Like checking your hat at the door?

If you're a doctor, you don't stop being one after removing your white coat. That's why in emergency situations in airplanes, or at church, people can ask, "Is there a doctor here?" and there's always someone to volunteer.

If you're a celebrity, you don't stop being one after the cameras or the stage lights go off. People will still recognize you in public, and, if they're bold enough, they approach and ask for a photo. You can be angry about it, but most of the time you'll just smile and let them get what they want.

In the same way, if you really want to live your faith in all integrity, if you are Catholic, for instance, you don't stop being one wherever you are. Whether you're a doctor, a politician, a journalist, a celebrity chef, a vegetarian humanitarian, a mad scientist, or a rock star mathematician, if integrity means anything to you, then you know that having a certain job is no license for not living in the way you should as a man/woman of faith.

That's why I get really puzzled when I encounter screams of "Separation of Church and State!" to mean that in matters of the State or secular affairs, your faith has no right to interfere. Okay, so by that logic, you must not live in full integrity. A doctor on vacation who, in midflight, comes upon a fellow passenger suffering from a heart attack must then be able to say, "I'm no doctor today." A celebrity should be able to shop at the supermarket in peace because he can shed his fame at the baggage counter.

What it REALLY means

That key phrase "Separation of Church and State" actually refers to amity: both institutions have a purpose and they must be allowed to carry out this purpose in peace. So while the State takes care of the welfare of individuals, the Church takes care of their souls, according to her teachings. In which case, the State allows the Church to carry out her apostolate, and the Church lets the State take the helm at pursuing the common good. 

Common good

The pursuit of this common good takes into consideration the entire person: not merely that the individual is a man or a woman, old or young, whatever. It's about creating an environment that allows persons to grow fully and holistically, and not misleading them into a false sense of power, and not favoring the rights of one sector over the other. The State can make anything legal, but it has to be something that will benefit all the people, and not just a chosen few. And for that to be possible, it has to be something inherently good.

You've probably guessed that the issue that got me to write about this involves the RH Law. Because, boo hoo, you Church people are such bullies that you meddle in State affairs, that's why we never get this super essential law up and running to help save the poor from their overproducing selves. 

First of all, the Church speaks her mind because it is her duty to do so--she takes care of souls, okay? You can ignore them bishops if you want, but that doesn't change the truth of which they speak. Besides, they can't run for office anyway, so why are you all so scared? Are you afraid more people will finally understand that what they are teaching is actually the better solution? (Living the virtue of chastity before and after the wedding, protecting the family, upholding marriage, and learning to love selflessly!)

Secondly, where's the common good in a law that stomps on the basic rights to life, religious freedom, and free speech of an affected few? I thought common good meant the good of all. People are so touchy about their freedom of expression, and here's a law that suppresses that. How come no one is crying foul?

Thirdly, the people who make the law, if they actually try to live unity in their life--that is, not checking the teachings of their faith at the door--may actually help everyone by really looking into what will make this a better country, and not proposing lazy solutions. 

• You want maternal health? Train more midwives, provide better facilities, and make maternal care accessible. 
• You want fewer teen pregnancies? Get teens to dream big, trust that they have what it takes to get there, and don't assume they will be useless kids who'll just get knocked up and therefore need condoms. 
• You want to protect women from abusive husbands? Address problems on alcohol and drug abuse, encourage spouses to communicate, and don't give men an excuse to say "you won't get pregnant anyway because you're on the pill." 
• You want to remove "hopeless" people who wander aimlessly on the streets? Train them for a livelihood, teach them to fish!

In fact, there are so many better solutions to all the problems the RH thing is trying to solve. And, if you want to live integrity in your life and help others to do the same, you'll think of these ways and you'll see how good they turn out to be. In the end, it's not about outspoken bishops meddling in secular affairs, but rather about making it possible for each and everyone of us to live in a way that affirms our dignity, in a way that will lead us to true happiness, because we get to be whole, and we get to be truly free. 

Health Rights

Okay, in the last post I talked about the rights of the unborn. The people who are for RH accuse those who are against it of caring too much about people you can't see that the health and the rights of the people you can see are forgotten.

I am all for maternal health, but I do not agree that maternal health means access to contraception. Read the small print in any oral contraceptive advertisement and you'll see how unhealthy it is. I also do not agree that contraception is the solution to bring down the maternal mortality rate. I mean, since when has pregnancy prevention become the solution to maternal mortality? As if pregnancy is a disease.

And anyway, women's health is already covered in the Magna Carta of Women, which is already a law.

SEC. 17. Women’s Right to Health. – (a) Comprehensive Health Services. – The State shall, at all times, provide for a comprehensive, culturesensitive, and gender-responsive health services and programs covering all stages of a woman’s life cycle and which addresses the major causes of women’s mortality and morbidity: Provided, That in the provision for comprehensive health services, due respect shall be accorded to women’s religious convictions, the rights of the spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions, and the demands of responsible parenthood, and the right of women to protection from hazardous drugs, devices, interventions, and substances.

Access to the following services shall be ensured:

(1) Maternal care to include pre-and post-natal services to address pregnancy and infant health and nutrition;

(2) Promotion of breastfeeding;

(3) Responsible, ethical, legal, safe, and effective methods of family planning;

(4) Family and State collaboration in youth sexuality education and health services without prejudice to the primary right and duty of parents to educate their children;

(5) Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, including sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, and AIDS;

(6) Prevention and management of reproductive tract cancers like breast and cervical cancers, and other gynecological conditions and disorders;

(7) Prevention of abortion and management of pregnancy-related complications;

(8) In cases of violence against women and children, women and children victims and survivors shall be provided with comprehensive health services that include psychosocial, therapeutic, medical, and legal interventions and assistance towards healing, recovery, and empowerment;

(9) Prevention and management of infertility and sexual dysfunction pursuant to ethical norms and medicals standards;

(10) Care of the elderly women beyond their child-bearing years; and

(11) Management, treatment, and intervention of mental health problems of woman and girls.

In fact, why is everybody so rabid about the RH thing getting the thumbs up when a lot of what most people say they like about it (maternal health, sex education) are already State implemented and recognized through this Magna Carta? Actually, the only thing in there that's not already a law is the PhP13.7B government funding that the DOH is requesting for it. Don't believe that they have no money; they already have USAID funding even more contraceptive programs nationwide as we speak. (PhP7.96B, to be exact.)

Another difference between this Magna Carta and the RH is the word "ethical" (Sec. 17.3). RH doesn't include that word, and that paves the way towards another method of family planning that everyone is ignoring as of this moment.

So there you go. More on maternal health when I find time. Ciao for now!

Picky picky

If you say a new person with unique DNA is not alive at fertilization,
then explain why this whole development process starts off at that point.

I'm glad this article came out in PDI last Sunday. After the July 9 oral arguments at the SC, you'd think it would be clearer to the public why the RH Law is unconstitutional. But no, the media is picky, and it decides not to report a lot of things.

So we gotta give The Philippine Daily Inquirer some credit here: Good job for publishing Mr. Chet Espino's op ed piece. :-) Here's something from that article:

Justice Roberto Abad: The Constitution, Section 12 Article 2, states that the state shall equally protect the life of the mother and the unborn from conception. This right to life belongs to the unborn, not the mother or the father. Did I exist when I was still in the egg as an egg alone?

Noche: Not yet, your honor.

Abad: But when the egg, when the ovum, is fertilized, is that the beginning of me?

Noche: Yes, your honor. That’s the beginning of you. The unique “you” that exists already at that point. The unique Justice Abad … not a justice yet then.

Abad: In 1987 before this (RH Law) somewhat changed the concept of conception, how did those who drafted the Constitution understand the meaning of conception?

Noche: Life begins at fertilization. It was only recently that that was redefined.

Abad: So in other words, all of us started as zygotes … and then developed into a human being. Conception means beginning, isn’t it? But it needs to be sustained to life by attaching itself to the uterus. And it’s not the business of my parents… It’s my right. If they violated my right, I would not have been born. As Justice Carpio says on this issue, if they believe that this law violates the right to life from the time of conception, that’s how we will decide it … on our understanding of when life begins.

---

Okay, so why does the beginning of life matter in this whole RH shebang anyway? Because the State has the duty to protect the rights of ALL its citizens, and that includes the tiny citizen that was just fertilized. Don't play blind--new life is new life whether or not you see it, or acknowledge its existence. The pill and the IUD are abortifacients because part of the mechanism of the former (and all of the latter's) is to make the uterus too hostile for a fertilized ovum to implant, forcing the body to abort it.

In other words, the State fails to protect its citizens' rights if it chooses to subsidize abortifacients. In the name of the "rights" of the few, with this RH Law, the State will choose to violate a universal right. Picky?

A few truths to think about

I suppose it's high time I explain why I do not like contraception, and I fear I have no more excuses to leave it for another day (weekend, month, year) given the fact that I am currently stuck in my room for the next few days/weeks. Also, I am trying very hard not to scratch this chicken pox, and typing gives me a reason to keep my fingers busy doing something else.

Enough with the intro. Here, a few truths I've been mulling over for the past few days. Pramis, they're connected to contraception.

TRUTH #1. We are responsible for our actions at all times. You'd be shocked and scandalized if you see someone leave a post in the middle of the train tracks with the intention of preventing the train from reaching its destination (nevermind if people die in the process). If somebody bombed a bridge, the city would arrest him for killing people he never intended would be there and for destroying a key part of commerce and whatnot.

So why is it considered "smart" to insert an intrauterine device with the intention of stopping a fertilized egg (100% individual human being) from implanting in the womb? What makes it different? It's not wrong because you don't actually see any dead bodies? Any gradeschool kid can tell you when life begins--that "it's only tissue" is a useful lie that fake feminists tell in order make contraception and abortion acceptable.

Say what you want but it doesn't change the truth that you don't know if you are killing anybody by using contraception methods that are abortifacients at the same time (the pill, IUD, emergency contraception). It's like the "rustling in the bushes" idea: should you shoot if you don't know it's a person? Obviously, no.

TRUTH #2. We are responsible for taking care of Mother Nature and the Earth. Though we have the ability to discover things and to make use of science to achieve our goals, we are also responsible for the health of the world around us.

I don't understand how this concept is so clear when it comes to cutting down pine trees in Baguio or clubbing baby seals in the northern lands. Heck, we even prefer natural products for our bathing and beautifying to preserve nature and keep our bodies "chemical free"! But why is it that when it comes to not just polluting but also perverting the body, suddenly nobody sees green? That's exactly what contraception is: pollution and perversion. For it to work, it has to upset the woman's natural body processes. Contraception means taking something that is right and good (the reproductive cycle) and twisting it to serve your own ends. And speaking of selfish ends...

TRUTH #3. Contraception has a selfish end. From childhood, we are taught to be selfless. If we listened back then, we know that sharing is good, doing service for others is good, etc. Of course, it's also good for us to leave nice things for ourselves--though never at the expense of others. So why does contraception go against all that? Contraception fosters an inclination to choose the self over other people.

Again, I know that contraception is not abortion. But contraception teaches a person to be closed to the possibility that a new human being is formed as a consequence of sex. In the end, it's just you enjoying what you can do with your body and intentionally erasing some undesired natural effect. (Note: it's not a side effect.)

I'm not saying family planning is bad. By all means, married couples should definitely plan their family. But they should be selfless enough to plan it in a way that is open to surprises. Don't they say "life is full of surprises"? If married couples are not open to life, what happens when a surprise (despite all the contraceptive methods they use) still comes their way? This is how people begin to accept abortion.

TRUTH #4. A true feminist appreciates the female ability to bear a child. I admire the earlier feminists; the ones who went against the norms of society that women can't vote, study, or speak their mind. I thank them for what they did, for without them I would probably not be writing now. The later feminists, however, seem to have gotten the ideals all wrong! They want to be equal to men; particularly, they want to be like men who can have sex anytime and with anyone they want without being "punished with a baby." This is a snowball of lies that just keeps getting bigger! (If you don't believe me, figure out--with study--why the women's liberation movement in the 1960's is closely tied to, er, the birth of the widespread use of birth control. Particular question to ask: What did these women think they were liberated from?)

First of all, women can never be equal to men because they are not men. (Before any violent reactions, I say men can never be equal to women either.) Women and men are complementary, that means they can work together as a team and balance each other out. They can both have PhDs, carry 500lbs, be good at styling hair or whatever. The point is, no matter what their individual skills are, they are not the same and that is a good thing.

Secondly, men are not exempt from having responsibility for a baby. They can run away, I suppose, but that just means they've owned up to not being man enough. :-P

Thirdly, a baby is not a punishment, but a gift. Not every sexual act leads to a baby. For lack of a better word, it's a miracle, which is best explained by Dr. Manhattan in this scene in Watchmen:

from Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons

Call it a fertilized egg, zygote, embryo, or fetus--it's still a new person with the 46 chromosomes and complete DNA of a homo sapiens sapiens. But, more importantly, as the excerpt emphasizes, that baby is a unique human being--only one in all the world. And this unique person asks for only one little thing from moms and dads at this point in life: that he (or she) be allowed to live. And how can he live? By the very beautiful process called the complete 9 months of pregnancy that only women can do. Don't hate it, ladies--be proud of it! 

TRUTH #5. Chastity rocks--and it leads to real happiness. So it's true that many people are having their babies before they get married. Everybody's doing it blah blah blah--forget it. It's still not the way to go. If everybody shoplifted at 7-Eleven, does it make stealing all right? While there are happy endings to those premarital baby stories, you can't ignore the fact that for most of them, it doesn't turn out quite so fine in the end. :-(

The problem with contraception is that it makes premarital sex "ok as long as you don't get knocked up"--which practically gives people license to do whatever they want, provided.... Plant this philosophy in the heart of every young person and you create a society of Anything Goes As Long As You're OK, You're Healthy, You Don't Hurt Anybody, And... oops, now there's a contradiction.

A philosophy of "doing whatever you want" is--and will always be--incompatible with "watching out for the good of others." You can never become selfless when the philosophy of your heart is hedonism: achieving only your own happiness, your own pleasures, you you you you. Where does the self end and others begin? No where.

That's why chastity rocks! Chastity is a recipe for true love. Why? It teaches a person to care for the well being and happiness of another person. It teaches self mastery and self sacrifice, and in the end rewards people with a happy marriage, happy kids, and happy families! Because you learn not to think of yourself, you are more likely to work harder on a marriage than someone who would just give up and run away from problems because "it hurts." Remember, marriage is not easy--and it will hurt at some point. It's not Cinderella fitting a glass slipper and then wearing beautiful gowns for the rest of her life; it's Mr. and Mrs Weasley putting all seven kids through school with a single income and lots of creativity! I mean, between Ron Weasley and Draco Malfoy, who lives in a happier home?

What's the point of it all? Don't believe what you see on popular TV, idealized magazines, mainstream media. If you really want to understand, read books, documents, articles. Scrutinize both sides of the issue. Study hard and really strive to put your ability to reason to work unearthing the truth, the honest-to-goodness truth, the truth that you might not want to hear because it means you'll have to give up some things and "complicate" your life.

If you study real hard, you'll understand that contraception only masquerades as prudence or forethought, but it's actually the start of a series of lies based on the belief that you can do whatever you want without having to respect how nature works, and without worrying about how it will affect (worse, harm) others. You can't have rewards without responsibility--because you have to consider how your rewards affect those around you, society, the world culture, and the environment.

You can take all this as just some ramblings of a girl riding out her chicken pox, or you can go study it well and see for yourself. If you can't seem to pick out the truth from the lies, remember that in most cases the truth is the simplest solution. That's why the people who live in the truth are always happy. 

Don't be ignorant!

"Ignorance is boring," so says a National Geographic shirt. A few months ago, I wrote a piece on why the RH bill is not good for Filipinos, and since that article came out already in The You, Inc. Chronicles, a newsletter for women young professionals, I can now share it here.

---
When ignorance becomes deadly

Ever heard of the term “reproductive rights”? It sounds very nice, doesn’t it? In fact, it is a very nice concept, on the condition that by “nice” you mean “foolish” as the word meant in Old English.

Why is that? “Reproductive rights” basically points to the right to do anything with one’s fertility and body because it is one’s own. A woman with reproductive rights can kill her unborn child without being called a murderer. A husband with reproductive rights can get a vasectomy without informing his wife. A teenager with reproductive rights can have an IUD inserted without telling her parents. The big deal is, it’s their body; let them do with it as they please.

The Reproductive Health Bill, now known as the “Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011,” stems from this concept of reproductive rights. Don’t be fooled by the “Responsible Parenthood” in the title; if anything, this bill promotes irresponsible parenthood. Why?

1. It encourages married couples to forget how their body works and just use the contraceptives the government will give for free. “Modern” (read: artificial) family planning methods are to be considered “essential medicines” (Sec. 10) bought using taxpayer’s money, which will amount to about 3 billion pesos. Besides that, the bill provides a plan to integrate an artificial family planning component in the government’s “anti-poverty programs” (Sec. 12), so, after our country spends 3B, we can be sure we’ll have fewer folks under the poverty line. (How do you lessen poverty? The RH bill answer is: Cut down on poor people!)

2. It takes away the parent’s responsibility to teach their children about love, sex and marriage. Mandatory sex education programs (Sec. 16) as dictated by the government will be implemented in schools. If you disagree with any of the lessons in it, you cannot bring your children to another school because all schools will use the same government-issued sex ed manual. What could these lessons be? One list provided in the sex ed manual clumps “Relihiyon” and “Pakikialam ng Pamilya” under one heading: List of obstacles to rights.

3. It insists upon an ideal family size. The bill esteems two children to be the ideal family size. This number is “neither mandatory nor compulsory,” which makes one wonder what it’s doing in Sec. 20 in the first place.


Not only parents, but every citizen will be affected by the RH bill. Besides the fact that your income tax goes to condoms no one will put to good use, you (Sec. 28):

1. Shall be forced to provide access to the full range of reproductive health care services to your employees, if you are an employer. Never mind if you don’t believe in the use of artificial contraceptives (condoms, injectables, IUDs, patches, emergency contraception, etc.), or the need for surgical sterilization when there are better alternatives. What’s more, legislators are saying the bill is anti-abortion, but the term “reproductive health,” as feminist and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton defines it, “includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.” If this bill gets passed, what’s to stop pro-abortion groups from getting “safe” abortion included in the law? After all, it is part of reproductive healthcare. Employers then will not only be providing rubber balloons, but will also be participating in the murder of innocent people.

2. Shall not be allowed to refuse a patient his reproductive healthcare services on account of religion, if you are a healthcare service provider. If a kid asks you for a gun, you don’t refer him to someone else if you don’t believe that guns are the solution. But this bill will make you refer someone to another healthcare service provider if you don’t provide reproductive healthcare. Whatever happened to helping people find better alternatives? Any healthcare service provider will know of more health-friendly and environment-friendly alternatives to stroke-inducing, breast cancer-causing, ecosystem-disrupting oral contraceptive pills.

3. Shall not be allowed to criticize the bill. It says “malicious disinformation” but that can easily mean “anything that rubs the bill the wrong way.” Whoever heard of getting jailed for protesting to something written on a piece of paper?

There are people who may say that the RH bill has some good provisions like maternity and good pre-natal care. Those provisions deserve to be in a bill of their own, not lumped together with provisions on birth control, which is—to say the least—ironic. How can a piece of legislation focus on providing good maternal healthcare when it’s already so bent on not having to handle cases of pregnancy in the first place?


Going back to reproductive rights—while rights are good and wonderful, they go hand in hand with responsibility. That means our freedom to do what we want with our fertility and body ends where the rights of others begin. What’s wrong with the so-called reproductive rights is it oversteps a child’s right to be born, a parent’s right to educate and guide the children, and a husband’s right to know about (and be involved in) his wife’s fertility concerns, and vice versa. What’s wrong with this particular RH bill, in addition to those three already mentioned, is that it also oversteps every citizen’s freedom to practice his religion, to speak up against something he believes is wrong, and to choose without having to hear all that hogwash about the convenience of contraceptives and the need for instant self-gratification.

---

Photos of the UP Against RH silent protest courtesy of Sunnyday. Isn't it nice to see the youth (even just a few of them!) standing up for the truth? :-)

Yet still more discussions...

The Philippine Daily Inquirer last Thursday came out with a front page story that detailed the life of a poor woman and her husband struggling to raise their eight children in poverty. I'm not linking the article here because I believe it's one of the worst the Inquirer has ever done, and it puts their motto, "balance news..." in jeopardy. I didn't take up journalism but I recognize a title seeping in bias when I read one. And on the front page with a miserable photo, too.

The reason I brought this up is that it was the core of a discussion my mother and I had that day; she thinking that in cases such as those, the RH bill should be beneficial, and I--very inarticulately--insisting that that woman does not need a freebie ligation but help in the form of better livelihood and education. I learned one thing from Mama that day, too; I learned that for some people, the RH measure is acceptable because it is hard to believe that the poor will ever change.

One of the things we can easily forget is that a person is a person no matter how much he makes, where he lives, how many limbs he's got, or in what stage of life he is. He has a heart, he has a mind, and if you're Christian, you know he is a child of God, therefore that he possesses the same dignity as any of the "better" folks out there.

No one, not even a poor person struggling to raise eight children, deserves to be neutered/spayed, because that is only done to cats and dogs. You do that to cats and dogs because if you don't they just multiply and get galis and spread diseases. People are not like that. People are better than that. We people can be taught, and we have a will, and besides, all of us at some point in our genealogy, were once dirt poor, too.

RH is not a solution to help people in poverty. It is a license to solve poverty by eliminating the poor. Not convinced?

FVR: “I think the philosophy of RH bill is that we must learn to produce quality people in this world instead of producing people who only end up as, say, beggars on the streets, scavengers, or sellers of cheap or prohibited items. This, I think, is the real valid argument in favor of the RH bill.” (May 18, 2011, PDI)

Makes you wonder what "quality people" are.

---

BTW, my mom is neither for nor against the bill. And I love her! She is made of win.

From The Well and the Shallows

I love reading G.K. Chesterton. It is common knowledge that he is witty and has a great command of language. But more than those, I admire him for his understanding--his writing is steeped in a deep understanding of what it truly means to be a human being, a child of God, and how to live in a world where people would have you believe otherwise. I want to understand as he does. (And I wish I can write so beautifully, too.) He is a genius.

I'm re-posting an excerpt from an essay of his, which I have already posted way back in 2008. I think that we should constantly (and objectively) seek the Truth, especially now, when the media culture makes pollution/noise just as accessible as the brain/heart food we really need. In the excerpt below, GKC talks about why he despises birth control, and mindset that goes with it:

"...But there is a third reason for my contempt, much deeper and therefore more difficult to express; in which is rooted all my reasons for being anything I am or attempt to be; and above all, for being a Distributist. Perhaps the nearest to a description of it is to say this: that my contempt boils over into bad behaviour when I hear the common suggestion that a birth is avoided because people want to be 'free' to go to the cinema or buy a gramophone or a loud-speaker. What makes me want to walk over such people like doormats is that they use the word 'free.' By every act of that sort they chain themselves to the most servile and mechanical system yet tolerated by men. The cinema is a machine for unrolling certain regular patterns called pictures; expressing the most vulgar millionaires' notion of the taste of the most vulgar millions. The gramophone is a machine for recording such tunes as certain shops and other organisations choose to sell. The wireless is better; but even that is marked by the modern mark of all three; the impotence of the receptive party. The amateur cannot challenge the actor; the householder will find it vain to go and shout into the gramophone; the mob cannot pelt the modern speaker, especially when he is a loud-speaker. It is all a central mechanism giving out to men exactly what their masters think they should have.

"Now a child is the very sign and sacrament of personal freedom. He is a fresh free will added to the wills of the world; he is something that his parents have freely chosen to produce and which they freely agree to protect. They can feel that any amusement he gives (which is often considerable) really comes from him and from them and from nobody else. He has been born without the intervention of any master or lord. He is a creation and a contribution; he is their own creative contribution to creation. He is also a much more beautiful, wonderful, amusing and astonishing thing than any of the stale stories or jingling jazz tunes turned out by the machines. When men no longer feel that he is so, they have lost the appreciation of primary things, and therefore all sense of proportion about the world. People who prefer the mechanical pleasures, to such a miracle, are jaded and enslaved. They are preferring the very dregs of life to the first fountains of life. They are preferring the last, crooked, indirect, borrowed, repeated and exhausted things of our dying Capitalist civilisation, to the reality which is the only rejuvenation of all civilisation. It is they who are hugging the chains of their old slavery; it is the child who is ready for the new world."

---

Ang ganda, 'no? Before I hibernate again to continue writing my assignments, here's a quote from GKC that perhaps we should take up as a challenge.... Let's prove it untrue! :-)

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

'Hindi umaayaw'

If you listen to AM radio, you must've already heard the advertisement for vitamins that uses the title of this post as a tagline, and you know that their image model is no other than Robin Padilla. The whole point of the ad is to say that Robin can do all that he does (and even be locked up in jail) because he never backs out, or if you take the tagline literally, he doesn't say no. And he doesn't have to say no to anything because his vitamins give him the energy to do it all! Hooray!

I get the point of not wanting to back out of anything--especially when it comes to work. The ad is talking to people in blue collar jobs and appealing to their yearning to easily put in more hours at work so they can have more income to bring home. In that case, not backing out is a good thing.

I brought this up because I want to focus on something quite the opposite, which is being able to say No. It's ridiculous to go, I never say No. Sure, that's obvious when it comes to things that can get you in trouble, land you in jail, etc., however, there are also other less obvious things that merit saying no to; and because we are thinking people, we should know when these occasions are.


Have you ever heard anyone say: "You can afford it, why not?" or "It's your right to do what you want," and other phrases of the same line of thought? In this get-everything-you-want-NOW kind of world, that seems to be the dominant philosophy. Dominant, though, doesn't necessarily equate to "good for you," and no matter how much of a right you have to drown yourself in junk food, junk media, or junk philosophies, you realize sooner or later that you are not happy drowning in the same after a while. All this yes-ing can get tiring; worse, you come out of it not learning anything at all.

That's one of the things I find wanting in a contraceptive mindset. It's all yes-ing without stopping to think about what's good for anybody, let alone what's good for the self. People can go on harping about their rights as if there's such a thing as rights without responsibility, but it doesn't change the fact that each one of us needs to learn to say No, too.


I find it puzzling how some people applaud the Japanese for their great self-mastery and selflessness, and then trumpet their support for some bill that teaches the Filipinos to throw to the winds those very same virtues. My think: why is self-mastery considered noble when you're in a crisis of Ondoy proportions, but not very valuable in the bedroom?

It's the same virtue: if you can say No in the privacy of your home--say No to lazing around, say No to your vices (you know what those are), say No to putting off spring cleaning to another day, say No to comforts (chocolate?) once in a while--then you will be able to say No when you step outside: hold back that rage when an impudent taxi driver cuts you on the road, avoid succumbing to a BIG SALE that you don't need to be in, call a rain check when your friends are not being prudent about their time and yours....

You may be thinking: how KJ naman to have to say No to so many things! But keep in mind that every No to one thing is a Yes to something else, and something better for that matter. You say No to laziness, you say Yes to accomplishing things. A No to one more bar of chocolate is a Yes to good health, and perhaps to sharing that extra bar with someone else, too. No to the BIG SALE means Yes to saving up for a style piece that you'll get more wear out of later on.

And of course, every well-thought-out No is a brick in that house called character, which constantly needs fortifying, given the fickleness of our "open-minded" world. You gotta learn to say No conscientiously. You gotta think well and hard before you give your Yes to anything. That's good character. That's self-mastery.

...besides, whoever takes "hindi umaayaw" as a compliment better brush up on colloquial Filipino--isn't that the description right next to "Utu-uto"?

'Ignorance is boring'

Girl Reading by Charles Edward Perugini

The title of this post is a T-shirt design slogan for one of the National Geographic Tees that local clothing brand Regatta is selling. Recently, the slogan has come to mean a new thing thanks to my friend Sunnyday, who says that we must really study and understand issues so that we can make sound conclusions. With these, we can help other people by explaining the issue well to help them understand too.

Regarding the big issue surrounding Pope Benedict XVI's comments on condoms in Peter Seewald's now (in)famous book Light of the World, it pays to know the whole story. What local media--slamming us with headlines like "Pope: Condom Use OK in AIDS Fight" or "Condom Use Acceptable in Certain Cases-Pope"--did was make noise over a portion of a quote taken out context and package it as The Greatest and Latest Church Teaching Ever.

For a clear analysis of what the Pope really said, go to Jimmy Akin's site. But here I'll aslo try to explain with my limited theological knowledge. Wehehe!

Yesterday, I was at a media forum listening to Fr. Joel Jason, a moral theologian in the San Carlos Seminary, explain that bit on condoms being the "first step to moralization." According to Fr. Jason, what the Holy Father meant by that was a consciousness and a concern on the part of the male prostitute (in his example) to wish that no harm comes to other people by his doing his "job." A male prostitute who is concerned about not infecting others with AIDS (and uses a condom to achieve it) is possibly taking the first step of assuming responsibility.

Fr. Jason continues: "With this first step, [Pope Benedict means that] hopefully, [this grain of responsibility] matures and grows into the other direction--that of the humanization of sexuality." The last means that sexuality is regarded as a positive, wholesome, and procreative gift to be shared in marriage--and not a drug that you can get high with just because "you have the right."

To this, Archbishop-Emeritus Oscar Cruz (who was also speaking at the forum) adds: "Ang karapatan at obligasyon, magkasama yan. Kapag condom ang pinag-uusapan, palagi na lang 'karapatan, karapatan!' Kinalimutan ang obligasyon." ("Rights and obligation go together. When it comes to condoms, all they shout for is 'rights, rights!' They've forgotten the obligation.")

Besides, why work harder on the aspect of showering the whole country with condoms when it's so obvious that condom use does not eliminate AIDS? Because if it's really, truly, infallibly potent at getting rid of AIDS, why is it that condom promotion comes hand in hand with rising HIV/AIDS cases?

Do the math, listen to the heart

Sorry, guys, I have been a delinquent blogger. Has it been a month already!? No fear, I'm getting back on track... lots of interesting stuff at work ;-)


Last Tuesday I attended the CBCP-CMN Tuesday Breakfast Forum in Ilustrado Restaurant, Intramuros, and Paranaque Rep. Roilo Golez was there to talk about the issue on the value of human life, which the RH bill is bent on putting down. This congressman really talks sense into the whole matter--and from an economic point of view too.

What he explained was: let's say a Pill costs 10 pesos, and that at present there are 10 million women of reproductive age.

10 x 10,000,000 = 100,000,000

And there are 365 days a year.

100,000,000 x 365 = 36,500,000,000

That's right, folks! 36.5B a year on the Pill alone! How many schools will that put up? How many workers can that train to be competent in their jobs? How many... well you can figure it out.

The comment I appreciated the most from Rep. Golez had nothing to do with math, budget or economics, though... it's the comment he said as a father. In the forum, he pointed out that it has become "normal" (or worse, "safe") nowadays to bring a condom to a gimik, just "for goodtime." But he adds:

"Paano kung yung daughter mo ang mag-goodtime?"

Bam! Paano nga ba?

I don't have a daughter, but as a daughter myself, I can imagine the adamant NO coming out of my parents' lips. It's not just about getting pregnant (which the condom "fixes") that I think bothers parents when their kids, specifically daughters, um, run rampant, but rather it's the respect she loses, the values she throws out, and the reputation she builds, and ultimately the person she becomes, that make Mom and Dad--especially Dad--become protective.

Call me conservative or old-fashioned, but I think I'm not alone in the belief that there's nothing unjust in the fact that women give birth and men don't. Give it up already. Women can't be men and men can't be women.

What is it that "feminists" are so envious of men about? The fact that they can sleep around? Who says they can do that anyway? (And why would you want to do that?!) Sure, men technically can sleep around without suffering evident consequences, but how does it corrupt them inside? It shifts their priorities, befuddles them about whether they really love or just lust after someone. Where is true happiness in that?

It can't be stressed enough that the family is the basic unit of society. If we allow ourselves to be corrupted--our mindset, our values--in the heart of our home, paano tayo pupunta sa matuwid na daan?

Not heroic at all

I stand by my conviction that there is nothing admirable about Carlos Celdran's rudeness, and that it's highly discouraging to find out that people are saying it's heroism or martyrdom of a sort to do such an uncharitable thing.

Let's put it this way: think of your most favorite hero (one of mine is Sara Crewe!) and tell me if you'd still respect that person if he walked up to you (as you prayed) and screamed in your face, all because he wanted to let you know you were super-duper absolutely positively incredibly and crazily wrong about something. What's so heroic about that?

Sometimes, I turn to books for comfort. Here's a tidbit from A Little Princess:

"When you will not fly into a passion people know you are stronger than they are, because you are strong enough to hold in your rage, and they are not, and they say stupid things they wish they hadn't said afterward. There's nothing so strong as rage, except what makes you hold it in--that's stronger."

I ain't saying we should never speak up and air our views, I'm saying we should air them calmly and in a civilized and respectful manner. Write a Letter to the Editor, organize a march, get the word out through various media.... If you love the Filipino people, you'll do us a good turn by not giving the impression that the only way we Filipinos think we can be heard is by making a complete fool of ourselves and getting jailed for it.

Here's a Letter to the Editor of Philippine Star that basically sums up what Celdran did, and what the media shouldn't have done.

Dear Editor:

Today's editorial calling for the repeal of the law penalizing offending religious feelings ("The Philippine Star", October 2, 2010, p. 14) is highly misinformed.

First of all, it is inaccurate to portray Carlos Celdran as a martyr for his free speech rights. He is not being charged for simply expressing his views; hence your fear that "80 percent of the population who through surveys have expressed support for birth control" could be imprisoned for offending religious feelings is unfounded. He is being charged for having scoffed at church authority during the mass and inside a church. Please take the trouble of researching what Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code actually penalizes. The constitution protects Carlos Celdran's right to express his views, no matter how unconventional they may be, but the constitution likewise protects the rights of everyone to worship according to their religious beliefs in peace. While he has the right to express dissenting opinions, he has no right to infringe on other people's right to worship in peace.

Second, the provision penalizing offending religious feelings applies to all religions alike. To repeal the law against offending religious feelings would be to expose all religions -- and not just the Catholic religion -- to contempt. The repeal would mean anyone can burn the Koran inside a mosque during an Islamic service, or make a heated attack on Manalo inside an Iglesia ni Cristo building during their Thursday pagsamba. These scenarios hardly promote mutual understanding among religions. The above mentioned examples are offensive to modern sensibilities; a similar affront on the Catholic religion is no less offensive.

For quite some time, I have been disappointed with your newspaper which, while printing inspirational quotes about God on its footer and daily biblical commentaries, prints a lot of articles and editorials supporting the RH bill. I have tolerated your publication of these articles even if I don't agree with them. But your approval of Carlos Celdran's offensive behavior is no longer a healthy exercise of free speech; it is an affront to what the majority of the population holds sacred. Please consider my subscription to your newspaper cancelled.

Sincerely,
Atty. Cristina A. Montes

---
Have a fruitful week everyone!

Lovin' the earth

Recently, I canceled a monthly pledge to a pro-environment cause organization, and I think it's about time somebody explained that there's such a thing as "going too green" and why this can go wrong.

Okay, so there's global warming. And we're wasting so many resources. And because of our carbon emissions and pollution, we're killing the earth. I'm all for saving the environment. I'm all for conservation of natural resources. I care about segregating my trash and recycling and choosing more earth-friendly materials.

Loving the earth is what people should really do. We're only given one earth to use and keep, so let's save it, right? Of course.

What made me stop my pledge was the fact that the organization I was funding does a little something on the side: it promotes family planning.

Whoa, whoa, waitaminute--am I overreacting? It's just family planning...

It's not "just" family planning. It's a whole way of thinking that undermines a new person's right to live. It runs on the premise that "there is not much earth to go around; so, let's cut down on people so that we can have more for ourselves." Promoting the use of contraceptives is a part of it... not to mention the use of abortifacients... and (here goes) abortion.

I can't continue funding an organization that insists that whales and baby seals are more important than human life. Because whales, no matter how majestic, are not more precious than a human being. And baby seals, no matter how cute, are no match to our own babies. If you find this confusing and biased, then perhaps you haven't tried understanding why the Jews were insulted when PETA compared the Holocaust to chickens in a factory.

I believe in saving the environment, but I don't want to mix up the priorities. The earth is here to be of use to people; it is up to us if we're going to use it wisely or waste it. What's marvelous is we have intellect; we can use it to make our resources last longer and conserve the earth. So there's no need to prevent births.

Why should we go against ourselves? It's like eating your own hand just so more rabbits can run free in your backyard.We need to live, so we care for the earth. The earth doesn't need us to deplete ourselves so it can live. It isn't alive the way we are; it doesn't have reason, and it doesn't have a soul. When the human race dies out, the earth will go on revolving without a care.

Finally, here's a question to help you see the irony:
Are you really saving the planet for the next generation if you're preventing the birth of this very same next generation?

Stop it!

Thank God for vigilant people! :-) Look at the photo above (from elsadossantos.wordpress.com) and tell me: how would reading about condoms and Pills affect this child?

UN-Backed Sex-Ed Program in Philippines Put on Hold

By James Tillman

MANILA, Philippines, June 21, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- The Philippine Department of Education (DepEd) has decided to put a hold on the implementation of a new UN-backed sex-education program in elementary and high schools. The program had caused an uproar in the country, and was heavily opposed by parents and the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines.

"We decided to hold in abeyance the teaching of the sex education module until a final decision is made on the consultation process," DepEd Secretary Mona Valisno said.

The new program, “Institutionalizing Adolescent Reproductive Health through Lifeskills-Based Education," would have given sex education to children as young as 12. It was set to be introduced in 80 elementary and 79 high schools around the nation.

It would have incorporated sex education into the entire curriculum, not only in classes such as Health, Science, and PE, but also Music, Arts, Mathematics, English, and others. Valisno said that despite the momentary halt, some sex-ed subjects, such as the scientific treatment of the reproductive system, would still be handled.

Read the rest of it here.

---

First of all, what is the UN doing meddling with the affairs of Filipino family? If they're so bent on population control, they should just get rid of themselves and be done with it. (Iron man would send them orbiting around the solar system in a Stark spacecraft with toothpaste-like food to last them 50 years.) After all, if someone adamantly believes there's a surplus on people, then that person must also logically (and readily) admit that he is the surplus.

Here's the big problem with sex-ed, as quoted from the article:

Human Life International-Asia executive director Dr. Ligaya Acosta criticized the government's insistence that children need sex education, stating that sex education “is actually a course in systematic behavior modification, designed to change the child’s entire belief system.”

“The glaring truth is that researches around the world substantiate the fact that the more contraceptive programs are aimed at the young, the more pregnancies, abortions, promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, and cancer of the cervix results,” Acosta said.

(Emphasis is mine.)

Let's keep working towards the implementation of more character-based programs, and helping more parents understand their role as parents to instill in their children good virtues and a good understanding of what love is really all about.

...unless, of course, we want to end up thinking it's best to teach first graders this way.

Wanted: Leaders who will uphold life

I'm so frazzled. I don't want all our future leaders to be OK with the RH Bill. That would be a nightmare. And you thought this issue was dead.

I got asked by a friend once what I wanted in our leaders and I said, "I want someone who is pro-life." And she replied, "Is that all the matters to you?"

(Why, yes, because life comes above all causes. What's education if there are no kids to study? What's environmentalism without people to breathe the newly freshened air? What's commerce without workers? or agriculture without farmers? Think about it: people are the benefactors and the assets. Stop insisting on cutting down on people!)

I want pro-life leaders because I want a Philippines that values life, and with it, family, marriage and a prevailing culture that preserves these institutions. We can't have that if we vote a president who, in his first 100 days in office, will sign into law a bill that forces schools to teach sex education to kids as young as 10. They say "age appropriate" as if all kids mature in mind and heart at the same rate.

In defense of sex education, another friend of mine says, "It's better to learn from school than to learn through the Net...because kids are really gonna find it online." Interesting. Did you know that you can learn how to slice off your fingers and sew them back on through the Net? Maybe we should teach that in school too.

What good will knowledge of contraceptive use do for the youth anyway? Oh, let's add to that the free condom stalls they'll put up in every barangay or district (goodbye, taxpayer's money which could've paid for someone's heart transplant). Imagine growing up hearing your teachers say "This is how to use this...'essential medicine'" and then walking home to calls of "Who wants a condom?"

You know what that makes us? Numb.

Let this happen now and, in the future, you won't get shocked if kiddie fastfood meals come with kiddie condoms. Or schools start holding workshops on "self pleasure." Gross? That's what's happening in other parts of the world.

Consider this: before a famous men's magazine made it big, pornography was something only a sleazebag would possess. Now, they're calling it "art." Now, women are vying for a spot on some top 100 list of Women Who Need Men To Drool Over Them So They Can Have Higher Self-Esteem. The very people who should be offended by this kind of material are outdoing each other to be one of the top 100 most objectified women in the country. Ironic? We're just numb.

I don't want our country to become numb. I don't want casual sex to become a norm, marriage merely a contract, and family just a collection of individuals living in the same house.

I sure hope the majority is with me on this.

Hello, what's this?

Guess what I found in my Watsons plastic bag yesterday? I didn't know they gave such leaflets to people looking for toothpaste and floss now. This just goes to show how much money some people are sinking in to get women to depend on oral contraceptives.

Quote from leaflet: "Oral Contraceptive Pills is the most popular contraceptive method because it is effective and convenient. It is an essential tool to women's reproductive health because it contains hormones to prevent unplanned pregnancy by preventing ovulation, thinning the uterus lining, and thickening the cervical mucus."

[Grammar error concerning S-V agreement is leaflet's.]

Oh the claims! "Essential tool to women's reproductive health"? It prevents ovulation! Why is that healthy? Isn't getting one's period every month healthy? Isn't ovulating healthy? And what's so reproductive about preventing ovulation?

And the last part just states exactly how the bitter pill is an abortifacient. A thinner uterine lining means a hostile environment for a fertilized egg--the new life (which starts at conception, not implantation) will not be able to implant, and so it is aborted.

Here are some links to:
how effective pills are
how healthy they make you

Explore the site too. Actually LifeSiteNews isn't the only source. If you want to read something scary, read the literature printed at the back of every contraceptive drug ad in those foreign women's magazines. Leaflets make things look easy and simple, because that's what leaflets are for!

Captain Harding's battle

I heard today they're speeding up debates on the RH Bill, which is supposed to save the country from poverty by cutting away at the population employing what GK Chesterton calls Birth Prevention. They're making a vote tomorrow; I hope they see that enforcing contraceptives on the population is not the answer, but strengthening family values and trashing that over-sexualized media culture that can't get enough of itself.

(Besides, contraceptives are bad for the health; just look at the literature behind every birth-control advertisement published in random women's magazines to see what I mean.)

While the forces clash in congress, here's an excerpt from a Jules Verne adventure to help remind us that, in the end, there's Someone up there who makes many great and good things spring from all our silly human mistakes. Maybe also to remind us that no battle is too big when what you fight for is honest-to-the-bones, good for humanity.

This excerpt is from Verne's little-known novel called The Mysterious Island. In this scene, six castaways under the leadership of Captain Cyrus Harding, an American engineer, prepare for battle against fifty pirates who threaten their colony, Lincoln Island:

The pirates had been alarmed. They knew that Lincoln Island was inhabited. They would land upon it in numbers and well armed. They would respect nothing. Should the settlers fall into their hands, they must expect no mercy!

"Well, we shall know how to die!" said the reporter.
"Let us go in and watch," answered the engineer.
"Have we any chance of escape, captain?" asked the sailor.
"Yes, Pencroft."
"Hum! six against fifty!"
"Yes! six! without counting--"
"Who?" asked Pencroft.
Cyrus did not reply, but pointed upwards.

Lifeguards and lifesavers

These pins cost P20, and they sold out today! Together with some friends, I attended a Pro-Life event today at the St. Francis Church in Ortigas Center. We were really supposed to have a Jericho March for Life, but Ortigas traffic officials took back the permit to march just last week because of, well, traffic concerns.

Of course, that doesn't diminish the urgency of the cause. This being the last activity for Pro-Life month, people who support the right to life still gathered together to pray for and discuss about the pertinent issues regarding protecting the Filipino family. (This afternoon, by the way, UA&P has a talk on the Magna Carta of Women, a piece of legislation some groups are trying to get passed by March--a.k.a. International Women's Month. This bill takes away a person's right to invoke his/her religious beliefs as a valid reason to not submit to the bill's provisions, among other things suspiciously not pro-women at all. But more on that some other time.)

Hopefully next time, we'll really get to march. But for now, here are some pictures I took of the event. When we do get to march, am hoping to see more excellent people around! Yes? Yes!


To read more about Pro-Life work here in the Philippines, click here. :-D

Off to congress!

Went to congress with my officemates and some mommies to support pro-life in the deliberations of the RH Bill. This is actually my first time to attend something like this, and my friend Sunnyday said when you show up in support for the pro-life cause it gives our pro-life congressmen reason to keep speaking up! Learned some things about, um, plenary hall decorum during a session. (A friend I met that day explained to me that the real grind happens in committee meetings, and interpellations are simply, for lack of better way to describe it, just for show.) EDIT: Please see Sunnyday's enlightening comment below. haha I'm not exactly knowledgeable in this matter.

Aside from the educational agenda, we thought of coming to represent pro-life so that we could have photo-ops with the young moms. The bill, in fact, affects them the most--who should decide how they should manage their family? The State shouldn't be telling them how many kids to have, or that they're not being responsible when they're not sticking alien stuff in their body... so we invited young moms who are against the bill to stand up for what they believe in. Now you see that not all who are against the bill are celibate priests and nuns, a totally unfair assumption if you ask me.

We wanted to hold some placards with pro-life messages on them but that wasn't allowed in the plenary hall. Hopefully someday we could have some t-shirts with witty slogans! hehe. Here are some of the pictures I took that day. :-D

341 women, 682 lives

Excerpt from "House seen to pass RH bill by June" by CARMELA FONBUENA, abs-cbn NEWS.com

"All research studies say that 11 girls die every day because of complications in pregnancy. That's 341 women that may have died because of complications since September. Anti-reproductive health bill legislators allow this to happen. This is simply unacceptable. Women have the right to live as much as everyone has the right to live," Angsioco added.

---

Okay, let's take the 341 women as a fact, for this purpose. They died because of pregnancy complications. Does that mean we need a law to make contraceptives available? No, it means we need better obstetrical care. And please don't point out that the bill provides for this. I read it and it's the weakest part in terms of enforcement. Which makes it so much more ironic.

Oh and not only women, the unborn babes, too, have every right to live. You don't address this right when you're promoting a culture that is bent on canceling them out from the start, i.e. in the womb (the unborn are people, not a piece of growing tissue). If you keep life from happening, then don't be surprised if there's no life to defend in the future.

Human rights begin in the womb! :-)

Context, context

I've been pondering on a question a friend asked me (about sex education), so I asked around--asked officemates, friends, even people on a live TV talk show--to find the truth (and most of all, what is effective and helpful to society) regarding the matter. And so far, I've collected some good answers that I'd like to share here.

1. We do need sex education, but it should be in the proper context.
The term they use is "age appropriate," but is it, really? From Grade 5 to high school, the youth should be focusing on honing their talents, finding their path and what they want to do when they grow up. This alone keeps their hands full already.

Sex education that focuses on contraceptive use, no matter how many times you stress that it's age appropriate, is a step in the wrong direction. Because here is sex presented as mere recreation, to be enjoyed "responsibly" (huh?). Worse, it includes a bonus lesson on the contraceptive mentality.

Hence, the question is not about the sex education being age appropriate, but rather whether it integrates sexuality with the whole person. Consider dignity. Consider respect. Consider character. Consider love and true responsibility--which brings me to the next point:

2. Responsibility is not about popping pills.
It's easy to think that married couples are being responsible when they take pains to ensure they don't get pregnant because they're not ready to care for another child at the moment. But is it really being responsible? Why does responsibility entail having to put the woman's health at risk? Is the body made to be subject to the dictation of a contraceptive?

Real responsibility calls us to understand how our body works (the way Mother Nature has programmed it), and live with these natural laws and limitations. Thus it is not responsible to subject one's body to a funny drug just so sex can be done any time--as mentioned earlier, sex is not mere recreation.

3. There are things that parents alone could teach.
Parents and teachers must work hand in hand to raise useful citizens of the country. Take sex education in the context of a classroom. There's one teacher trying to get inside at least thirty active minds and hopefully instill in them proper values and attitudes. Do you think the teacher has time to teach "reproductive health" and be sure all the while that the students get the point?

Hence, sex education that should be placed in the hands of the teacher is not quite sex education, but character education. That is, teaching responsibility, prudence, respect for others, valuing good health, and putting energies into proper and useful outlets.

Parents, who know their children personally, and can figure out the best way of approaching the subject, can focus on a more family-centered take on the said topic. Now, it is a fact that not all parents take the trouble to talk about sex with their kids--it's not an easy topic to discuss after all. But teaching kids about sex is still a part of parenting--and this responsibility must not be taken away from the parents.

There are seminars being offered for parents on how to instill the proper notion of sexuality in their children, and parents can attend these if they feel they need a little help on the matter. But the best way to teach it is to live it--show the kids how mom and dad treat each other, respect each other. Very early in life, kids will see the difference between femininity and masculinity, and how these differences are nonetheless harmonious. They'll see the love between their parents, and from there how this love grows into family.

Sex education is not about contraceptives at all, if you think about it, so why keep pushing the matter as if our youth would be lost without contraceptive knowledge?

I don't see what's so dangerous about teaching the youth a more person-centered version of sex education. Contraceptives are not part of the natural scheme of things anyway, why promote them further by lauding their extraordinary use in classrooms? They already have enough marketing from the pharmaceutical companies. Let them pay for their own advertising; taxpayer's money should be put to better use.