What about practicality, and where the option and concept lies?
The problem lies in the misinterpretation of contraception for abortion,
or implying that the use of contraception is synonymous with committing abortion.
But the two are mutually exclusive.
Abortion, as defined by medical professionals, is the termination of pregnancy.
This occurs after conception – after the sperm and egg meet.
Contraception on the other hand prevents the meeting of the sperm and egg in the first place.
Its intent, therefore, is no different from natural family planning methods endorsed by the Church.
The bill endorses age-appropriate sexuality education to ensure that young Filipinos
have the right information in matters of sex and reproductive health.
We cannot assume that upon reaching adolescence,
the young will not be curious about the workings of their body.
The bill intends to instill values for the youth to exercise responsible decision-making with regard to their sexuality.
Aber hallo here comes the modern youngters,hey we wanna have fun but likewise a responsible one.
The church teaches us morality and spirituality,the RH bill guide us to be more aware.
We wanna abide both, is there a solution in between..?
my thoughts, scarbzy migs...
it looks like it's difficult to distinguish between what is practical and what choice means for the two sides. we know that both are agreed on family planning, it is in the means that the two sides diverge. natural as against artificial, as we all know.
the church is well aware that there are artificial contraceptives that are abortifacients (these kill the fertilized ovum). it is also aware that millions are allegedly involved in the lobby for the passage of the rh bill.
those big pharmaceuticals are the very sector that stands to profit most once hundreds of thousands of contraceptives are distributed for free. these contraceptives are not donated by big pharmaceuticals. often as not, these are paid for by our government with aid money from western countries and which we will have to pay for. (there's no such thing as a free 'aid'. it's always a loan in the guise of an aid, and usually the 'donor' that calls the shots includes a stipulation on population control, with specific time-bounded targets that practicality ensures can only be met by artificial means, with contraceptives bought by us from their own big pharmaceuticals. the more our government follows this stipulation, the more will the donor release subsequent aids. well, geopolitics equals multinational big businesses.)
some of us with some background on big-time project proposals for funding must be aware that sometimes aid that's entered as 'cash' on paper is actually the cost of the items that are 'donated'. heaven help us if we have to pay, because it's a loan, for contraceptives worth millions, because the donor country had already bought them for us from their own pharmaceuticals.
these are just some of the things that have to be cleared out by the two sides, i suppose, to erase the mistrust.
lest we forget, wasn't it third world women who unwittingly became laboratory rats when the first contraceptive pills went on trial? these were reportedly distributed first in third world countries, as aids, before these were made available in the countries that manufactured them. all because the population of third world countries is the whipping boy of the west when it comes to poverty. tell that to the homeless in new york.
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=32658.0