Here is the bill itself. There might be a more permanent link, but i couldnt find it.
From the above source, here is additional commentary against it.
I’m thinking about the one of the main arguments of the SPUC — the bill is dangerous because it introduces reproductive rights into Philippine law. A legal challenge would mean clarification from the courts, which might induce a move to legalize abortion.
Is this a legitimate argument? I’d like to see some case studies in other countries that support the contention that the mere use of ‘reproductive rights’ will necessarily lead toward abortion. In a conversation w Prof M, he said (and i agree) that in countries where abortion is, it always follows contraception. But does it flow the other way? Does contraception always lead to abortion? I have my doubts.
More scientific testimony, by Emma Roxas, Society of Catholic Social Scientists. The science is interesting, and in a sense, has more evidence than the UP Econ document.
Regarding economic growth, it must be said that roxas doesn’t include much more recent work than Kuznets in 1966. I am not familiar with the UN document in 1992. Mankiw etal test the Solow growth model in 1994(?). Population growth rates is negative related to per capita income and growth rates. I’m not a growth scholar, but i think population and per-capita income/growth is a shut case. (I’ll ask my more knowledgeable peers tho).
She also mentions Lant pritchett’s work. This is fascinating to me. Basicaly, pritchett says that desired fertility is a very good preditor for actual fertility. Also, unwanted children and family planning efforts don’t do much to actual fertility rates.
This is supposedly an argument that large families comes from the desire/demand for large families, so if the idea is that people have an unmet need for contraceptive is false. [the paper is gated, but available in JSTOR]
But it basically means that contraceptives have no effect on unwanted births means that family planning programs are ineffective in achieving their goals, assuming the goal is to lower unwanted pregnancies alone.
I actually find this a bit persuasive — the only class i took that discussed demographic issues was a class on the industrial revolution. Total fertility rates declined during the industrial revolution in london to modern levels, without any formal program.
If family planning fails to do so, then i find the opposition to it strange.
She then goes to the medical and philosophical arguments. Her medical position has no evidence, and i wish she had a few studies to follow up on. She says contraceptives have side effects. Studies? Also, all drugs and interventions have side-effects. What is important is to gauge the likelihood of such problems. If is behind say, 1000 cases of cancer, this is still tiny compared to the millions of people using the drug. (We can calculate via Baye’s Theorem what the probabilty of cancer conditional on using contraceptives if we had other probabilities).
Her philosophical arguments suffer also. Consider this excerpt:
An observation of the nature of man, will show that man is not the “owner” of his own life. Observe that at one point, he does not exist; then at another point, he begins to exist. Then, at some later point in his life, he ceases to exist. Note that in the points when he begins to exist and ceases to exist, man does not exercise any volition or willing whatsoever. He enters this world without him having a say on it and he leaves this world, without him willing it.
These truths point to one thing only. That man does not have a say so in the beginning and ebbing of his own life. Life is clearly not a province he can decide upon. He can always try to extend his life by medical help or seek the bowels of the earth to prolong his stay on it. But all of these grand efforts are of naught because his life is not really up to him. He has to go, when he has to go, as dictated by the Giver and Creator of life itself, and this can never be postponed.
While its true we cant determine whether we are born (whether we die is another matter), that doesn’t have anything to do with contraception? (assuming that the egg and sperm are not yet people)
She also mentions the church’s argument that sex is for procreation:
Now, when man decides that he only wants the enjoyment of the marital act but not the consequences thereof, he is committing a grave wrong because the marital act was designed purposely by the Creator for the begetting of children. Sexual intercourse, even with one’s legitimate spouse is a grave moral wrong if it is not open to life.
I need not mention the criticisms against this position, but the basic outline is that moral law/natural can be interpreted in several ways.
She ends with a not-so-subtle put down to the other side:
In the course of history, many men and women transgressed the moral norms governing the exercise of the marital act. They cannot quietly dispel the qualms of conscience that they have experienced in their transgression, so they decided to make their own rules to justify their failings. They concocted ideas like “sexual liberation”, “freedom to choose what they want to do with their bodies”, “reproductive health”, “gender equality”, etc. all of which simply mean that they do not want to toe the line of Natural Law in the matter of their sexuality. Simply put, it is actually putting one over the Creator in a matter that only He has absolute authority over – and this is LIFE.
Interesting take, although obviously this is an interpretation that choice people will disagree with.
I also got a picture of the new touch screen booths…
Posted by outinfour 
Posted by outinfour 
Posted by outinfour 
