GRPundit

We, the undersigned Faculty Members of the De La Salle University, acting individually, and with reasoned conviction, cognizant of our role in society as champions of enlightenment and in pursuit of our mission to create a haven for critical Christian thinkers committed to serve society, particularly the poor, assert that: ? The right to life is a fundamental Christian tenet that finds full meaning when combined with the inherent rights of humans to a decent, safe, and productive existence as well as to an all-round development. Thus, beyond protecting the very important right of the unborn, it must extend to a recognition that a life that is weighed down by poverty, sickness, and social inequality–now compounded by environmental stresses–deprives humans of agency to transform themselves and the world for the common good. ? A key dimension of the democratic ideal at the core of our community and country is the promotion of pluralism and diversity. In a society marred by great imb...

Vicente “Tito” Sotto is no stranger to exploiting the ignorance of the common man. After all, his entire career from showbiz to politics has been nothing more than pimping “bread and circus”—just like Willie Revillame in Wowowee or whatever its latest version is on TV. By the way, I really enjoy watching the dancing girls around Willie for they indeed appeal to my basest instincts. The only difference is, Sotto has successfully pimped himself to the Senate; whereas, Willie has the decency to remain where he rightfully belongs. As if to justify his political existence at an institution that is only perverted by his presence, Sotto pimps himself anew by pandering to the Almighty Catholic Church with an emotional performance, revealing “that he had an offspring who died due to complications which he believes arose from his wife, the actress Helen Gamboa-Sotto, having used birth control pills.” He went on to relate that it would have been the 37th death anniversary of his son. Of course, ...

Tarpaulin seen at anti Reproductive Health Bill rally organised by the Catholic Bishops Congress of the Philippines today 4th August 2012: "Yes to Saved Sex, No to Safe Sex". [ Photo courtesy @dexterganibe .]

It has occurred to me, upon reading some of the statements from anti-RHB factions, that traditional morals play a large role in the defeat of such proposed legislation. My question to these groups and individuals is this: If you care about the lives of the so-called unborn, why won't you support the RHB which clearly lays out plans for access to maternal care and similar services? Do you believe the individual should be forced to raise a sick child they may have no way to care for? If this is so, then you are more collectivist than the demonized Filipino progressive. You believe ethics and morality should stem from a single source and be applied to society, rather than it stem from a discussion in society and have the individual apply it their life as they see fit. Or do you?

I agree with what @paulfarol says about the blanket presumption surrounding the proposed reproductive health services articulated in the RH Bill(s) being debated in Congress which he summarised thus... RH services will 'lead' to better health for women and children, encourage 'ideal' family size - which can be 2 or more. Which puts a caveat on the the notion that passing the RH Bill will necessarily induce reduction in population growth rates (which, personally, I think is the whole point of passing such a law in a Third World country like the Philippines where every baby born subtracts rather than adds value to the economy ). However (and I might be mistaken in my interpretation here), the following, it seems, are the main pillars of Paul's argument that the RH Bill should not be passed (considering the provisions supposedly contained in it that paves the way for government procurement of contraceptive devices and the dole out of these to the Filipino multitude).....