Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
DECLARATION OF STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PASSAGE OF THE RH BILL INTO LAW: AN OPEN APPEAL TO THE PHILIPPINE LAWMAKERS

DECLARATION OF STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PASSAGE OF THE RH BILL INTO LAW: AN OPEN APPEAL TO THE PHILIPPINE LAWMAKERS

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,127 |Likes:
An open letter versus the RH Bill
An open letter versus the RH Bill

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Carlos Antonio Palad on Nov 17, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/03/2013

pdf

text

original

 
DECLARATION OF STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PASSAGE OF THE RH BILL INTOLAW: AN OPEN APPEAL TO THE PHILIPPINE LAWMAKERSProf. Marvin Julian L. Sambajon, Jr., Ph. D. Cand.
Author, Lecturer & Researcher 
In light of reason
, the enactment of the RH Bill into law should be rejectedon the following grounds:a.)
 
The RH Bill promotes contraception in all its unnatural methodsnecessarily including abortifacients and sterilization;C
ontraception destroys the “order of existence of things”
demonstrated in the course of the natural functions and processes ofthe reproductive system. It positively and directly frustrates theprocreative potentials and arbitrarily dissociates the unitive andprocreative meanings of the marital act. It cripples the language ofmarital sexuality and divests the conjugal union of its innate affectivedimension.Moreover, numerous contraceptive methods are abortifacient. Theywork to alter the normal functioning of the endometrium to prevent theimplantation of the zygote or the fertilized ovum thereby getting killedalong the process.It was already scientifically proven that human life begins to exist at thecompletion of fertilization 5-7 to 10 days before its implantation. Thus,preventing it from implanting into the uterine lining (endometrium) bymeans of Pills, Depo-Provera, Norplant, Intra-Uterine Device (IUD), andothers causing its termination constitutes what is calledchemical/medical abortion. The act is both immoral andunconstitutional.Sterilization does not only arbitrarily thwart the natural faculty of themarital act to generate life but it also destroys the functional integrityof the human body, particularly, of the reproductive systemincapacitating it of performing organic functions vitally inherent to itsnature.b.)
 
By the promotion of contraception, abortifacient, and sterilization, theRH Bill does more harm than good.In its concern to prevent proliferation of sexually transmitted infections(STIs), unwanted pregnancy and even abortion, the RH Bill promotescondoms paving the way to opportunities of indiscriminate andunrestricted sexual activities and multiple sexual relations. The likelihoodof such activities and relations is highly proximate considering themoral pluralism, particularly along sexuality, our society is beleagueredwith, and the trends for the freedom of sexual revolution among teen-agers. The use of condoms would only
offset the reduction in infectionand unwanted pregnancy rates resulting in a net increase in theincidence of persons infected with HIV 
and cases of pregnancy.
 
c.)
 
As per the findings of numerous biological and scientific researchesand studies, contraception in all its diverse methods predisposes theconsumers to the possibility of developing variety of serious pathologicconditions, such as blood clots, cancer types, heart disease, and thelike, along with human immunodeficiency virus/ acquired immunedeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) and other sexually transmittedinfection (STI) transmissions. According to the Center for DiseaseControl and Prevention (CDC), condoms are not 100 percent effectivein the prevention of STIs and HIV while contraceptives, particularly thecombined estrogen-progestin pills, are carcinogenic.d.)
 
The RH Bill proponents contend that the Bill would help the governmentaddress pressing social problems such as, unwanted pregnancies,abortion cases, maternal mortality, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) and other sexuallytransmitted disease (STD) transmissions, poverty, overpopulation, andothers - geared towards its envisioned sustainable humandevelopment.However, the various elements of the reproductive health careembodied in the RH Bill specifically meant for maternal and child care,have obviously been subsumed in the provisions of R.A. 9710 -
 An ActProviding for the Magna Carta of Women
which has been in placesince 2009. The latter could even be deemed more attuned to thecare and welfare of women simply because the health services and
programs it provides cover all stages of a woman’s life cycle andaddress the major causes of women’s
mortality and morbidity.By fully recommending the use of contraceptive and abortifacientmethods, the RH Bill implicitly predisposes men and women to theaffirmation of an existing social paradigm that they can freely exercisetheir 
sexual rights
whenever they wish while adhering tocontraception as an expression of such rights. In short, sex without
pregnancy is the ‘menu of the day.’ This further enriches the cultivation
of the so-
called ‘contraceptive mentality’ so prevalent in the
postmodern society.Furthermore, considering sexual adventurism among individuals,particularly the young ones nowadays, having access tocontraception would only amplify their curiosity, fondness, andappetites for flesh. Like the dreaded AIDS, premarital and unintendedpregnancy rates reduction attempt would just be compensated bythe frequency of contraceptive
coitus
and increase in the number ofindividuals who may indulge in sex thereby inducing pregnancy cases just the same.The Bill is founded on wrong premises; poverty is not directlyattributable to high population; fertility growth rates have alreadybeen declining; condoms are not 100% effective prophylacticmeasures against sexually transmitted infections and diseases; etc.
 
e.)
 
Sex education will be taught in basic education which necessarilyincludes the use of condoms, contraception, and others. Theimplications are as follows;
 
It is the teachings of the school which the teen-agers will hold on in
the spirit of what the RH Bill calls “exercise of adolescents’ rights,”
and not the teachings of their parents;
 
It is the State that will become the primary educator of children inthis vital part of their human formation and not the parents;
 
So, in effect, the natural rights of parents are seized by theschool/State and the role ought to be, fundamentally, played byparents is at the hands of RH teachers and sex-educators;
 
Besides, it cannot be refuted that since, adolescents are still in their 
formative years, the kind of “formative program” that seems
palatable to their senses may take an advantageous position nomatter how disastrous it may be to their moral fiber. This is theexistentially-feared situation to set in. Teen-agers are taught about
‘safe
-
sex,’ contraceptive methods use, pregnancy avoidance, andthe like so that when they exercise their ‘sexual rights,’ they know
what to do, which in effect, would lead to sexual promiscuity andsex-related problems fostering more harm than good. Of course,teen-agers, considering their developmental stages, do not yetrealize the harmful repercussions so that the pre-occupation only
delves into the ‘enjoyment’ the said program yields.Hence, what is contemptibly repugnant, at this point, is the RH Bill’spromotion of a program under the guise of adolescents’ rights, toappear ‘edible’, which, in a way, exploits and spoils their juvenile minds
and formative phases in life, in what could, otherwise, be a morally-rooted values formation program along human sexuality in light ofFilipino cultural religious heritage.O
nce they internalize the ‘culture of sex
-
education’ imparted by the
school, the adolescents would tend to have and exhibit attitudinal andbehavioral changes compatible with what the imbibed culturesuggests. And if their changes are found contrary to the moralstandards and religious convictions of their family, there would bebreaking of shared values, principles, and ideals usually binding the
family before. Thus, not only the rights of parents but also the family’s
binding moral heritage would be jeopardized, by reason of which, theRH Bill is, truly, an anti-family bill.With all the aforesaid contemptible repercussions should the RH Bill beenacted into law, I am appealing to you, anti-RH Bill Legislators, to be steadfastin your pro-life principles and advocacy without having to succumb to whatever pressure, be it the withholding of your pork-barrel, derail in the release of your needed funds for your projects or deprivation of key positions or privileges inCongress, the administration may inflict on you.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->