Of Cowards and Fools

To the anonymous writer of "RH bill, Ateneo, and La Salle: Of lemons and cowards"

Get a friggin editor.

On a side note:
You, writer, are not making sense. You speak of moral cowardice, but what exactly do you mean by that? By taking a pro-RH stance, the Ateneo & La Salle professors ARE fighting for what they believe is morally right given the situation of the country. The Ateneo seeks intellectual DIALOGUE. You, as an educated individual, should know that this is vital to finding the best solutions. If you believe that the stand of the bishops is the ONLY morally correct stand, then you are not only being closed minded, you have taken doctrine into a position higher than the law of love that Christ himself taught.

So you say "pregnancy complications are not in the Top 10 causes of women's deaths," so therefore there is no need for an RH Bill that provisions solutions for lowering these deaths? What hypocrisy is this?! You could, in turn, say that since HIV/Aids is not a top killer in the country, there is also no need to use condoms! This is utter foolishness!

Oh wait, you have a solution already right? Natural Family Planning and Abstinence! Oh, wait again, in which statistical survey did those things succeed? Guess what, NOWHERE!

I think you and your kind are the cowards and lemons here. You cannot even think for yourself nor reveal your name. IF you truly want to critique the stand of the Ateneo & La Salle, then release a paper criticizing their stand, point-by-point. You just made yourself look eternally stupid by resorting to name-calling.

Sotto, Plagiarism and Hope (?) for the Future

When I was in university, the punishment for plagiarism was expulsion. This violation is considered so severe that, if one is caught, the student will forever be banned from earning a college degree.

I remember a story about this writer who attended the Siliman National Writers Workshop like I did. Apprently, he'd lifted a story or parts of a story from a known author and passed this off as his own. The panelists were said to have used his work to discus why plagiarism is never acceptable. As the story goes, this writer's college degree was then repealed.

Plagiarism is stealing. It is owning knowledge / genius that's not yours, robbing the true owner of the recognition he deserves. But most of all, it is unjust.

This is why I am expressing my disappointment towards Sen. Sotto. It is ironic that students will be punished severely for plagiarism, but here in the "real world," the very leaders of the country are excused. Why should women put their reproductive rights into the hands of a man so ignorant of what he's talking about that he and his staff resort to stealing other people's work?

From Rappler, Tito Sotto's comment on the issue:

“Itong blogger na sinasabi nila, eh pareho kami ng pinagkunan eh. Ang pinagkunan namin si Natasha Campbell-McBride. And in my speeches, even in my first speech and my second speech, I’ve always said, every now and then sinisingit ko, hindi po ako nagdudunong-dunungan ha. Hindi po galing sa akin ito.”

Furthermore:

“Bakit ko naman iko-quote ang blogger? Blogger lang iyon. Ang kino-quote ko si Natasha Campbell-McBride.” (Why should I quote a blogger? She’s just a blogger. I’m quoting Natasha Campbell-McBride.)

Why, Sir, at least we are just bloggers. You, on the other hand, are just a plagiarist.

This is why we need the RH Bill

Cept for the abortion part. If ever the PH legalizes it (asa), we should certainly put more thought into it unless women become the victims of what are meant to be pro-choice regulations. Something to learn from what happened in America: choice has become something that's left to the woman. Men are freed from any parental obligation toward their child. Often, if the woman decides to keep the baby, then that's her decision (fault), the man is free to scram because he doesn't have to support the child anyway. Funny how the power to choose has been twisted into a mistake, because the real choice still lies in the man: "I will stay if I want to," "We will keep the child if I want to," "I will support the child if I want to." It's damned if you do, damned if you don't--not exactly the kind of empowerment women had in mind.

Legalization doesn't necessarily mean acts like abortion become ethical. There's a huge diff between "hey let's have sex, nevermind if you get pregnant we can abort it anyway" and "I was raped and impregnated, I don't want this child."

Do what you want, but not at the expense of doing what's right.

Response to CBCP's "Akerlof Contradicted What?"

On Monday, August 6, the CBCP released a counter article to Rappler's "Nobel Prize Winner Contradicts CBCP."

As the situation goes, a freelance journalist (for Rappler?) contacted Akerlof because the CBCP had cited him to augment their anti-RH argument by using his study on Reproductive Technology Shock. In the CBCP's interpretation of Akerlof's study (read full article here):

Will the greater availability of contraception improve the conditions of the family? Contraceptives bring about the downgrading of marriage, more extramarital sex, more fatherless children, more single mothers, according to the studies of Nobel prize winner, George Akerlof.

Let me comment on this. The concept of "downgrading marriage" is purely the CBCP's interpretation and not a scientific finding of George Akerlof. Yes, there has been an increase in extramarital sex and children born out of wedlock, but this is because of the drop in shotgun weddings (which, I must say, are not really quality marriages if we're talking about downgrading here).

I summarize Akerlof's findings in his America-based study here:

1. Widespread birth control and legal abortion (beginning in 1970) caused Reproductive Technology Shock in the American society.
2. There was a change in social contract between men and women: In the past, American women agreed to have premarital sex with a man only if the man promises to marry her in the event that she gets pregnant. This is called the Shotgun Marriage. Now that contraception and abortion is widely available, American women engage in premarital sex to keep their man. As the study states: "These women feared, correctly, that if they refused sexual relations, they would risk losing their partners. Sexual activity without commitment was increasingly expected in premarital relationships."
3. Change in male / female roles: The decision to keep the child is now left to the female, whether she will abort it or not. Biological fathers have lost the idea of paternal obligation and no longer feel the obligation to marry the mother (Thus the rise of the Single Mom).
4. Conclusion 1: The dramatic increase in out-of-wedlock first-birth rate between 1965 and 1990 is directly tied to shotgun marriages being rendered obsolete.
5. Conclusion 2: The change in social contract between men and women due has proved disadvantageous for women.
6. Note: Akerlof did NOT recommend any restrictions on the availability of contraception nor the legality of abortion.

Akerlof himself, in a written response, said, "In my opinion, giving women, whether single or married, the right to choose can only increase the dignity of marriage and its sanctity." If the CBCP asks Akerlof Contradicted What?, here you have your answer, that you took his study out of context. The CBCP has failed to acknowledge that this research is based in America, premised on the societal fact that shotgun marriages were the established social contract during the day, before contraceptives and abortion became the norm.

But in the Philippines, is this the case? Do women agree to have sex only when they have secured the man's promise to marry her if she gets pregnant? Is the establishment or re-establishment of shotgun weddings better, or in this case "upgrade marriage"? Will marriage assure a better family life? Will contraception destroy existing families or prevent the formation of a good one?

Can the CBCP answer these questions with Philippine-based studies to back them up? Because all I see are moral theories that hardly connect with present societal truths. I see them just merely relying on citing a research here and there to push their Anti-RH argument. CBCP claims that contraception destroys families. Does it? Because last I checked, having children doesn't necessarily keep the family intact, as is evident in the 14 million single parents in the country.

If the contraceptive mentality creates single moms, then I will go with what Akerlof and coauthor Janet Yellen write:

Anyone who fathers an out-of-wedlock child should be forced to help support that child... On top of that, they suggest that men be taxed for fathering children outside of marriage. - from `Technology Shock' Creates Single Moms, Miller

RH Bill... shh don't say bad words

RH Bill, RH Bill, you're the hardest thing to say. Like Sex, dick, cunt and vagina, you're like the new vulgar word of the century. Or at least, the Philippine century.

Even the president doesn't want to have anything to do with you and will call you by any other name, like how we call vaginas 'flowers' you are thus demoted to Responsible Parenthood.

I read an article about why you're the bad guy. It's coz you're undemocratic! See, this is why:

“In essence, if you support the RH bill, you are not pro-choice.  You’re not only anti-life; you are also not pro-choice because if you were truly pro-choice, you would give the choice for your fellow citizens  whether or not to use contraceptives.”  -Lanao del Norte Rep. Fatima Aliah Dimaporo

I dunno about you, but to me the connection was pretty blurry, but hey, they'll say anything, even cry "undemocratic" just to prove you're not the way to go. We shouldn't have the stuff you're supposed to provide, you know like: (1) Information and access to natural and modern family planning (2) Maternal, infant and child health and nutrition (3) Promotion of breast feeding (4) Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications (5) Adolescent and youth health (6) Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, HIV/AIDS and STDs (7) Elimination of violence against women.... etc. etc. Because if we had access to all this, apparently people are gonna have sex.

Let me repeat, people are gonna have sex!

Apparently, people won't have sex when they're kept innocent... or more of ignorant. That's an amazing conclusion, though for a while there I thought many of the girls got STDs or got pregnant coz they didn't know what they were in for nor how they could have protected themselves.

I really like the article Why the RH Bill is Bad. It clearly explains why we should just trash you now.

Horray for progress!