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?"

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 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.