claims

Jesuit constitutionalist Fr Joaquin Bernas said tax money has no “religious face,” and the bishop who criticized his stance on the Reproductive Health (RH) bill espouses a “very narrow” understanding of pluralism.

Fr Joaquin Bernas on Monday, September 10, refuted the arguments of Antipolo Bishop Gabriel Reyes, who published a newspaper advertisement to express disagreement with him on the controversial measure.

In his latest column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Bernas referred to his previous article that Reyes criticized on behalf of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP).

Bernas earlier wrote: “The state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious beliefs nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious beliefs.”

Reyes, chair of the CBCP Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, said the CBCP doesn't want to ban contraceptives, which can easily be bought in drugstores. He claimed the CBCP only wants to stop the government from promoting artificial family planning methods, which do not merely defy Catholic teaching but also “natural law.”

No freedom to choose

In his column on Monday, Bernas noted a "clear implication" of Reyes' claim that people can easily buy contraceptives in drugstores: that "the world is free and anyone can buy these." He said: "This is simply not true. Only those who have the money can buy them."

Lack of money prevents the poor from fully exercising their freedom to choose, Bernas added. He echoed the views of RH bill advocates who claim that by not funding contraceptives, the government is effectively preventing the poor from accessing these. “The exercise of freedom is only possible if one has the capacity to choose,” said the priest, who is also dean emeritus of the Ateneo de Manila Law School.

“The government is thinking of the vast majority of poor and uninstructed people who do not know what the choices are or who cannot afford to make their free choice and are sometimes driven to abortion. What the government hopes to do is not to compel them to use contraceptives but to capacitate them to make their free choice and perhaps even save them from abortion,” he explained.

Bernas then noted Reyes' “implicit” desire for the government not to distribute contraceptives for free.

“One must distinguish between tax money and donated money. The use of donated money is limited by intentio dantis or the intention of the donor. Tax money, on the other hand, can be used for any legitimate public purpose authorized by Congress. Tax money has no religious face. Whether or not its use is licit can ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court,” Bernas said.

'Narrow view'

Bernas also criticized Reyes' view that “natural law prohibits contraception and natural law binds everyone because '(by) studying through correct reasoning the nature of the human person, we arrive at this teaching regarding contraception.'”

He was referring to Reyes' claim that the Catholic Church's opposition to the RH bill is based on “natural law.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines natural law as an expression of moral law that is “universal” and appeals to “common principles.”

“One might flippantly answer by asking whose correct reasoning are we talking about? Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Grisez, Chappell, Finnis, etc.? But the statement deserves more than just a flippant answer. And it is not flippant to say that many serious thinkers have also studied the human person and have not arrived at the conclusion that contraception is evil,” Bernas wrote.

Bernas, who earlier said he adheres to Catholic teaching on contraceptives, said he doesn't want to dispute natural law as the Catholic Church teaches it.

“But I believe that the bishop’s view is a very narrow understanding of the pluralism which is part of our constitutional system. Pluralism, which flows from freedom of religion, is not just about the plurality of theistic religions. Neither is it merely a matter of which God or god to worship,” he said.

“Constitutionally protected pluralism includes nontheistic religions such as Buddhism, ethical culture, secular humanism, and a variety of ethical philosophies. Of course, it also includes the bishop’s understanding of natural law. But his understanding is just one of the many, including those which do not arrive at the bishop’s conclusion,” Bernas added.

Like Bernas, other Filipinos have cited religious freedom in supporting the RH bill. In a recent piece for Rappler's Move.PH, contributor Joey Ramirez stressed that the Philippines is a secular democracy.

“Since our rights as citizens are not in any way hampered by our choice of religion (one in particular)... then the laws we have governing everyone should also be equally unhampered by any religion (one in particular), and should be applied equally regardless of religion,” Ramirez wrote.

In the present Congress, the RH bill has triggered the most contentious debates, and is said to need intervention from President Benigno Aquino III himself. For now, the bill is temporarily shelved to give way to the passage of the government's P2.006-T budget for 2013.

[RonnieR]

well said Fr. Bernas.

Here's an interesting article.

Sotto's equation: Morekids = more hands to earn
FULL DISCLOSURE By Fidel O. Abalos (The Freeman) Updated September 10, 2012

Unavoidably, therefore, it starts with the right family size. The appropriate size that is very much within the family’s resources or income. With this mindset prevailing, right thinking couples/individuals will tend to limit their number of kids so they can responsibly and comfortably raise their families.

Unfortunately though, some couples/individuals simply have different mindsets. Just like Sen. Sotto, they look at kids as income producing properties. So that, they dwell purely on a very stupid equation, the more kids = more hands to earn for them. Worst, they even try figure out earning more with very little investment. They just let the mothers breastfeed the kids until they can walk, then, send them to the streets to beg or to the dumpsite to collect recyclable garbage. What makes matters worst is, this bunch of couples/individuals truly felt that what they have decided to do have sound backing from the so-called pro-life advocates.

Clearly, therefore, having the right family size is a matter of fiscal responsibility. If one is a billionaire, then he can be like Solomon because he can afford to give better lives to a hundred children. On the other hand, if he is a pauper, for heaven sake, he must not think of having more kids to have more hands to soon bail him out of poverty.

For your comments and suggestions, please email to foabalos@yahoo.com.

full article:

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx...CategoryId=108

[Manila-X]

So who's running the show now between the two? The Roman Catholic Church or CBCP?

[Parchie]

Originally Posted by 3cr

Vatican Stand On Condom Use Weakens CBCP Stance On Reproductive Health Bill
http://affleap.com/vatican-stand-on-...uctive-health/

Pope Benedict XVI’s declaration regarding the use of condom has sowed widespread confusion among Roman Catholic followers.

Some people have been disappointed because the remarks had put them, especially the strict defenders of its teachings like the Catholic Bishop Of the Philippines (CBCP) has weakened and put them into an awkward position at a time that the Reproductive Health bill is still being heard in Philippine Congress.

Benedict’s declaration could open a doorway for married couple to use condom as an artificial birth control which the church has banned it due to moral issue.

The Truth about Catholics and Condoms
http://www.religiondispatches.org/ar...s_and_condoms/

As the XIX International AIDS Conference comes to Washington D.C., the issue of condom use to prevent the spread of HIV will certainly be a central topic of debate. For many involved, the statement that Pope Benedict XVI made in 2010 still resonates. In a great leap forward for the Catholic Church, he said that using condoms to prevent the spread of HIV can be “a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality.”

The fact that it came from the Pope meant not only that Catholics could feel comfortable using this tried-and-tested HIV prevention method, but that the many Catholic-run health care centers might start incorporating condoms into their official HIV prevention programs. Sadly, however, we still hear some members of the Catholic hierarchy trying to take back the Pope’s words and doing their best to prevent condoms from reaching people who need them. But it’s important to hold onto the truth. Pope Benedict did affirm that condom use can help prevent HIV—reflecting the prayers and activism of Catholics the world over who were affected by HIV/AIDS or stood in solidarity with those who were. I would like to see the Pope go even farther in his affirmation of condoms and other life-affirming reproductive health care.

The backlash after the Pope’s groundbreaking statement in November 2010 was swift and widespread. Bishop Juan Antonio Martinez Camino, secretary general of the Spanish Bishops’ Conference, declared that the use of condoms “always” takes place “within a context of immorality.” Kenya’s bishops also dug in their heels, declaring that the Pope was merely remarking “on something that may be true about the psychological state of those who use [condoms].” Their objection was similar to that of Leonard Paul Blair, bishop of Toledo, Ohio, who argued that the Pope was merely speaking about a “hypothetical situation” in his choice to focus on a male prostitute using a condom.

Sadly for Bishop Blair, the Vatican spokesperson Father Federico Lombardi confirmed that the Pope intended his words to apply whether “you’re a woman, a man, or a transsexual.” Equally important, however, is the fact that the Pope chose as his first example an individual who really exists. There are indeed sex workers all over the world, male and female. A living, compassionate Church acknowledges realities like these and asks: what are the moral choices available for such a person? As Bernard Longley, archbishop of Birmingham, said, “[the Pope chose his words carefully so] that one could see how conscience works within an individual.”

Worldwide, the Catholic Church provides approximately 25 percent of all AIDS care—to married women and men, single people, LGBT individuals, and yes, sex workers. Officially, none of this treatment recognizes that these individuals’ consciences may dictate that condoms are a life-affirming, responsible choice. The principle of the Pope’s words has yet to trickle down into practice.

Catholic health care has been in the AIDS fight since the beginning, and it has succeeded in bringing anti-retroviral treatment to thousands. But it balks at one challenge: helping people live long, healthy lives as sexual beings. Now that people are living longer, healthier lives with HIV, justice demands that they must have the means to protect themselves and their partners with condoms. This must hold true for those living in some of the world’s most remote regions or in impoverished areas, or where Catholic health facilities are the only option.

South African Bishop Kevin Dowling, whose diocese has been devastated by AIDS deaths, has spoken out many times in favor of condoms, because “the issue is to protect life.” Portuguese bishop Januario Torgal Ferreira, was quoted as saying that “there are obviously circumstances where prohibiting condoms is to consent to the death of many people.” Many Catholics the world over agree. A 2007 poll found that the majority of Catholics in five countries agreed that “using condoms is pro-life because it helps save lives by preventing the spread of HIV.”

The hierarchy’s reluctance to acknowledge facts already grasped by ordinary Catholics is nothing new. And despite those stubborn bishops who argue otherwise, good Catholics can, and do, use condoms.

There is no possible moral reason to prevent any person from following their conscience about condoms. Rather, every treatment provider has the ethical obligation to either provide condoms, or make referrals so that patients can get them elsewhere, and countries that are major sources of funding for the prevention of HIV/AIDS must not let a few bishops at the top hinder the global effort simply because they continue to fight change within the Church.

In 2010, the Pope made an important first step in a journey that the leaders in the Church must make towards a compassionate, realistic view of safer sex and condom use. Like any voyage, the first step is the hardest, but those of us in the Church hope and pray that our leaders will have the courage to undertake this pilgrimage. There’s too much at stake to let this life-affirming message get drowned out.

Nilaglag ba ng ating Santo Papa ang pagbabawal sa condom?
Mga minahal naming mga Kapiling kay Kristo, Nabuhay ulit ang isang isyung matagal na sanang lutas noon pa at nasa basurahan na. Ngayon ang kabulukan nito ay pinakakain sa mga taong walang kamuwang-muwang. Ngayong mga araw na ito, kumakalat sa Facebook at Twitter atbp. ang isang link na nagsasabi na ang Santo Papa raw ay nilaglag na ang ban sa paggamit ng mga condom. Ang condom kasi at ang iba bang antikonseptibo (contraceptives) ay ipinagbabawal ng katuruan ng Santa Iglesia para sa mga Katoliko sa pananampalataya. Heto ang preview ng naturang link:

http://affleap.com/pope-benedict-fin...t-the-rh-bill/
Heto po ang ating mga paglilinaw sa issue na ito.

1. Tila di yata tiyak ang naturang website, so there goes its credibility.
Ang article ay naipublish nitong August 11, 2012, ayon sa screen cap na ito:

At sa article ay sinasabi niya:

The announcement is in a book to be published by the Vatican this week based on the first face-to-face interview given by a Pope.
(Emphasis ours)

Ang tanong ngayon, Ano ba ang libro na ipupublish ng Vatican sa loob ng linggo around August 11, 2012?
Wala kaming narinig ukol rito nitong Agosto o sa buong linggo sa paligid ng Agosto 11. Maaaring ipakita ito ng author kung ano ang librong ito. Hindi din gumagana ang mga links.
Ang pinakamalapit na pagkakakilanlan namin ng librong inilalarawan ng author at pinagkukunann niya ng sumusunod niyang mga ideya ay ang Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times, na ipinublish ng Ignatius Press noon pang taong 2010.


Irresponsible blogging? Malamang. Ngunit nais naming makaalam sa author para matiyak natin. Baka naman mayroon. Bukas ang ating campo para sa reply at paglilinaw ng may-akda ng website na yaon.

2. Mali ang conclusion ng Author ng article na ito

While the Pope restated the Catholic Church’s staunch objections to contraception because it believes that it interferes with the creation of life, he argued that using a condom to preserve life and avoid death could be a responsible act, even outside marriage.
So it’s now clear that the Pope’s foremost consideration is to preserve life and avoid death even it’s off from the sanctity of wedlock .

Misleading po ang conclusion na ito. Hindi porke’t nagbigay ng halimbawa ang Santo Papa ng isang sitwasyon ay ito na ang kanyang paninidigan. Ang tinutukoy sa sitwasyon ay ang moral responsibility ng tao sa kapwa niya tao, na maiintindihan sa sinabi ng Santo Papa sa librong Light of the World, heto ang excerpt:
Pope Benedict XVI:

There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants. But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality.
(amin ang padiriin at pagsasalungguhit)

Sinasabi ng Santo Papa rito na ang halimbawa ng pagkakaroon ng isang “moral awareness” ng isang tao ay masesense diumano kahit sa simpleng paraan ng paggamit ng isang lalakeng patutot (prostitute) ng condom, bilang pagiingat sa taong kanyang makakasiping. Inihalimbawa ito ng Santo Papa para maidiin na kahit sa kabila ng mga gawaing imoral, ay may kakayahan ang tao na malaman kung ano ang mabuti at masama, na siyang magbibigay daan sa kanya na mapagtanto kung ano ang tama at mali. At sa kahit na ganitong paraan, malalaman ng tao na hindi lahat ng gusto niya ay magagawa niya para sa sariling ikasisiya, kundi mayroon din siyang responsibilidad sa kanyang kapwa tao. Ito’y magiging daan upang malaman ng tao na may mga bagay na mas mahalaga pa kaysa sa sariling nais, at ito ang pinakabatayan ng pagkakaroon ng moralidad ng tao para sa iba at lalo na para sa sarili. Hindi ibig sabihin na sinasang-ayunan na ng Santo Papa ang paggamit ng condom para maiwasan ang sakit, kundi na dapat magnilay ang tao sa kung ano ang pinakamabuti, at hindi ang isang gawaing makapagpapahamak lamang hindi lamang sa espiritwal na kalagayan kundi pati na rin sa kalusugang pangkatawan. Sinabi kasi ng Santo Papa na hindi makakatulong ang pamimigay ng condom sa pagsugpo ng AIDS:

In my remarks I was not making a general statement about the condom issue, but merely said, and this is what caused such great offense, that we cannot solve the problem by distributing condoms. Much more needs to be done. We must stand close to the people, we must guide and help them; and we must do this both before and after they contract the disease.
As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen.
(amin ang pagsasalungguhit)

Na sinang-ayunan naman ng isang eksperto sa sakit na AIDS.
Click: The pope was right about condoms, says Harvard HIV expert

Ang pinakapunto ng Santo Papa, ang positibong moralidad sa seksuwalidad ang pinakamahalaga, hindi ang sariling pagnanasa o kagustuhan.
Pope Benedict XVI:

As a matter of fact, you know, people can get condoms when they want them anyway. But this just goes to show that condoms alone do not resolve the question itself. More needs to happen. Meanwhile, the secular realm itself has developed the so-called ABC Theory: Abstinence-Be Faithful-Condom, where the condom is understood only as a last resort, when the other two points fail to work. This means that the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being.
(amin ang padiriin at pagsasalungguhit)

Basahin ang post namin sa 100% Katolikong Pinoy fan page upang mas maintindihan kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng Santo Papa. Mag-click dito.

3. Settled issue na ito:Hindi sinabi ng Santo Papa na tinatanggal niya ang ban sa mga condoms.
Settled issue na sana ito noon pa dahil hindi naman letra-por-letra sinasabi ng Santo Papa na bina-ban na niya ang pagbabawal sa condoms para sa mga Katoliko. At ang isang mapitagang Doktrina Katolika gaya ng kasalanan ng paggamit ng mga antikonseptibo ay nangangailangan ng isang pahayag ex cathedra upang mabago, at di sapat ang interview o ang point-of-view ng Santo Papa lamang. Ang official press release ng Vatican ang magpapaliwanag nito. Sinasabi rito na kayrami nga ang nagkamali at nagmis-interpret sa sinasabi ng Santo Papa sa kaniyang interview.

Following the publication of the interview-book Light of the World by Benedict XVI, a number of erroneous interpretations have emerged which have caused confusion concerning the position of the Catholic Church regarding certain questions of sexual morality. The thought of the Pope has been repeatedly manipulated for ends and interests which are entirely foreign to the meaning of his words – a meaning which is evident to anyone who reads the entire chapters in which human sexuality is treated. The intention of the Holy Father is clear: to rediscover the beauty of the divine gift of human sexuality and, in this way, to avoid the cheapening of sexuality which is common today.
(amin ang pagsasalungguhit)

Basahin ang buong statement ng Vatican ukol sa issue: Mag-click dito.

Finale
Mapapansin natin na ang mga nagpapakalat ng maling impormasyong ito ay ang mga taong nais maipasa ang RH Bill, na nais makumbinsi ang mga Katoliko na okey na sa Vatican ang condom kaya maaari nang maipasa ang RH Bill.
Well, alam naman nating sinungaling ang Diyablo. Bilang mga alagad ng katotohanan, nawa’y maiwasto natin ang kabaluktutang ito ng disimpormasyon.

[GodIsNotGreat]

What could be a clearer example of the obscene influence of religion on Philippine society than this. A mundane issue such as the use of the condom is anchored on the interpretations of the proclamations of a shepherd of a religious flock; whether he approves or disapproves of its use.

A plastic sheath that couples can use in their sexual intimacies is subject to the approbation of an octogenarian virgin who covered up the rape of thousands of young men all over the world.

Thomas Paine, in his time, was not far off the mark when he said:

"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst."

_____________________________________

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - A. Einstein March 1954

[Mercato]

The Philippines should follow the example of France. A Catholic people but ruled under a Secular State.

[3cr]

Hehehe... Bakit kaya panay batikos ng CBCP with the government's plan to distribute condom maski na mismong ang Santo Papa na ang nagsabing OK na sa simbahan ang paggamit ng condom. Eh hindi din naman reliable and fool proof ang rhythm method as a family planning solution/tool as the CBCP is suggesting based on recent studies tapos panay ang intriga sa "failure rate" ng condom. Ano ba ang mas effective rhythm method or condom? Kung pagtitigasan ng CBCP ang stance nila, maybe it would give them and their argument more credibility if they can actually show that the failure rate doing rhythm method which ended up in unwanted pregnancy is actually lower than failure rate of using a condom which ended up in unwanted pregnancy. Mas malaki malamang ang percentage ng human error factor in rhythm method leading to unwanted pregnancy compared to the percentage of actual failure rate of using a condom which ended up in unwanted pregnancy. On top of that condom protection despite of their so called failure rate still help save lives especially from deadly sicknesses like HIV and AIDS compared to not having any protection at all. It's actually a win win solution which is all the more reason to pass the RH Bill despite the protests of the CBCP. After all the CBCP is not really "the source" of moral compass of society and does not speak for everyone in the Philippines especially given that the country is not even purely Roman Catholic in the first place. The government should do what's right for the people and not succumb to pressures of the CBCP. Time to pass the RH Bill now!

New study casts doubt on effectiveness of 'rhythm method' of birth control
GMA News
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...elated_stories

The "rhythm method" —long espoused as a "natural" means of birth control— may not be all that effective.

This is based on the latest findings published in the Aug. 28 issue of the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences.

The study, led by veterinarian and reproductive biologist Gregg Adams of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, confirms that seminal fluid also contains a substance that can trigger ovulation and other pregnancy-supporting hormonal responses in female mammals.

In other words: unprotected sex, even during the supposedly "safe" period before ovulation, may actually hasten ovulation —and pregnancy.


Induced vs spontaneous ovulation

Previously, only a few animal species, like camels and rabits, were considered to be "induced ovulators." These animals release eggs only in response to sex.

Human females, on the other hand, have long been thought to be "spontaneous ovulators." This means that they release eggs on a regular basis, regardless of sexual activity.

However, the new study's findings run against this common wisdom. It seems that the male does indeed play a part in female ovulation, and that engaging in unprotected sex can trigger ovulation.


Ovulation-inducing factor

In 1985, a group of Chinese researchers hypothesized that there might be an ovulation-inducing factor (OIF) in semen itself.

This served as the take-off point for Adams' research. His colleagues injected the seminal fluid of male llamas —a mammal closely related to camels— into the hind legs of female llamas. Much to their surprise, Adams said, "Injecting seminal fluid into the female llamas' bloodstream had a very potent ovulatory effect."

The OIF, according to the study, travels into the bloodstream of females, causing the body —the hypothalamus and pituitary gland, in particular— to release hormones required for pregnancy.

Adams' team dug deeper to find out which component of semen stimulates ovulation.

After all, Adams said, "Sperm make up only about 5 percent of semen."

Adams' team found that the culprit is neural growth factor (NGF), a common and well-known kind of protein long associated with nerve development.

[Parchie]

Eto po ang akmang analysis ng mga bali-balitang yun:

"Mapapansin natin na ang mga nagpapakalat ng maling impormasyong ito ay ang mga taong nais maipasa ang RH Bill, na nais makumbinsi ang mga Katoliko na okey na sa Vatican ang condom kaya maaari nang maipasa ang RH Bill.
Well, alam naman nating sinungaling ang Diyablo. Bilang mga alagad ng katotohanan, nawa’y maiwasto natin ang kabaluktutang ito ng disimpormasyon."

[absinthe_888]

San ko ba nabasa to:

"The Philippines is a country ruled by media and the priests"

Anyway, just put the damn RH bill to a vote once and for all.

[ninyaaar]

Hometown Love: Swimming, Smiles, & Loves

[GodIsNotGreat]

Jane Goodall talks about overpopulation in the developing world.



__________________________

You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion. - L. Ron Hubbard, Founder of Scientology

[Manila-X]

As I See It
Enrile: RH bill hangs in balance in Senate
By Neal H. Cruz
Philippine Daily Inquirer
10:53 pm | Tuesday, September 11th, 2012

The Reproductive Health bill, already passed by the House of Representatives, is in peril in the Senate. Those opposed to it have a one-vote lead over its supporters, according to Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile who was the lone guest at the Kapihan sa Manila at the Diamond Hotel last Monday. Enrile said that based on a head count he had made, nine senators would vote against the bill, eight would vote in favor, with six senators still undecided. The fate of the RH bill will therefore depend on these six. Enrile said he himself would vote against the bill.

What aspects of the bill are some of the senators opposing, and will amendments make it acceptable to them? Enrile said he did not know the amendments being proposed. As for his own objection, he said progress and development would depend on investments, not on the size of the population.

He cited China—now one of the richest nations in the world and a global power—as an example. With 1.3 billion inhabitants, it also has the world’s biggest population. With a population that huge, the factories have a very big market for their products. It also has a big pool of workers that enables it to make its products cheaper, which makes these more competitive in the world market.

On the other hand, some countries like Germany and Singapore that have diminishing populations have to import foreign workers. They are now urging their people to have more children. Singapore is offering bonuses to its young people to marry and have children.

Poor countries like the Philippines export their workers. That puts a strain on their families, depletes the countries’ experienced work force, and decreases the market for their products.

On contraception, Enrile echoed the Church’s argument that once fertilization takes place in the womb there already is life and we do not have the moral right to terminate life.
Told that contraceptives, such as condoms and diaphragms, precisely prevent fertilization, that the sperm and ovum do not even meet, Enrile answered: “How do we know when fertilization, life, begins? Only God knows and gives that.”

On the “sin tax” bill that would raise the taxes on, and therefore increase the prices of, cigarettes, Enrile also expressed his opposition. Aside from the fact that he comes from a tobacco-growing region, he said that increasing the prices of tobacco too much would only encourage smuggling.

When the price of any product is too high in any country, that only encourages smugglers to bring in similar products, such as cigarettes, from abroad. Instead of discouraging smokers, they would have access to cheaper ones, the smuggled cigarettes.

“Remember when smuggled cigarettes were being sold all over the Philippines? Do we want those days to return?” Enrile said. “We were not able to stop smuggling then; we won’t be able to stop smuggling now.” With its many islets and secluded beaches, the Philippines is very vulnerable to smuggling. Our navy boats cannot even catch up with the kumpit of the smugglers, he added.

Instead of increasing revenues, too high taxes would decrease them, as what happened in other countries like Malaysia, Singapore and Australia that also raised taxes on cigarettes.

Enrile said he was not totally against raising the sin tax. “But not too much,” he added. As proposed in the bill, cigarette prices would more than double. That’s greed already.

“Even the cigarette manufactures are amenable to an increase in the sin tax,” Enrile said, “but not at the level they are proposing. The manufacturers, such as Fortune Tobacco, also want to maintain the multiple levels of taxes.” Fortune manufactures low-priced cigarettes. The sin tax bill will impose the same rate of tax on all brands; it will be the same for high-priced and low-priced cigarettes.

High prices will not discourage smoking, Enrile said. Smoking is not just a habit, it is an addiction. Even if a smoker wants to quit, he cannot because his body craves for the nicotine. He will continue to crave for a cigarette. So what will he do if he cannot afford a cigarette? Like a drug addict, he will steal to satisfy his craving. Or buy smuggled cigarettes.

Exorbitant taxes will not improve the health of smokers, either. That line is only propaganda. On the contrary, they will affect his health more. Why? A poor smoker will devote a bigger part of his money for cigarettes and cut the part for food. Help the smokers with alternatives to smoking, not with high prices, because smoking is really drug addiction. The drug is nicotine.

Enrile is more optimistic with the Freedom of Information bill.

“That was already passed by the Senate in the past but Congress adjourned before it could be approved by the House,” he said. “So it has to go back to the beginning of the legislative mill.”

“I am personally in favor of the bill,” he added. “It is the members of the House who are blocking it. Why be afraid of the truth if you are not doing anything wrong?”

He also said the proposed budget for 2013 would have no trouble hurdling the Senate. Asked if there would be enough funding for the proposed budget, which is very much bigger than the current one, he replied in the affirmative.

Enrile also defended the outgoing and controversial Interior Undersecretary Rico E. Puno, who is suspected of trying to get sensitive documents from the offices and living quarters of Secretary Jesse Robredo after his plane crashed in the sea off Masbate. It is rumored that Puno is involved in the cases Robredo was investigating, such as “jueteng,” illegal logging, and overpricing in the purchase of guns for the Philippine National Police.

[louiegi]

Originally Posted by Manila-X

As I See It
Enrile: RH bill hangs in balance in Senate
By Neal H. Cruz
Philippine Daily Inquirer
10:53 pm | Tuesday, September 11th, 2012

As for his own objection, he said progress and development would depend on investments, not on the size of the population.

He cited China—now one of the richest nations in the world and a global power—as an example. With 1.3 billion inhabitants, it also has the world’s biggest population. With a population that huge, the factories have a very big market for their products. It also has a big pool of workers that enables it to make its products cheaper, which makes these more competitive in the world market.

On the other hand, some countries like Germany and Singapore that have diminishing populations have to import foreign workers. They are now urging their people to have more children. Singapore is offering bonuses to its young people to marry and have children.

manong enrile is right and i have to agree with him. that's one of the justifications why this bill isn't the solution to the problem we don't have..