In the Philippines, a growing population of people has led to a sharp decline in fish, a vital part of the diet. To address the problem, one organization is making birth control more readily accessible to those wishing to keep their families small

In Philippines, Some See Birth Control as Path to Food Security - Report from PBS Newshour’s special report on Food For 9 Billion.

Video touches specifically on the issues of over-population in rural village and the impact on the local fishing industry.

Resident Jason Bostero explains why he and his wife Crisna chose to have only two children: “I am a farmer and fisherman. My income is just right to feed us three times a day. It’s really, really different when you have a small family.”

I’m actually surprised I’m having to do this, I thought it was fairly evident that I’m pro-RH; nuanced as it may be and with my own reasons. Yet somehow, out there in the ‘real world’, it seems that there is some quite puzzling confusion over my stance. Kind of odd to attract criticism from some pro and anti crusaders alike. I fear the confusion may be something as simple as agreeing with position, but disagreeing with methodology. So, since I spent some time addressing that confusion in the ‘real world’, I will include some of my thoughts on Tumblr.

I have written on RH in the past and I have given my reasons or supporting portions of the bill. My position though has always been based on the fact that RH, to be truly successful, needs all relevant social stakeholders working together in the implementation phase. Or at least working in their niches in some sort of coordinated way. Which is part of the reason I have always exhorted the CBCP to dampen their bombastic rhetoric and for the pro-RH crowd to follow suit. For me, the battle is not with the CBCP, it is with the decision-makers and the citizenry. Building a broad-based consensus among them is the only way this will be passed. Granted, especially among Filipinos, that will lead to confrontation with the Church in certain arenas. But, confusing a position on a political matter with issues of faith and personal belief can be damaging in the long-run. In a country pre-dominantly religious (whether Catholic, evangelical or Muslim) religious wars are a dead end. A side-effect could be alienating supporters who are religious; especially those who feel like their beliefs are under attack.

The other side is that in my estimation the CBCP has always been on the defensive and eventually will give way. Their only hope is to inflame passions to such a high degree that they cow people into backing down. Pro-RH factions have to keep to mind that the RCC has worked with RH in other countries around the world. There are distinct precedents elsewhere in the world, aptly demonstrating that interdiction and excommunication gambit is just empty bluster and an easily callable bluff. There is no way that the Holy See will put the Philippines, their only pre-dominantly Catholic ally in Asia, under interdiction. None. They have not done it in other nations and they will not do it here and now. To give them more power and influence than is due them as respected members of a democracy only further emboldens them to issue divisive proclamations. And they will take advantage of any opening to push their agenda, just like any interest group would if given the chance.

I do have some experience working with the Church here and abroad in philanthropic endeavors. And I have noted elsewhere that most of the priests that I know support RH (must be a Jesuit thing). Internationally, I have seen priests work to push reproductive health education. I suspect, that the CBCP here is actually quite conservative compared to other countries (for better or worse).

This should not be a religious war or a personal conflict. It has to be political process that operates in the public sphere and focuses on discourse and discussion; not derision and demonization. It is about crafting and pushing a piece of legislation that cannot solve all the ills of the country, but will (hopefully) improve certain areas. Now, a citizen’s conscience can be guided by whatever wellspring they choose: Whether religious or secular in nature. And those inputs should be taken into consideration. That only comes from open-minded, well-researched and informed discussion. It is not found in insults and outright dismissal of different views.

In the past I have written on the intersection of RH and the Millennium Development Goals. The RH debate encompasses far more than condoms and fuck-time. True reproductive health demands coordinated action from civil society and government to be effective. That means religious groups, non-profit organizations and government agencies working together. When looking at the broad focus of RH it becomes clear exactly why cooperation is in order. ‘Reproductive health’ is actually a misnomer, in a way. More than anything else it’s about providing life skills; in other words the moral, ethical and intellectual tools and foundation needed to make mature and informed life choices:

• Concept of health (personal health, including physical, mental and social health, healthy environment)
• Growth and development during adolescence (physical)
• Growth and development during adolescence (mental)
• Growth and development concerns (rise in hormones and so on). Sexual responsibility and mutual respect, responsible sexual behaviors
• Reproductive health and rights
• Healthy eatings and the importance of nutrition
• STI risks
• Substance abuse (affects)

What is frequently overlooked and rarely discussed here is that RH must be organic to be effective. The ‘meat’ of the overall areas above has to reflect the cultural realities of a country and even locales within that country. We cannot overlay the curriculum of a country like the United States here: The terms, focus even ways of addressing social issues would not resonate or ultimately be effective. There will be a disconnect. This has borne out by pilot programs operating in Sri Lanka, India, Uganda and so on. The most successful of these programs are cognizant of a country’s unique social and cultural markers, and are adapted and adjusted accordingly. For a multi-cultural nation like ours, this means adapting RH to fit indigenous, Muslim and Catholic communities. Language (and I don’t mean words used) is very important. This is where LGUs come into play. Improving and addressing RH shortfalls in the country is an evolutionary process and has to reflect the on-the-ground situation in various communities.

Simply I support RH because I support informed choice and education. I cannot conceive of a situation where keeping people ignorant of biological processes and the risks/rewards paradigm of certain activities is a ‘bad thing’ (to put a value judgement). Even more, reproductive health can help reinforce existing social and cultural mores. This is not about overlaying Western ethics and morals on our own; it’s about addressing shortfalls (such as sexual abuse, mutual gender respect and addressing extant potentially dangerous sexualized attitudes) and reinforcing existing cultural ethics (whatever they may be).

Beyond the mental and ethics formation aspects of RH, the information imparted is of key importance in a country where most people do not understand even the basics of adult nutrition; much less the complexities of childhood and pre/post natal health and nutrition. From personal experience, some Filipinos don’t even understand how a woman can become pregnant! Much less what makes a person sick and the correlation between poor nutrition and health. I have seen some homes using superstitious remedies like hanging certain objects in a house to ward off illness and pregnancies. In urban areas, statistics concerning awareness of sexually transmitted diseases (what they are, how they’re passed, what behaviors are at risk behaviors) are shocking. These gaps in knowledge have to be addressed.

To be frank, there are well-founded and informed critiques (ignoring doctrinal issues for the moment) of reproductive health, as it’s presented today. To dismiss well-thought perspectives outright is to ignore potential opportunities to improve legislation and make it more palatable for all involved. Just because someone disagrees with a position does not mean they are ‘wrong’ and disagreement as such should not become personal.

For example, I actually do understand some concerns, one area is overpopulation. I find it difficult to support legislation or education that focuses on convincing people to reduce the population. For me, reproductive health education has to be focused on providing the tools necessary for a family to decide how many children they want; with as little bias either way as possible. In a sense, ‘neutral’ education. Whether that is 1, 2, 3 or even 10; it has to be the family’s personal choice, sans government pressure to limit family size. When constructing and crafting RH programs, the philosophical foundation those programs are built on is important. There is a difference between “The preferred size of a family is 4” and “The size of a family is a personal choice grounded in social, economic, religious and cultural factors.” I think it is an important distinction. If a side-effect of RH (along with other economic factors) in the long-run is a reduction in growth rate, well and good. But reducing the population rate should not be the primary focus of RH, that can be a dangerous road. Instead it has to be providing people the tools necessary to make informed choices about their family.

And that’s what RH means to me: Providing culturally sensitive tools that allow people to make informed choices. Whatever they end up being. I see RH as a positive force, one that can help address certain social and cultural iniquities in education and attitudes. As well, it can be a law that helps make existing government programs more effective. Right now we have programs, but they don’t work in tandem, the RH Bill can help make sure that they mesh properly.

At the end of the day, properly and culturally sensitive in construction and implementation with all stakeholders at the table, reproductive health can be a boon, a benefit, in the growth and development of the Philippines.

I have argued in the past that politics will ultimately decide the fate of RH in the Philippines. No, not the relative merits of the bill or what is contained there-in; politics and who plays the political game best is what will ultimately decide the fate or this RH Bill. By that I mean, who can best maneuver, gain and maintain support for their side.

Which is why pro and anti RH advocates should be, and must be, out there raising the level of discourse, supporting like-minded congressmen and politicians; lobbying those to get their view across. Convincing those who may be on the fence. In sum, discussing the bill and trying to come to some sort of consensus. What it doesn’t mean is vehemently attacking and insulting opposing sides of the issue. It doesn’t mean reducing discourse to the lowest common denominator. And it most definitely does not mean trading on the issue for personal political gain.

That is a major concern. Certain opportunistic politicians will utilize this type of wedge issue for personal gain; a way to criticize and somehow erode the support base of the current administration, and any who want RH. This will also hold true in reverse, I can think of one example. That type of political jockeying should have no place in democracy. But, alas it is par for the course. In this instance, we know that ex-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has decided to throw her support against the bill. Soon after it was curious to see how some of her more vocal critics kind of disappeared.

Anyway, this all popped into my head when I noticed who ‘filibustered’ today in the House: Representative Jun Alcover, a former Maoist and an avowed supporter of GMA. A frequent defender of hers in fact during the GMA regime. Maybe he does in fact, believe that the RH Bill is unnecessary; as a matter of fact I desperately hope he does. Because the alternative is a disservice to the country. However, taking connections and support into consideration, I have my doubts. I find it very curious indeed, that a supporter of GMAs is the first one up preventing debate on the bill.

This type of old-school horse-trading and selfish politics, not the merits of the bill, not an open discourse among various stakeholders, may very well be the deciding factor in whether the bill passes or not. If that turns out to be the case, it will be indeed a disservice to the country.

leflaneur:

Let us call a spade a spade: Celdran’s recent disruption of an ongoing mass at the Manila Cathedral by holding up a placard emblazoned with “Damaso”, yelling at the assembled bishops, and—according to a report from The Philippine Star—later goading police officers on the scene to arrest him is an act not of subversion in the vein of José Rizal, regardless of Celdran’s attire—or utterly destitute notions of Rizal and heroism—but of perversion.

If with his gimmick Celdran had intended to catch the spotlight of national attention, he has certainly succeeded brilliantly. But now that he has drawn our collective notice, I have to ask: So what? Or, perhaps more crucially: Now what?

Note: The following commentary is separate from my personal stance on this issue and my religious beliefs.

The Church is not the problem here. What, are we expecting the Catholic Church to all of a sudden do a 180 on long-held doctrinal positions?

Because some lunatic dressed in a costume ran around with a sign? Please. Have some perspective.

The ones they should be trying to convince are the people: the public and the politicians. Setting aside my personal religious beliefs, the arbiters of decision-making lie there. By protesting the Church in this manner all you are doing given them more credence than is needed in a true democracy. Out of curiosity, what is the expectation? That the Catholic Church is going to put the whole country under an interdiction and excommunicate us?

Ha! They haven’t done that in any other country that pushed RH.

If you truly believe in the separation of Church and State, then ignore the Church in favor of arguing your position with the people. Fighting with the Church will not get you anywhere, except to further damage your credibility and undermine your position.

Like I said, grandstanding. Whatever.

juanrepublic:

Tsk! Isa pa naman sa mga hinahangaan kong tao. Everyone has the right for their opinion pero huwag naman sana in the middle of an ECUMENICAL SERVICE.

Grandstanding. Gah.

I have more respect for those who peacefully protest and lobby for their beliefs in public and private than those who make a spectacle of themselves like this. More often than not, in these cases, it’s less about the issues and more themselves.

They have a legitimate gripe. Yet, acts like this make themselves the story, not the issue or position they are arguing.

Ultimately, self-defeating.