"Better than the RH bill" by Jose Sison

[pach]

http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=663832&publicationSubCategoryId=64

***

The RH Bill supporters really don't seem to get the issue right. Here's to shed more light on the topic.

[Hanzo23]

I cant help but laugh at those who oppose this bill.

It gives people options on how to manage their family. If men or women want to celibate, good for them. but if they dont, there are other options

Also, I cant help but criticize his passage below

On the other hand, the widespread use of condoms has resulted in more HIV/Aids cases as shown by the Thailand experience. Condoms therefore do not ensure protection from HIV/AIDS to those who are using them allegedly for safe and satisfying sex. In fact it has also been indisputably shown that the HIV/AIDS virus is much smaller than and thus can still penetrate the condom holes.

His sounds exactly like that guy from the vatican who wears a funny hat (Ratzinger?) Apparently, when statistics say that there is a 99% probability that you wont contract aids, that is defined as "ensured". Last time I checked, an assurance would have a 100% success rate. Apparently this tries to instigate the idea that condoms will ensure the prevention of STDs.

[pach]

Sex using condoms is not "safe sex", for there is no such thing. It is only "sex with less risks" 

Says who? says the FDA, alright.


And the guy with the funny hat has a proper name called "The Pope". People may hate him, but the guy's got a name.

[Hanzo23]

Yes and apparently, the Catholic Church's morbid obsession with issues revolving around sex is not surprising. Maybe they need to remove the celibacy part out of the equation to actually understand the issue.

Oh wait, some of them already did. Unfortunately, the vatican covered up for them.

You're right, he's got a name, Its Mr. Joseph Ratzinger. Im curious where he gets those hats though,  I cant find those on the Lids hats website. 

[pach]

in order to avert Catholic-Church bashing, let me just re-iterate what the good author said:

In fact it has also been indisputably shown that the HIV/AIDS virus is much smaller than and thus can still penetrate the condom holes.


and again, to echo what the FDA said:

Sex using condoms is not "safe sex", for there is no such thing. It is only "sex with less risks" 

[Hanzo23]

So what is the church's problem with minimizing risks? thats one step closer to prevention. Other than celibacy, what options do they present or propose? Its a no-brainer that if you conduct these acts, there are risks, so what does the church offer?

[pach]

Abstinence. Sex in the context of marriage.  Self-control.


Now don't shoot the messenger. Even I find the church's teachings hard, but it's the truth.  It goes to show that truth stands on its own and does not depend on feelings.

Moreover, that humans are capable of moral judgments apart from moral circumstances. (ex. even crooks know what they're doing is wrong)

[Hanzo23]

It doesnt take the church to know and understand that abstinence will prevent the spread of aids. However, you are dealing against the actual human nature. 

The church just isnt that flexible and be forebearing about understanding the human psyche. Who am I to blame? the clergy is required to celibate. They think its possible, which by every sense of the word is true, however, it fails to see the big picture and understand the risk factor along with weighing the frequency of the occurrences that communicable diseases can be transferred. For an organization that frowns upon masturbation (which is healthy and harmless when done in private and in moderation), that already tells a lot.

[pach]

Lol. You actually go against the church because it frowns upon masturbation. What a tad shallow reason to actually abhor the world,s most charitable organization. 

If this in anyway comforts you, You can masturbate while remaining a catholic,  kaya nga may sacrament of confession

Kidding aside, even some secular humanists think of masturbation as a moral depravity. Not that I'm being puritan about it, I'm just stating that the church's sexual morality is shared even by those who do not believe in God. The common ground is not that "because God says so" but because this conclusion was reached by human reasoning.

No truth can contradict another truth. If religious commandments fit the facts, I see no reason why they should not be believed.

[Hanzo23]

Lol. You actually go against the church because it frowns upon masturbation. What a tad shallow reason to actually abhor the world,s most charitable organization. 

If this in anyway comforts you, You can masturbate while remaining a catholic,  kaya nga may sacrament of confession

And why is there a need for someone to know of my sexual exploits? Those are private matters.

It is not a shallow reason because it is related to the subject at hand, prove me wrong that the Catholic church does frown upon this issue. The church's teachings are still its teachings, you cannot use the favorite (and probably last) line of defense "We are the most charitable organization in the world" as an excuse to win a losing argument. That can easily be countered by asking the question "So?" because at the end of the day, you should still claim responsibility for the effects of the things you preach, no matter how ridiculous they sound.

Kidding aside, even some secular humanists think of masturbation as a moral depravity. Not that I'm being puritan about it, I'm just stating that the church's sexual morality is shared even by those who do not believe in God. The common ground is not that "because God says so" but because this conclusion was reached by human reasoning.

No truth can contradict another truth. If religious commandments fit the facts, I see no reason why they should not be believed.

Some secular humanists, however, that is subject to debate which means it is still a matter of personal interpretation.

What is the official explanation of the church for seeing this as a violation to their practices? I do hope that there is indeed at least a unified agreement within the Catholic organization about this.

[pach]

I said what needed to be said.

but Here's the thing. If you think you know better than him, why don't you send him an e-mail and state your objections. It's not stated on the website but I remember that they do have their email adresses on printed broadsheets.

[Hanzo23]

Yup, Ill check again if the author has a comments section.

[pach]

yup. you don't have any law degree to start with. How can you win and argue with a legal scholar such as the writer of that article? (pardon me, but, did you even graduate from college? if so, where)

I dont get it. i mean, people should know where they stand on issues and not seek things that are higher than their estate.

but nevertheless, it's worth to give it a try.

[Hanzo23]

Yes I did, AMA computer college with a degree in computer engineering if you must know.

However, if you are going to ask about legal background, can you consider years of reading SCRA's as partial legal knowledge? I'll give an example, I have seriously questioned lawyers as to why divorce is not allowed in the Philippines. Now I know why, other than the way it looks uniquely at a family structure, it is also based heavily due to a religious base.

Im actually re-reading his article, and looking up the actual ordinance (please see below) I have selected an area which is of interest and comparing it to the RH Bill

SECTION 7. REGULATED ACTS

The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 5921 entitled AN ACT REGULATING THE PRACTICE OF PHARMACY AND SETTING STANDARDS OF PHARMACEUTICAL EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES enacted into law June 21, 1969 are hereby incorporated into the Ordinance as an integral part thereof and are reproduced as follows:

“Section 37. Provisions relative to dispensing of anti-conceptional substances and devices. No drug or chemical product or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the Food and Drug Administration shall be delivered or sold to any person without a proper prescription by a duly licensed physician.

The pharmacist in charge of a drug store or pharmacy after filling a prescription containing abortive or anti-conceptional substance or devices shall record in a separate register book for abortives and anti-conceptionals, the following data;

(a) Number and date of the prescription;

(b) Name and address of the physician;

(c) Name, quantity and manufacturer of the drug;

(d) Name and address of the purchaser;

(e) Date of filling the prescription; and

(f) Signature of the pharmacist filling the prescription.

As noted, the only real difference is the means to access different birth control methods. The RH Bill guarantees universal access, this ordinance regulates it. Either way, alternative contraceptives will still be accessible. So how is it any better than the RH Bill other than slight restrictions?

[pach]

the reproductive health bill covers a wider range of issues than just the regulation of contraception. now, i do not pretend to be a legal scholar, so i will not get into the details and scholarly texts. also, the mere fact that one does not have a law degree does not sanction him to interpret the law. so, that really cannot not give me the slightest bit of lending credence to your personal interpretation of that law.

at any rate, babalik at babalik pa din tayo sa issue na "when does life begin"


science tells us (not just the Catholic Church) that life begins at conception.

and here is the truth: the proponents of the RH bill are either 1) ignorant of science

or 2) aware that life begins at fertilization, but would admit that killing a life is a solution to our economic problems.

kung number 1, they should be educated and be led to the right path

kung number 2, they give-up their rationality.

let me quote a post from the phil star.

The definition of Conception is only difficult for people who want to push an ideology. It has always meant fertilization. Even embryology texts presently still use the term interchangeably. The Merck manual uses fertilization and conception interchangeably. Intentional Abortion is the intentional termination of pregnancy. Here is the general medical definition: "In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus. It is the loss of a pregnancy"

So those who want to classify these two terms based on beliefs want to subjectivize the meaning and whenever someone wants to be subjective about meanings that involve these things, they are often to push an agenda... anyone remember how the Nazi's classified Jews as non-human to justify the holocaust? The same way a fetus is classified as tissue/parasite/blood clot by abortion providers... There is a book called "Dehumanizing the Vulnerable" you should read it and see how words can kill.


---

+ May Jesus be Glorified, now and forever. +