Feedback to "Overwhelming case for the RH Bill"

Dear Editor,

I must admit that I was "overwhelmed" when I read the article "Overwhelming case for the RH Bill" (PDI, 13 October 2012). It presented so many points aimed at either dismissing the claims of pro-life opposers of RH Bill or bolster the "purported" legitimacy and timeliness of the Bill.

But after several calm and peaceful re-reading of the article, my feeling of "shock and awe" fizzled-out. I came to see the article and RH Bill for what it really is.

Please allow me to convey my opinion.

I like your 17 September PDI article

Dear Mr. Nery,

I stumbled-upon your article "What if the Church is in error?" in the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI, 17 September 2012). I like your style of condescending with the anti-RH position.

However, I was intrigued by one of your last statements:

"Will the Church’s current view of artificial contraception as intrinsically evil be revealed, under the aspect of eternity, to be an unfortunate error?"

A response to "Nature and role of science relative to RH bill"

Flor Lacanilao, a retired professor of marine science, University of the Philippines Diliman, wrote a Letter-to-the-Editor and was published in the 3 September 2012 issue of  PDI entitled "Nature and role of science relative to RH bill". I thought of commenting on some of the scientist's assertions:

The objectives of science, as I learned, are not to find the truth. They are aimed to understand nature and the universe, so that researchers and the government can plan and act for the people’s well-being. Many studies are meant to support scientific consensus, as in evolution and climate change. Hence, these are factual conclusions—supported by valid data. They are not permanent truth; they can be changed by more studies. This is the progressive nature of science.

Science is not to seek permanent truth anymore but only well-being?! I wonder if other scientists agree with that definition of science.

As from what I gathered from my undergraduate studies in a public state university, science seeks the Truth about the physical world regardless of whether or not it will benefit well-being of peoples. Well-being is just one of the consequences of science: Theoretical Physics, for example, does not aim directly to improve well-being of people. The apparent non-permanence of scientific truth is due to the piece-meal approach of many studies. Instead by seeing nature of science as "progressive", I see it as "incremental".

Response to "CBCP's monumental blunder"

Dear Mr. Butch del Castillo,

I write you in response to your 23 August 2012 article entitled "CBCP's monumental blunder". I understand it was meant to tell the Catholic bishops they made a faux pas by threatening to strip AdMU of its Catholic status because of almost 200 of its faculty signed a pro-RH Bill manifesto.

I read your article several times. What particularly caught my attention was your characterization of the position of the Ateneo faculty as being "hard to dispute or refute" which was the following:

"It upholds the constitutional right of couples to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions, honors our commitments to international convenants and conventions, and promotes the reproductive health and reproductive rights of Filipinos, especially of those who are most marginalized on this issue -- our women, poor families and young people."

Indeed, pro-RH Bill Ateneo faculty's declaration of their position appear noble. But I have these questions:

Does this position really reflects the true nature of contraception-laden RH Bill?
Does the use of contraception fulfills these alleged noble goals?
Are these "noble" goals really that noble?

The obvious answer I see is NO!

Feedback to Miss Chit Roces' article "The other side of the Church"

Dear Miss Chit Roces,

Pope Paul VI

The first time I read your article in PDI Lifestyle section (The other side of the Church, 12 August 2012) I immediately had the impression it is in support of contraception and RH Bill. I also noticed it was a way to exult Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ.

You praise him for his “assurance” that RH Bill is about responsible parenthood. You are comforted that you have someone of stature to defend you from the Catholic bishops who call RH Bill a birth-control bill or population control bill. You are glad your belief that contraception is alright as a means for family planning has a “champion” in the ranks of the Catholic clergy.

I am also glad you wrote the article. I had a glimpse of the frame of mind of a person with contraceptive mentality. I saw a mind fascinated by science and technology's achievement to curtail human fertility as a family planning method. I saw a mind fascinated by the convenience it affords for planning one's family.

Feedback to "Life worth fighting for"

I thank you for reading my feedback to your article "Senseless Maternal Deaths".  I am doubly thankful to you for writing a follow-up article "Life worth fighting for" (https://www.philstar.com/business/2012/06/25/821004/life-worth-fighting-for) which include my emailed letter.

I am saddened, though, by your confession that you are "a person not averse to accepting the use of contraceptive measures, more so if a mother’s health or her baby’s is at risk should there be the possibility of a pregnancy". Contrary to your opinion, I see contraceptive measures give-out multifaceted effects, some may appear beneficial, but its inherent outcome is anti-life. I analogically compare contraceptive measures to the conventional carpet bombs of the US Air force: it does not discriminate between combatant and civilian-non-combatant targets.

I agree with you that HB4244 includes provisions to improve hospital facilities and personnel to better deliver maternal health care. But I am very worried that these are bundled-up with contraceptive measures. I analogically liken HB4244 to a nutritious pot of soup with a thimble of human feces dropped to it. No one in his right mind will take that pot of soup! I am convinced that provision on contraceptive measures destroys the possible maternal health benefits of HB4244. 

If our political authorities are authentically sincere in lowering maternal mortality rate they should remove contraception in HB4244. Besides, contraception is just one of HB4244's objectives, as you mentioned.

Our Catholic bishops are not against provisions for improving maternal delivery care. They are against the contraceptive-measures component.

Feedback to "Contraceptive morality"

Note: This is my comment at "Contraceptive morality" of PDI.

The woman's power to conceive is NOT a tool to be owned absolutely by a woman. It is entrusted to her by her Creator; it is not hers. She will render account to her Creator on how she used it later in her life.

Feedback to "Senseless Maternal Deaths"

Dear Mr. Gamboa,

I chanced upon your article "Senseless Maternal Deaths"(http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=819584&publicationSubCategoryId=66) in Philippine Star. It appears to be pushing for the passing of HB 4244 (The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011) into law as soon as possible.

I have read HB 4244 several times. The primary solution it envisions to contribute toward lowering maternal mortality rate is by preventing pregnancies through contraception and a veiled provision for abortion in the term "emergency obstetric care services". But the State has no right to compel couples not to beget children. It is a human right of every couple to decide whether or not to form a family. The accusation alleging some couples are irresponsible in begetting children beyond their capability to support is not sufficient reason for the State to dictate to them to practice contraception.

If the State is truthfully serious in lowering maternal mortality rate, it should enact laws that target the real cause of maternal mortality: poor birthing facilities and lack of skilled staff. HB 4244 does not have provisions for improving birthing facilities. The bill does not envision to assist couples who wish to have children. It is skewed to favoring pregnancy-prevention which is one-sided and unfair.

I stumbled-upon a 2008 TIME magazine article on maternal mortality (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1842278,00.html). It identified some of the causes of maternal mortality, which are as follows:
1. Low access to well-equipped clinics or hospitals;
2. Lack of properly trained and adequately-paid medical professionals;
3. Low availability of necessary medicines;
4. Unsanitary traditional practices;
5. Well-entrenched traditions and fatalistic attitudes to maternal mortality;
6. Lack of government funds for maternity health care; and
7. Lack of political will of government decision makers.

With HB 4244, the State is proposing a wrong solution to the problem; it is "barking at a wrong tree". Our political authorities should, instead, work on solving why public funds are not effectively translated to better local government hospital facilities and skilled health staff: fight graft and corruption.

Thank you for writing "Senseless Maternal Deaths".

Comment at "Trouble brewing"

Note: This is my comment at PDI's Trouble brewing.

I understand the sentiment of the author who employs a secular and atheistic theoretical framework in portraying the Catholic Church as an institution.

The faithfuls of the Catholic Church accept by faith that the Catholic Church has a spiritual and invisible dimension, analogously similar to a human being that has a spiritual soul united to a physical and material body.

Thus, it is incomplete and a huge injustice to measure the Catholic Church in purely physical, visible and material criteria.

In understanding why Catholic Church does not ordain women to the priesthood, it is necessary to look back at the historical past, up to the time of Jesus Christ, true God and true man, who chose only men as his closest collaborators in fulfilling His mission. Moreover, it is a big mistake for Mr. Denis Murphy to treat the priesthood as positions of power. Contrary to his notion, priests ought to look at their role as servants, following Jesus Christ's example.

But this does not mean women have a lower dignity compared to men. It is taught in the Catholic Church that men and women have equal personal dignity. In addition, "Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2333)

Feedback to Mary Racelis' "RH interpellation in communities"

Dear Prof. Mary Racelis,

I am very glad to stumble-upon your article in PDI's Commentary column, “RH interpellation in communities” (3 April 2012, URL: http://opinion.inquirer.net/26193/rh-interpellation-in-communities). I always look forward to reading your articles in PDI.

In your article I see you are appealing to our senators and representatives to hold town-hall meetings with their constituents during their April-May recess on the Reproductive Health (RH) bill.

However, I fear our senators and representatives will not heed your request. They could easily see that your advice is a waste of time for two (2) reasons.

First, your advice would only give occasion to meet less than half, at the most, of their voters constituents. You mentioned in paragraph 8 that our solons should meet the female voters only. Since majority of their female voters are not battered wives and mal-treated mothers, it is very likely that our solons will waste time interfacing with so very few voters.

Second, your advice stems from an unrealistic and unsustainable version of radical feminism. I see your article as an echo of a feminism that advocates equality between male and female with utter disregard for the natural difference between femininity and masculinity. Your brand of feminism fosters  absolute autonomy of women from relationships with men which has no basis in the natural disposition and inclination of most women. Almost all women are naturally disposed to belong someone, to have a relationship with someone. It is only women who have bitter experiences with their men-partners that demand liberation and absolute equality from men. And they are only a minority. Our pragmatic, practical and realistic solons will easily notice the obvious: your secular and radical feminism will not be beneficial to women, families, children and the Filipino nation.

I owe my knowledge of radical and secular feminism from Elizabeth Fox-Genovese (1941-2007), a noted American historian. She was the Eleonore Raoul Professor of the Humanities at Emory University, where she was the founding director of the Institute for Women's Studies. She was the author of  “Women and the Future of the Family” (2000), “ 'Feminism is Not the Story of My Life': How the Feminist Elite Has Lost Touch With the Real Concerns of Women” (1996), “Feminism Without Illusions: A Critique of Individualism” (1991), and “Within the Plantation Household:Black and White Women of the Old South” (1988). She wrote an article “Catholic and Feminist: Can One be Both?” in Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture (2:4, Fall, 1999, pp 11-38, an online version could be found here: http://catholiceducation.org/articles/feminism/fe0025.html) contrasting Catholic feminism and secular feminism.

Please, Madam Racelis, feel free to peruse the works and writings of Elizabeth Fox-Genovese. Be  enlightened about the feminism which is authentically beneficial to women.

I agree with my feminist friends when they sincerely admit that contraception is a possible solution to the perennial problem of men's irresponsibility. But, there are always questions: Is it effective in solving men's irresponsibility? Is it only the men who are irresponsible? Are the women naturally responsible and holy? Are not they also to be accused of some irresponsibility? Are unwanted pregnancies to be blamed solely to men's misconduct?

I learned from my readings that women and men both have weaknesses. These weaknesses are manifested in “unique” ways by women and men. In unwanted pregnancies, the weaknesses of women and men both come into play. The most effective solution should address both women's and men's weaknesses. Contraception, I am certain, is not one of these solutions.