User login

Navigation

Subscribe in a reader

Who's new

mp.addict
wantedsexfriend
philsilvermanjr
shenron64k
Razzkingdom

What links here

No backlinks found.

Couples for Christ and RH 5043

Posted Wed, 10/01/2008 - 10:35

The Couples for Christ (CFC) has posted an questionnaire / advertisement on the controversial RH 5043, with the position that if one answered "NO" to one of the questions, then he or she should lobby against the controversial bill.

It was clear that CFC had a slant against sex education. They probably believe that sex education promotes promiscuity. I have a different belief---sex education and promiscuity are not related in a cause-and-effect way. At least, not in the way CFC thinks. If there is ever a cause-and-effect relationship, it may be the other way---promiscuity may, in reality, require sex education. That we will all become aware of our sexuality and become sexually active is a given. Sex education is as natural and inevitable as toilet training.

Which leads me to the next question---if sex education is a given, then who is the best person to teach our youth? The knee jerk reaction is that our parents should hold that responsibility. I tend to agree, except that these parents, lacking the necessary tools, may not be knowledgeable of the best teaching methods. They also may not have the time. We can all know basic math, but do we all know how to teach it? Do we know how to explain basic principles like the law of transitivity? Or demonstrate a keen understanding of geometry? Do we know when a child is ready for two-digit multiplication? Or when a child is capable of understanding what two minus seven is?

Those who know me know that I am for sex education and family planning. I am for condoms. I am for responsible sexuality. So those who know me can already guess what I will answer.

But to those who may wish to debate and discuss and argue, here are the questions and my answers....

1. Do you agree that our children be given Sex Education for 7 years starting from grade 5?

Yes I do. What's wrong with teaching our children on how babies are made? It does not have to be graphic erotica. A straight-forward, unemotional, objective, rational approach could be used. Children that age (if not earlier) are already conscious of their sexual organs. Why not explain what they are used for?

2. Do you agree that the Population Commission develop the modules to form our children's attitudes, beliefs, and values about sex, sexual identity, sexual behavior, sexual health ad gender roles?

Yes I do. Bear in mind that, according to Section 3, letter n, the Board of Commissioners of POPCOM shall consist of the heads of the following agencies:

1. National Economic DevelopmentAuthority (VEDA)

2. Department of Health (DOH)

3. Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)

4. Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)

5. Department of Agriculture (DA)

6. Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG)

7. Department of Education (DepEd)

8. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

9. Commission on Higher Education (CHED)

10. University of the Philippines Population Institute (UPPI)

11. Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAFI)

12. National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPQ)

13. National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW)

14. National Youth Commission (NYC)

Plus, there shall be three private sector representatives to the Board of Commissioners of POPCOM who shall come from NGOs. There shall be one (1) representative each from women, youth and health sectors who have a proven track record of involvement in the promotion of reproductive health.

My main worry with this is that the group, with its size, could get unwieldy.

3. Do you agree that the Population Commission teach our children the distinction between facts and myths regarding sex and sexuality?

Definitely yes. But this question is a strange one. Is this question focusing on the POPCOM or on whether or not we should teach about facts and myths regarding sex and sexuality?

If it is the former, then is CFC questioning the capability of the POPCOM? Check the composition of POPCOM in my aforementioned answer. It may not be the best composition, but it represents a lot of sectors and should be more knowledgeable than, say, the Church or even a lot of poor parents who have not obtained a decent education.

If it is the latter, then is the CFC basically promoting ignorance?

4. Do you agree that our children be taught Sex Education as a class, notwithstanding the different stages and readiness each child has to receive such sensitive information?

Yes. The issue is not whether or not it should be taught as a group, but rather the quality of the teaching and communication materials. A team of child psychologists should be able to develop the appropriate materials.

5. Do you agree that our children, from 10 to their adolescent years, be taught that it is their right to have a satisfying and "safe" sex life?

Yes. Reading through section 12, I don't see that the bill is promoting a promiscuous lifestyle. What will be in the list of sex-education concepts include abstinence before marriage, hazards of abortion, responsible parenthood, and responsible sexuality. It appears to me that the bill is promoting choice rather than dogma. If a teen-ager wishes to remain a virgin until marriage, that is his or her choice.

6. Do you agree that our children, from 10 to their adolescent years, learn the use and application of family planning methods?

Yes. Some youths are already having sex as early as age 10.

7. Do you agree that our children's moral and religious beliefs regarding sensitive issues like abortion be challenged and discussed in the classroom apart from the guidance of parents?

Yes. First of all, I don't think the parents are left out in this process. Section 12 does specify that "in support of the natural, and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth, the POPCOM shall provide concerned parents with adequate and relevant scientific materials on the age-appropriate topics and manner of teaching reproductive health education to their children."

Second, I am of the opinion that beliefs should always be challenged and discussed. Religious beliefs are not exempt from discussion and debate. Take one example, albeit extreme just to emphasize a point, of a religion that advocates terrorism. Wouldn't you make an effort to dissuade its flock? Or would you argue that we should respect their beliefs and remain silent?

If you disagree with my points, feel free to leave comments. I promise I will not resort to any ad hominem attacks.

Buwayahman's blog
Login or register to post comments

Comments

ranting...

by markcheng69 - 10/16/2008 - 22:22

those priests who veto the RH bill are those who never went through the difficulty of taking care of a family, never raised children (well, for them legally and openly), and frustrated with their repressed sexual urges.

They mystify sex as if it is a divine activity - well it is not. As young as someone who has few pubic hairs are already pounding. Sex is a common commodity and activity; thus, common approaches and preparations are needed...

Let us applaud these Ateneo professors

by Kukoc - 10/16/2008 - 17:50

14 Ateneo professors: ‘RH bill adheres to Catholic social teaching’

by Carmela Fonbuena, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak | 10/16/2008 4:45 PM

Fourteen faculty members of Catholic school Ateneo De Manila University are out to prove that not all Catholics agree with the Catholic Church’s opposition to the controversial reproductive health bill pending in the House of Representatives.

In a 16-page position paper full of quotes from Catholic Church teachings and scientific studies on health, population, and poverty, the faculty members expressed their strong support for House Bill 5043 because “we believe that the provisions of the bill adhere to core principles of the Catholic social teaching.”

The bill is controversial for promoting contraceptives and imposing sex education in schools starting in Grade 5. Catholic bishops have tagged the bill as “pro-abortion” and “anti-life.”

Although they are aware of the Church’s position, the faculty members said in the paper “our reason, informed by our faith, has led us to believe and say otherwise.” They argued that the bill is actually pro-life, pro-women, and pro-poor.

They argued that the HB 5043—by providing universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health services—will improve the country’ maternal and child health situation, prevent abortion, help poor families, and make the youth more responsible sexually.

“We ask our bishops and fellow Catholics not to block the passage of House Bill 5043…. To campaign against the bill is to deny our people, especially our women, many other benefits, such as maternal and child health and nutrition; promotion of breastfeeding; adolescent and youth health; reproductive health education; prevention and management of gynecological conditions; and provision of information and services addressing the reproductive health needs of marginalized sectors, among others,” the paper said.

Theology department, too

The faculty members came from various departments of Ateneo. One of them belongs to the Department of Theology. They stressed that they are only speaking for themselves and not for the University.

Their position paper came out after the results of Social Weather Station’s poll on public support for the reproductive health bill were released. It showed that 68 percent—7 in every 10 Filipinos—want a law on contraceptives.

The following are the signatories:
1. Marita Castro Guevara (Department of Interdisciplinary Studies)
2. Raymond Aguas (Department of Theology)
3. Liane Pena Alampay (Department of Psychology)
4. Fernando Aldaba (Department of Economics)
5. Remmon Barbaza (Department of Philosophy)
6. Manuel Dy Jr. (Department of Philosophy)
7. Elizabeth Uy Eviota (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
8. Roberto Guevara (Department of Theology)
9. Anne Marie Karaos (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
10. Michael Liberatore (Department of Theology)
11. Liza Lim (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
12. Cristina Jayme Montiel (Deparment of Psychology)
13. Mary Racelis (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
14. Agustin Martin Rodriguez (Department of Philosophy)

‘Pro-poor, pro-Life, pro-Women’

In saying that the “Scripture teaches us that God has a special concern for the poor and vulnerable,” the faculty members stress the provisions of the reproductive health bill that are “explicitly pro-poor.”

Section 11 of the proposed bill mandates congressional districts to acquire, operate, and maintain “a van to be known as the Mobile Health Care Services” to deliver reproductive health care services to the poor and needy.

The poor’s lack of access to health services is blamed for the poor maternal and child health situation in the Philippines.

· 10 women die every 24 hours from almost entirely preventable cases of related to pregnancy and childbirth.
· 6 out of 10 women deliver at home, where they rarely have access to a skilled birth attendant.
· 24 out of 1,000 babies under one year old die every year.

The paper also stressed the importance of planning the family. “There is no question that poverty in the Philippines is exacerbated by our rapid population growth,” the paper said.

It cited studies showing that women in the lowest quintile, who usually bear an average of six children, have at leas two children more than their ideal number (3.5). They noted that the increase in family size also means a decrease in per capita income, a decrease in per capita savings, and a decrease in per capita expenditure on education and health.

This will be prevented if Filipinos are familiar with the family planning methods, they said. “The inability of women in the poorest quintile to achieve the number of children they want stems from their high unmet need for family planning,” the paper said.

It will also prevent abortion, they said.

Based on 2000 statistics, there were about half million recorded abortion cases—or 27 abortions per 1,000 women. According to the position paper, this is because “abortion has become a family planning method, in the absence of information on and access to any reliable means to prevent an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.”

Earlier, 27 professors from the University of the Philippines economics department issued a statement, backed by research, supporting the reproductive health bill.

I Reckon!

by the_one - 10/17/2008 - 00:53

I reckon! Hail to the professors and PRO LIFE!

cheers , Rock ON!

Couples for Christ and RH 5043

by Fionski - 10/13/2008 - 08:21

I feel strongly about this. I have always believed that educating people about their choices would limit the possibility of abortion. If people, not just women, would know what their options are in terms of available methods of contraception, unwanted pregnancies would go down dramatically and so would (illegal) abortions.