What are the pros and cons of the reproductive health bill?

Answer 1

No , because of the following:

•1. It aims at education & promotion of safe sex and use of modern contraceptive devises. (Sec. 13, Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education, HB 96 ). According to the US Center for Disease Control, there is no such thing as safe sex. The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of STDs are to abstain from sexual activity, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.

2. It advocates for classifying making family planning supplies as essential medicine (Sec. 9, Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines, HB 96). The only essential medicine for most normal, low risk pregnancy is iron and folic acid vitamin supplementation.

3. It wants to promote a program to "achieve equitable allocation of resources"

(Sec. 3, Guiding Principles, HB 96) when problems pertaining to lack of "reproductive health" is not as prevalent nor as life-threatening as our other health problems according to the top 10 leading causes of morbidity and mortality in our country.

4. It proposes mandatory age-appropriate reproductive health and sexuality education (Sec. 13, HB 96). This is a real pandora's box. C-FAM reported that Diane Schneider, representing the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers union in the US, is advocating for more "inclusive" sex education in US schools, with curricula based on liberal hetero and homosexual expression. Schneider told the audience at a panel on combating homophobia and transphobia that "oral sex, masturbation, and orgasms need to be taught in education." She claimed that the idea of sex education remains an oxymoron if it is abstinence-based, or if students are still able to opt-out. If you were a parent of a grade schooler, would you want this for your children?

Answer 2

My stand is that I DISAGREE and OPPOSE the RH bill.

It is not true that it's supposed to help our country to prevent the increasing population. Overpopulation is a myth. It's just that the population density in Metro Manila is high, there's overcrowding, so it would appear that there are too many people in the Philippines.

It is not true that the RH bill it will help to lessen the poverty in our country. •The process of poverty alleviation starts with making people understand that each of us choose to be victims or victors. The first step is by far the toughest. Victory over victim-hood does not occur overnight, and people have to want that personal victory before they can find the will to fight for personal success. Each person who wants to rise above poverty must have that core belief that we, the people, have the power to overcome wrongs, injustices, and disasters. The person who wants not to remain poor must believe that we ultimately have power over ourselves, our lives, and our pursuit of happiness. To be poor is a consequence of specific behaviors and decisions more than a lack of income. If we really want anything, we can. But we have to exert effort, sometimes a lot of effort, and for a long time. But eventually, effort and perseverance pay off. We just have to be patient.

Answer 3

Let's call a spade a spade: the bill promotes population management more than it does reproductive health. It even mandates the creation of a Commission on Population.

On the basis of RH bill being for women's health, I AGREE with it. Women need not die in childbirth. Women need to have power over their bodies and their futures. Women need to be provided with choice. The options ought to be available and explained, adopted according to their personal beliefs. It is the duty of the government to provide options, just as it is its role to create opportunities. It is the duty of the churches to propagate beliefs. Churches can and should disagree with the positions of the government, otherwise, it would not be serving its function as guardians of the society's morals. Government, particularly democratic ones, should take time to dialogue with all stakeholders (not just the churches), to ensure that a 'best choice' is made.

On the fact that the RH bill REQUIRES private companies and doctors to perform/contribute to providing RH facilities even if it is against their beliefs, I am AGAINST the RH bill. Imposing penalties on doctors and companies who refuse to provide RH facilities because of their personal beliefs is an impingement of the right to free religious expression that the the Philippine constitution guarantees. Just as no one should be required to follow Catholic dogma, no one should be required to follow secular values either.

On the fact that the RH bill explicitly prohibits abortion (murder), I SUPPORT it. But I am AGAINST the fact that it does not specify a screening mechanism for the tools that may be propagated for Birth Control. There is no provision in the law that says the birth control tools must be SCREENED for ABORTIFACENTS. Preventing conception (meeting of egg and sperm) and preventing fetal development (such as preventing implantation) are two very different ways of birth control -- one is not abortion, the other is.

Note, that in my positions, I have not once used Catholic dogma or the issue of morality as an argument. To my mind, I do not believe in arguing for a position using beliefs that may not be shared (or worse, rejected) by others. I know what my moral position is regarding the issue and I will discuss it with a fellow Catholic who shares my beliefs -- at least we would be arguing using common assumptions. But to everyone else, bringing Catholic doctrine into the discussion will only cause a divisiveness that isn't even part of the bill itself. There are enough economic, legal, and political arguments that can be used to oppose the provisions of the RH bill without getting dragged into a morality debate in which no one really wins. That said, morally, this is where I stand (a position that I do not necessarily expect others to share): In our own families, when someone becomes a 'burden' to us, we do NOT try to get rid of the burden -- by eliminating them or preventing them from having added children who will be a burden. Instead, we work harder, we tighten our belts, we HELP them. We accept our duty to our poorer family members and we do what we can to improve their lives. The family is the basic social unit of society. Its values should flow to the rest of the community. This personal, moral position has nothing to do with my being Catholic, it has more to do with the values that my parents raised me to uphold.

In and of itself, the RH bill has provisions that are acceptable. But there are also others that aren't. The churches, the media, and the government do the people a disservice by not discussing the details of the bill. People are doing themselves a disservice by not even reading the bill.

Answer 4

Reproductive health bill or commonly known as RH-Bill is simply a more politically acceptable term for population reduction. This bill seeks not only to eradicate poverty and over population but also to educate the young masses about reproduction. Also, educating the youth would help to reduce incidences for sexual abuse. I believed that it is the high time that the state enforces a law that looks after the welfare of the family specially the woman and have a shot at educating the the youth. Yes, there are contentions that educating the youth make them more curious about sex and lead them to the ultimately unwanted pregnancies. And I think that it is the only way to prevent overpopulation( please correct me if i am wrong, based only in my analysis) even if there are many people opposing it. RH bill is the only a guide (i guess) on how to manage our self even if some of us treat as for creation or for pleasure... JUST THINK RESPONSIVELY ABOUT IT SO THAT YOU WONT REGRET.... believed in your self before others..,, because, it is in our hand the future we want...

Answer 5

I agree because it can help in controlling the poverty in the Philippines..

Answer 6

promote health among mothers and babies.

Answer 7

BFDCV