Alliance for the Family Foundation Philippines Inc
The Philippines is Pro-Family
Under our law, a conceived child is endowed with the dignity and worth
of a human being from his conception and thus is recognized to have the right
not only to be born, but to be born well. (Article 3, Child and Youth Welfare
Code). This necessarily includes the right of the unborn to develop to its full
term and not to be expelled prematurely from the mother’s womb.
Download full Position Paper in PDF
As we all know, the Philippine Constitution imposes upon the State the duty to “equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” (Article II, Section 12). The life of the unborn (equally with that of the mother) is entitled to protection at and from conception. This protection to be meaningful should be from any form and degree of harm or injury and death—not only actual but also any risk or threat thereof.
Download the full Position Paper in PDF
We, the undersigned students of the University of Asia and the Pacific, in our pursuit of wisdom and in support of sound
and time-tested human and social values, recognizing the truth that human life begins with fertilization, the union of the male
and female reproductive cells; acknowledging that maternal and natal health are vital concerns; believing that individuals must be educated properly about human sexuality; and asserting that poverty is a problem in our society that must be addressed, take a stand for the recognition and protection of the dignity of individual human life and for the respect and empowerment of families.
In light of proposed legislations like the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill, we, being university students, belonging to the
generation who will not only live through, but also pass on to our children what such propositions will leave as a legacy to us,
state our position against any law that:
1. Disregards the dignity of the human person at the onset of life
We uphold that conception is fertilization, since scientific research and interdisciplinary dialogue have concluded that the unborn child from fertilization is a whole, separate, unique, living, human being. We believe that some contraceptive methods prevent implantation, which happens stages after the beginning of life. Hence, we consider such contraceptive methods as abortifacients.
We also uphold that contraceptive methods facilitate the kind of relationships, attitudes, and moral characters that lead to abortion. Former abortionists and current population studies on countries that have encouraged contraception through public policy have found and acknowledged evidences that, contrary to what is expected, provision of contraception leads to higher abortion rates.
We oppose any bill that does not protect and sustain life from conception to natural death. We also oppose any form of legislation, which does not give due regard to the dignity of human life by turning to contraceptive methods as solutions to problems in society.
2. Puts the welfare of women at stake by providing options that harm them
We agree that the situation of maternal health in the Philippines is a pressing concern that begs to be addressed
and we believe that this can be done by the provision of proper health care, health systems, and health facilities. We oppose any form of legislation, which endangers the health and welfare of women by promoting hormonal and chemical contraceptives that destroy natural balances and cycles in the woman’s body.
3. Instills a distorted idea of human sexuality and distorts the role of the family
We believe that human sexuality is dignified by the fact that a person is able to think and love. We believe that proper education on human sexuality is achieved within the family, where one first and best learns about human and social values. Such education on human sexuality naturally results to the proper exercise of it. Naturally, couples who use their sexual faculties in a dignified manner, contribute to the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases and resort to responsible ways of planning their future families in the context of openness to life. On the other hand, a utilitarian and impersonal education on human sexuality, by merely considering the biological and being unmindful of the personal aspect of sex, creates a mindset that is ignorant of the dignity of sex and the person. We believe that delegating and mandating sex education to the classroom threatens to distort the role of the family by undermining the right and role of parents as the primary educators of their children.
We oppose any bill that does not contribute to the proper education of individuals regarding their sexuality and
that aims to institutionalize education on human sexuality using an impersonal approach, thereby instilling an
incomplete idea of human sexuality and adversely affecting the proper functioning of the family.
4. Looks at the impoverished as the problem and not at poverty itself.
While poverty presents itself as a multi-faceted and pervasive problem, we believe that there is no reason to
directly relate population with incidence of poverty. It is not difficult to see the role that corruption, poor health and
education services, and lack of infrastructure and opportunities play in increasing the incidence of poverty.
We believe that population control programs that especially target the poor, do not address the problem of poverty. Controlling the population does not attack the problem; instead it attacks and offends the victims of the problem. Measures to eradicate corruption and establish long-term and sustainable human development would be the right approach to reversing poverty incidence.
We oppose any bill that attacks the poor instead of attacking poverty.
We believe there are good principles being maintained when legislators craft laws like the RH Bill but there is confusion in
what these laws seek to address and how they seek to do them. These laws appear as unmindful of personal worth and the values from which social stability arise. Even if they aim to address real issues, they seek to establish a culture of lost values, mistaken attitudes, and misled lifestyles wherein one lives for oneself, not for others.
For these reasons, we oppose the RH bill.
Signed,
ANTHONY VICTORIO B. LUMICAO RAMON N. CABRERA
Year III – ABH Industrial Economics Year V – MA in Political Economy
GABRIEL ASUNCION MARIA ANNE TERESA RIVERA
Year III – ABH Political Economy Year IV – ABH Industrial Economics
JOSEPH MARTIN Q. VERDEJO MARIA KATRINA B. BARRETTO
Year III – BS Information Technology Year III – ABH Communications
JERICHO ALDRIDGE M. PASCUAL
Year III – ABH Communications
Our legislators have recreated the anti-family bills into HB 4244. We must watch out because this is as destructive as all the other previous bills.
TO STOP OUR SOCIETY FROM TURNING INTO A CONTRACEPTIVE SOCIETY, WE MUST STOP HB 4244.
Laiko Position Paper vs RH Bill- Feb 15
Position Paper
1. Reproductive health and services, as defined by the United Nations and to which definition the Republic of the Philippines has agreed to bind itself, includes the services of abortion which, the RH Bill tacitly approves and which we find unacceptable as it is inhumane.
2. The RH Bill makes legal the official funding for population control measures and devices which have been scientifically evaluated by the World Health Organization as carcinogenic and hazardous to women’s health. By classifying contraceptives as essential medicines, the RH Bill allows them to be purchased and distributed by all national and local hospitals and other government health units, thus, making it appear that pregnancy is a disease that must be treated.
3. The mandatory education of Grade 5 students on sexuality and family planning, as recommended among others by the RH Bill provisions, unnecessarily exposes children to such subject matter at a very tender age. It violates the constitutional rights of parents to educate their children in accordance with their moral and religious beliefs.
4. Population control through promotion of the use of contraceptives, which has been clearly exposed as the underlying reason behind the RH Bill, ignores the strong argument against the claims that our country is overpopulated and that it is the primary cause for the existence of poverty. We contend that the main cause of poverty in our country is corruption, abetted by sub-standard dispensation of justice due to inefficient governance.
Furthermore, President Benigno S. Aquino himself stated that “Kung Walang Corrupt, Walang Mahirap.”
5. The RH Bill violates the right of health workers to decide according to one’s conscience by requiring them to be part of certain procedures, such as those leading to abortion, thus forcing them to be unwilling accomplices to an act they believe is not only immoral and unacceptable according to their religion. We, the members of the Council of the Laity of the Philippines, cited only a few of several other reasons why we are against House Bill No. 96 or the RH Bill. On the other hand, we strongly recommend that whatever funds proposed to be allocated for RH Bill instead be used for the promotion of health care by:
We reiterate our objection to the legislation of the RH Bill because it is hazardous to health; it is counter-productive to social development; and, it is a waste of funds as, upon scrutiny, it is not really a necessary legislation. Thus we implore our legislators to keep an open mind and listen to the voice of reason. Most of all put only the benefit of our people above the interest of others. Lastly we say: Let life continue in its God-given course.
Maraming salamat po at Mabuhay!
December 01, 2010
Manila, Philippines
(A Pastoral Letter of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines)
Jan. 30, 2011
Published in the newspapers on February 5, 2011
Our Filipino Brothers and Sisters:
The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights (Art. II, Section 11). The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception (Art. II, Section 12).
Background
We begin by citing the Philippine Constitution. We do so because we intend to write you on the basis of the fundamental ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people and not on the basis of specifically Catholic religious teachings.
We are at a crossroads as a nation. Before us are several versions of a proposed bill, the Reproductive Health bill or sanitized as a Responsible Parenthood bill. This proposed bill in all its versions calls us to make a moral choice: to choose life or to choose death.
At the outset we thank the government for affording us an opportunity to express our views in friendly dialogue. Sadly our dialogue has simply revealed how far apart our respective positions are. Therefore, instead of building false hopes, we wish at the present time to draw up clearly what we object to and what we stand for.
Moral Choices at the Crossroads — at EDSA I and Now
Twenty five years ago in 1986 we Catholic Bishops made a prophetic moral judgment on political leadership. With this prophetic declaration we believe that we somehow significantly helped open the door for EDSA I and a window of political integrity.
Today we come to a new national crossroads and we now have to make a similar moral choice. Our President rallied the country with the election cry, “Kung walang corrupt walang mahirap.” As religious leaders we believe that there is a greater form of corruption, namely, moral corruption which is really the root of all corruption. On the present issue, it would be morally corrupt to disregard the moral implications of the RH bill.
This is our unanimous collective moral judgment: We strongly reject the RH bill.
Commonly Shared Human and Cultural Values – Two Fundamental Principles
Far from being simply a Catholic issue, the RH bill is a major attack on authentic human values and on Filipino cultural values regarding human life that all of us have cherished since time immemorial.
Simply stated the RH Bill does not respect moral sense that is central to Filipino cultures. It is the product of the spirit of this world, a secularist, materialistic spirit that considers morality as a set of teachings from which one can choose, according to the spirit of the age. Some it accepts, others it does not accept. Unfortunately, we see the subtle spread of this post-modern spirit in our own Filipino society.
Our position stands firmly on two of the core principles commonly shared by all who believe in God:
(1) Human life is the most sacred physical gift with which God, the author of life, endows a human being. Placing artificial obstacles to prevent human life from being formed and being born most certainly contradicts this fundamental truth of human life. In the light of the widespread influence of the post-modern spirit in our world, we consider this position as nothing less than prophetic. As religious leaders we must proclaim this truth fearlessly in season and out of season.
(2) It is parents, cooperating with God, who bring children into the world. It is also they who have the primary inalienable right and responsibility to nurture them, care for them, and educate them that they might grow as mature persons according to the will of the Creator.
What We Specifically Object to in the RH Bill
Advocates contend that the RH bill promotes reproductive health. The RH Bill certainly does not. It does not protect the health of the sacred human life that is being formed or born. The very name “contraceptive” already reveals the anti-life nature of the means that the RH bill promotes. These artificial means are fatal to human life, either preventing it from fruition or actually destroying it. Moreover, scientists have known for a long time that contraceptives may cause cancer. Contraceptives are hazardous to a woman’s health.
Advocates also say that the RH bill will reduce abortion rates. But many scientific analysts themselves wonder why prevalent contraceptive use sometimes raises the abortion rate. In truth, contraceptives provide a false sense of security that takes away the inhibition to sexual activity. Scientists have noted numerous cases of contraceptive failure. Abortion is resorted to, an act that all religious traditions would judge as sinful. “Safe sex” to diminish abortion rate is false propaganda.
Advocates moreover say that the RH bill will prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. This goes against the grain of many available scientific data. In some countries where condom use is prevalent, HIV/ AIDS continues to spread. Condoms provide a false security that strongly entices individuals towards increased sexual activity, increasing likewise the incidence of HIV/AIDS. “Safe sex” to prevent HIV /AIDS is false propaganda.
Advocates also assert that the RH Bill empowers women with ownership of their own bodies. This is in line with the post-modern spirit declaring that women have power over their own bodies without the dictation of any religion. How misguided this so-called “new truth” is! For, indeed, as created by God our bodies are given to us to keep and nourish. We are stewards of our own bodies and we must follow God’s will on this matter according to an informed and right conscience. Such a conscience must certainly be enlightened and guided by religious and moral teachings provided by various religious and cultural traditions regarding the fundamental dignity and worth of human life.
Advocates also say that the RH bill is necessary to stop overpopulation and to escape from poverty. Our own government statistical office has concluded that there is no overpopulation in the Philippines but only the over-concentration of population in a number of urban centers. Despite other findings to the contrary, we must also consider the findings of a significant group of renowned economic scholars, including economic Nobel laureates, who have found no direct correlation between population and poverty. In fact, many Filipino scholars have concluded that population is not the cause of our poverty. The causes of our poverty are: flawed philosophies of development, misguided economic policies, greed, corruption, social inequities, lack of access to education, poor economic and social services, poor infrastructures, etc. World organizations estimate that in our country more than P400 billion pesos are lost yearly to corruption. The conclusion is unavoidable: for our country to escape from poverty, we have to address the real causes of poverty and not population.
In the light of the above, we express our clear objections:
1. We object to the non-consideration of moral principles, the bedrock of law, in legislative discussions of bills that are intended for the good of individuals and for the common good.
2. We are against the anti-life, anti-natal and contraceptive mentality that is reflected in media and in some proposed legislative bills.
3. We object strongly to efforts at railroading the passage of the RH bill.
4. We denounce the over-all trajectory of the RH bill towards population control.
5. We denounce the use of public funds for contraceptives and sterilization.
6. We condemn compulsory sex education that would effectively let parents abdicate their primary role of educating their own children, especially in an area of life – sexuality – which is a sacred gift of God.
What We Stand For
On this matter of proposed RH bills, these are our firm convictions:
1. We are deeply concerned about the plight of the many poor, especially of suffering women, who are struggling for a better life and who must seek it outside of our country, or have recourse to a livelihood less than decent.
2. We are pro-life. We must defend human life from the moment of conception or fertilization up to its natural end.
3. We believe in the responsible and natural regulation of births through Natural Family Planning for which character building is necessary which involves sacrifice, discipline and respect for the dignity of the spouse.
4. We believe that we are only stewards of our own bodies. Responsibility over our own bodies must follow the will of God who speaks to us through conscience.
5. We hold that on the choices related to the RH bill, conscience must not only be informed but most of all rightly guided through the teachings of one’s faith.
6. We believe in the freedom of religion and the right of conscientious objection in matters that are contrary to one’s faith. The sanctions and penalties embodied in the proposed RH bill are one more reason for us to denounce it.
Our Calls
As religious leaders we have deeply and prayerfully reflected on this burning issue. We have unanimously made the moral judgment – to reject the RH agenda and to choose life.
1. We call for a fundamental transformation of our attitudes and behavior towards all human life especially the most defenseless, namely, human life being formed or being conceived. The cheapness with which many seem to consider human life is a great bane to our religious-oriented nation.
2. We call upon our legislators to consider the RH bill in the light of the God-given dignity and worth of human life and, therefore, to shelve it completely as contrary to our ideals and aspirations as a people. We thank our legislators who have filed bills to defend human life from the moment of conception and call upon all other legislators to join their ranks.
3. We thank the great multitude of lay people all over the country, and particularly the dedicated groups who made their presence felt in the halls of Congress, to defend and promote our position. We call upon other lay people and adherents of other religions to join the advocacy to defend and promote our commonly shared ideals and aspirations.
4. We call on our government to address effectively the real causes of poverty such as corruption, lack of social and economic services, lack of access to education and the benefits of development, social inequities.
5. We call for the establishment of more hospitals and clinics in the rural areas, the deployment of more health personnel to provide more access to health services, the building of more schools, the provision of more aid to the poor for education, and the building of more and better infrastructures necessary for development.
6. We echo the challenge we prophetically uttered 25 years ago at EDSA I and call upon all people of good will who share our conviction: “…let us pray together, reason together, decide together, act together, always to the end that the truth prevail” over the many threats to human life and to our shared human and cultural values.
We commend our efforts against the RH bill (or the Responsible Parenthood bill – its new name) to the blessing of our almighty and loving God, from whom all life comes and for whom it is destined.
For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.
+NEREO P. ODCHIMAR, D.D.
Bishop of Tandag
President, CBCP
January 30, 2011
* The opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the signatories and they do not represent the official position of the University of the Philippines
As faculty members, students and alumni of the University of the Philippines, we state here the bases of our objection to the consolidated Reproductive Health bill that is pending in Congress. [Read more...]
UNCONSTITUTIONAL DEPRIVATION OF LIFE
A Position Paper against S.B. No. 2378:
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A NATIONAL POLICY ON REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago [Read more...]
The Philippine government’s duty to respect, protect and fulfill the people’s right to
health is clearly established under our Constitution. Article 2, Section 15, provides:
SEC.15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of
the people and instill health consciousness among them.
