The statement by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines regarding the state of affairs in the Philippines is paradoxically different from the picture being presented by the Aquino administration. The Aquino team sees a bright future ahead for all, with an expected 6% rise in economic growth. The CBCP, however, sees dark clouds ahead, what with issues still unresolved by this administration, and the lack of efforts from government to take care of the concerns of the poor and sectors left behind. The Church described these issues as "storms" and present calamities that are being ignored largely by the administration.
These storms were categorized in fours: social, economic, political and even moral, to a point that the Church admits these affect the faith of believers. In the end the prescription is clear---the Church will campaign against those who do not follow Church teachings.
The Church reaction is expected. The defeat it suffered when the State passed the controversial Reproductive Health bill, is an embarrassment. Now, talks abound that in the next Congress, several groups will be gunning for the passage of a Divorce Bill, another measure diametrically opposed by the Catholic Church. Instead of just merely prescribing a spiritual solution to these problems, the Catholic Church is posed to flex its political muscles, which it did only during the last two EDSA coups.
Taking a political action pose numerous risks for the Church, considering that the Church maintains vast proprietary and economic interests. A political action against this administration might slightly affect economic performance.
Like what I said in my previous blogs, the Church will find it difficult to mobilize a big and credible force against this government because majority or most of the groups working for change are either compromised or are working for the administration. Those who traditionally oppose governmental policies are still clueless as to the best approach to take insofar as this administration is concerned. The problem is not as simple as others think.
In this situation, the choice varies from sheer apathy to extremism. The political actor is either apathetic or will resort to extremism. Both choices are ludicrous. Maintaining an apathetic stance negates the very nature of the opposition while extremism poses great risks. Who, in this stage, would be brave enough to risk everything for a venture that presents an uncertain future?
The only option left for the Church is for it to transform itself into a political movement, something which many of its patrons and clients are familiar with. The question really is---will this moral force be strong enough to counter the propaganda of a "clean government"?
Will we see a clash between the Church and the Government in this elections?
Remember that in the past three years, the Aquino administration has created a stronger state, able to withstand a constant barrage of criticisms and able to sustain the public's trust and confidence.
Showing posts with label state intervention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label state intervention. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Friday, August 31, 2012
Milking the Milk Code of the Philippines: I own my body
Lately, I notice that several "cause-oriented" groups have been very noisy online and offline, trying to convince the Filipino people, especially Filipinas, about adopting the ways of the West. Most of the arguments center on adopting "United Nations" conventions on this and that, and mostly things that interfere on the rights of individuals to do what is best for their bodies.
Example--that reproductive health rights argument center on United Nations studies and conventions about best-practices in raising families and managing populations. And then this.
Several individuals want to modify the Milk Code of the Philippines by stating that several of the provisions do not follow United Nations or international studies on breast-feeding, especially on the length of time a mother is expected to nurse her child.
Recent conventions say that mothers should breast feed their babies for six months (minimum) and twenty four months maximum. Nothing wrong about nursing babies for these length of time, but for thirty six months? That is not just impractical but highly obstrusive to the rights of women to decide for their own bodies.
Imagine the stress that women who do breastfeeding endure every, single, day. In my personal observation, my wife cry in utter horror whenever one of my twins bite her aerola. It hurts especially if the baby is six months already. A six month baby has teeth already and she uses it in biting off whatever she gets hold of. Translate this experience a million times over.
Imagine if a 3 year old child still gets most of her nutrition from her mother's teats. This is what extreme cause-oriented breastmilk advocates want.
Do these people have a decent local study perhaps supporting their call for legislators to lengthen the time for using mother's milk? Did they even ask Filipina mothers if their call is practical or not?
Likewise, why allow the State to overly interfere into the personal and private lives of individuals, particularly women?
As a Socialist, I dare militate against attempts to control the very lives of individuals especially their freedom to choose what is the best for one's health and well-being.
These issues are really very alarming because the United Nations itself is trying to influence and control the very private lives of people. That is subliminal control of the State, to avert and subvert the freedoms and rights of individuals! That is state manipulation even of an individuals' bodies! This issue is contrary to highly established principles in human rights!
Women's rights should be respected. A woman's right to get sufficient information on what is good and what is bad for her and for her baby should be respected. A woman should be able to get sufficient and vital information so that she can form an informed decision for her and her baby.
The State has no right to dictate to her what is good and what is bad. A respondent's experience in a survey does not necessarily compare with another respondent's experience.
Woman, rise up! Assert your rights as a woman!
Woman, you decide for your own! You own your bodies! The State does not have the right to dictate to you what is good and what is bad! You know what is best and what is not.
Fight for what is right for your health and your baby!
Fight for enough information so that you'll be able to form an informed decision!
Example--that reproductive health rights argument center on United Nations studies and conventions about best-practices in raising families and managing populations. And then this.
Several individuals want to modify the Milk Code of the Philippines by stating that several of the provisions do not follow United Nations or international studies on breast-feeding, especially on the length of time a mother is expected to nurse her child.
Recent conventions say that mothers should breast feed their babies for six months (minimum) and twenty four months maximum. Nothing wrong about nursing babies for these length of time, but for thirty six months? That is not just impractical but highly obstrusive to the rights of women to decide for their own bodies.
Imagine the stress that women who do breastfeeding endure every, single, day. In my personal observation, my wife cry in utter horror whenever one of my twins bite her aerola. It hurts especially if the baby is six months already. A six month baby has teeth already and she uses it in biting off whatever she gets hold of. Translate this experience a million times over.
Imagine if a 3 year old child still gets most of her nutrition from her mother's teats. This is what extreme cause-oriented breastmilk advocates want.
Do these people have a decent local study perhaps supporting their call for legislators to lengthen the time for using mother's milk? Did they even ask Filipina mothers if their call is practical or not?
Likewise, why allow the State to overly interfere into the personal and private lives of individuals, particularly women?
As a Socialist, I dare militate against attempts to control the very lives of individuals especially their freedom to choose what is the best for one's health and well-being.
These issues are really very alarming because the United Nations itself is trying to influence and control the very private lives of people. That is subliminal control of the State, to avert and subvert the freedoms and rights of individuals! That is state manipulation even of an individuals' bodies! This issue is contrary to highly established principles in human rights!
Women's rights should be respected. A woman's right to get sufficient information on what is good and what is bad for her and for her baby should be respected. A woman should be able to get sufficient and vital information so that she can form an informed decision for her and her baby.
The State has no right to dictate to her what is good and what is bad. A respondent's experience in a survey does not necessarily compare with another respondent's experience.
Woman, rise up! Assert your rights as a woman!
Woman, you decide for your own! You own your bodies! The State does not have the right to dictate to you what is good and what is bad! You know what is best and what is not.
Fight for what is right for your health and your baby!
Fight for enough information so that you'll be able to form an informed decision!
Friday, August 3, 2012
Pro-Life--the true meaning
The Catholic Church will try to flex its political muscle tomorrow. The CBCP is calling on the "faithful" to go out of their homes and show their opposition against the Reproductive Health (RH) bill. The Aquino administration has called on its Congressional allies to ensure the passage of the bill. Analysts say, come August 7, the bill is as good as passed.
Two things which convinced the Aquino administration to support the passage of the bill: surveys which show 7 out of 10 Filipinos in support of reproductive health and of course, the collective voice of civil society. Various groups have united behind the bill, believing that this bill could improve the quality of life of Filipinos.
President Aquino even said that he shares the Catholic priests' interpretation of "pro-life". Aquino claims to be "pro-life", which, for him, means improving the economic condition of every Filipino family.
Of course, this slightly differs from the Catholic perspective which is more protecting the life not just of the living but of the unborn. The Church fears that the bill, when passed, would justify abortion.
What is really the true meaning of "pro-life"? Let's look both in the secular and the non-secular perspectives.
For those who believe in God, being pro-life means respect in the sanctity of life--from the time of conception in the womb until death. Now, what the Reproductive Health advocates want is to give the State the power and authority to intervene in the conception of life. Meaning, the Reproductive Health bill seeks to give the State the power to intervene in someone's life even prior to the conception of life in the womb.
This intervention is in the form of artificial contraceptives, which RH advocates believe are most effective in managing population. Managing the population means managing the economy. When you manage the economy, you improve the economic condition of families and therefore, allow a broader range of people to seek a better quality of life for themselves. RH advocates believe in the Malthusian view that a bigger population accounts for the poverty that exists in a particular place.
There is no dispute as to the effects of a big population in the economy, and therefore, in some instances, account for the creation and proliferation of poverty.
However, if we say that population is THE only cause of poverty, that is entirely wrong.
Poverty is the direct result of the inequality of life created by the very system itself, the Capitalist system. We must accept the fact that the longer this system operates in a particular country or state, the more people become poor. Why? The Capitalist system disallows the creation of wealth from the bottom to the top. IN this system, no large segment of the population controls capital, because in a situation where every single one is a capitalist, who, then, will comprise the larger consumerist segment which is the engine that makes capitalism move? The direct result of capitalism is the concentration of wealth to a few who then manages the entire economic superstructure, creates the conditions to spur trade among people in the consumer markets, and allows a fairly large segment of the population to work in production. The slavish character of capitalism is the direct cause of poverty. And poverty cannot be entirely abolished in a capitalist system because it is by itself, the direct result of its operation.
Reproductive health, therefore, is just a tool of the capitalists to again provide a fake solution to the issue of poverty. It is an issue which it throws at civil society as an yellowish answer to the issue of poverty.
Poverty cannot be eradicated by a condom. The quality of life of the Filipino individual will remain poor, because the very system where he lives allows and perpetuates this cycle of poverty.
It is not because we are 90 million people that makes 27 million of us poor, no. This 27 million Filipinos and growing, are victims of the system. Even if we grow by 100 million, poverty will still be there inspite of the passage of the RH bill.
Worst, if the RH bill is passed, we allow the State to intervene even in private and personal affairs such as the decision to conceive life.
If a couple who live in Metro Manila decides to raise ten kids, it is a personal decision. What right does the State has to use its powers to change the decision of the couple?
The RH bill is a dangerous bill because it gives the State the power to intervene even in sensitive and highly individualist decisions such as child rearing and child bearing.
Likewise, RH advocates say, the bill will stop the rising numbers of maternal deaths. Maternal deaths are caused by inadequate health care, which is the direct consequence of being poor. IN modern and highly prosperous societies, maternal deaths are less than those in underdeveloped societies, because these pregnant women are being taken cared of more than those of poorer ones.
These are just some of the issues which people are discussing about the Reproductive Health issue.
For a much broader discussion of the RH bill, tune in tomorrow at Ratsada sa Inquirer at Radio Inquirer 990 khz, from 8am to 10 am.
Two things which convinced the Aquino administration to support the passage of the bill: surveys which show 7 out of 10 Filipinos in support of reproductive health and of course, the collective voice of civil society. Various groups have united behind the bill, believing that this bill could improve the quality of life of Filipinos.
President Aquino even said that he shares the Catholic priests' interpretation of "pro-life". Aquino claims to be "pro-life", which, for him, means improving the economic condition of every Filipino family.
Of course, this slightly differs from the Catholic perspective which is more protecting the life not just of the living but of the unborn. The Church fears that the bill, when passed, would justify abortion.
What is really the true meaning of "pro-life"? Let's look both in the secular and the non-secular perspectives.
For those who believe in God, being pro-life means respect in the sanctity of life--from the time of conception in the womb until death. Now, what the Reproductive Health advocates want is to give the State the power and authority to intervene in the conception of life. Meaning, the Reproductive Health bill seeks to give the State the power to intervene in someone's life even prior to the conception of life in the womb.
This intervention is in the form of artificial contraceptives, which RH advocates believe are most effective in managing population. Managing the population means managing the economy. When you manage the economy, you improve the economic condition of families and therefore, allow a broader range of people to seek a better quality of life for themselves. RH advocates believe in the Malthusian view that a bigger population accounts for the poverty that exists in a particular place.
There is no dispute as to the effects of a big population in the economy, and therefore, in some instances, account for the creation and proliferation of poverty.
However, if we say that population is THE only cause of poverty, that is entirely wrong.
Poverty is the direct result of the inequality of life created by the very system itself, the Capitalist system. We must accept the fact that the longer this system operates in a particular country or state, the more people become poor. Why? The Capitalist system disallows the creation of wealth from the bottom to the top. IN this system, no large segment of the population controls capital, because in a situation where every single one is a capitalist, who, then, will comprise the larger consumerist segment which is the engine that makes capitalism move? The direct result of capitalism is the concentration of wealth to a few who then manages the entire economic superstructure, creates the conditions to spur trade among people in the consumer markets, and allows a fairly large segment of the population to work in production. The slavish character of capitalism is the direct cause of poverty. And poverty cannot be entirely abolished in a capitalist system because it is by itself, the direct result of its operation.
Reproductive health, therefore, is just a tool of the capitalists to again provide a fake solution to the issue of poverty. It is an issue which it throws at civil society as an yellowish answer to the issue of poverty.
Poverty cannot be eradicated by a condom. The quality of life of the Filipino individual will remain poor, because the very system where he lives allows and perpetuates this cycle of poverty.
It is not because we are 90 million people that makes 27 million of us poor, no. This 27 million Filipinos and growing, are victims of the system. Even if we grow by 100 million, poverty will still be there inspite of the passage of the RH bill.
Worst, if the RH bill is passed, we allow the State to intervene even in private and personal affairs such as the decision to conceive life.
If a couple who live in Metro Manila decides to raise ten kids, it is a personal decision. What right does the State has to use its powers to change the decision of the couple?
The RH bill is a dangerous bill because it gives the State the power to intervene even in sensitive and highly individualist decisions such as child rearing and child bearing.
Likewise, RH advocates say, the bill will stop the rising numbers of maternal deaths. Maternal deaths are caused by inadequate health care, which is the direct consequence of being poor. IN modern and highly prosperous societies, maternal deaths are less than those in underdeveloped societies, because these pregnant women are being taken cared of more than those of poorer ones.
These are just some of the issues which people are discussing about the Reproductive Health issue.
For a much broader discussion of the RH bill, tune in tomorrow at Ratsada sa Inquirer at Radio Inquirer 990 khz, from 8am to 10 am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)