Appeal to Congress

A recent news item that readily caught my attention is about a young couple, Arnold 36, and Creselda 32, who became the parents of quadruplets, two boys and two girls, last July 22, 2011. Having quadruplets is indeed so noteworthy because according to the Director of the Hospital which provided the facilities and services for free, the odds are one in 100,000. But more noticeable in the case of Arnold and Creselda is that they already have five kids ages two to nine! This means they will have nine young children to take care of, yet they remain undaunted and full of hope.

Our legislators now discussing the RH bill should perhaps take to heart Arnold’s message after the birth of the quadruplets. The happy father considered their children as God’s blessings and dauntlessly said that “The Lord gave them to us. He has a plan for our children, that is why He gave them to us… I believe that God will provide. He will help us survive. He gave the babies to us and I know He will not do this if we cannot take care of them”. God provides indeed as the services given to Creselda and the babies which would normally cost over a million pesos were shouldered by the City Government of Manila where Arnold works as field coordinator of the Manila Youth Bureau. Certainly, the couple will be receiving more assistance and help from many other generous hearts in our country. If Arnold and Creselda decided to use contraceptives, they would not have received those quadruple blessings from God.

Come to think of it, if we pass the RH bill which promotes the use of contraceptives, and assuming that these contraceptives merely prevent conception or the beginning of a new life, although it has already been shown that they also have direct and indirect link to abortion, then we are actually rejecting God’s blessings. Indeed, promoting the use of contraceptive not only runs counter to tenets of any kind of religion, but is also not in keeping with the Filipino tradition and culture prohibiting the rejection of God’s blessing or what our ancestors always reminded us, “huwag tumanggi sa grasya”. Indeed our culture taught us that renouncing God’s blessings has many dire consequences in life — “ang tumanggi sa grasya ay madi-disgrasya”.

The case of Arnold and Creselda brings to mind the recent statement issued last July 29, 2011 by the University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P) regarding the RH bill entitled “An Appeal to the Members of our Legislature”, some portions of which are applicable to how the couple has looked at their relationship and at the blessing of having children, particularly the following:

1.“We maintain that every person born into this world is not a mere census datum, another mouth to feed, a threat to others’ life of ease, but someone whose worth goes beyond any human calculation, and who, therefore from the instant of his or her existence, deserves our respect and protection.”

We therefore strongly reject any attempt at legislation that promotes the use of abortifacients, including those disguised as contraceptive procedures or pharmacological agents that in fact kill the newly conceived human person by preventing its being implanted in the womb, and can moreover lead to the physical and psychological harm of the mother.

2. We maintain that the genuine love of husband and wife is expressed through the honorable use of their sexual faculties in an exclusive and lasting relationship that is open to life, and that the gift of a new life is the crowning point of their mutual self-giving. We maintain that responsible parenthood, to be true to its name, cannot mean negating parenthood by fostering contraceptive practices, or negating responsibility by fostering sexual activity without self-mastery and discipline.

We therefore… also reject any attempt at legislation that, while proposing to improve the conditions of children, women and families, actually fosters short term enjoyment of free choice without corresponding long term commitments, thereby eroding the family institution where persons have to grow and mature and, in consequence, generating social conditions that are more oppressive for women and children”.

Of course Arnold and Creselda are not exactly that poor and apparently can shelter, feed, educate their children because they have visible means of livelihood. So the RH bill is not really intended for them but for the countless other poor people in this land. As repeatedly pointed out by its advocates, the bill is designed to help the really poor people by limiting the size of their family.

In this connection the students of UA&P who also came out with their own statement, say that the bill looks at the “poor as the problem not poverty itself”. It “attacks and offends the victims of the problem instead of attacking poverty”. The students observe that the bill overlooks the role that “corruption, poor health and education services, and lack of infrastructure and opportunities play in increasing the incidence of poverty, and thus pointed out that the “right approach to reversing poverty incidence is to find measures to eradicate corruption and establish long term, sustainable development”.

Echoing this observation of their students, the University itself thus continued with its statement, and declared its own views on the issue as follows:

“We believe that it is by sound economic policy, especially investments in rural infrastructure and quality education for all, coupled with good governance, including morality and honesty in the private lives of government officials, that Government contributes to poverty alleviation, not by encroaching on the choices and duties married couples can and should take up on their own.

We are therefore not in favor of any legislation that proposes to spend public funds to regulate births, or allows Government to take upon itself education in human sexuality without regard for morality and the constitutional protection of the unborn”.

As members of Congress continue their deliberation on this RH bill, they should carefully take not and consider this appeal and the stand of the students and the youth. The observations will certainly help them in determining what is really for the common good. –Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star)