My Comments as of August 28, 2010

The texts in italic and underline are the objectors’ statements while the normal texts are my replies.

"sex is not just for the sake of making babies and you ain’t gonna do a shit about it…welcome to the 21st century old man…people express their love not just by giving flowers etc…we don’t want to couples to have unwanted babies…to be honest w/ you…sex is not just for making love…it has a new definition…'one night stand'…hehehehe"

We don’t say that sex is just for making babies, did I? Now, regarding “unwanted babies”, you should be the one who must be reminded (or rather educated) that there are no unwanted babies in a truly civilized society. We know and understand human dignity now more than ever; I hope you do. Those people who do not want their babies…well, I don’t have to describe them. If we are not ready yet to make a bigger family, then we don’t intentionally make another babies, but we welcome them wholeheartedly if they come unexpectedly. Actually, we intentionally avoid fertile days in that case, but we don’t intend to frustrate conception…that’s the difference.

Sorry to hear that you actually believe that you can redefine things arbitrarily as if you can change its nature. If you are a modern man, then you should think like a man with understanding. Sex is for man but man is not for sex. Nothing should enslave man, whether money, power, or pleasure; he should be over them. A modern man should say, “I do what I will, I do what is right, and not as my drives tell me to,” or else he is more animal than man.

Now, will you wash your face from a used toilet bowl if the current culture redefine its purpose? Will you drink using a bedpan if its already acceptable to the society? Well, actually, you can do it if you want; but still, you cannot redefine man and his purpose and of everything that is part of him. It’s just a matter of recognizing the nature of things as they really are. To try to redefine them is a great stupidity that a true modern man would not do.

Don’t try to listen with your nose; it won’t work.

================================================================

for the 1st time…i agree w/ you…"Filipino attitude that is the root of all these problems.”-blind faith…using you’re heart & not you’re brain…less corrupt nations like U.S. are making efforts to lessen their population…w/c means we need to lessen our population because more people to serve means less allocation for resources…that’s not good…..

“more people to serve means less allocation for resources”

You might want to say, “More people to be served means less allocation for resources.” But then again, it is still not true, logically speaking. You should realize that everybody is getting old and nobody is getting young or maintaining their age. When a country has more old people than young ones, then more are served than those who give service. Simply put, the working force of the country becomes much smaller than the dependents. Haven’t you heard yet about those countries that are almost desperate to increase their population? They just happened to realize that low birth rate is not really good. Russia, I think though, tries to solve the problem in a wrong way.

[Sex for the motherland: Russian youths encouraged to procreate at camp]

================================================================

the root of all poverty…is too much population…more population means more people will consume the resources…eh kulang na nga yung resources anak pa ng anak…tapos sino sisisihin…gobyerno…sino ba may sabi na maganak sila ng mag-anak…gobyarno ba…hayyy…may dignidad ka nga…moral ang pamumuhay mo…just so you know…you can’t eat morality & dignity…you can’t feed starving people with you’re so-called morality & dignity…you said…

“Education, livelihood, and moral way of life are the solutions to the issue of poverty, not contraception.”

-how do you educate & give livelihood to almost 90+ million people…and still counting…..

“Korapsyon ang problema, kahirapan ang resulta. –PNoy”
Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap.” –PNoy

With the way you think, I would assume that you did not vote for Noynoy, and that until now, you don’t believe his principles.

“the root of all poverty…is too much population…

So it would automatically mean that China should be poor…but that is not the case. What it really means, on the other hand, is that you are simply wrong.

"you can’t eat morality & dignity”

Wrong. Are you employed? Is it okay with your employer to hire a criminal or a person who cannot be trusted or has a scandalous lifestyle or dishonest? This is the morality and dignity that you casually discard; and just so you know, true morality is objective. Maaaring ang isang imoral ay kuning trabahante ng kapwa niya imoral dahil imoral ang kanilang trabaho, pero walang publikano (public sinner) ang tatanggapin ng isang matinong kompanya. “Bakit ko ilalagay sa iskandalosong posisyon ang negosyo ko para lang sa iyo,” yan ang isa sa mga praktikal na argumento. Ang totoo, kung moral kang tao, abutin ka man ng hindi maiiwasang kawalan o paghihirap na dinadanas din ng mga walang moral, marami pa rin ang hindi mag-aatubiling tumulong sa iyo dahil sa iyong pagkatao. Ang totoo niyan, di ko na ito dapat sinasabi pa. Alam mo na dapat yan.

“how do you educate & give livelihood to almost 90+ million people…and still counting…”

How do other countries give livelihood to its citizens that are also growing in numbers? Haven’t you watched the first SONA of Noynoy? Are you not aware that we were robbed billions of pesos by the past immoral government? Haven’t you heard the news that several billions of pesos also are not in the country’s fund because we are continuously being robbed by immoral businessmen. How much money do you need to give livelihood to the Filipino people? Will the immorality of a country feed you? We don’t need to be poor if only these people are moral and dignified.

Comment on the Title "CBCP Pushes for Traditional Methods of Contraception in Congress & Aquino"

To read the full article that I am referring to, please click here. The underlined and italicized lines are quoted arguments from the original source.

First of all, the Catholic Church does not promote any kind of contraception. The title and the introduction of the article misrepresent the stand of the Church.

“…it should just let congress decide on its what is best for the country.”

[Decide on its what?] The Congress will not be the one who will decide what is best for the country, they will just represent what the citizens think is the best for the country. Now, who are the citizens? Are they the majority? Not really. As long as you are a Filipino, you are a citizen of this country, and you have the right to be represented and to be heard. The Congress is not the brain of the nation. On the other hand, the Church is the conscience of the nation. It is not surprising though that this conscience is being ignored, if not being attacked, by almost the whole society, just like almost everybody violates their own individual conscience.

“…the legislative and president aquino is responsible for all filipinos of all faiths, not just catholics…”


President Aquino and the legislators are responsible for all Filipinos including Catholics. I think that is a better way of saying it. We, Catholics, do not propose any bill that violates Muslims, Protestants, or any faith, but a contraceptive legislation is directly anti-Catholic. Now, will you say that civil law should be indifferent to religion? No. That is not how it is.

What you are really suggesting is that the government should go ahead with its sex education program, convincing the young students that this and that are right and good, while the Church teaches the same young students that those things that are being taught in the schools are evil.

Now They're Out In the Open

One by one, the true goal and the true results of the contraceptive mentality that is being espoused by the RH Bill (HB 96 in the 15th Congress) come out in the open. Just recently, Clara Rita Padilla, the executive director of EnGendeRights openly called on the government to legalize abortion because, according to her, the illegality of this activity only results in more unsafe abortion cases, as if there is such a thing as safe abortion. Aside from Padilla, another Filipina feminist is calling publicly for the legalization of abortion, and her name is Ninotchka Rosca. However, she is not just for abortion but also for sex education, RH law, and divorce, which is not surprising.



The RH Bill is actually promoting divorce, euthanasia, abortion, two-child policy, and homosexuality among others. These things were just waiting for the bill to be a law, but since it is having hard time to get the general approval of the Filipino people, the so-called rights group can no longer wait, and they need to openly ask the government to legalize abortion and divorce now.

Fertilization is Conception

Fertilisation (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy), is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism.  [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilization]

Conception - the act of becoming pregnant; fertilization of an ovum by a spermatozoon [wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn]; in reproduction, the point at which a sperm fertilizes an egg [www.ornl.gov/hgmis/publicat/genechoice/glossary.html]; the beginning of pregnancy, when the sperm cell from the father joins with the egg cell from the mother [hes.ucfsd.org/gclaypo/repro/vocab.html]; the formation of a viable zygote by the union of a spermatozoon and an ovum; fertilization [The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary].

Let us start with commonsense. Conception generally means the event that occurred at the beginning of something. You do not need to be a scientist to conclude that this event in the womb (the beginning of something) is the creation of the new organism, which is called zygote. And what do we call this process where zygote is created? It is fertilization. The moment an ovum is fertilized by a spermatozoon, conception occurs; that is, a new entity comes into being; the two become one.

Why is it such a big deal? Because there is a big lie that is now being accepted worldwide regarding the humanity of a zygote; a malicious manipulation of the meaning of medical and even English terms to mislead everybody and to justify all actions that destroy or endanger human life in its earliest stage, including contraception, in vitro fertilization, and embryonic stem cell research. What some so-called medical people did is they have redefined the words conception, pregnancy, and abortion all in relation with the term fertilization. They claim that conception, and not fertilization, is the beginning of pregnancy, as if these are two different things. According to these people, conception refers to the implantation of the blastocyst to the wall of the uterus, and so they say, preventing implantation is not a form of abortion since there is no conception yet until the embryo is implanted. Maybe it sounds plausible and it has actually deceived many, even within the medical community, but it is not that neat. The beginning of one thing means the cessation of another. There is no conception or creation that happens during implantation; it is just another stage of pregnancy. It is the zygote that results from the fusion of the ovum and the spermatozoon that is  a new creation; the one that is conceived. Fertilization is the process where the two gametes from the male and the female cease to be and become a whole new existence -- a human being. Implantation only refers to the event where the human embryo is attached to the uterine wall in order to survive, and as have already said, it does not create or conceive anything.

Fertilization, and not implantation, is conception. It is the earliest stage of pregnancy. Once the egg cell (ovum) is fertilized, the woman is pregnant. Therefore, every action that prevents implantation or destroys the fertilized egg is no less than an abortion -- killing of a human being.

Is NFP a Contraceptive Method?

It is a very common misconception that the only difference between the natural and the artificial family planning method is the way things are done; that is naturally and artificially, respectively. It is not as superficial as that, however. Natural family planning is in no way similar to any kind of contraception because it is not one with them. All contraceptive methods have only one goal, and that is to prevent pregnancy at all cost. It is not the case with natural family planning. NFP's goal and method is to go with the flow, that is with the course of nature. It recognizes the natural effects and the potential fruits of sexual intercourse. It is because of this knowledge that it can show the respect that nature is worthy of. NFP does not frustrate in anyway a potential conception. Contraception's goal in knowing how nature works is to know how to violate it.

A cheating student always looks at his proctor as if he is to be blamed for a potential failure. For him, cheating is "normal" and proctors are freak. That is how contraceptive mentality works. It accuses normalcy of hypocrisy, and blames the natural consequences of things to those people who "get in the way".

On the other hand, a truly responsible student works hard to learn because he knows that things only have their true value if they were done the right way, and that an artificial high mark that resulted from cheating does not reflect the student's intelligence at all.

Unfortunately, the contraceptive motto of students nowadays is, "Cheating is bad if you got caught," which is on the same line of thinking as those who say, "Have fun, just don't get pregnant."

My Comments on Sex Education

The texts in italic and underline are the objectors' statements while the normal texts are my replies.

Exactly the right question to ask J.C. De los Reyes.

Besides, does the Memorandum prohibits, THUS VIOLATES, parents’ PREROGATIVE of teaching birds and bees at home?

Wrong comparison and application of principle. The memorandum does not prohibit anything, rather it does what it should not.

“The State shall defend: (1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood; and (4) The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them.” (Art XV Sec 3, Constitution). The contraceptive mentality of the DepEd curriculum and the Catholic principles that true Catholics live by cannot be reconciled. For the DepEd to insist on it is to violate the religious rights of the Catholic families. Were family associations such as Couples for Christ and other pro-life families invited, heard, and actually considered before the program was approved?

Do we need to prove more than one Constitutional violation before it would be taken seriously? Sound moral judgment is enough (even without the Constitution) to prove that DepEd’s act is inappropriate.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-sex-education-immoral-and-results-to-wrong-moral-development/#comment-10323

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the fact is almost all parents do not talk to their children about sex. they lear about it on their own from their peers or porn. that is a very dangerous thing as it does put sex in a very distorted way.

gtetting the schools and teachers to teach children about sex is a much better option. it will be done preofesionally and in a very structured way.

even if its taugght in school, parents should discuss sex with their children and discuss what they learned in school so that the parent will get involved in the learning process and will allow the parent to define the values the parent believes in.

That is almost my point in the article Usaping Sex sa Paaralan [http://mangingibig.blogspot.com/2009/12/usaping-sex-sa-paaralan.html] that I have written last year. The only idea that I cannot agree with is that “getting the schools and teachers to teach children about sex is a much better option. it will be done profesionally and in a very structured way.” Even today’s general values education is not better than what good and well-trained parents can give their children. When I graduate from high school, I received the “Best in Values Education”, “Most Well-Behaved”, “Most Responsible”, and “Most Trustworthy” awards, but I cannot attribute it to the school’s “structured and professional” way of teaching. I was and still am very positively critical of teachers, parents, and superiors. It would take at least two generations for our teachers to be able to teach sexuality without shying away or without making students shy away. And it should be noted that in order for the children to be not malicious regarding sex education, it must — like charity — begin at home. Teachers cannot build that foundation.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-sex-education-immoral-and-results-to-wrong-moral-development/#comment-10329

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the primary source of values ought to tbe parent, not the schools and teachers. schools and teachers however are the primary source of education. so let’s allow teachers and schools teach sex education and let us not allow parents to abdicate teaching of values.

Parents are the primary teachers; school teachers are just secondary parents; therefore, school teachers are secondary teachers, especially about subjects that directly affect a person’s life and outlook. Sex education will always be a primary affair of the parents, not of school teachers. Teachers can share their knowledge with the parents, but they cannot be an actual parent when it comes to educating children about sex.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-sex-education-immoral-and-results-to-wrong-moral-development/#comment-10332

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly, how does the memo prohibit the primary right of parents to develop moral character in their children as claimed by Kapatiran? With or without the memo, I can still teach my children about penis and vagina, right? This is my point of contention not what the “memo does what it should not.” Which is another point of discussion.

Educate me if you will but I cannot find from this article nor from the Inquirer’s that Kapatiran accuses DepEd of prohibiting something. If they do, then I believe AKP must have a wrong conclusion. What the DepEd does is it violates the rights of the parents. Besides, it could not in anyway or any reason prohibit parents from anything. It has no power to do so. Both you, if you are a parent, and your child’s teacher, if he/she is well trained, may and should talk about penis and vagina. However, teachers should be limited within the scope of anatomy, physiology, and hygiene. Parents are the ones who should tell their children when, how, why, and in what context it should be used. The arguments of Kapatiran as per Inquirer’s report has solid grounds. If somebody has any other article where the party has been reported saying something strange, please let me know.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-sex-education-immoral-and-results-to-wrong-moral-development/#comment-10342

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did the memo say, impliedly or otherwise, Deped is taking the primary role of teaching sex education to children. Parent’s neglect, or lack of knowledge, will only make it so. But were parents taught proper sex ed in school?

I have not seen the full text of the memo (as of the moment) so I could not say that it has implied or explicitly said in letters that it would take the role of the parents. However, the mere fact that both DepEd and DOH have the influence of contraceptive culture, and that this sex education aims to shape the students’ moral and practical view regarding the use of their sexual faculties, it actually tries to take away (or at least compete with) the role of the parents. The concept sounds so RH bill.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-sex-education-immoral-and-results-to-wrong-moral-development/#comment-10344

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, there are more trees that the catholic church should bark upon that are more influential in shaping the students’ moral and practical view regarding the use of their sexual faculties, that they actually try to take away (or at least compete with) the role of the parents.

We have noontume shows like Wowowee, movies depicting illicit sex, the MTV culture, immoral actors and actresses (how many of them go catholic church on sundays?) to name a few.

Who are we to judge that sex education will lead to promiscuity? Do you have studies to prove this? On the contrary please read the editorial of the philippine daily inquirer today. It might just assuage your fear.

I don’t think the Church failed to teach the principles on how to discern the morality of movies and TV shows. Priests may or may not point out Revillame’s behavior, for example, but it’s up to them. Besides, what you deem moral (or immoral) applies to everything. Furthermore, TV shows and movies could not be more influential than teachers if the parents have “the authority” over their children. It is only in extreme situations that the Church should warn the faithful about particular shows. That is still the role of the guardians in ordinary circumstances.

And what does the question “How many of them go to Catholic churches on Sundays” imply? That they should not be allowed to? That they should be singled out on homilies? Any other else? When parents teach their children about honesty, it is very wrong and insensitive to say to one who is known to be dishonest, “Kaya ikaw, huwag kang sinungaling!” That scene is common but it is wrong parenting. You should not even say to your children, whether you have 2 or 12, the line, “Ang titigas ng ulo nyo!” It is an act of condemnation rather than of correction.

We do not judge, we discern. We do not speculate, we use principles. And as I have said earlier, DepEd is living and thinking in a culture of contraception and two-child mentality; that alone is enough to see where this is leading to.

Sex education is a very broad term. I used to talk about sex “on air”, and I am still giving insights about it to whoever solicits it from me. Sex education itself “should” not lead to promiscuity; however, wrong education might lead to wrong behavior.

Did sex education “really” help Americans to be less promiscuous? Read Humanae Vitae, then tell us where Paul VI failed to perceive our generation more than 40 years ago. Besides, why should the government insist on teaching sexuality beyond its [government's] bounds? They should know the word respect better than that.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-sex-education-immoral-and-results-to-wrong-moral-development/#comment-10347

I am not sure why you have adopted my words, but if you want to imply that it is the Church who tries to take away or compete with the role of the parents, then you have a wrong proposition. First, religion is a personal choice; it is neither a curriculum nor a memorandum. Whatever the Church teaches, the faithful asks for it. The minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” And the answer is: “Faith.” (CCC Part 1, Sec 1, Chap 3). The baptised-to-be’s gesture professes that “Whatever the Church teaches, I believe.” Whether you are a parent or still a child, you actually asked your church (whether you are aware or not) to teach you according to its faith — that is religious belief, morality, and discipline.

Second, the State recognizes and shall defend “the right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions” as per the Philippine Constitution. This just means that the State also recognizes religion has the primary influence in parenting and family life.

In short, the Church cannot compete with the parents because it is actually one of their influences. Now, it is not the case with DepEd, because whatever attacks a family’s religious belief is a violation of its religious and constitutional rights. And besides, what DepEd wants to do is already outside its boundary.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-sex-education-immoral-and-results-to-wrong-moral-development/#comment-10348

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“But were parents taught proper sex ed in school?”

If the sex education that you are referring to is as what DepEd defines it to be, then parents should have not been taught. But the more real argument here is that not all parents went to school. The question is not generally applicable. It would have been better if the question is, “Were the parents taught proper sex education?” My answer then is, “They should be now.” The focus of the proposal should be on the word “proper” and not on the “school”.

Now, the reality is: parents are parents. They have the responsibility to know what they should know. Whether they went to school or not, the fact that they are parents should push them to be responsible enough to study. Learning about life is not always done inside a campus; most of the time, it is outside. Whether poor or rich, parents should always be one step ahead of their children when it comes to life’s essentials. The Church may not reach everybody, but everybody may approach the Church and its Magisterium. Now, someone would say, “But the Church has a wrong perception about sex.” According to the world, yes; but according to the Creator of the world, the Church is “the Teacher”. Christ’s sending words are, “Therefore go and make disciples (i.e. students) of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Another one would say, “But not all Filipinos are Catholics.” Most Filipinos are Catholics and all Catholics must live according to their Faith; that means according to the teaching of the Church. Now, how about non-Catholics? Again, I would say, everybody may approach the Magisterium of the Church, whether someone wishes or not to be a Catholic. That is a “free education” offer. And if non-Catholics want to stick with the moral teaching of their churches, then good for them. But to argue that not all Filipinos are Catholics just to justify the presence of “sex education” in schools is lame. DepEd still violates rights.
http://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/is-sex-education-immoral-and-results-to-wrong-moral-development/#comment-10349

See What They Can Do?

Previously, I have mentioned the fact that the government was able to promote, illegally though, a contraceptive culture with the help of the then Secretary of Health Juan Flavier. They were able to do that even without any legal support; even if it is a show of indecency; and even though it is a direct attack on the Constitution and on the families.

Now, when we thought the RH bill is dead, its twelfth section (Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health Education) is actually being enforced, directly violating Article XV Section 3 Paragraphs 1 & 4 of the Constitution and other parts of it. The said program is funded by the United Nations with the help of US, of course, just like the other contraceptive programs. Have you not heard the presence of Planned Parenthood Federation of America in the Philippines who, according to them, "works to improve contraceptive use among adolescents and youth through peer education and outreach programs"? They were here since 1971, and the RH bill's agenda is actually their agenda.

What HB 5043 asks for is not the moral consent of the Filipino people since they can and will try to do all of its proposals with or without the go signal from the citizens. What they actually asks for is budget. This is what the bill is all about -- billions of taxpayers' pesos. With the help of UN and Obama, though, RH bill can and will still try to enforce itself without needing to be a law.

If these people do not know how to respect individual rights, and can make a rug out of the Constitution, do you know what more they can do and will do when they already have our sweated-for money?