Core issue vs. RH bill

THERE is nothing wrong with an only child. Against the conventional wisdom that an only child can grow up “selfish, spoiled and lonely,” recent studies show that this is not so. As Time magazine put it in its latest report, “the economy is sluggish . . . Expenses are up. And raising kids costs a bundle. What better time to abandon the stereotypes and embrace the possibilities of the only child?”

For a long time, most American families wanted to have more than one child, if they can afford it. It is a free choice: This basic desire applies to all human society. But economics has changed this and many other cherished ideals.

In any case, Time dramatizes this in an interview with an academic who says: “I love my own daughters to bits. But skiing and sports cars without baby seaters can be fun too . . . That is why only children are the secular trend of a rich society we’ve been moving toward for the past 100 years.”

And in this matter, China, faced with an exploding population, has decreed a one-child policy. The theoretical basis for this is the concept of the demographic transition. One of the results is that the emphasis on one-family, one child, cousins are disappearing from the family tree.

In China, as in most developing nations, there are more old people and children who are dependents than there are working-age people who can support them. So the obvious solution is to cut down on births because technology has cut down on deaths by allowing people to live longer.

For the US, the demographic transition “refers to the fertility shift that occurred when the industrial world moved from high birth and death rates to low ones. Now postponement of parenthood—or refusal of it—in favor of greater focus on education and career, longer periods of searching for the ideal mate and a more flexible and pleasure-seeking life has given us the second demographic transition. Because of these “rich society” tendencies . . . (in about 50 years from now) the US will be worrying about declining population just like Europe and Japan today.

In the Philippines, whether families decide to have just one child or more, it all boils down to birth control. Even the buzz words used are loaded. One side calls it planned parenthood; the other, responsible parenthood. What is the difference? Responsible parents only raise children that they can afford to support and educate. This means deciding on the number of children parents may have. But how may this be achieved? The basic solution is abstention from sex during times when wives are likely to conceive. This is the natural way.

Technology has all but made the problem routine with artificial contraception. The government has come up with the Reproductive Health Bill (RHB) to provide all families with both kinds of contraception. This has put the Church and the government in a collision course. In its latest semi-annual plenary assembly, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has reiterated its stand against artificial contraception:

“We bishops from all over the country call on President Aquino to listen to the call of the Church that the former program of the government to provide a contraceptive mentality through education and medical practices is immoral and will not bring about a people that is God-fearing, holding on to the sacredness of sexuality, life and family.”

The Church argues that artificial contraception facilitates fornication (sex among the unmarried) if not actually encouraging it.

The CBCP spokesman made it clear that “there are no changes in the stand of the Church against artificial contraception . . . Poverty cannot be solved by promoting contraception education and programs.
Education does not merely deal with knowledge and skills, rather, it must promote values that are
inherent to us Filipinos.”

In a speech during the World Population Day celebration, the new Secretary of Health, Enrique Ona, said:
“I want to be very clear that we are for responsible parenthood . . . ” This means “giving all the necessary information to our people” about family health issues “and letting the couple decide.”

He said families “must be guided and empowered to decide with complete and correct information about options that are available to them . . . to prevent abortion and unwanted pregnancies.”

But to go back to setting targets for the number of children, the RH Bill has set a target of two children per family. University Professor Bernardo M. Villegas of the University of Asia and the Pacific in Beat the Odds, the final report of the administration of President Gloria M. Arroyo, said:

“Instead of implementing a two-child policy, we should focus our efforts on earning a possible demographic dividend—a stage in a population where potential workers support relatively few number of child and elderly dependents—by educating our people for well-paid jobs and attracting the investments needed to generate additional jobs for the 1.1 to 1.2 million entrants into the labor force each year.”

The implication is that instead of spending money to limit population, we should use this money to improve the potentials of the population we now have. –BENJAMIN G. DEFENSOR, Manila Times

opinion@manilatimes.net