On condoms, contraception and intervention
We deprive people of the knowledge regarding sex and sexual behaviors and yet we expect them to do the right thing. At this very moment thousands, no, millions are suffering as a result of this deprivation.
This carnal drive we call sex and all the related behaviors and aspects streaming out of it is an inherent natural drive. It doesn’t matter if you’re a caveman or a city folk. It doesn’t matter what culture, faith or moral disposition you hold—sexual behaviors will always be a part of humanity. And so I find it callous and hypocritical to deny or even demonize its existence.
Those who are not aware of contraception or family planning will engage in sexual intercourse anyway. In fact our population continues to grow at an unprecedented rate because of ignorance and the lack of responsibility thereof. Those who are unaware will not wait for the time when all the relativistic moral debates have been settled. The problem continues to grow as people commit the very same mistakes simply because they have no idea what they are getting themselves into.
This is why I find the Church to be unreasonable when it sought to intervene with the Department of Health’s policy through their “anti-condom and contraception” stand, as stated by the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines (CBCP). I find this unfair and unnecessary because they are delaying legislation and criticizing actions taken for a problem that is already plaguing society using moral reasoning that only caters to their dogma. As much as we have to respect cultural and religious beliefs, this may be crossing the line. It is verging on state intervention when it should not. I also find it to be somewhat irrelevant, irrational and relativistic. It does not address the issue at hand.
Let’s begin with their argument that “condoms encourage promiscuity.” First of all, this is unfounded. There is no correlation between condoms and promiscuity. I think the reason behind the Church’s phobia is because condoms seem to remind people of engaging in sexual behaviors. But really, hiding sexual behaviors is like hiding an elephant inside a drawer. Fact of the matter is that people do not need the instructions at the back of condom packets to know what to “do”—it is innate among us. Condoms are not the precedent for sexual behavior. It was invented to prevent unwanted pregnancies as a result of sexual behavior, not encourage the behavior itself.
But looking at the bigger picture, perhaps a more general question to ask would be: “Are sexually educated societies promiscuous societies?” We have to realize that the two are very different things. Sex education fosters awareness on what sexual behaviors are. It does not resort to abstract concepts like guilt or shame to tell people the responsibilities involved when it comes to sexual behaviors, especially sexual intercourse and disease transmission. It does not seek to merely satisfy the lewd and the prurient without purpose other than pleasure as pornography would. And so I do not see why it would encourage unwanted pregnancies and promiscuous behavior.
This leads us to the second argument: that “condoms are not effective in preventing pregnancies”. I believe they are raising this argument because they are confident about their alternative solution—abstinence. It doesn’t matter if the chance of getting pregnant when using a condom is 2% on average should it be used correctly when the alternative method involves not even engaging in coitus proper. But then again, this is easier said than done. If you do not stress the importance of unwanted pregnancies and family planning, much less explain why people get pregnant in the first place and just rely on the fear of being burned in the afterlife (whatever that means in the context of this boring, gloomy and lonely ghetto or this far flung country side), how could you expect an effective turn out?
Last is their stand on being “pro-life” and “anti-contraception” which I take as allowing any process of “procreation” to go about unhindered. But seriously, what is so “pro-life” about indirectly allowing a couple to barely raise a family of 14? Will those children even have a chance of living a decent life? Contraceptives hold a lot of implications— mostly preventive and non-intrusive. And while the issue of abortion may be included, it is an extreme case that is a moral dilemma even to science. Contraception is not just about abortion.
But perhaps a relevant question to ask is “Should the Church even attempt to influence state policy and legislation?” Well I know what some are thinking: the Church should intervene because it serves as a check and balance, the upholder of morality in an otherwise corrupted system. Well, first and foremost the Catholic Church is but one of the many religious and cultural beliefs in the country. It is arrogant for us to assume that they have the right to influence the State simply because they are dominant. Also, the problem we have with our government is political in nature—it is a problem of our democracy, not our religion.
Well I guess what I am getting at here is that opinions of every sector of society should be considered when it comes to public policy making since we are a “democracy” after all. But the reasons behind them should be objective and impartial. It should not verge into the grounds of moral assertions that serve only one specific sect. It must seek to serve the general welfare of every Filipino. The problem of overpopulation and HIV need be addressed now. And we need awareness and proven action to do this, not guilt nor shame relative only to one side.
Team Emanila on "Ritmo 2 is going to publish, finally": 
Rey Tamayo, Jr. on "Ritmo 2 is going to publish, finally": 
Ham de la Torre on "A “Cinquain Train” ": 
Franco Coralde Sangreo on "Haiku Helicopter – Midnight": 
A complete list of our writers and contributors is available
In my poem, “Tama Ba Na Mali, Mali Ba Na Bawal”,
Kung mali o kasalalanan na gumamit ng condom dahil pinipigilan
o pinapatay nito ang semilya ng lalaki na sana o posibleng
maging buhay, ano kaya ang pagkakaiba nang maaaring mali o
kasalalanan kung sa mga araw na safe mag sex ay pinapayagan o
pinapabayaan ang semilya na alam at siguradong mamamatay.
Ano kaya ang higit na tama o higit na mali
ang pagpigil sa buhay o
ang pagpayag na mamatay ang buhay
Nalilito lamang
hindi nalilinlang,
Ang pangangatwiran
sinasabing tunay.
… DcD/dodie
@eli – totally agree with you on this one. It took hundreds of years for people to separate the church and the state and now they are trying to undo that progress. This is what happens when religious groups get involved in state affairs. What is worse: condoms or people casually throwing out unwanted babies to die in rivers or garbage dumps? The church continues to ignore the reality around us while suffocating us with religious dogma.
Dude, I’ve always maintained that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Note the chuckle after this.
thou shall not kill…..killing is putting life to end…human fetus has life, life of a human being. human SPERM is not a fetus that has a human life, its just a cell cwe call sperm cell. human egg is not a fetus that has a human life, its just a egg cell we call egg cell.
in preventing the meeting of these two cells, you dont kill life. you obey the mandate thou shall not kill. so therefor using condom is a step, a prevention method so that you will not commit the sin of killing.
two human being so love its other but not yet ready to have a familyand in spite of these they express their love and have sex without condom that will prevent the two cells from meeting each other. a life is born in an environement not ready to give sustenance for lifes wellbeing. they are born and they are born
and they are to a world that become cruel, so competitive because it lacks the resources to live saintly. what will happen to his
physical and spiritual being. the spirit is strong but the body is weak…..thou shall not kill…use condom?
Maraming salamat sa inyong mga komento. Muli, gusto kong bigyan ng diin ang aking pananaw na sekularista—hindi dapat nagsasama ang simabahan at pamahalaan. Ang simbahan ay dapat magsilibing gabay sa kanilang mga miyembro lamang, ang pamahalaan ay dapat magsilbing gabay sa lahat. Katulad na nga ng inyong mga nabanggit na halimbawa, ang mga mamamayan na rin ang nalilito kung dapat bang gumamit ng condom at iba pang pang kontrasepsyon upang panatilihing maayos ang kanilang mga pamilya o kung ito ba ay kasalanan at hindi dapat tangkilikin. Lalo lamang silang nalilito dahil iba-iba ang sinasabi ng simabahan at ng estado. Ang resulta? tayo ang panglabindalawa sa pinaka mataas ang populasyon sa mundo (kahit pa napakaliit natin na bansa).
No matter what they say about morals I don’t think the church will deny that the country is overpopulated. Everyone is telling us that: other countries, NGOs, development banks — heck even the kids on the street could tell you that. The country has tried the churches method “abstinence” since the Spanish Period. It hasn’t worked and it will not work… that is proven – just our population history tells us that. Its definitely time to look to other methods – unless the church wants to condemn the Filipino people to an overpopulated hell on earth.
I agree with darkdatu, ni hindi nga nakakapagbigay ng eksaktong solusyon ang mga simbahan pagdating sa population boom. I am not saying this just because atheist ako, pero ang pinag uusapa dito ay yung totoon moral responsibility ng mga religious leaders. And issue talaga na dapat sinasagot ng mga simbahan eh kung kaya nilang pakainin ang sangkatutak na taong nagugutom, bigyan ng trabaho ang mga pobre at mga kapus palad.
Morality ba yung pag uusapan pagdating sa gutom?This revolving world has seen so many arguments and trivial shit about decisions of church leaders for a thousand years now. They have not even responded to the call of being a non partisan organization. Whats the use of believing in a %^$$&ng religion when they(church) don’t even know what morality means.