Riposte: With Respect

I have taken time to understand Congressman Ruffy Biazon's thoughtful and well-articulated article in support of the RH Bill, parts of which (and here I would like to apologize in advance to my former editor-in-chief Bob Guerrero for lifting this link from his wonderful site) I am reprinting below:

Some might say that instead of supporting the proposed measure, we should just allocate enough resources to other services such as education, housing and the eradication of corruption. There is no doubt to that. We should do those things. We are trying to do those things. But at the present situation, even if we are able to provide the right number of classrooms, the right number of teachers and all the books that the students need, the ability of poor families to send their children to school is hampered by their absolute lack of resources to provide for the cost of sending the kids to school ----- transportation, snack, uniforms, other miscellaneous requirements, etc.

Statistics show that of 10 children who enter elementary school, only 6 go on to high school, and only 2 finish high school. And based on actual experience in my district, it is not due to the lack of classrooms or teachers. It is the day to day difficulty of surviving through life with the severely limited resources of poor families. Bottomline is, how can a child who does not finish studies lead the ideal productive life?

The intention is not to prescribe a limit on the number of children but to enable couples to decide their family size based on correct information and according to their desired number of children and capability to provide support.

Those who oppose the bill cite various statistics and studies all done abroad. I’m taking a position that is based on what I see with my own eyes as I perform my duties. I see the living conditions of my constituents on a daily basis, especially many of them come to my office to seek assistance for various reasons---health, education, livelihood, etc. On the other hand, I also see what government is trying to do with the little it has to serve the needs of the people.

It is unfair to those who support the bill to be labeled “anti-life”, “anti-family”, “pro-abortion” and many other monickers on the basis of a pre-conceived notions. If there is anyone who desires the best for the Filipino family, that would be the one who is most familiar to the daily struggles of the poor families. The question should not only be whether you are pro-life or not (because there is absolutely no one who is anti-life), but also if the people deserve quality of life.

As opposed to making "comments", which can easily be misconstrued as "criticisms", I would like to open the following "doors" for further discussion:

Door No. 1. Congressman Ruffy Biazon contends that "the ability of poor families to send their children to school is hampered by their absolute lack of resources to provide for the cost of sending the kids to school ----- transportation, snack, uniforms, other miscellaneous requirements, etc." While I agree that the lack of resources is a major stumbling block to providing for a child's education, I would like to ask for clarification regarding what Congressman Biazon means by an "absolute lack of resources". I would like to suggest, respectfully, that the human being's capacity for transcendence (which is not an exclusively Christian concept, but one which is acknowledged in other contexts) seems absent from this analysis.

Door No. 2. It was mentioned above that parties "who oppose the bill cite various statistics and studies done abroad". Perhaps it would interest Congressman Biazon that the latest comprehensive quantitative and qualitative study on character education was in fact done in the Philippines. The study "Adolescent Mindset on Relationships, Love, and Sexuality", a study conducted for the 2nd International Congress on Education in Love, Sex, and Life, was conducted from May to September, 2007. I would gladly furnish him a copy, and if need be, access to people who can put the findings in context.

Door No. 3. I agree with Congressman Biazon when he laments that "It is unfair to those who support the bill to be labeled “anti-life”, “anti-family”, “pro-abortion” and many other monickers on the basis of pre-conceived notions". I nod my head in assent even more vehemently when he observes, quite rightly, that "The question should not only be whether you are pro-life or not (because there is absolutely no one who is anti-life), but also if the people deserve quality of life." Inasmuch as it is important to consider the daily living conditions and immediate prospects of less fortunate Filipino families, I believe that we will be doing these same families a great disservice if we do not explore alternatives to what reproductive health measures should contain. Perhaps we could explore programs that are more or less preventive in nature that educates Filipinos to decide responsibly in terms of cultivating a healthy family life. There are such programs, and I would like to humbly submit these for consideration as alternatives to the idea of reproductive health measures as currently constituted in the RH bill should the need, or interest arise.

I know for some people the idea of considering what seems to be an unrelated issue to the very urgent need to understand the RH bill might seem like computing for the airspeed velocity of unladen swallows, but when there is so much at stake, we shouldn't stop at considering alternatives, whether African or European.

(And yes, that makes TWO references to a SINGLE scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail in a week, but I really don't care. It's hilarious.)