I thought it was the end of the discussion but I saw a hand being raised up in the air. This scholar inquired, "When the population increases over time, does it affect the earth's mass?" The question made me smile because moments like this make teaching so fulfilling. Where in the world will you encounter such question from a twelve-year old? Anyway, I replied that the earth's mass remains constant despite the increase in population. I had to remind the kids that in our mere existence we also "consume" matter. We eat, drink and stuffs which require us to grow. All these stuffs are converted into you. It is just a mere conversion of mass from one form to another. In other words we are just a manifestation of the law of conservation of mass.
With the heated discussion on Reproductive Health Bill, I wish I could turn back time and explain the natural laws of science with respect to RH Bill. Of course that won't be possible because it would be advocating my own beliefs to a captured audience, my students. Have you attended a science class where a teachers gives more attention to Darwinism setting aside Creationism? It seems like that.
Why is there a need for an RH Bill? The plain and simple answer is to control and abort overpopulation. And why control and abort population? The advocates of RH Bill would point out to our population as the culprit of our miserable economic state. By controlling the population we can be assured somehow of economic development. In simple words OVERPOPULATION EQUALS POVERTY.
In science classes, you probably encountered the words "carrying capacity". This concept tells us that a number of organisms can only exist in certain maximum number in order not to endanger other organisms which exist in an area. It encompasses as well how an environment can sustain the population and its activities. I do agree that there must be a "ceiling" to the number of organisms BUT nature has its way of leveling off things in nature. If you have not noticed, insects for instance would grow exponentially in number for sometime in a year or season. It takes one person to destroy the world but it takes so many to build a city. In the case of third world countries, overpopulation becomes an issue as to who has the right to exist in this world. Is it the right of an individual or few persons to decide who and what number should exist? To whose hands should we let this crucial role to assume?
Let us take for example the lifestyle of rich countries vs poor countries. Isn't it that America whose population is less than 1/5 of world's population consume 26% of world energy. Now if we translate that to energy and resources, who really is consuming and depleting our resources. I wont even include here how much pollution they contribute worldwide. Of course, I wont deny that China with big population is also a great contributor to population.
I repeat again and again that nature has its way of fixing herself regardless of our number. We cannot make drastic move to simply address the issue without assessing its negative impacts and how to deal with them later. Let us not as well forget that more than the opposition by the Church there are issues which should be addressed by the Bill.
I am against of RH Bill, in some of its provisions only, due to the following points:
1. Curbing the population is a drastic move when the only excuse is for economic reason. We simply think poverty is due to the number of poor people. However when poor people are given the opportunity, education for instance, then there would be more independent citizens of this country. It is not the number of people but how you make out of this number of people. We simply lack PATIENCE and FORBEARANCE so we offer solution to a problem without pondering well.
2. Babies now are a thing of commodity. Gone are the days when a newborn is welcomed as a blessing. Modern people would see in their heads diapers, milk, tuition fees, mouth to feed and anything that would equate money for having a baby. We let ourselves evolved into a lower life forms because we view babies differently. During ancient times everyone in a family anticipates the birth of a new member of the family. We are filled with excitement and joy to have a baby in the family. Have you not heard anyone telling you, "lain ang kalipay nga ginatao ka bata sa sulod ka balay" ["There is nothing compared to the joy brought by the child at home"]. That is why when some parents find out that they are expecting for a baby they would either accept or reject the idea. When it is unexpected some would abort the baby. We refuse to become RESPONSIBLE. Isn't it that our children make and change us into parents?
If a baby is a result of lovemaking (which is different from fucking) then we should be glad to have someone to remind us always of our LOVE towards each other. Do we really see our children as product of love or do we see them as product of lust. It is sad to note that our population grew into what it is now viewed by people as products of lust and not of love. How tragic would it be to find out that you were born out of lust rather than out of love. I won't stop people from making love but I definitely abhor fucking.
3. Grade 5 pupils can now be taught sex education. One might think that I am conservative but I cannot simply imagine how can a parent allow other people to teach her child basic things in life. Why do we refuse to be PARENTS of our children. Isn't it that OPENNESS is expected from each other in the family? Isn't it that parents know best (well at times could be detrimental but in few cases) for their children? Sex, love and values should be the first responsibility of every parents. One is lucky enough if you can come across to someone whose character is well founded but take note that an individual whose values are right is also the product of a parents' constant teaching. Sex education is parents' primodial duty just like character formation. You don't expect a teacher to teach your child honesty, and chastity except through your own actions.
4. Sex, sex and sex. We tell each other to fvck and fvck because we have condoms and other artificial means. We refuse to DISCIPLINE ourselves and do it naturally because we would like to give in to our desires. If I want to fvck then I can do it anytime and to anyone because it is safe. We want to copulate like animals and we wish to act like them. There is no longer SELF-CONTROL and RESPECT of another. Sex is for animals and lovemaking is for humans. There seems to be no substitute to how we show affection towards each other than to fvck. Giving of one's self must be totally without all those contraception implanted or attached in one's body. Why subject a partner to contraception just to satisfy human urges? Love goes beyond sex and love can wait in marriage.
5. RH bill will educate Filipinos of sex. They said that through education women would be given more option and not simply natural. It is now a choice between what is convenient and what is not. We want the easy way out. However it is in difficulty that we develop our character and our capacity to love is measured. How can one prevent conception to take place if the very act is lovemaking? Education I suppose should help people be enlightened and have options of good things rather than to choose between what is good and bad. Education must be based on natural laws (and cannot be denied how one's belief would fit into it).
Let there be billions more Filipinos born out of love, not out of lust. When we truly love the result of lovemaking then we would see other people differently.
I was born out of love..were you too?
No comments:
Post a Comment