What Does It Mean To Be A Catholic On The RH Issue?
By Dennis Yu
I hear every now and then statements like “I’m a Catholic but I’m pro-RH”. This has many other variations like “I’m a Catholic congresswoman, not a congresswoman for the Catholic Church”. In the U.S., there are Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion.
These persons are like vegetarians who eat meat. Nobody forces anyone to be a vegetarian. But if one decides to be a vegetarian, he should not eat meat. Otherwise, he better stop being a vegetarian so he may eat meat “freely”. You cannot eat meat and say at the same time that you are a vegetarian. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Nobody forces one to be a Catholic. And even if one is baptized a Catholic, he can always leave the Church. The gate is wide open. Nobody stays in the Church by force. But if one decides to be a Catholic, or decides to stay in the Catholic Church, he should believe and observe everything that the Church teaches on faith and morals.
If you decide to stay in the Catholic Church, you should obey the teachings of the Holy Father, the representative of Christ. The teaching of Pope Paul VI is very clear. “Every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil (Humanae Vitae, 14).
This teaching is also infallible (which makes it binding to the Catholics) as reiterated in 1997 by the Pontifical Council on Family (Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life). Karol Wojtyla, before becoming Pope John Paul II, said:
“The teaching of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae regarding the essential principles of an ethical regulation of births is marked by all the characteristics of the infallible ordinary teaching of the Church. This means that one is dealing with a teaching based upon the authority of God and imparted in His name.”
That there are “hard teachings” (like sexual morality) in the Church is no surprise. When her Founder was teaching about the Eucharist, that He is the Bread from heaven, many of those listening to Him said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” And many of His disciples turned back and no longer followed Him. But Jesus, surprisingly, neither invited them back nor softened the truth He was proclaiming. Instead, He turned to the Apostles, and said, “Do you also wish to go away?” (cf. John 6:60-71).
St. Peter replied to Jesus: To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. And they stayed with Jesus.
I challenge the Catholics who are in favor of contraception to change their position, to be faithful to the Church’s teachings. I invite them to listen to Jesus: you cannot accept My teachings? Do you also wish to go away?
The choice is yours. (16-VIII-2012)
sábado, 25 de agosto de 2012
The Futility of Sex Education (RH)
The Futility of Sex Education (RH)
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
In its present form, the RH Bill will make sex education mandatory for grade school pupils up to high school. I cannot understand the utility of sex education. I wonder what will be its content. Oh yes, I know its content. It will teach the pupils their reproductive “rights”. That’s what they’ve been pushing in the United Nations for quite some time now.
The objective is to have an active and satisfying sexual life; to enjoy without “suffering” its consequences. They will teach the techniques on how not to get pregnant. They will teach, as it has happened in Australia, that as long as there is consent between a Grade 5 boy and a Grade 5 girl, it’s alright to do whatever their instinct tells them. But will pornography be made legal as well? In the U.S., a 12 year old boy was caught watching pornography. Should he be punished if he has been attending classes on sex education? If he is punished, I can see a lack of coherency here. If we stretch a bit the argument, should prostitution still be punished? Maybe prostitution should be legalized. And if the techniques taught in sex education fail, meaning, if the girl gets pregnant, maybe she should be allowed to abort. In Spain, they have been pushing for abortion without parental consent. Meaning, a girl can just go to an abortion clinic without her parents knowing it.
Of course, I am being sarcastic here. I am against sex education, pornography, prostitution and abortion.
The Philippines is now treading a dangerous ground. I have been living in Europe for some years now and I know how things are with sex education. I think that economic progress by curbing the population – the “original objective” of the RH – is asking for a very high price. What is the use of economic progress if the children have been corrupted in the process? Who will benefit from this progress if a girl cannot continue studying in high school because she got pregnant? As the saying goes: “Aanhin pa ang damo kung patay na ang kabayo?”
I have granted it as a matter of course that curbing the population growth will bring economic progress. This thesis of the RH is yet to be proven. I’m a financial analyst and I don’t believe in curbing the population growth as a formula for economic progress. I don’t believe that maintaining or reducing the population will bring economic progress. There’s even a statistical study showing that there is no “statistically significant” correlation between population and poverty. Anyway, enough of technicalities.
Going back to the “social costs” of the RH, I argue that sex education is not necessary. It is useless and it will bring worse problems. If it’s designed to reduce unwanted pregnancies, I argue that it will increase unwanted pregnancies. That's easy to prove. There are 100,000 abortions yearly in England. If sex education and if contraception really work, why is there such a high "margin of error"?
Sex is only needed when one gets married. Besides, what’s so difficult with sex? Man has been living on this planet for thousands of years without sex education. They were able to reproduce themselves. Do the dogs need sex education in order to reproduce?
We can see clearly that there is an ideology being imposed on us. That ideology is the “sexual liberation”. It has quite a long history especially in the US. That’s what they are trying to impose through sex education. Sex education is futile. It is nothing but an imposition of the “sexual liberation” ideology of the West. Why such a fuss with sex education when Math and English performance of the students have been declining in the last decade? Could it also be a part of the “Marketing Plan” of the contraceptive companies? (14-VIII-2012)
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
In its present form, the RH Bill will make sex education mandatory for grade school pupils up to high school. I cannot understand the utility of sex education. I wonder what will be its content. Oh yes, I know its content. It will teach the pupils their reproductive “rights”. That’s what they’ve been pushing in the United Nations for quite some time now.
The objective is to have an active and satisfying sexual life; to enjoy without “suffering” its consequences. They will teach the techniques on how not to get pregnant. They will teach, as it has happened in Australia, that as long as there is consent between a Grade 5 boy and a Grade 5 girl, it’s alright to do whatever their instinct tells them. But will pornography be made legal as well? In the U.S., a 12 year old boy was caught watching pornography. Should he be punished if he has been attending classes on sex education? If he is punished, I can see a lack of coherency here. If we stretch a bit the argument, should prostitution still be punished? Maybe prostitution should be legalized. And if the techniques taught in sex education fail, meaning, if the girl gets pregnant, maybe she should be allowed to abort. In Spain, they have been pushing for abortion without parental consent. Meaning, a girl can just go to an abortion clinic without her parents knowing it.
Of course, I am being sarcastic here. I am against sex education, pornography, prostitution and abortion.
The Philippines is now treading a dangerous ground. I have been living in Europe for some years now and I know how things are with sex education. I think that economic progress by curbing the population – the “original objective” of the RH – is asking for a very high price. What is the use of economic progress if the children have been corrupted in the process? Who will benefit from this progress if a girl cannot continue studying in high school because she got pregnant? As the saying goes: “Aanhin pa ang damo kung patay na ang kabayo?”
I have granted it as a matter of course that curbing the population growth will bring economic progress. This thesis of the RH is yet to be proven. I’m a financial analyst and I don’t believe in curbing the population growth as a formula for economic progress. I don’t believe that maintaining or reducing the population will bring economic progress. There’s even a statistical study showing that there is no “statistically significant” correlation between population and poverty. Anyway, enough of technicalities.
Going back to the “social costs” of the RH, I argue that sex education is not necessary. It is useless and it will bring worse problems. If it’s designed to reduce unwanted pregnancies, I argue that it will increase unwanted pregnancies. That's easy to prove. There are 100,000 abortions yearly in England. If sex education and if contraception really work, why is there such a high "margin of error"?
Sex is only needed when one gets married. Besides, what’s so difficult with sex? Man has been living on this planet for thousands of years without sex education. They were able to reproduce themselves. Do the dogs need sex education in order to reproduce?
We can see clearly that there is an ideology being imposed on us. That ideology is the “sexual liberation”. It has quite a long history especially in the US. That’s what they are trying to impose through sex education. Sex education is futile. It is nothing but an imposition of the “sexual liberation” ideology of the West. Why such a fuss with sex education when Math and English performance of the students have been declining in the last decade? Could it also be a part of the “Marketing Plan” of the contraceptive companies? (14-VIII-2012)
The 3rd Option: Let The Poor Decide (RH)
The 3rd Option: Let The Poor Decide (RH)
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
In my previous article, I said that since the anti-RH and the pro-RH agree in helping the poor (sincerity is another question, of course), why don’t we give just the P13 billion in cold cash directly to the poor? Let’s leave it up to them to decide on how they’ll spend it. If some wants contraceptives, that’s their choice. If the others want a sack of rice, instead, nobody should stop them. I’m sure 99% of them will buy rice.
At the end of the day, it’s money that talks. If there’s no fund to implement the RH, it’s useless. Well, RH is in itself harmful, so I’d say that it’s better if there are no funds to implement it. It will be a law without a teeth, or perhaps, even without a mouth.
I find P13 billion too high a price to be spent on something where the nation is not exactly happy about. Those who are against the RH are too many to ignore. Besides, their number grows as they become more aware of the real motives behind the RH.
Everybody agrees on livelihood training, on constructing roads and bridges, on providing water irrigation to improve rice harvest. I’d rather spend P13 billion on these projects. But since the pro-RH people insist that the fund be spent on contraceptions, I’d rather have the P13 billion given directly to the poor. The pro-RH say they want to help the poor (some of them are sincere but mistaken, others are completely malicious), they can do so by giving the poor even “more freedom” by letting them decide whether they’ll buy contraceptives or not.
As for the “distribution sites”, let that be a problem of the contraceptive pharmaceuticals. Let them work a bit. We can’t give P13 billion to them without sweating for it. We’re too generous in giving cold cash to them rather than to the poor. There are many ways to help the poor, and giving them a choice to buy or not to buy contraceptives is another way, a better way.
I’ll explain why this is better. In the present configuration of the RH Bill, the poor people who will not avail the “reproductive services” are discriminated. If P100 is budgeted for contraception for 5 poor persons, and only 3 avail of it, the other 2 who did not lost P40. It’s unfair to them. Whereas, if all 5 are given P20 each, those 3 will spend their P60 (or maybe just a part of it) to buy condoms. The other 2 will be happy with their P40 (to buy rice, perhaps?). Everybody’s happy, right? No one is discriminated. The pharmaceuticals are happy as well. Or are they? Perhaps they’d be less happy. Why? Because, in the present configuration of the RH Bill, the government would have bought contraceptives for 5 persons, and not for 3. Less sales for them. As you can see, pera pera lang talaga. I’m a grandson of Chinese immigrants. I know it when money is involved.
I know the disadvantages of dole outs. But if I were to choose between condom and dole out, I will choose dole out.
Let the P13 billion be given directly to the poor. Let them decide how to spend it. (13-VIII-2012)
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
In my previous article, I said that since the anti-RH and the pro-RH agree in helping the poor (sincerity is another question, of course), why don’t we give just the P13 billion in cold cash directly to the poor? Let’s leave it up to them to decide on how they’ll spend it. If some wants contraceptives, that’s their choice. If the others want a sack of rice, instead, nobody should stop them. I’m sure 99% of them will buy rice.
At the end of the day, it’s money that talks. If there’s no fund to implement the RH, it’s useless. Well, RH is in itself harmful, so I’d say that it’s better if there are no funds to implement it. It will be a law without a teeth, or perhaps, even without a mouth.
I find P13 billion too high a price to be spent on something where the nation is not exactly happy about. Those who are against the RH are too many to ignore. Besides, their number grows as they become more aware of the real motives behind the RH.
Everybody agrees on livelihood training, on constructing roads and bridges, on providing water irrigation to improve rice harvest. I’d rather spend P13 billion on these projects. But since the pro-RH people insist that the fund be spent on contraceptions, I’d rather have the P13 billion given directly to the poor. The pro-RH say they want to help the poor (some of them are sincere but mistaken, others are completely malicious), they can do so by giving the poor even “more freedom” by letting them decide whether they’ll buy contraceptives or not.
As for the “distribution sites”, let that be a problem of the contraceptive pharmaceuticals. Let them work a bit. We can’t give P13 billion to them without sweating for it. We’re too generous in giving cold cash to them rather than to the poor. There are many ways to help the poor, and giving them a choice to buy or not to buy contraceptives is another way, a better way.
I’ll explain why this is better. In the present configuration of the RH Bill, the poor people who will not avail the “reproductive services” are discriminated. If P100 is budgeted for contraception for 5 poor persons, and only 3 avail of it, the other 2 who did not lost P40. It’s unfair to them. Whereas, if all 5 are given P20 each, those 3 will spend their P60 (or maybe just a part of it) to buy condoms. The other 2 will be happy with their P40 (to buy rice, perhaps?). Everybody’s happy, right? No one is discriminated. The pharmaceuticals are happy as well. Or are they? Perhaps they’d be less happy. Why? Because, in the present configuration of the RH Bill, the government would have bought contraceptives for 5 persons, and not for 3. Less sales for them. As you can see, pera pera lang talaga. I’m a grandson of Chinese immigrants. I know it when money is involved.
I know the disadvantages of dole outs. But if I were to choose between condom and dole out, I will choose dole out.
Let the P13 billion be given directly to the poor. Let them decide how to spend it. (13-VIII-2012)
Conscientious Objection
Conscientious Objection
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
The RH Bill will require the Philippine Government to spend P13 billion for the distribution of contraceptives and other “reproductive health” services.
What will happen if a DOH employee refuses to participate in this “project”? Will he be fired from his work? Will his “conscientious objection” be respected? Can a DOH employee say “no” to this project based on his religious beliefs, or will he be forced to do it?
This is a serious problem. No one should be forced to do something against his conscience and personal beliefs. In Spain, an anti-Catholic country, yes, I’d like to repeat that: an anti-Catholic country, conscientious objection is still respected. There was an attempt last year to oblige the doctors to perform abortion even if it’s against their conscience. Fortunately, that law didn’t pass. Otherwise, that would be the height of totalitarianism. We would be going back to the time of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and Mao. This and similar anti-life laws were pushed for many years by its Prime Minister, Zapatero, who is a Mason. Fortunately, he lost the elections last year.
Anyway, now that the RH Bill is in the process of amendments, they should include a provision that will guarantee the religious liberty of those who will implement it, specifically, the DOH employees. An employee who is personally against the RH Bill has the right not to participate in the implementation of the RH Bill. This is a question of religious freedom. Of course an employee cannot just say “no” to any job that is given to him. That would justify laziness in its pure form. But if he says “no” to a job that violates his personal belief, he should be respected. He should not be discriminated. He should not be excluded, for example, in Christmas bonus, or job promotion just because he is an objector.
Here in Europe, where euthanasia is legal in some countries, there are many health employees who are forced to cooperate in it. Even if they don’t agree with “mercy-killing”, they are pressured by the hospital administration. They are discriminated. I can see here a unilateral ideological imposition that leaves those who are opposed to it helpless. I can see here an abuse of power, a tyranny.
I remember a case where a Catholic nun was killed in a hospital in the Netherlands. This involved a government employee in favor of euthanasia. On the part of the nun, her congregation, obviously, is against euthanasia. Her sister nuns take turns in accompanying her in the hospital. But there was a moment, just a short one, when the sick nun was left alone in the hospital. The government employee took advantage of this opportunity and administered the poison that killed the sick nun.
A case was filed against the hospital. Lo and behold: the hospital won! The judge said that the sick nun was not in her full mental capacity to reject euthanasia because she was under the strong religious influence of her congregation. Otherwise, she would have consented to euthanasia. Oh really? Absurd!
But is not the hospital under the strong influence of a crazy ideology (euthanasia)? This is where they are bringing the Philippines to in the near future. Save this article. Read it again after 10 years. The Philippine Congress by then will be debating about euthanasia.
Going back to the “conscientious objection”, I don’t want this to happen to the DOH employees. The RH Bill should guarantee this freedom. If the RH Bill is really about “giving choices” (a blatant lie for it does not give me, a taxpayer, any choice!), they should extend that choice to the employees. No one should be forced to act against his conscience. (12-VIII-2012)
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
The RH Bill will require the Philippine Government to spend P13 billion for the distribution of contraceptives and other “reproductive health” services.
What will happen if a DOH employee refuses to participate in this “project”? Will he be fired from his work? Will his “conscientious objection” be respected? Can a DOH employee say “no” to this project based on his religious beliefs, or will he be forced to do it?
This is a serious problem. No one should be forced to do something against his conscience and personal beliefs. In Spain, an anti-Catholic country, yes, I’d like to repeat that: an anti-Catholic country, conscientious objection is still respected. There was an attempt last year to oblige the doctors to perform abortion even if it’s against their conscience. Fortunately, that law didn’t pass. Otherwise, that would be the height of totalitarianism. We would be going back to the time of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and Mao. This and similar anti-life laws were pushed for many years by its Prime Minister, Zapatero, who is a Mason. Fortunately, he lost the elections last year.
Anyway, now that the RH Bill is in the process of amendments, they should include a provision that will guarantee the religious liberty of those who will implement it, specifically, the DOH employees. An employee who is personally against the RH Bill has the right not to participate in the implementation of the RH Bill. This is a question of religious freedom. Of course an employee cannot just say “no” to any job that is given to him. That would justify laziness in its pure form. But if he says “no” to a job that violates his personal belief, he should be respected. He should not be discriminated. He should not be excluded, for example, in Christmas bonus, or job promotion just because he is an objector.
Here in Europe, where euthanasia is legal in some countries, there are many health employees who are forced to cooperate in it. Even if they don’t agree with “mercy-killing”, they are pressured by the hospital administration. They are discriminated. I can see here a unilateral ideological imposition that leaves those who are opposed to it helpless. I can see here an abuse of power, a tyranny.
I remember a case where a Catholic nun was killed in a hospital in the Netherlands. This involved a government employee in favor of euthanasia. On the part of the nun, her congregation, obviously, is against euthanasia. Her sister nuns take turns in accompanying her in the hospital. But there was a moment, just a short one, when the sick nun was left alone in the hospital. The government employee took advantage of this opportunity and administered the poison that killed the sick nun.
A case was filed against the hospital. Lo and behold: the hospital won! The judge said that the sick nun was not in her full mental capacity to reject euthanasia because she was under the strong religious influence of her congregation. Otherwise, she would have consented to euthanasia. Oh really? Absurd!
But is not the hospital under the strong influence of a crazy ideology (euthanasia)? This is where they are bringing the Philippines to in the near future. Save this article. Read it again after 10 years. The Philippine Congress by then will be debating about euthanasia.
Going back to the “conscientious objection”, I don’t want this to happen to the DOH employees. The RH Bill should guarantee this freedom. If the RH Bill is really about “giving choices” (a blatant lie for it does not give me, a taxpayer, any choice!), they should extend that choice to the employees. No one should be forced to act against his conscience. (12-VIII-2012)
The Bible Is Against Contraception (RH)
The Bible Is Against Contraception (RH)
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
I’m writing this article with the Bible-believers in mind. I still don’t know how some of them, I refer mainly to some Protestants groups, are able to justify contraception. The Bible speaks clearly against it.
Probably the most explicit Biblical passage against contraceptive practices can be found in Genesis 38:9-10. It says, “Whenever he had [sexual] relations… he wasted his semen on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring… What he did greatly offended the Lord.”
I can’t find any other way of interpreting this passage other than affirming that contraceptive practices offend God. Contraceptive practices include all types of contraceptions. God, in his wisdom, decided to need the collaboration of man in creating another human being.
God protects the creation of each human being through the institution of marriage. Jesus said: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (cf. Mt 19:6). Such is the protection that God put in place. Why? Because of man’s dignity. Man is created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:27). Even the Psalmist exclaimed that man was created a little less than a god (cf. Ps. 8). And when Jesus came, he made man his brother. That is to say, man is now a child of God (cf. Rom 8:15, Gal 4:6). Such is the dignity of man!
That is why man cannot use his procreative power in any way he wants it. It is such a precious gift. And Jesus went a long way to protect this procreative power. He warned that whoever looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart (cf. Mt 5:28). Adultery was both illegal and immoral in Israel, and Jesus now says that with a lustful look, one has already committed adultery.
That is because, if one indulges in lustful activities, one ends up committing many sexual deviations. St. Paul was explicit about these immoralities (cf. Rm 1:24-32). He even said that they not only do them but also approve those who practice them.
One thing is to have a human weakness. Another thing is to approve such weakness. Some would even call a human weakness a virtue and a human right! Jesus was very accommodating to repentant sinners. The woman caught in adultery, repentant of her sin, was pardoned easily (cf. Jn 8:3-12). He said “neither do I condemn you. Go, and do not sin again.” Jesus pardoned the woman because he was offended, otherwise there’s nothing to pardon. He also made clear that she shouldn’t sin again. We have to call sin a sin, vice a vice, and virtue a virtue.
I have been reading the Bible daily for the last 16 years. The Bible’s “sexual morality” is quite clear. I really cannot understand how a Bible-believer can justify contraception. (7-VIII-2012)
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
I’m writing this article with the Bible-believers in mind. I still don’t know how some of them, I refer mainly to some Protestants groups, are able to justify contraception. The Bible speaks clearly against it.
Probably the most explicit Biblical passage against contraceptive practices can be found in Genesis 38:9-10. It says, “Whenever he had [sexual] relations… he wasted his semen on the ground, to avoid contributing offspring… What he did greatly offended the Lord.”
I can’t find any other way of interpreting this passage other than affirming that contraceptive practices offend God. Contraceptive practices include all types of contraceptions. God, in his wisdom, decided to need the collaboration of man in creating another human being.
God protects the creation of each human being through the institution of marriage. Jesus said: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (cf. Mt 19:6). Such is the protection that God put in place. Why? Because of man’s dignity. Man is created in the image and likeness of God (cf. Gen 1:27). Even the Psalmist exclaimed that man was created a little less than a god (cf. Ps. 8). And when Jesus came, he made man his brother. That is to say, man is now a child of God (cf. Rom 8:15, Gal 4:6). Such is the dignity of man!
That is why man cannot use his procreative power in any way he wants it. It is such a precious gift. And Jesus went a long way to protect this procreative power. He warned that whoever looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart (cf. Mt 5:28). Adultery was both illegal and immoral in Israel, and Jesus now says that with a lustful look, one has already committed adultery.
That is because, if one indulges in lustful activities, one ends up committing many sexual deviations. St. Paul was explicit about these immoralities (cf. Rm 1:24-32). He even said that they not only do them but also approve those who practice them.
One thing is to have a human weakness. Another thing is to approve such weakness. Some would even call a human weakness a virtue and a human right! Jesus was very accommodating to repentant sinners. The woman caught in adultery, repentant of her sin, was pardoned easily (cf. Jn 8:3-12). He said “neither do I condemn you. Go, and do not sin again.” Jesus pardoned the woman because he was offended, otherwise there’s nothing to pardon. He also made clear that she shouldn’t sin again. We have to call sin a sin, vice a vice, and virtue a virtue.
I have been reading the Bible daily for the last 16 years. The Bible’s “sexual morality” is quite clear. I really cannot understand how a Bible-believer can justify contraception. (7-VIII-2012)
The Hidden Agenda In The RH Bill
The Hidden Agenda In The RH Bill
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
Aside from the IPPF, Hillary Clinton (the current U.S. Secretary of State) is also aggressively pushing for a worldwide RH legislation (mainly in the Third World countries). When her husband, Bill Clinton, was the President, he pushed for two things in the Cairo Conference (1994). First, he wanted a universal access to family planning including “safe” abortion. Second, he wanted a global mobilization of resources for population programs.
This, in turn, is coherent with the Memorandum 200. The complete name is National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests. This was written in 1974 and was kept secret until 1980. The report says that the increase of the population of developing countries can endanger the future of the US. At that time, the US population was 6% of the world’s population and yet it consumes 1/3 of the planet’s resources. High birth rate in a (developing) country rich in natural resources is risky for the US’s interests. These countries will become “competitors” of the US. Hence, the strategy is to put a population control to neutralize this danger. There were 13 countries identified where the US has special political and strategic interests: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Columbia. [This paragraph is a summary/translation of Riccardo Cascioli’s book, El Complot Demográfico, p. 103-104.]
The sincerity of Uncle Sam has been questioned many times. In the Iraq War, the “official statement” was to destroy the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Yeah, right! But where are the WMDs? Even Alan Greenspan, the ex-U.S. FED chairman, in his book , The Age of Turbulence, said that the U.S. did it for its interest in Iraq’s oil. Of course, everybody knew it!
Most, if not all, of the “aids” that the U.S. gives to the Philippines have so many “strings attached”. Not only the US but also World Bank and International Monetary Fund attach certain conditions for population control. The foreign debt is crippling the Philippine economy. More than half of the BIR’s inefficient collection of taxes goes to foreign debt servicing. And part of the little money that is left, a whopping P13 billion, the pro-RH legislators want for condoms!
The Cairo Conference’s Program of Action, global population control, has a 20-year plan that will end by 2015. For this end, the United Nations allocated $1.7 billion in 2000 which will increase to $2.05 billion in 2015. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund also pitched in some money to help. (This explains the “population control clause” attached to foreign debts.) More funding is given by individual governments. Just a few weeks ago, the British Government and the Melinda Gates foundation, in a summit held in London, received pledges of $4.6 billion to promote contraceptions.
The IPPF is supported by governments, European Commission and UN Population Fund. They work closely with the World Health Organization, UN Development Program, UNICEF and the OECD (Organization for Economic Development).
I enumerated these institutions so that when you hear them supporting the RH Bill, you shouldn’t be surprised. For example, when the United Nations says that the Philippines need the RH, that’s simply being hypocritical. They project themselves as a “neutral” institution trying to “advise” the Filipinos. But the UN is one of the institutions lobbying strongly for the passage of the RH Bill!
What do we see from all these? I see big guys trying to bully the small guys for their (big guys) own selfish benefit. The RH Bill is part of that worldwide bullying. Magpapa-uto (na naman) ba tayo? (5-VIII-2012)
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
Aside from the IPPF, Hillary Clinton (the current U.S. Secretary of State) is also aggressively pushing for a worldwide RH legislation (mainly in the Third World countries). When her husband, Bill Clinton, was the President, he pushed for two things in the Cairo Conference (1994). First, he wanted a universal access to family planning including “safe” abortion. Second, he wanted a global mobilization of resources for population programs.
This, in turn, is coherent with the Memorandum 200. The complete name is National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests. This was written in 1974 and was kept secret until 1980. The report says that the increase of the population of developing countries can endanger the future of the US. At that time, the US population was 6% of the world’s population and yet it consumes 1/3 of the planet’s resources. High birth rate in a (developing) country rich in natural resources is risky for the US’s interests. These countries will become “competitors” of the US. Hence, the strategy is to put a population control to neutralize this danger. There were 13 countries identified where the US has special political and strategic interests: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia and Columbia. [This paragraph is a summary/translation of Riccardo Cascioli’s book, El Complot Demográfico, p. 103-104.]
The sincerity of Uncle Sam has been questioned many times. In the Iraq War, the “official statement” was to destroy the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Yeah, right! But where are the WMDs? Even Alan Greenspan, the ex-U.S. FED chairman, in his book , The Age of Turbulence, said that the U.S. did it for its interest in Iraq’s oil. Of course, everybody knew it!
Most, if not all, of the “aids” that the U.S. gives to the Philippines have so many “strings attached”. Not only the US but also World Bank and International Monetary Fund attach certain conditions for population control. The foreign debt is crippling the Philippine economy. More than half of the BIR’s inefficient collection of taxes goes to foreign debt servicing. And part of the little money that is left, a whopping P13 billion, the pro-RH legislators want for condoms!
The Cairo Conference’s Program of Action, global population control, has a 20-year plan that will end by 2015. For this end, the United Nations allocated $1.7 billion in 2000 which will increase to $2.05 billion in 2015. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund also pitched in some money to help. (This explains the “population control clause” attached to foreign debts.) More funding is given by individual governments. Just a few weeks ago, the British Government and the Melinda Gates foundation, in a summit held in London, received pledges of $4.6 billion to promote contraceptions.
The IPPF is supported by governments, European Commission and UN Population Fund. They work closely with the World Health Organization, UN Development Program, UNICEF and the OECD (Organization for Economic Development).
I enumerated these institutions so that when you hear them supporting the RH Bill, you shouldn’t be surprised. For example, when the United Nations says that the Philippines need the RH, that’s simply being hypocritical. They project themselves as a “neutral” institution trying to “advise” the Filipinos. But the UN is one of the institutions lobbying strongly for the passage of the RH Bill!
What do we see from all these? I see big guys trying to bully the small guys for their (big guys) own selfish benefit. The RH Bill is part of that worldwide bullying. Magpapa-uto (na naman) ba tayo? (5-VIII-2012)
Economic Reasons Against The RH Bill
Economic Reasons Against The RH Bill
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
Here’s an article that shows why the RH Bill will be harmful to the Philippine economy. For the purposes of this article, I’ll focus on the RH Bill as a population control. Many pro-RH legislators deny that the RH Bill is about population control. But the truth is, it is.
To the mind of Juan de la Cruz, the RH Bill is presented as the solution to poverty. The argument is straightforward: less people, more wealth. A pro-RH poster shows a bowl of rice, with a few spoons, and another bowl (of the same size) with more spoons. I don’t need to be a financial analyst (of which I am) to know that 10 kilos of rice divided by 4 family members is greater than 10 divided by 10. This was exactly the fear of Malthus: the resources grow arithmetically while the population grows geometrically. However, Malthus was proven wrong by history.
The main error in Malthus’s theory is that he thinks of the resources as a zero-sum game: what I gain is your loss; conversely, what I lose is your gain. But the reality is more complex than that. Through technology, food production increased geometrically, even faster than the population growth.
Not only that. More and more are discovering that a growing population is the key to development. A strongly anti-Catholic magazine, The Economist, cannot but accept the evidence. See its article: http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2012/02/demography.
Even Malacañang's position, surprisingly, was in favor of a growing population. Well, that's at least before the SONA (see: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/05/02/12/growing-population-boon-ph-economy). And after the SONA, the Wall Street Journal says that the RH could derail Philippine economy. It says, “The Philippines doesn’t have too many people, it has too few pro-growth policies. [Mr. Aquino’s] promotion of a ‘reproductive health’ bill is jarring because it would put the Philippines in danger of following China’s path into middle-income development followed by a demographic trap of too few workers”. (See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443570904577544542963426800.html)
Now supposing there is a positive correlation between poverty and population – something yet to be proven –, is the RH the way to control the population? The big problem with the RH is that it brings with it a change in mentality: contraceptive mentality. This is the big problem of Singapore today.
Lee Kwan Yew, the “father” of Singapore, the guy who transformed Singapore from a backwater island into a first world country, implemented a strong population control. The progress of Singapore can be attributed to many factors like work discipline and low level of corruption (both of which, the Philippines scores badly). But, for the sake of discussion, let’s attribute its progress to population control. Meaning, the strong population control is the primary cause of its progress – as many people believe naively.
However, Lee Kwan Yew now regrets the population control he implemented. In his article published in Forbes magazine (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2012/0507/current-events-population-global-declining-birth-rates-lee-kuan-yew.html), he says, “there will be a shift in power unless birth rates increase in the developed world”. Doesn’t this unmask the hidden agenda of Hillary Clinton, the IPPF (International Planned Parenthood) and company? If they cannot increase their countries’ birth rates, they might as well stop or decrease the birth rates of the developing countries to avoid the “shift of power”. That is what Memorandum 200 (Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests) is all about.
Lee Kwan Yew said that “low fertility and an aging population are two of our greatest concerns. In the future we will have to depend on immigrants to make up our numbers, for without them Singapore will face the prospect of a shrinking workforce and a stagnant economy… To encourage marriage and parenthood, Singapore’s government has instituted a wide array of measures: improved accessibility to quality child care, leave entitlements for new mothers and parents of young children, and financial incentives to help defray the costs of raising children. We created a special account for each child in which parents’ savings have been matched, dollar for dollar, by the government, with caps ranging from $6,000 to $18,000, depending on the birth order of the child. This was done to encourage parents to have three or four--or more--children.”
The lesson is that, even if population control will help the economy – something yet to be proven – this progress is temporary. Shall we say 20 years of progress? Then, after that, what? The RH will harm the economy instead of helping it. (4-VIII-2012)
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
Here’s an article that shows why the RH Bill will be harmful to the Philippine economy. For the purposes of this article, I’ll focus on the RH Bill as a population control. Many pro-RH legislators deny that the RH Bill is about population control. But the truth is, it is.
To the mind of Juan de la Cruz, the RH Bill is presented as the solution to poverty. The argument is straightforward: less people, more wealth. A pro-RH poster shows a bowl of rice, with a few spoons, and another bowl (of the same size) with more spoons. I don’t need to be a financial analyst (of which I am) to know that 10 kilos of rice divided by 4 family members is greater than 10 divided by 10. This was exactly the fear of Malthus: the resources grow arithmetically while the population grows geometrically. However, Malthus was proven wrong by history.
The main error in Malthus’s theory is that he thinks of the resources as a zero-sum game: what I gain is your loss; conversely, what I lose is your gain. But the reality is more complex than that. Through technology, food production increased geometrically, even faster than the population growth.
Not only that. More and more are discovering that a growing population is the key to development. A strongly anti-Catholic magazine, The Economist, cannot but accept the evidence. See its article: http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2012/02/demography.
Even Malacañang's position, surprisingly, was in favor of a growing population. Well, that's at least before the SONA (see: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/05/02/12/growing-population-boon-ph-economy). And after the SONA, the Wall Street Journal says that the RH could derail Philippine economy. It says, “The Philippines doesn’t have too many people, it has too few pro-growth policies. [Mr. Aquino’s] promotion of a ‘reproductive health’ bill is jarring because it would put the Philippines in danger of following China’s path into middle-income development followed by a demographic trap of too few workers”. (See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443570904577544542963426800.html)
Now supposing there is a positive correlation between poverty and population – something yet to be proven –, is the RH the way to control the population? The big problem with the RH is that it brings with it a change in mentality: contraceptive mentality. This is the big problem of Singapore today.
Lee Kwan Yew, the “father” of Singapore, the guy who transformed Singapore from a backwater island into a first world country, implemented a strong population control. The progress of Singapore can be attributed to many factors like work discipline and low level of corruption (both of which, the Philippines scores badly). But, for the sake of discussion, let’s attribute its progress to population control. Meaning, the strong population control is the primary cause of its progress – as many people believe naively.
However, Lee Kwan Yew now regrets the population control he implemented. In his article published in Forbes magazine (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2012/0507/current-events-population-global-declining-birth-rates-lee-kuan-yew.html), he says, “there will be a shift in power unless birth rates increase in the developed world”. Doesn’t this unmask the hidden agenda of Hillary Clinton, the IPPF (International Planned Parenthood) and company? If they cannot increase their countries’ birth rates, they might as well stop or decrease the birth rates of the developing countries to avoid the “shift of power”. That is what Memorandum 200 (Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests) is all about.
Lee Kwan Yew said that “low fertility and an aging population are two of our greatest concerns. In the future we will have to depend on immigrants to make up our numbers, for without them Singapore will face the prospect of a shrinking workforce and a stagnant economy… To encourage marriage and parenthood, Singapore’s government has instituted a wide array of measures: improved accessibility to quality child care, leave entitlements for new mothers and parents of young children, and financial incentives to help defray the costs of raising children. We created a special account for each child in which parents’ savings have been matched, dollar for dollar, by the government, with caps ranging from $6,000 to $18,000, depending on the birth order of the child. This was done to encourage parents to have three or four--or more--children.”
The lesson is that, even if population control will help the economy – something yet to be proven – this progress is temporary. Shall we say 20 years of progress? Then, after that, what? The RH will harm the economy instead of helping it. (4-VIII-2012)
Why A Catholic Cannot Support the RH Bill
Why A Catholic Cannot Support the RH Bill
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
I am writing this article with the “good and practicing Catholics” in mind. If you are against the Church, this article is not for you.
The millions of dollars from the IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) to push the RH Bill are reaching the mass media and the legislators. It is not surprising that there is a lot of misinformation going on. If you are a confused Catholic, this article may help you a bit.
Our Lord taught us to live chastity. This virtue is not only for the unmarried but also for the married. A married person has to be faithful to his/her spouse. Within marriage, sex is holy and it goes in accordance to the divine plan.
The use of sex outside marriage is against God’s design for man. That also means that it is against man himself. An action is evil not (only) because it goes against the Commandments. Rather, God prohibits it because it is bad in itself. A mother who prohibits his toddler to touch an electric cable does it for his safety. Touching the electric cable is “evil” whether or not his mother prohibits him.
Why is pre-marital sex (also called fornication) bad in itself? It is bad because the baby born out-of-wedlock will most likely not have a father to take care of him. Each child has the right to have a father and a mother. Every human being should be born – out of physical and psychological necessities – to a family. The bad consequences (for the child) of single parenthood, and obviously, of broken family, cannot be overemphasized. Anyone can do a quick survey in Bilibid Prison to find out how many of the prisoners come from broken families.
If pre-marital sex is bad in itself, so is promiscuity. If it’s not obvious, then I’ll make it obvious. Promiscuity leads to sex. And sex outside of marriage is bad in itself.
What about contraceptives? Since the earliest centuries, the Church has consistently taught that all sexual acts should be open to life. God gave the power to procreate precisely in order to pro-create, to re-produce. Man cannot separate the use of sex from its fruit: another human being. That’s why masturbation – a sexual act not open to life – is also intrinsically evil.
Why can’t a catholic support the RH Bill? RH Bill espouses many points contrary to the sanctity of sex. It promotes contraception which will easily lead to pre-marital sex. It requires sex education which will lead to promiscuity and more teenage pregnancies. One has to be naïve to believe that contraception do really effectively prevent pregnancies. In theory, yes. That’s what contraception is for: contra-conception. But in practice, no.
Here is a story of Abby Johnson. Although she was a constant user of contraceptives, she got pregnant. Not only once but twice. And because of the “contraceptive mentality” that contraceptions bring with it, she was brainwashed to see her babies as “diseases”. She aborted both of them. I repeat, she saw the babies as a disease, an unwanted visitor in her womb. That’s the contraceptive mentality.
She had a change of heart. And she realized all the lies of Planned Parenthood (an affiliate of IPPF). She now regrets everything. She is experiencing the post-abortion trauma. For her frank confession, see: http://www.unplannedthebook.com/ . (3-VIII-2012)
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
I am writing this article with the “good and practicing Catholics” in mind. If you are against the Church, this article is not for you.
The millions of dollars from the IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) to push the RH Bill are reaching the mass media and the legislators. It is not surprising that there is a lot of misinformation going on. If you are a confused Catholic, this article may help you a bit.
Our Lord taught us to live chastity. This virtue is not only for the unmarried but also for the married. A married person has to be faithful to his/her spouse. Within marriage, sex is holy and it goes in accordance to the divine plan.
The use of sex outside marriage is against God’s design for man. That also means that it is against man himself. An action is evil not (only) because it goes against the Commandments. Rather, God prohibits it because it is bad in itself. A mother who prohibits his toddler to touch an electric cable does it for his safety. Touching the electric cable is “evil” whether or not his mother prohibits him.
Why is pre-marital sex (also called fornication) bad in itself? It is bad because the baby born out-of-wedlock will most likely not have a father to take care of him. Each child has the right to have a father and a mother. Every human being should be born – out of physical and psychological necessities – to a family. The bad consequences (for the child) of single parenthood, and obviously, of broken family, cannot be overemphasized. Anyone can do a quick survey in Bilibid Prison to find out how many of the prisoners come from broken families.
If pre-marital sex is bad in itself, so is promiscuity. If it’s not obvious, then I’ll make it obvious. Promiscuity leads to sex. And sex outside of marriage is bad in itself.
What about contraceptives? Since the earliest centuries, the Church has consistently taught that all sexual acts should be open to life. God gave the power to procreate precisely in order to pro-create, to re-produce. Man cannot separate the use of sex from its fruit: another human being. That’s why masturbation – a sexual act not open to life – is also intrinsically evil.
Why can’t a catholic support the RH Bill? RH Bill espouses many points contrary to the sanctity of sex. It promotes contraception which will easily lead to pre-marital sex. It requires sex education which will lead to promiscuity and more teenage pregnancies. One has to be naïve to believe that contraception do really effectively prevent pregnancies. In theory, yes. That’s what contraception is for: contra-conception. But in practice, no.
Here is a story of Abby Johnson. Although she was a constant user of contraceptives, she got pregnant. Not only once but twice. And because of the “contraceptive mentality” that contraceptions bring with it, she was brainwashed to see her babies as “diseases”. She aborted both of them. I repeat, she saw the babies as a disease, an unwanted visitor in her womb. That’s the contraceptive mentality.
She had a change of heart. And she realized all the lies of Planned Parenthood (an affiliate of IPPF). She now regrets everything. She is experiencing the post-abortion trauma. For her frank confession, see: http://www.unplannedthebook.com/ . (3-VIII-2012)
Who Are Behind The RH Bill?
Who Are Behind The RH Bill?
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
The IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) is a group of persons and institutions intending to impose a unilateral ideology. It was founded in the 50’s. Margaret Sanger served as its President. If you don’t know her, beware of her! She was a big defender of eugenics. She founded the Birth Control League in the US.
Eugenics is an offshoot of Darwinism. Remember the “survival of the fittest”? Eugenics is something like that. Sanger said that in order to improve the “human species”, those who have better genes should reproduce more, and those who have sickly genes should be wiped out. Doesn’t that ring a bell: the supremacy of the Arian race? That’s exactly the Nazi program. Good if you’re a Nazi. But if you’re a Jew? You’ll be wiped out! The Nazi killed 6 million Jews. Genocide, it is.
The ultimate goal of the IPPF is to make abortion accessible especially in the Third World countries. It is the IPPF that funds heavily the pro-RH politicians. In 2011, the IPPF gave a whopping P33 million. The breakdown is as follows: Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP), $625,095; Likhaan Center for Women’s Health, $84,776; and The Women’s Global Network Reproductive Rights, $75,092.
It should not be a surprised, then, if there are “die-hards” for the RH. Well, they are die-hards for the money of the IPPF (at the expense of betraying their very own people). How far can P33 million go? How many journalists and politicians can (and are) benefitting from this? Just do the math. Another source said that other anti-life groups even gave out as much as P2 billion a couple of years ago. Since I’m a financial analyst, I did the math. In less than 3 years, a pharmaceutical company can recover this P2 billion “investment”. To begin with, the Philippine Government will spend, once the RH is approved, P13 billion to implement it. If I were a pharmaceutical company, I can spend as much as P50 billion easily.
I cannot believe how anyone can overlook the money-motive of the RH Bill. The RH Bill is about money (and ideology). That’s as clear as the midday sun.
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is an affiliate of the IPPF. Some 3 million women go to their clinics for contraception and abortion. Every year, PPFA kills some 300,000 babies in their 820 clinics throughout the US.
To ask what is the connection between contraception and abortion is to be naïve. IPPF is pouring in money to get the RH approved. It is the first step towards legalizing abortion. Once the RH is approved, the next step is to legalize abortion in “some cases”. This is the usual legal path that the IPPF follows.
Abby Johnson, a former director of a PPFA abortion clinic, revealed what’s PPFA is really up to. Abby was a fresh grad from Texas who wanted to help women. She was convinced that by providing contraception (and abortion in some cases), she was really helping women. That was the way she thought until she moved up the ladder and became the clinic director. At that moment, she was pressured from the “higher ups” to get as many abortions as possible to improve the clinic’s profits. She was surprised. She said she cannot work for something like this. She said she came to help women, not to kill people.
When she quitted the Planned Parenthood, she realized all the lies that were put in her head. She saw clearly that abortion is an absolute evil. She saw that contraception does not help women at all. Contraception brings women to a vicious trap that eventually leads to abortion. See her frank confession: http://www.unplannedthebook.com/. (2-VIII-2012)
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
The IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) is a group of persons and institutions intending to impose a unilateral ideology. It was founded in the 50’s. Margaret Sanger served as its President. If you don’t know her, beware of her! She was a big defender of eugenics. She founded the Birth Control League in the US.
Eugenics is an offshoot of Darwinism. Remember the “survival of the fittest”? Eugenics is something like that. Sanger said that in order to improve the “human species”, those who have better genes should reproduce more, and those who have sickly genes should be wiped out. Doesn’t that ring a bell: the supremacy of the Arian race? That’s exactly the Nazi program. Good if you’re a Nazi. But if you’re a Jew? You’ll be wiped out! The Nazi killed 6 million Jews. Genocide, it is.
The ultimate goal of the IPPF is to make abortion accessible especially in the Third World countries. It is the IPPF that funds heavily the pro-RH politicians. In 2011, the IPPF gave a whopping P33 million. The breakdown is as follows: Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP), $625,095; Likhaan Center for Women’s Health, $84,776; and The Women’s Global Network Reproductive Rights, $75,092.
It should not be a surprised, then, if there are “die-hards” for the RH. Well, they are die-hards for the money of the IPPF (at the expense of betraying their very own people). How far can P33 million go? How many journalists and politicians can (and are) benefitting from this? Just do the math. Another source said that other anti-life groups even gave out as much as P2 billion a couple of years ago. Since I’m a financial analyst, I did the math. In less than 3 years, a pharmaceutical company can recover this P2 billion “investment”. To begin with, the Philippine Government will spend, once the RH is approved, P13 billion to implement it. If I were a pharmaceutical company, I can spend as much as P50 billion easily.
I cannot believe how anyone can overlook the money-motive of the RH Bill. The RH Bill is about money (and ideology). That’s as clear as the midday sun.
The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is an affiliate of the IPPF. Some 3 million women go to their clinics for contraception and abortion. Every year, PPFA kills some 300,000 babies in their 820 clinics throughout the US.
To ask what is the connection between contraception and abortion is to be naïve. IPPF is pouring in money to get the RH approved. It is the first step towards legalizing abortion. Once the RH is approved, the next step is to legalize abortion in “some cases”. This is the usual legal path that the IPPF follows.
Abby Johnson, a former director of a PPFA abortion clinic, revealed what’s PPFA is really up to. Abby was a fresh grad from Texas who wanted to help women. She was convinced that by providing contraception (and abortion in some cases), she was really helping women. That was the way she thought until she moved up the ladder and became the clinic director. At that moment, she was pressured from the “higher ups” to get as many abortions as possible to improve the clinic’s profits. She was surprised. She said she cannot work for something like this. She said she came to help women, not to kill people.
When she quitted the Planned Parenthood, she realized all the lies that were put in her head. She saw clearly that abortion is an absolute evil. She saw that contraception does not help women at all. Contraception brings women to a vicious trap that eventually leads to abortion. See her frank confession: http://www.unplannedthebook.com/. (2-VIII-2012)
A Taxpayer Speaks Against The RH Bill
A Taxpayer Speaks Against The RH Bill
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
At my young age, I have already paid a lot of taxes to the Philippine Government. How much? The equivalent of a brand new car! And so I guess the pro-RH legislators should better listen to me. After all, part of their salary comes from me.
Why am I against the RH? Let me start by saying that a friend of mine has just been diagnosed of cancer. He has no money for the chemotherapy and for the laboratory exams. I thought of the P13
billion (annually, I suppose) that will be spent to implement the RH Bill. Its absurdity dawned on me like the midday sun. The Philippines is a poor country and it wants to spend P13 billion on an ideology pushed by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the US government through Hillary Clinton and the UN bodies (especially the UN Population Fund).
Why should the government buy condoms when the government hospitals can hardly provide antibiotics? I have been to many public hospitals. I have heard many stories of how patients would have to wait – at the expense of health deterioration – because there were no medicines available.
I don’t agree with the use of contraceptives even if it’s not my money that will be spent on it. But, for the sake of discussion, let’s suppose that contraceptives are necessary. In that case, then let those who propose it spend their own money for it. If they really think that contraceptive is equivalent to “helping the poor”, why don’t they donate contraceptives? What I cannot accept is that they will spend my money – the hundreds of thousands I paid – to something ideological!
I am a taxpayer. I want my money to go to the poor. I want it to be spent in buying antibiotics, Math textbooks, classrooms, farm-to-market roads, etc. I don’t want a single cent of my money to go to condom!
If Lagman, Cayetano, Santiago and company think they are helping the poor by promoting the RH Bill, then let them donate their own money. But these legislators should not force me (because, I repeat, the tax is my money) to buy condoms.
I find it very unfair to pay for someone else’s vice. I’m not a smoker, and I get annoyed when someone smokes near me. In any case, I can tolerate smoking. But what I cannot tolerate is for the smoker to get my money so he can buy his cigarettes! Do you want to smoke? Then spend your money to buy your cigarette. Don’t get my money.
Since the anti-RH and the pro-RH agree in helping the poor (sincerity is another question, of course), why don’t we give just the P13 billion in cold cash directly to the poor? Let’s leave it up to them to decide on how they’ll spend it. If some wants contraceptives, that’s their choice. If others want a sack of rice, instead, nobody should stop them. I’m sure 99% of them will buy rice.
The RH Bill is absurd because it obliges anti-RH taxpayers like me to contribute to something ideological. Without the RH Bill, those taxpayers who are in favor of RH Bill can freely donate contraceptives. But with the RH Bill, anti-RH taxpayers like me have no option not to contribute. I find that unfair.
Shall I stop paying taxes then? If the RH Bill gets approved, I’d have my car back! (1-VIII-2012)
By Dennis Yu (dennisjyu@gmail.com)
At my young age, I have already paid a lot of taxes to the Philippine Government. How much? The equivalent of a brand new car! And so I guess the pro-RH legislators should better listen to me. After all, part of their salary comes from me.
Why am I against the RH? Let me start by saying that a friend of mine has just been diagnosed of cancer. He has no money for the chemotherapy and for the laboratory exams. I thought of the P13
billion (annually, I suppose) that will be spent to implement the RH Bill. Its absurdity dawned on me like the midday sun. The Philippines is a poor country and it wants to spend P13 billion on an ideology pushed by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the US government through Hillary Clinton and the UN bodies (especially the UN Population Fund).
Why should the government buy condoms when the government hospitals can hardly provide antibiotics? I have been to many public hospitals. I have heard many stories of how patients would have to wait – at the expense of health deterioration – because there were no medicines available.
I don’t agree with the use of contraceptives even if it’s not my money that will be spent on it. But, for the sake of discussion, let’s suppose that contraceptives are necessary. In that case, then let those who propose it spend their own money for it. If they really think that contraceptive is equivalent to “helping the poor”, why don’t they donate contraceptives? What I cannot accept is that they will spend my money – the hundreds of thousands I paid – to something ideological!
I am a taxpayer. I want my money to go to the poor. I want it to be spent in buying antibiotics, Math textbooks, classrooms, farm-to-market roads, etc. I don’t want a single cent of my money to go to condom!
If Lagman, Cayetano, Santiago and company think they are helping the poor by promoting the RH Bill, then let them donate their own money. But these legislators should not force me (because, I repeat, the tax is my money) to buy condoms.
I find it very unfair to pay for someone else’s vice. I’m not a smoker, and I get annoyed when someone smokes near me. In any case, I can tolerate smoking. But what I cannot tolerate is for the smoker to get my money so he can buy his cigarettes! Do you want to smoke? Then spend your money to buy your cigarette. Don’t get my money.
Since the anti-RH and the pro-RH agree in helping the poor (sincerity is another question, of course), why don’t we give just the P13 billion in cold cash directly to the poor? Let’s leave it up to them to decide on how they’ll spend it. If some wants contraceptives, that’s their choice. If others want a sack of rice, instead, nobody should stop them. I’m sure 99% of them will buy rice.
The RH Bill is absurd because it obliges anti-RH taxpayers like me to contribute to something ideological. Without the RH Bill, those taxpayers who are in favor of RH Bill can freely donate contraceptives. But with the RH Bill, anti-RH taxpayers like me have no option not to contribute. I find that unfair.
Shall I stop paying taxes then? If the RH Bill gets approved, I’d have my car back! (1-VIII-2012)
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)