sandrasorayaalzona
These have come up since the Health Department started the campaign in February this year. First, The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines reacts to it, calling for a ban on advertisements and the whole campaign in general. The health issues:
“The condom cannot really put a stop to Aids. Moreover, by creating a false sense of security, it condones and encourages promiscuity outside of marriage, and hence contributes to the further spread of Aids,” the statement added.
The Health department started initiating the free condom drive last Valentine’s Day in Metro Manila due to the increasing cases of HIV-Aids in the country.
DOH Secretary Esperanza Cabral earlier said the drive was made as the dreaded disease continues its “silent” onslaught on the Filipinos.
In Western Visayas alone, there are already several cases of HIV-Aids and more victims of the disease are coming out in the open to seek help and understanding from the public, said DOH Center for Health Development-Western Visayas Regional Director Ariel Valencia.
He also said that the advertisements are a timely reminder to the public on the importance of responsible sexual behavior, and not meant to promote artificial contraception.
The CBCP, however, sees the condom drive as immoral.
Source: please click here for the full article(1).
I don’t think these are grounds enough for the ban of the condom. The church may ban it in its own territories, but not as a whole, as some government officials have expressed. Ban its flock from watching television, staring at ads and buying a condom. But why deny the rest of the Filipino population the choice? Does the church realize that it does not ban more debilitating products in the market that are not only useless but are part and parcel of the pains and joys of having more to choose from? It doesn’t ban violent acts to be shown on television, or a boxing match with Manny Pacquaio to be shown nationwide. Because it really has no right to do that. So if the church were confident in its own, why worry about the condom?
In line with the May 2010 elections, reproductive health issues have been the consideration of some voters. Moreover, in the following article by Kara Santos of the Inter Press Fund, the church has not yet realized the pro-life values of the condom nor the reproductive health bill. The political issues:
The election guidelines for Catholics state that contraception is “morally wrong… endangers the spiritual health of the marriage” and “impedes the process or possible fruit of conception”, which the Church says should be the point of conjugal union. Voters who elect pro-reproductive health candidates in the May poll would become willing accomplices to “evil”, they added.
But advocates say that the failure to pass the reproductive health bill has been detrimental to women’s health.
“Eleven women die every day due to pregnancy and childbirth-related causes, almost half of all pregnancies are unintended and one-third of unintended pregnancies end in abortion,” says lawyer Clara Rita Padilla, executive director of EngendeRights Inc, a non-government organisation promoting women's rights through legal advocacy.
Asks Padilla: “Will the next president turn a blind eye and not provide for the proper budget for wide access to reproductive health
information, supplies and services simply because such a stance would take the ire of the CBCP?”Already, PLCPD's San Pascual notes, candidates for the 2010 polls have been careful not to make their statements on reproductive health issues too strong because of the perceived weight of the Church’s position among many voters. But he says, “By trying to balance their agenda so that they will not face the ire of their bishop or parish, they end up not helping their constituents or giving justice to their job as a public servant.”
Source: please click here for the full article(2).
I would like to thank Ms. Irina Otmakhova, Membership and Networking officer of the Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights , for providing the second article.
8 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Thank you very much, Allisone, for the well-thought out construction of your comment! Yes, I’m (re-)exploring this myself, and learning much.
Also for Christina’s added knowledge, I would like to point out here that Christina’s most rational contribution is, despite the fact-finding, typical of what it would like to believe itself as PRO-LIFE, that is, # of heads and measurement of space. I wonder if you were aware of this, Christina, that the pro-life logical pitch tends more toward quantity, not quality, and predictably so, as a matter of fact. It doesn’t go any further/deeper than that, usually, so the PRO-CHOICE’s natural response to that would therefore be just as predictably about the quality. Are you getting my point? Well, some do go further, counting how many heads are Christian, let’s say, and how many more of it’s kind are being manufactured, which is what I call religious politics, and has nothing to do at all with being PRO-LIFE, the reason for its many inconsistencies. Otherwise, let’s look at the lives in both quantity and quality. Christina, It doesn’t even pass as a marketing business research. Where is per capita income vs expense to justly raise 1 child until secondary and/or college level in your equation, where are employment rates, political climate, religious participation in politics, etc., etc.? There are many facts to consider here, and because you did not consider them, I decided yours was personal, more self-centered, and no outreach to the community. In an attempt to go deeper, you switch to the belief system (murder), which, as I think I’ve mentioned, isn’t universal and debatable, and the belief system is yours, which is, again, personal. PRO-CHOICE isn’t equivalent to murder as PRO-LIFE isn’t equivalent to rape, coercion, poverty and crime. Certainly, PRO-LIFE doesn’t mean rape, coercion, poverty and crime, does it? Although, in practice, that’s the result in the Philippines. PRO-LIFE seems to be suggesting PRO-LIVING DEAD. Never mind if the head is happy, frustrated, depressed, angry, in pain, etc.
Allisone, I would not only be interested in how many deaths per minute, but also how many coerced, how many unfulfilled in life, how many happy vs sad, how many hungry, how many educated, married, single, criminal, etc. on a daily basis. Even if it’s a violence to women, the men are affected, as well. Mean men aren’t exactly good quality in this country, are they? So what kind of men? How many employed, married, single, educated, hungry, happy, sad, criminal, etc.?
I think it is imperative to set aside the PRO-whatever labels next and look at the institutional content of these. I don’t mean semantics. Who/What exactly is PRO-LIFE-ing and PRO-CHOICE-ing because the perspectives of the two aren’t standard and fixed, and acquire the characteristics of its support systems that vary uniquely from each other.
For now, I’ll leave you to think on… This is to be continued as I have some work to do.
I’m happy we are having a healthy discussion here, despite being at odds at this point and that for being PRO-LIFE or PRO-CHOICE. Thank you Christina and Allisone.
I appreciate your comments, whiplash, also tienessee’s. It seems that you both are on quite a similar road. Whiplash, did you mean, in many interesting ways, the rhythym method (natural)? I’m not sure we can expect that much discipline in a country where people still cross roads like headless chickens. And, tienessee, I think you will love what the DOH Sec. does these days.
Usually, these are the ideas clashing: The NO is against thwarting the life process, while the YES is against thwarting free will, itself an evolutionary flow of life forces, both of which are important in a democracy. The YES contains both because it’s open to both the YES and NO, while NO sounds tyrannical, no matter how well-meaning. Moreover, both sides see each other as murderous anyway, and the Pro-Life is a breakable myth, as both sides have pro-life factors. The only difference to me for now is who is going to be held responsible and accountable.
Let’s play a little game of ideas.
Let’s say I were impartial judge. I would interpret the imposition of NO on everybody as the No-group’s claim that it is RESPONSIBLE for the salvation of the soul of everybody (“murder” is a sin, even though this is not a scientific or universal fact but a belief held sacred by particular groups in varying degrees), and I would, therefore, hold such a group accountable for the soul’s journey in the material, physical planes. For imposing NO on everybody else, claiming or assuming the right to judge on the soul of everybody else, it must also claim or assume the burden of these souls’ journey, and be, therefore, held accountable for it, as if they were playing the parents of god’s children. To vote for NO would automatically be a registration for a special type of tax for child/social welfare and there will be forced community service only by those who are NO, providing also for the YES voters, from the slums, to clinics, to schools, to prisons. In this manner, they wipe out their own karmas for denying others the freedom of choice, and they may believe it for themselves that they are redeemed by this suffering and inconvenience, which they have not only claimed for themselves but bequeathed to others, as well. How timely, it’s Holy Week! To assume the right to judge the sins committed by all, they assume also the burden of the society’s crosses. Fine, go carry your crosses and everybody else’s.
As for the YES… The pill, being not the cause for illness but such that it increases the risks of any pre-existing disease tendencies, must be taken responsibly. After the check up and being informed, the person decides for the self. It’s just like crossing the road. You expose yourself to harm. Whether you live or die is up to you, not the road, and how smart you are. A lot of times, wearing the condom is the smartest thing to do. We are not only talking about AIDS, there are other STDs. While every child is still a child of the community, but now more and more a product of choice and less the product of victimhood and choicelessness, the parents must do forced labor and must be held accountable by social welfare and the courts for the destiny of a child up to a certain age. This produces more responsible people and taxpayers because each child must be reared in such a way that they are fit to do so. This time the responsibility is more individualized, with nobody officially claiming rights to the fate of your soul in the afterlife, less people blaming god for their woes, perhaps. The government and everybody else simply do their best to co-habitate in this world in harmony.
Perhaps god is in the YES to RH picture as well? I’m quite sure even NO people will revolt if their women were all forced to go back to natural child-bearing, with no medical/artificial help. If all their daughters were battered in bad marriages and must uphold the marriage over and above their own intelligences, and it is okay with them, they need not apply for divorce. And nobody’s forcing them to do that but themselves.
I’m a man, and I think feminism is really a war among women, not much men against women or vice versa. It’s plain to see how men and women don’t understand each other. But women tend to compare themselves with each other. How much more “sacrificial” (or stupid) this women than that, how “purer” this woman than that, and sillier than this is how women tend to equate sacrifice with purity! Abominable, tsk, tsk.
Article said” “Eleven women die every day due to pregnancy and childbirth-related causes, almost half of all pregnancies are unintended and one-third of unintended pregnancies end in abortion”
The birth control pill increases the risk of breast cancer by over 40% if it is taken before a woman delivers her first baby.4 This risk increases by 70% if the Pill is used for four or more years before the woman’s first child is born.5 Other side effects that women have experienced include high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, heart attack, depression, weight gain, and migraines. Diabetics who take oral contraceptives may note increased sugar levels. Some women who stop taking the Pill do not have a return of their fertility (menstrual cycles) for a year, or even longer. Although the Pill decreases ovarian and some uterine cancers, it increases breast, liver, and cervical cancer.4 At least three studies have noted that the AIDS virus is transmitted more easily to women who are taking the Pill if their partner(s) have the HIV virus.
The condom does not adequately stop the transmission of the AIDS virus. CM Rowland, PhD, editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, tells us that electron micrographs (pictures taken with a very powerful microscope) reveal voids (holes) in the condom that are up to 50 times bigger than the HIV particle.
http://onemoresoul.com/contraception/risks-consequences/what-a-woman-sho…
From Bungangkahoy:
Proponents of H.B, 5043 “Reproductive Health” bill always cite that that the Philippines is over-populated at 90+ million people to rationalize their support for artificial birth control. But is the country really overpopulated? And the implication is that our country is poor because of that 90+ million figure.
Population figures are meaningless if we don’t take into consideration the area where that figure lives. For example, what does it mean that Japan has 128 million people? Or that the U.S.A. has 300 million?
Let’s take a look at a sample of Wikipedia’s listing of countries according to population DENSITY, or the number of people in every square kilometer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density), Fegruary 7, 2010:
Rank Country People/Sq.Km.
1 Macau 18,534
2 Monaco 16,923
3 Singapore 7,022
4 Hong Kong 6,348
…
43 Philippines 307
…
129 Ethiopia 71
Compared to the thousands of the top 4 most-densely populated countries, the Philippines at 307 is hardly “over-populated”.
Saying yes to the RH bill is saying yes to contraception which is letting little babies inside the womb not to “kapit” which is murder.
Clearly this is wrong. What is wrong is putting money into contraception rather than education, livelihood programs and character formation programs which will further the development of the country.
Contraception is taking God out of the picture, the author of life and saying that man can take life. It’s one step towards legalizing abortion and divorce which others may find a “convenient solution” to the country’s woes.
Thank you, Christina. I would suggest that you don’t use a condom, take a pill or be exposed to the AIDS virus. I will take that as a personal choice, and I respect that. The only thing I disagree with is that these people in church without a sexlife is telling you how to run yours. It’s like hiring somebody who has no knowledge in business to run your business. In short, mind their own business.
If you want to do things the natural way, do it in all aspects of your life. It is likewise an indirect murder to not arrest the imbalances of our society, IMHO.
Christina, YOU are the author of your own life. God is not just a body of god-people who will make decisions for you, and this idea of God may not be the idea of everybody else. Natural… Take horse carriages because everything else pollutes the environment. Go walk, don’t ride. Do this for yourself and I hope you enjoy the inconveniences, just don’t expect the rest of the population of this world to do headstands, or to be able to control the temperature of their bodies so they could walk naked in the winter. You see now, to recommend a NO to the RH Bill is insane at this point.
Thanks Christina for an anti-choice reaction. It is always interesting to make a journey to the dogmatic websites and…. minds only to find out they are as usual full of paranoic quasi-scientific arguments.
I do not even mean to offend you, your brethren and sisters in religion actually. I very much understand that you perfectly comply with what is genuinely regarded as truth in your immediate surroundings. Therefore, it is your personal truth to which you are entitled to hold on to it until you no longer make a choice to do so…if ever. Which is again a choice of your Free Will so generously given to all of us by the divine source.
With the Free Will comes the power of discernment. Let’s look around and see what actually works for us, humans, what enhances our quality of life, makes it a more joyful and enjoyable to go through one’s life experience.
I believe anyone would agree with me that any form of violence or coercion is not conducive to what we understand by free, joyful, enjoyable life.
Unfortunately, in the matters of human reproduction, violence and coercion are expressed on a daily basis in the ugliest forms. Forced pregnancy is one of the forms of coercion and violence. Would you disagree? Then try to engage in a conversation with a mother of 7 in a squatters area living on 50 pesos a day, battered by her husband at night for trying to negotiate safe sex that would not lead to further procreation. 7 children are actually a long time enough for her. It was enough by 3 children, but unfortunately, the government funding was withdrawn from health centres which used to provide modern means of contraception, no free pills any more. So here we go with the eights unwanted pregnancy, and ONE MORE SOUL with minimal chances in life, who will probably go as far as another basurero (garbage man), and will make seven more kids who will end up doing the same.
Let us acknowledge the facts leading to the reality of millions in this country. Buy hey! we are not alone – the entire Africa is right behind us, together with the Latin America, and many other Asian countries share the same fate…..no, sorry, women share the same fate. Surprisingly, this happens in the countries where laws were based on the law systems of their former colonisers – Great Britain, France, Spain and Portugal. Though not the current ones, but the ones of three centuries ago. How come there’s so much bashing about the colonial past yet at the same time keeping their outdated laws so sacred to your heart?
Consciously taking choices away from women is a form of violence; forced pregnancies are a form of coercion. Whatever the high moral preachers say about the link to poverty and the lack of education as blame factors – very well true, poverty and economic injustice are part of today’s reality the way we, humanity, shaped it collectively. However, talks about poverty reduction plans through education, equal income distribution and all other good things, are of no use for a woman who runs the risk of getting pregnant tonight, and does not have a say about whether she chooses to or not.
Does the lack of choice lead to a more joyful, happier, enjoyable life? Does it really work for us?
Let’s repeat the statistics again:
Eleven women die every day due to pregnancy and childbirth-related causes, almost half of all pregnancies are unintended and one-third of unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
11 die every day.
Christina, have you chosen to turn a cold ear on the numbers, and go talk about the link to breast cancer and other alleged dangers of contraceptives? Whatever the risks are, millions of women are controlling their reproduction safely, then get their babies whenever they want. But 11 women in the Philippines are still dying every day due to pregnancy and childbirth-related causes.
Let us have a look beyond the Philippines again:
Every minute in the world 380 women become pregnant.
As was said before, half of that, or 190 women, face unwanted pregnancy. A minute!
40 women worldwide have unsafe abortion. Again, every minute.
And 1 woman dies of complications related to child birth. Every minute.
Now you may do the mathematics of multiplying these numbers by a number of minutes a day, and a number of days a year. If you choose to reply, please type the average number of maternal deaths a year, as well as unwanted pregnancies, as well as the number of abortions. Ponder on them. Try to see a face of each and every woman behind these numbers, their personal stories and their personal choices…or the lack thereof.
So does dogmatic thinking have a role in shaping this reality? Very much so. Dogmas and doctrines enshrine what men think God wants. This thinking based on assumptions made by those in power of what men think God wants gets translated into social norms and expectations; social norms and expectations based on what men think God wants get translated into national legislation. Thus, assumptions start being regarded as truth enshrined in law.
And our questions again – is it conducive for a happy and joyful life? Is it conducive to full self expression of our individualities, of who we TRULY are?
If it did work, all those unnecessary deaths and complications would probably not be happening.
A different thinking based on true compassion and oneness translated into social norms and laws would make a difference in the reality of women and men world wide, enhancing the quality of life and freedom of self expression.
In the meantime, before you go to sleep tonight think of at least one woman out of those 190 who faced an unwanted pregnancy at twelve midnight. What would her life look like now? What choices does she have?
One available condom would have probably taken her out of this number; 10 available condoms would have made a considerable difference. 190 available condoms a minute world wide would make the concept of unwanted pregnancy history, let alone other inconvenience as STDs.
Sandra, thank you for initiating the discussion
never! it’s never rational! they should sell it along the sidewalks of divisoria! in the market! in the slums sabay with the candy and yosi! they should sell it everywhere like RC cola and taho!