Yeah that's true, maybe the Catholic Church doesn't realize the bill is promoting their ideals? I'm sure if someone explained that it promoted their ideals then the Catholic Church might support it.

@mopiece: lol, that might end up as a political embarrassment

First they're against. Then someone explains. They say "oops. We only saw reproduction aka sex in the title and were against it. Now were for it. Disregard the previous message."

XD

Lol that's true. The Catholic Church does take a long time to admit mistakes, and they seem to not like to do so. Wasn't it earlier in the 2000s they said this place that didn't exist or was it unbaptized babies didn't go there? It started with a L but I can't think of it. *goes to Google to try and figure it out*

@mopiece: limbo perhaps?

2000 thing: Huh, I don't remember that part in religion class O.o;;

Yes that is what I was thinking of. The Catholic Church just recently said limbo doesn't exists (the 2000 thing I was referring to this limbo thing)

And the Catholic Church still doesn't condemn the Pope that was pope during WW2. (I don't remember his name)

@KTC
yup, you're right (cycle thing). but maybe they don't know that

here is the context of the church's teaching on birth control

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

@abby: *reads* Dang. no fun ppl DX But the Pope wants more kiddies so guess that's why he's against birth control too

@mopiece: not too surprising lol.

Wow. In just two days we have reached page 4!
I think you should merge this topic with Abortion since its quite related to each other.

@heimdall: naw, imo, it's not a match cuz abortion is purely abortion. But this thread hasn't really touched abortion anywhere. Mostly debating about religious abuses and religion related stuff XD

Actually, Heimdall, the bill that is pending in the government now isn't RH Bill 16 but a consolidation of RH Bills 16, 2029, 2042, & 2550 - the RH Bill 3773, more popularly known as the Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Act of 2005.

Though yes, the church is against it, that is not to say that all sectors of the church are against it (I think the CBCP, by far, is the most vocal about their stand against it). Even they question why most pro-lifers are against the bill.

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=teodoroBacani_july26_2008

Last September, there was a forum in our uni, where different perspectives on the topic was presented. There was Bishop Bacani for the church's, a sociologist, an economist, and a senator for the government's. Each of them presented their view and it was so enlightening.

Anyway, as what is happening now, most of the critics have often accused the Church of ignoring the problem of overpopulation (many visitors and students even flooded the bishop with questions about that in the forum). But don't you think that it is possible that these accusations are erroneous inasmuch as the critics are too busy lobbying for their own side to understand what the other side is saying?

In that forum, we were then given information that their [church] stand about overpopulation is not that of a complete disregard. What they are against is the possibility that the use of contraceptives that are also abortifacients would be promoted. These are the pills that not only act as contraceptives but also those that dislodges a fertilized ovum from the womb had the contraceptive action not been successful.

Also, they said that they are against policies that promote limitation of the number of children. Rather, they suggest responsible parenthood.

But, I won't dwell on the church's stand. I support the bill as I see it fit for Filipinos to be properly educated when it comes to population control. I even remember that in an interview in 1966, Dr. Isaac Asimov said "Which is the greater danger - nuclear warfare or the population explosion? The latter absolutely! To bring about nuclear war, someone has to DO something; someone has to press a button. To bring about destruction by overcrowding, mass starvation, anarchy, the destruction of our most cherished values--there is no need to do anything. We need only do nothing except what comes naturally--and breed. And how easy it is to do nothing."

However, I question their reason which says that overpopulation is the reason for poverty and suffering. Though yes, it may be one factor, but I don't believe that it is the only factor. Poverty is a multi-faceted problem where population merely plays a part of the pie. The rest, I believe, includes economic reforms, good governance practices, better educational and health systems, reforming the larger social structure.

----------
Oh I found this one. I think this is an opposition to the bill. The RH Bill 3773 link is also there.
http://www.prolife.org.ph/article/articleview/525/1/87

I can't get anything out of the prolife link on the bottom. They're just ranting and not providing any real supported reports. Basically "THIS IS WRONG AND INSANE AND I'M GOING TO START NAME CALLING PEOPLE NOW." Yeah....some sources would be nice instead of just claiming it's wrong. lol.

As for population control: huh. Interesting perspective on things since I'm generally for contraception/safe sex because it's a 'smart' move on the couple. Like, if you're going to have sex, have sex responsibly. I'm going to think about this perspective a little more.

I'll not support it
as a Filipino I've seen and hear all the lies.
Even those in churches, but not all of them.

@mojane: That explains that you are a filipino glad to meet another one. Thanks for correcting me about that.

Still I would stick on me being a semi-prolife. I totally agree about quality over quantity of life. Let us say you have 20 sons and 4 daughters. That is hard and let me guess where they live? In the squatters,imo. Though still I dont like the contraceptives idea. It has also a negative effect on the mother's health too in my opinion.

@elonah: like???? I'm from US over there *points* so I'm less informed on your politics lol. (please use sources also)

The website mojane directed us to isn't exactly the most "objective" nor what I would use if I want some real 'anti bill' opinions.

@heimdall: As for contraceptives: depends on what contraceptives. Like, if you use condoms correctly: err no. it's not detrimental on the woman or man. lol.
Pills: alrite, there might be some side effects, but in most cases there's not.

@KTC
in Philippines
(what's with the workshop? i think it's near to empty'

@elonah:

"hear all the lies." < what lies concerning the bill? And no conspiracy theories thank you. Reliable sources are appreciated by outsiders

and what cha mean by workshop?

i am for the bill.

from what i see in the site whose link mojanecusjanepotus provided (the last one...), they argue that other countries with high populations are not poor, and that other countries with low populations are not doing so well. but i think that in those countries, the adults know exactly how many children they can support and send to school. if, for example, you have fifteen children, and you can send them all to school and they get jobs when they're grown up, you can say that you have been responsible. but if you know you can't support that number of children, there's no problem if you have only one, two or so.

some people though are not aware of the fact, and the bill (if it works as it should) will make them aware of it.

population is not the only culprit in the problems of the economy. it is the percentage of people without jobs that affects us the most.

as for contraceptives and condoms, as long as they're used properly, they should be no problem to the health of the couple.

i will search the site for more info...

Kids, the bill doesn't even say that population is to blame for poverty. The bill says that the government doesn't have enough money support it's population and is cutting education funds. and rather than figuring out how to export more goods that will improve their economy (which would also lead to the government having more money), it aims to reduce population while spending more on helping babies get born alive and helping mothers survive childbirth (while these are both good things, neither helps resolve an overpopulation problem).

Teds: { regarding the post you made after my previous one: So your argument is "You have free will except for the choice to believe in god, because of all of the reinforcement provided within the church." right? Let's look at an example you provided: When you were a small child, you were very religious, correct? you always wanted to go to church and all that stuff.
BUT, outside of church, every influence in your life that you mentioned reinforced atheism. Now, you are an atheist.
... sounds like you got a lot of reinforcement outside of church. a lot more than within, since you spent so much more time outside. I won't debate whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but this brings me back to an earlier point: You can't say a church is any different from any other organization people choose to join.
If you're gonna blame someone for the evils of influence, blame sales people, because they're the ones who actually aim to profit from their influence attempts. Church members mainly just want you to agree with them and don't necessarily look for ways to influence you consciously.
}

@ryu: If you want to call it as a reinforcement of atheism: fine you call it that. But I call it 'room to think' rather than have the bible constantly thrust in my face that this is correct. Sides, as I said: my parents aren't exactly atheist or religious nor did really care if I had religious beliefs or not. Who cares about religion when it does not count for your overall grade point average? They let me be and did not actively question my beliefs as long as my grades were up to their standards. My main 'religious crisis' began with the dinosaurs: If the bible is god's book, why doesn't it mention dinosaurs? Now, I didn't have a religious network to look over this (and the internet wasn't around yet) so I had to come to my own conclusions (aka, pseudo logical thinking). Once this popped up: more unexplainable questions popped up like why are greek/viking/chinese/egyptian gods considered not 'the ones'? That started my path to atheism: I had room to think instead of a religious community to depend on for answers.

Now, my sister on the other hand you can say had a strong reinforcement of atheism, or at least skepticism. You can say I basically bullied her into atheism since she received a constant bombardment from me, moreso than from the school. lol. Again my parents did not actively question her as long as her grades were up. But, if I was religious: probably same results (me bullying her to one belief or another) except it'd be for the religious side.

@ryu: you forgot that it also aims to teach family planning. look at sec.3, d and j.

and with the bill 'helping babies get born alive and helping mothers survive childbirth', combined with family planning, more women can have the number of children they want with less or zero pregnancy complications from external factors.

true, increasing the live birth rate and decreasing maternal deaths don't help much with overpopulation, but add family planning, and you'll see what i mean.