A PLEA TO DECRIMINALIZE ABORTION, SIGNED BY DR. CLAUDIO AND OTHER GROUPS AND INVIDIDUALS IN 2010

I have come across the following plea of horror to decriminalize baby murder in guise of women rights and empowerment  by notable women groups. Be reminded that the same people that you can find here are the ones who are pushing the RH BILL in our throats.


Full text can be found here: http://www.wgnrr.org/news/september-28th-campaign-solidarity-letter-defenders-reproductive-rights-latin-american-caribbea

September 28th Campaign: Solidarity Letter with Defenders of Reproductive Rights in Latin American & the Caribbean

On September 28, 2010 the following letter was presented to the embassies and consulates of Brazil, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ecuador, Chile, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Peru  in citiies around the world, including  Manila, Delhi, Mexico City, the Hague, Copenhagen, London, Toronto, Vancouver, New York, and San Francisco to demonstrate solidarity with the September 28th Campaign to decriminalise aborition in Latin America and the Caribbean. The word document of this letter signed by individuals and organisations supporting demands for reproductive dignity and justice worldwide can be downloaded here.

Open Letter To the Heads of State in Latin America and the Caribbean, and Affiliated Ambassadors/Consulate Generals:

 

Today, as defenders of reproductive health, rights and justice gather across the region to take coordinated actions on the Latin American and Caribbean Day for the Decriminalisation of Abortion, we, the undersigned members, allies and advocates of the Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights (WGNRR) urgently call on you to heed the call for safe, legal abortion. We fully support their efforts, and join with them to condemn actions by both state and non-state actors silencing, criminalising and stigmatising those who offer support for women wanting access to abortion, as well as all who simply wish to exercise their human right to reproductive dignity.

In particular, we are concerned about the situation facing the defenders of reproductive rights in countries where abortion is illegal and/or systematically penalised including in Brazil, Chile, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Peru. We are alarmed by the recent blocking of a hotline in Ecuador offering support to women on reproductive and sexual health issues, and call on the Peruvian government to not only fulfil recommendations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee related to access to abortion, but also to take specific action on the case of KL.
We hope and trust your government will work proactively with civil society members to uphold binding commitments made at the United Nations under the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women, the Beijing Platform for Action, the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In addition, we ask that you adhere to the principles contained in the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders by recognising and protecting sexual and reproductive rights defenders, ensuring they are equally able to exercise the right to defend human rights and all the other rights.

To that end, we, the undersigned organisations and individuals from around the world are committed in supporting this year’s demands of the September 28th Campaign to ensure respect for sexual and reproductive rights, and call on your government to:

• Repeal all laws criminalising, penalising and/or restricting women’s access to abortion services.  Ensure women who do seek or offer these services are not subjected to judicial persecution, including imprisonment, or to harassment and degrading treatment by state authorities, institutions and non-state actors;

• Repeal all laws and policies that pose specific risks to sexual and reproductive rights defenders, and those from marginalised populations who do not want to be coerced into sterilisation or abstinence programmes;

• Take effective action to sanction state officials and non-state actors who harass sexual and reproductive rights defendersor curtail their legitimate activities for the defence of human rights and fundamental freedoms; and ensure allocation of adequate resources for the full protection and promotion of the rights of women human rights defenders, and in particular those who defend sexual and reproductive rights;

• Implement policies that guarantee low cost, universal, quality access to contraceptives and abortion services—including emergency contraceptive procedures—and ensure young people have equal access to these services, free from all forms of stigmatisation;

• Ensure that religious institutions and groups do not influence the state's judicial, policy and programming efforts in relation to reproductive health and rights. The reproductive rights and dignity of all must be guaranteed, not subject to constraints imposed by religious authorities.

We, the undersigned, await news of positive judicial and policy responses to the efforts of the communities mobilising to end the criminalisation of abortion, and for the fulfilment of reproductive dignity. We will be monitoring the steps your administration is taking on these matters.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the WGNRR campaigns officer, Tanya Roberts-Davis, by email <tanya@wgnrr.org> or phone + 63 (2) 913 6708. We look forward to hearing your response to these concerns.

Sincerely:

On behalf of the following organisations                                                              

Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada /
Coalition pour le Droit a l'Avortement au Canada, Vancouver, Canada
Adele Reproductive Health Foundation, Douala, Cameroon
Alliance of Solidarity For the Family, Victoria, Seychelles
Asian Community Health Action Network, Chennai, India
Association for Women's Rights in Development, Toronto, ON, Canada/México DF, México
Catholics for Choice, Washington, DC, USA
Center for Reproductive Rights, New York, NY USA
Center for Women's Global Leadership, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
Center for Women's Resources , Quezon City, Philippines
Centre for Healthworks, Development and Research (CHEDRES), Calabar, Nigeria
Civil Liberties & Public Policy Program, Hampshire College, Amherst, MA, USA
Coalition of African Lesbians, Boksburg, Gauteng, South Africa
Debout Femmes Congolaises,  Boma, D.R. Of the Congo  
Diverse Women for Diversity, Delhi, India
Femmes Conscientes – FECO, Bujumbura, Burundi
Fondation Orphelinat Au Congo, Kinshasa, D. R. of the Congo
Gabriela National Alliance of Women's Organizations in the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines

Gabriela-Negros Chapter , Negros, Philippines

Generation Foundation, Imo State, Nigeria
Green Health Foundation Zambia , Lusaka, Zambia
Global Youth Coalition on HIV/AIDS, New York, NY, USA/Accra, Ghana
INFORM Human rights Documentation Centre, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Initiative for Health Equity in Society, Delhi, India
International Code Documentation Centre,  Penang, Malaysia
International Peoples Health Council ( South Asia ), Delhi, India
International Planned Parenthood Federation - Western Hemisphere Region, New York City, NY, USA
Isis International,  Quezon City, Philippines
Isis-Women's International Cross Cultural Exchange (Isis-WICCE), Kampala - Uganda.
JAGRUTI, Dharwad, Karnataka, India                
Jumma Peoples Network International, Bristol, UK/ Rangamati, Bangladesh
Kvindernes U-landsudvalg / K.U.L.U.- Women and Development , Copenhagen, Denmark
Le Monde Selon Les Femmes, Brussels, Belgium
MADRE, New York, NY, USA
Mpigi Rural Women's Network Afaayo, Gombe District Referral Hospital, Butambala District, Uganda
National Abortion Federation of Canada, Victoria, B.C., Canada
Navdanya Dehradun Uttarakhan India, Delhi, India
NGO Provincial Women, Bryansk, Russia
NGO Viola, Bryansk, Russia
People for Peace and Defense of Rights (PPDR)-Uganda,  Kampala, Uganda
PACOPA,  Klemie, D. R. of the Congo
Public Health Association of Australia, Canberra, Australia
Red de Salud de las Mujeres Latinoamericanas y del Caribe, Santiago, Chile
Rede Nacional Feminista de Saúde Direitos Sexuais e Direitos Reprodutivos - Brazil, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil
Research Foundation for Science Technology and Ecology , Delhi, India
Shirkat Gah-Women’s Resource Centre,  Lahore, Pakistan
SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, Atlanta, GA, USA
SOS SEXISME, Meudon Bellevue, France
Space Allies, Ichikawa, Japan
Taller Salud, Inc., Loiza, Puerto Rico
Triangle Project, Western Cape, South Africa
Urgent Action Fund for Women's Human Rights, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Vanishing Rites, Bristol, UK
Vikalpani National Women’s Federation, Masbate, Sri Lanka
Voice of Independent Women Organization, Baghdad, Iraq
Venture Strategies for Health and Development , Berkeley, CA, USA
WOMANKIND Worldwide, London, UK
Women And Health(WAH!) India, Delhi, India
Women Development Society (WODES), Kathmandu, Nepal
Women Employees Welfare Association (WEWA),  Lahore, Pakistan
Women’s Global Network for Reproductive Rights, Quezon City, Philippines/Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Women Promotion Centre,  Kigoma, Tanzania
Women On Waves, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Young Woman's Christian Association of Papua New Guinea, Papua New Guinea
Youth Alliance on HIV and AIDS,  Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea
Youth Power Nepal,  Kathmandu, Nepal
And the following Individuals:
Dr. Adrienne Freeman, Obstetrician and gynaecologist,  Australia
Dr.  Anne-Marie Rey, Avortement-Information,  Switzerland
Dr.  Ann Ferrara, M.D., The Netherlands
Agathe Gramet-Kedzior, Concerned Community Member, Canada
Cheryl Davies, Registered Nurse, Vancouver, Canada
Dr. D.A.A. Verkuyl,  Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, The Netherlands
Dr. Fabian Gorodzinsky, F.R.C.P, Paediatrician,  Canada
Felix Ngwu, Centre for Healthworks, Development & Research, Nigeria
Fiona Fandim, Youth Alliance on HIV and AIDS,  Papua New Guinea
Dr. Frits Driessen, Gynaecologist, The Netherlands
Fumi Suzuki, Space Allies, Japan
Dr. Gwewasang Martin, Adele Reproductive Health Foundation, Cameroon
Ina Hume,  Vanishing Rites/ Jumma Peoples Network Int’l, UK
Joséphine Ntakiyica, President, Femmes Conscientes, Burundi
Jovita M. Montes, Health and Services Director, Gabriela National Alliance of Women's Organizations, Philippines
Joyce Wabi Feka, Peer Educator, YWCA of PNG, Papua New Guinea
Joyce Arthur , Coordinator, Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada,  Canada
Dr. K-lee Starland,  International Human Rights Advisor, USA       
Kalulu Maisha, Head of Projects, PACOPA, D. R. of the Congo
Kulihoshi Musikami, People for Peace and Defense of Rights-Uganda, Uganda
Lamia Talebani, Lecturer, University of Baghdad,  Iraq
Dr. Ludmila Zhirina, NGO Provincial Women,  Russia
Makene Fereza Balebanga, Femmes Conscientes, Burundi
Dr. M. Dayras, President, SOS SEXISME, France
Mairi MacRae Policy and Advocacy Manager, WOMANKIND Worldwide UK
Malcolm Potts,  Professor, University of California-Berkeley, USA
Martha Campbell,  Lecturer, Global Health, School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley, USA
 

Menu Nilukshika De Silva, Vikalpani National Women’s Federation, Sri Lanka
Michael Moore, CEO, Public Health Association of Australia, Australia
Dr. Mira Shiva, Initiative for Health Equity in Society,  India
Musonda Chansa, Green Health Foundation Zambia,  Zambia
Nisala Kisema Sandra, Debout Femmes Congolaises,  D. R. of the Congo
Pascale Maquestiau, Le Monde Selon les Femmes, Belgium
Pauline Kangombe, Green Health Foundation Zambia, Zambia
Dr. Prem Chandran John, Asian Community Health Action Network, India
Reineira Arguello, Programme Manager for Latin America, WOMANKIND Worldwide, UK
Rizwana Yasmin, S. G., Women Employees Welfare Association, Pakistan
Ruth Mirembe Sessanga, E.D., Mpigi Rural Women's Network Afaayo, Uganda
Ruth Ojiambo Ochieng, E.D., ISIS-WICCE, Uganda
Sarah Diehl, Writer & Director, Abortion Democracy,  Germany
Dr. Suzanne Belton, Sr. Lecturer, Menzies School of Health Research, Australia
Sybil Nmezi, Generation Foundation, Nigeria
Dr. Sylvia Estrada Claudio, Professor, Dept. of Women and Development Studies,  University of the Philippines, Philippines
Dr. Vandana Shiva, Research Foundation for Science,  Technology & Ecology, India

Choosing Life

“Choosing the method of family planning is one side of it, and making contraception and contraceptive method a matter of national policy — which the RH Bill does — is another. Making it a matter of national policy or institutionalizing contraception via [an RH law] and allocating billions of our scarce resources will deprive us of our choice because the government will effectively have made that choice for the Filipino families.” - Atty. Ma. Concepcion Noche, Alliance for the Family Inc. (ALFI) president

Does desecration of Christ’s image qualify as art?

Mideo Cruz, 37, who styles himself  as a visual and performance  artist who intentionally aims to shock and awe with his  work  may indeed have shocked many with his recent presentation at the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP), but awe  he did not. Instead he has been bombarded with death threats and hate mail since the exhibit  opened on June 17.
Cruz’ presentation is entitled “Poleteismo” (Poletheism). He explains that it is about the  worship of relics and how idolatry has evolved through history and modern culture. Among other things,  he shows an image of the face of Christ with a penis as Christ’s nose. He also presents a wooden cross with condom hangings  and a bright red penis that moves vertically up and down.  What can be more revered symbols  in Christianity than the image of Christ and the cross? The Philippines is about 85 percent Catholic.
According to Cruz, the shock effect of his presentations is meant to spark debate. That it surely did with this exhibit. With some very angry Catholics however, the only debate issue is: “Do we hang this guy by his neck or by his nuts?”
Prominent Catholic individuals and Church organizations such as the Knights of Columbus are demanding for a boycott or a shutdown of the exhibit. Others are calling for the resignation of the Board of Directors of CCP, a government entity. Another group is preparing a lawsuit against Cruz and the CCP Board.
During the Nazi years, some SS operatives went inside a church and desecrated the sacred hosts and statues. This of course grossly offended many Catholics and some wanted to kill them. Some even wondered why God did not strike them dead after this gross sacrilege.
Of course God did not strike them dead because I presume He does not have a Nazi’s mind. Instead, He has a Christian mind: Love your neighbor, including your enemies and forgive. This is what He taught. That’s probably why he has not struck Cruz dead either as many would want. For sure, Cruz’s work turned  many Christians to unChristian thoughts.
If Mideo Cruz had portrayed Muhammad as a dick which is what he did with Jesus—most likely, millions of fanatic Muslims worldwide would go on a hysterical frenzy. A fatwa death sentence coupled with a thousand tortures  from countless  imams (Muslim priests) would most likely have been issued. Inevitably, if he is not careful,  Mideo would most likely be kidnapped, subjected to horrible torture, decapitated and his penis stuffed inside his mouth. Some Catholics are wishing that the Muslim style of vengeance be inflicted on Cruz.
In defense, Karen Ocampo-Flores, head of CCP’s Visual Arts Department stated that the mandate of CCP is to cultivate artistic expression and urged that the exhibit be seen as a whole and not in pieces. She added: “I would call it moralist hysteria or religious myopia.”
However, even if we assume that  Cruz’s presentation is art in eyes of some and not the garbage that many say it is—the fact is that the patently offensive depictions of Christ and other Christian symbols does show disrespect and gross insensitivity to the   feelings and beliefs of millions of Christians—not  only in the Philippines but worldwide.
In the name of art, was CCP justified in allowing this patently offensive material to be displayed?
Here’s my take on this:
Art is one thing. Common sense and appropriate respect for the beliefs and affections of others is another.
Cruz’s defined objective is to shock. Therefore, the more shocking is his presentation, the more he sees himself as a success as an artist. As such, putting a penis on the face of Jesus or attaching it to a cross—he calculates—will shock the sensibilities of many. So he intentionally does it. He justifies it as art and the fools who also want to be tagged as artists or claim to understand the minds of artists sympathize and side with him and say: “That is because he is  an artist!”—meaning that it’s all right.
But it’s not really all right.
Artist or not, art or not –we have to draw the line somewhere on what ought to be proper for display.
If shock artists like Cruz are allowed to go uncontrolled, what is to stop them from carrying on with more offensive presentations such as for example depicting toddler in various sexual  positions with old men in their eighties?
Art ought not to be used as a carte blanche license to present anything that an artist would like to present. Like anything, it is a means to an end—not and the end by itself. Real art should bring out the best in people. Here, Cruz’s offering brings out the worst and—causing them to be angry and to hate him with a vengeance.
I agree with President Aquino’s order to CCP to  remove Cruz’s exhibit which is grossly offensive to the sensitivities  of millions of Christians. A  good artist can communicate his message without resorting to offensive cheap inappropriate attention getting tricks.
I would not go so far as to demand the resignation of the CCP Board. It was more likely a case of a lapse of good judgment caused by an overzealousness to promote artistic expression with no malice intended. However, they should learn some important common sense lessons from the aftershocks of Cruz’s  non awe inspiring presentation.
Recently a Filipino  couple was  arrested for producing sex fetish videos called “crush videos”. Among other cruelties, confiscated videos showed naked young women stepping on the eyes of tied up dogs and blinding them. Had they styled themselves as “avant garde artists giving free expression to the visual  arts”—they might not have been arrested and probably even allowed to do a public exhibit.

Article by Ted Laguatan

Feminism

Here are some famous quotations of feminism. Please take note on how they plan to destroy the very important institution in our lives: The FAMILY.

"In the past, we women have been afraid to admit that marriage wasn't all it was cracked up to be because it meant we had failed. Now we know it is the institution that has failed us and we must work to destroy it...it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men." -1971 Declaration of Feminism

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -Feminist leader Sheila Cronan 

family life is a "comfortable concentration camp" from which women needed liberation. -Betty Friedan

 “no woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children…because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” -French feminist Simone de Beauvoir

"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." Linda Gordon

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." Robin Morgan 

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" -Dr. Mary Jo Bane

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men ... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism," November, 1971). 

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."
Andrea Dworkin 

 

For me, Feminism is a social movement busies itself in advancing unborn babies murder, homosexuality, lesbians, anarchy, marxism, pornography - did I forget something?

RH bill's coercive nature

MANILA, June 20, 2011―The absence of respect for freedom of conscience in House Bill 4244 is among the reasons for a one lawyer's opposing the P3 billion measure.
In a June 17 forum on the RH bill held at Sta. Isabel College, Atty. Marwil Llasos of Filipinos for Life cited the provision concerning refusal to extend reproductive health services (Sec. 28. Prohibited Acts), which states that while the conscientious objector's refusal due to ethical or religious beliefs is acceptable, he is required to "immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible who is willing to provide the requisite information and services."
In other words, if a doctor refuses to perform a vasectomy, for example, because he believes this to be unethical, the bill compels him to refer the patient to another doctor. The lawyer pointed out that this still goes against the first doctor's conscience "because what you are prohibited from doing directly, you are mandated to do indirectly."
"At mas imoral po 'yon. Bakit? Kasi kung siya lang ang gagawa ng paglabag sa kanyang konsensya―halimbawa, nagbigay siya ng condom o pills, nag-perform siya ng vasectomy o naglagay siya ng IUD sa isang tao, siya lang ang nagkasala. But if he is going to refer to another doctor, dalawa na silang nagkasala," Llasos pointed out.
He then appealed to the high school and college students as well as faculty in the audience to take a hard look at what the bill is leading Filipinos to do.
"My dear sisters and brothers, your faith that was taught to you by the Sisters here in this school tells you that there is such a thing known as the sin of scandal, and that is even worse. Leading people to sin," he lamented.
"Here we have a law that mandates a Filipino, a Catholic to violate his conscience, and if he goes by his conscience he will be imprisoned. Here is a law that commands you to commit the sin of scandal."
The lawyer, who is also an apologist at Defensores Fidei Foundation, continued:
"Lagi na lang sinasabi na ang Simbahan ay kontrabida. Hindi po tayo kontrabida, sinasabi natin ang katotohanan... Ano ang penalty [sa lalabag sa bill na ito]? The doctor or nurse...shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging from one month to six months or a fine of P10,000 to P50,000 or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the competent court. Ano ang kasalanan ng doktor? Ano ang kasalanan ng nars? Ang kasalanan niya, siya ay mananampalatayang Katoliko na naniniwala na imoral ang batas na ito. This is oppressive; this is penalizing us for being Catholic Christians." (Diana Uichanco)

An Open Letter to Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ, JSD

An Open Letter to Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ, JSD

Posted: 12 Jun 2011 07:59 PM PDT

Your Reverence:

Peace.

This is in reference to your article posted at the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) last Monday, May 23rd, 2011. But, first and foremost, I would like to sympathize with you if ever a high-ranking ecclesiastical authority labeled you as ‘Judas’ and that you were considered by others a heretic. I understand your position and from that understanding, I am addressing this open reaction letter to Your Reverence for the sake of those who have been listening to your discourses and/or reading your write-ups.

In the same article, you embodied your first position this way:

“First, let me start by saying that I adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception even if I am aware that the teaching on the subject is not considered infallible doctrine by those who know more theology than I do. Moreover, I am still considered a Catholic and Jesuit in good standing by my superiors, critics notwithstanding!”

Your Reverence, how do you adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception? When we adhere to certain teaching, we devote ourselves in the observance of such teaching. Moreover, said teaching is made manifest in our gestures, in our dealings, in our principles, and in our advocacy. If we say, we adhere but not observe it, then, adherence is devoid of what it truly means. We become like a “tingling cymbal”. And as a priest adhering to the teaching of the Church on contraception, even common sense dictates that you are one with the Church in teaching that contraception is evil and in enabling people to understand what makes it evil. Are you, truly, one with the Church in this crusade, Your Reverence?

The way I look at them, your positions do not do any good but rather do more harm than good for they aggravate the confusions and divisiveness so characteristic of our nation today along the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill concerns. Much worse, instead of bringing about enlightenment and unity, your articles and discourses exacerbate said confusions and divisiveness, not only among citizens but most significantly among Catholics who look up to you as “Alter Christus” over and above your being a top-caliber constitutionalist, renowned author, intellectual academician, and prolific lawyer. Consequently, confused Catholics and Catholics who have the tendency to use or are actually using contraceptive methods may find moral justification in your positions.

Furthermore, a part of your next argument goes this way:

“Second (very important for me as a student of the Constitution and of church-state relations), I am very much aware of the fact that we live in a pluralist society where various religious groups have differing beliefs about the morality of artificial contraception. But freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. It also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes.

I agree with Your Reverence, that the Philippine society has become pluralistic now. In fact, moral pluralism along contraception conspicuously exists not only among various religious groups but also among Catholics (among priests? Hmm… Hope not). That is why, not a few people adhere to moral subjectivism/relativism so that “what is good or true for you may not be good or true for me and vice versa”. Your being very much aware of the existence of our pluralistic society which is very important to you indicates your high regard and deep respect for religious freedom and individual conscience. Along this line, I am with you, Your Reverence. We have to respect the freedom of religion and conscience. Even erroneous conscience, as inculpably erroneous as it maybe, should be respected. It is a product of ignorance through no fault of one’s own and without any knowledge about being in error. (However, the case would be morally different should
conscience become erroneous due to consequential moral blindness stemming from misguided passions inadequately tamed and/or due to insufficient efforts exerted to dispel ignorance and obtain knowledge of what is truly good as distinct from what is truly evil. This does not exonerate the person from moral culpability).

But then, Your Reverence, respect for freedom of religion and conscience does not and should not hamper you from adhering to a much higher value which is to proclaim the truth that sets man truly free and from practicing your ministry which is to teach in accordance with the Church’s teaching. With all the more reasons, your being very much aware of moral pluralism calls and urges you to do something about it, to preach and witness that right is right no matter how many are wrong, and to teach the universality of truth (not conditioned by time and space, culture and individual opinions and beliefs) about the wrongness of contraception thereby informing human consciences (through teaching). And it is up to the people whether or not they will listen and obey. After all, teaching cannot be identical with imposing, with coercing and with forcing. Besides, you (and the Church) do not have police power to invoke and enforce particularly, against those who
will defy and disobey. What is important is that you teach no matter how few listen and obey.

I also have the impression that you are treating contraception, in your article, as a religious issue so that if a member of a certain religion believes that it is good, then, he/she can freely act according to that which he/she believes (that contraception is good). And if a Catholic believes it is wrong, then he/she can freely avoid it as it is evil.
I beg to disagree. The issue on whether contraception is wrong or not is not exclusively a religious concern. It is not a religious issue which may be good to a religion that regards it as such, while evil, to a religion that looks at it as such. It is not a Catholic issue that only concerns Catholics.

Contraception is, rather, a moral issue, not according to Christian/Catholic Morality but according to the measure of its relation to that which makes good or evil, to the norm of morality. And the relation of contraception to the norm of morality measures in terms of the disagreement of the former with the latter so that contraception is, indeed, wrong. For the sake of your fans, the norm, proximately refers to the dictates of right reason to which an act should be conformed in order to be right. And what makes reason right is its being anchored on the ultimate norm manifesting itself in the “order of existence of things”.

This “order of existence” stands a priori to any human positive establishment of “order and harmony of things”. It means that such order existed before man ever conceptualized and set any man-made order as in the promulgation of human positive laws. The existence of the entire universe and everything it contains is being maintained by such order without which disorder and unimaginable chaos occur. This order expresses itself in the way everything exists, in what it is and in its last end toward which its existence is directed. If a thing exists this or that way because of what it is and takes a given course according to its nature, it must be what its order of existence mandates. It is a given order. It is not designed by man. It has been there ever since. Hence, reason dictates that it be preserved and not be disturbed or destroyed. Otherwise, disorder and disharmony occur.

That is why, the growth of human existence starts at being a fertilized ovum, a zygote (this happens at the completion of fertilization), then it develops into a morula, then a blastocyst, then an embryo, then a fetus, and not the other way around. Upon birth, he/she starts being an infant, then a toddler, a child, a teen-ager, an adult, then an old man/woman. No human being starts existing by being an old man/woman, then an adult, a teen-ager, a child, then an infant, and so on. Plants and trees grow the way they tend to and not upside down, water seeks its own level, and so on and so forth. These are manifestations of the natural order of existence of things.

It indicates the truth which is necessarily immutable, the universal truth at which man is capable of arriving so that “what is true for you is also true for me while what is false for you is also false for me”. (Moral scientists and philosophers call the ultimate norm which sustains the “order of existence of things” as Eternal Law).

By the light of his intellect, man knows the natural order in the existence of things which he recognizes as that which has to be preserved. We call it natural law. Natural Law refers to the Eternal Law expressed in the natural order of existence and is knowable to man by the use of his intelligence. Acknowledged by man’s reason, the one which is in accordance with the said order is good while the other which runs counter to it is evil. The former is moral whereas, the latter is immoral. Thus, he has the natural capacity to distinguish what is right from what is wrong, to do good and avoid evil (Bonum est faciendum et malum est vitandum).

Now, human reproductive system has its own functions and operations proper to its nature. It operates according to what its nature designs and never according to what it is not (unless, it is arbitrarily interfered with). It is specially designed in the biological order to be the natural vehicle through which the generative power of the human person is exercised. This power is inherent in the very sexual structure of the human person and is able to generate new life when it is employed during sexual intercourse within fertility period.

Conception/fertilization of an egg, can only occur after ovulation. The egg stays alive for about 24 hours once released from the ovary. Sperm can stay alive inside a woman’s body for 3-4 days, but possibly as long as 6-7 days. If a couple has intercourse before or after ovulation occurs, the wife can get pregnant, since the live sperm is already inside the woman’s body when ovulation occurs. Thus a woman can become pregnant from intercourse for about 7-10 days in the middle of her cycle. All these functions of the sexual system proceed from its order of existence. No one can ever deny this reality as it is a ‘given’ configuration.

Now, what do contraceptive methods do? The use of any method of artificial contraception runs counter to and even destroys the “order of existence of things” particularly of human reproductive system. Some of them suppress ovulation when it is supposed to naturally occur as designed by its order of existence, others cause thickening of the cervical mucus making it difficult for the sperm to go through, and still others prevent implantation of the fertilized ovum by altering the normal functioning of the endometrium. All these are arbitrary and positive actions to distort the ‘order of existence of things’ – - of human reproductive system.

Contraception destroys such ‘order’ manifested in the course of its natural functions and operations according to what it is. It makes the reproductive system operate according to what it is not. That is why, contraception is evil as it is in itself. If the Church prohibits it, it is because contraception is intrinsically evil . Its evil proceeds from within itself, from what it is regardless of whether it is prohibited.

From this perspective, this sense of evil which ought to be avoided or this issue on contraception applies not only to Catholics but to all human persons of good will and of right reason regardless of religious denominations and affiliations.

Your last statement:

“Fourth, I have never held that the RH Bill is perfect. But if we have to have an RH law, I intend to contribute to its improvement as much as I can. Because of this, I and a number of my colleagues have offered ways of improving it and specifying areas that can be the subject of intelligent discussion. (Yes, there are intelligent people in our country.) For that purpose we jointly prepared and I published in my column what we called “talking points” on the bill.

Your Reverence, what do you mean by the term “improvement”? The dictionary may say, “improvement” means ‘making things better’. It implies that, that which is to undergo improvement is something already good only that it has to be improved to make it better. And nothing will be removed or erased from that which is to be improved. In fact, its status will just be made better. Now, what is it in the RH Bill (which may eventually become an RH law) that you will try to improve or make better? How can you make things better out of something which is, in itself, wrong?

I also found this statement contrary to the first argument you cited that you adhere to the teaching of the Church on contraception. Since, the Church teaches that contraception is not capable of being ordered to human nature and to God’s law, then, it should also be your stand as you said, you adhere to it. But how come, that you will improve or make better of the RH Bill/Law which boldly promotes that which the Church regards as evil?

Well, there are other meanings that can be attributed to “improvement”. But its use in your paragraph is vague. It can be misconstrued. That is why, I said earlier that confused Catholics and Catholics who have the tendency to use or are actually using contraceptive methods may find moral justification in your positions.

Your Reverence, these are all what make your article more confusing, more perplexing and more divisive than enlightening, illuminating and unifying. I don’t see any contradiction between your being a lawyer and a priest. The two disciplines can even be harmoniously employed to advocate the truth and goodness as opposed to falsity and evil.

Your Reverence, I hope and pray that you take a strong stand on the RH Bill by anchoring it on the order of existence of things. This way, you can effectively deal with and unify our pluralistic society whose sense of ‘truth’ and sense of ‘goodness’ are conditioned only by one’s beliefs, values, opinions, culture and the like, which may of course, vary and even contradict from one person or group to another. Please be a catalyst of unity and order, Your Reverence. Please.

Good day.

Very truly yours:

PROF. MARVIN JULIAN L. SAMBAJON, JR.

ANTI-LIFERS: Riza Hontiveros-Baraquiel

click for a larger image

Ang isa sa mapangit at maduming laban ni Riza Hontiveros: RH Bill. Anu kaya ang ibig nyang sabihin "One Battle at a time".
"The pro-RH advocates are pro-life," --according to Mrs. Baraquiel. A blatant LIE! There are a lot of Pro-RH groups and orgs supporting and calling for "safe & legal" ABORTION.