Casting Doubts about the "RH" Bill

I'm pretty interested about the RH Bill topic. I normally don't buy something out of face value. When the bill was first mentioned (prolly in 2006/2007?), I was hopeful and open-minded about it. But, when I got educated about the implication of contraceptives (moral, physical, social, cultural, etc.), and so on, my opinion changed. I think those who "deny" the disadvantages of contraceptives, and it's heavy connection with the bill, are highly uneducated about it, and that they do not really have a decent say about this bill.C To be fair, I want to learn more about the bill, too. But, maybe I can do that by asking questions.

Here are the things I want to scrutinize about the RH Bill:

- What does it say about adoption/people who have difficulties in child bearing?
- What does it say about orphans, and the people who already are the "victims" of poor reproductive healthcare, particularly "mistakes" that cannot be undone?
- What about the idea that the poor should've had been unborn, instead of living an "undignified life"? Does the RH Bill really dignify human life by deciding, or suggesting, that those who live "undignified lives" should not suffer, and not be born instead for that to happen?

Also, in the future, I want to comment about this post: http://scapnational.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/student-leaders-stand-up-for-the-rh-bill/ - I heavily want to criticize the comments of the Tapat leader. It's worth criticizing.

I also hope that those who are against the bill present more credible, logical arguments against it. We need modern thinkers. But, just because something is not modern, does not mean it's not good at all.

(I had to cut this short because I need to sleep already)

Population, Poverty, & GDP Growth

A reply I made on the issue of Overpopulation:

** *******

Poverty and hunger is not caused nor aggravated by overpopulation, but by the wrong economic policies, poor governance and systemic corruption. Numerous economic studies have shown that there is no correlation between population, the incidence of poverty and GDP growth

about an hour ago ·  · 

• 
  

  3 people like this.
• • 
    

    ******* ******** Stretch ka muna.
    

    about an hour ago ·  ·  4 people
  • 
    

    ***** *** ****** message ng panganay sa mga kapatid?
    

    about an hour ago · 
  • 
    

    **** * **** pwede ng pang senado
    

    about an hour ago ·  ·  2 people
  • 
    

    **** ****** ** this is a sign ** ******. tumatanda ka na! Politics! hehe...
    

    27 minutes ago · 
  • 
    

    ****** ****** ***** ikaw na. :) cant imagine you talking about this. hehe
    

    18 minutes ago · 
  • 
    

    Me The only time (over?)population becomes a problem is when the government can't support their constituents because of "poor governance and systemic corruption".
    
    Overpopulation is a very subjective matter. But, I guess in the context of the Philippines, there really is an "over"-population, because of corruption. Would we ever consider it as "over"-population if in the first place we could support our own families?
    
    As it stands, "over"population, when it could have simply been "population at a certain objective number", becomes pointed fingers at as a (or THE) root cause of poverty, and not corruption.
    
    Come to think of it, the root of a big proportion of our population being poor is only a result of corruption. What we are now doing is giving bandaid solutions, instead of eliminating the cause of these wounds. Yes, the symptoms can be patched, but the root cause will still cause more of them in the long run.
    
    Lastly, as you have stated something about the correlation of population, poverty, and GDP growth, I think that is correct. Just because a nation has a big population, does not mean that it will make them poor. There is a different variable that we must look into and consider for poverty, and GDP growth, not population.
    

    a few seconds ago ·