Existence is a Divine Responsibility

This is an article by Ariem Cinco, in response to the article written by Mr. Christian Bueno Lumpas (one of my good friends). 

Right to Exist

 by: Christian Bueno Lumpas

We all understand that right to exist is neither a right enacted through statutory law nor a law created under a mere social contract...... right to exist is a natural law that emanate not from the constitution or statutory law...... it is divine law that can't be interpreted using jurisprudential context...... it is not under human affairs to select who will enjoy the comport of creation....... and exterminate outrightly an unborn child because flawed acuity judge the seed of life as flaccid to breathe...... who are we to dictate the destiny of life...... who are we to arbitrate heavenly proceedings..... i ponder if our parents who happened to be ahead of us will do the same criminal act by not giving us the change to live...... do you think we can enjoy the life we have now.....? god never reserve our advantages to arrogate our subsistence by whimsically supplant divine acts.......

Any right embossed with the boundaries of the constitution become nugatory when right to exist is shorn of. According to the legal expert fetus and/or early stages of life has no right to be chimed...... furthermore, they explain that right is define as adherence to duties..... in other words, right is measure with duties... it is a countervailing arguments that right to exist is a universal and divine right.......

Obscurantism to this fact, more particularly the problem of population is not all about being antagonistic to the principles underlying the government policies......  as a conservative catholic  i tag any measure that negate life as extremely evil, a distorted fact, and clandestine act to subterfuge human kindness...

I am pondering why the government is so ill to control this problem by promoting this measures...... in view of the fact that the government arsenal is so loaded of authority to implement prudence reform without shaking our moral foundation.......  i have no change or given the same to read the measures of the so called RH BILL, so it will be bias for me to comment in to-to about the context..... but i vehemently reject any stipulated articles that contain the abortion, using contraceptive and giving free condoms as subsidy.....  when we receive condoms, we are not talking about party, we are talking about sexual acrobatics....... giving condoms publicly as if they distributing candies and chocolate will only instigate humans prurient tendencies......... i only support the utilization of condoms to promote human health...... 

from the conceptualization of the word abortion/contraceptive........ i conclude it is an anti-life..... and therefore no room for arguments to determine the moral aspect of the word...... definitely! it is a blatant intervention of gods act..... the creation of life is not a mere sheer accident.... Sexual intercourse is not an accident because i can't defend an arguments before the plinth of reason that will insult my common sense..... having a penis inserted into the vagina is not an accident, it is plan without intelligent determination...... remember that life is created from a single sperm cell out of aprox... 20 millions sperm cell..... and we are here among the millions becuase we are the strongest of all.... we are choosen to carry the torch of life that insure the survival of human race....... 

i believe that life begins when human freedom ends and gods act begin to rule...........  

------------------oOo-----------------------

Below is my rebuttal to Mr. Lumpas's argument. I hope I make sense. I have never been into debates...hehehe

Existence is a Divine Responsibility

By: Ariem Venezuela Cinco

I am steadfast with my resolve that the RH Bill is not authored to defy moral standards and norms set in our society. Instead, RH Bill is a surefire measure in hampering the rapid growth of population. In the Philippine context, overpopulation is a problem or if not is a contributing factor in the co-existence of other social problems like crimes, drug trafficking, malnutrition, lack of education, and the like.

This is to refute the points of argument presented by Christian in his article “Right to Exist”. While I uphold my faith and beliefs in accordance to the divine law, let me emphasize that the issue at hand on reproductive health bill should not only be viewed on a single perspective of one’s comfort and cynical ideology.   

“Right to Exist” is without doubt a misinformed elucidation of even the simplest semantics of human linguistic expression and partial understanding of the issue. Why? Existence is not purely a delightful right that one is accorded with that an individual should enjoy but a privilege coupled with divine responsibility – a responsibility to uphold the state of equilibrium in the human society and that a child when born deserves to live a healthy life, subsistence free from violence, hunger, and maladies.

In addition, I beg to differ with the utterance; “it is not under human affairs to select who will enjoy the comfort of creation”. This of course applies when there already is conception, or when the child is already born. It is because, for example, couples have the right to decide whether to have a child or not. Couples have their right to decide to do their own things at the comfort of their bedrooms. Also, sexual intercourse for one is a conscious decision to make between and among couples. If the use of condom or any artificial contraceptive is against the will of God, then how will the use of natural methods like withdrawal or calendar be justified as morally right since they have the very same purpose as the artificial methods of contraception? The use of artificial contraceptive and natural birth control methods have the same intention and goal – that is to dampen the rapid growth of population. Both natural birth control methods and artificial contraceptives are both ways to avoid or halt the process of procreation.

The RH Bill is not designed to promote nor condone abortion. The word contraception is never parallel to abortion; thus, the statement “exterminate outrightly an unborn child because flawed acuity judge the seed of life as flaccid to breathe” is a matter-of-fact exaggerated and out of context argument. According to dictionary.com, contraception means prevention of conception or impregnation while abortion means termination of pregnancy. The above statement which talks about exterminating a life of unborn child draws a thick line far from the core of the issue. There is no killing if there is no life existence. Hence, contraception is not abortive in any sense of the word.

Furthermore, I am truly grateful to my parents for bringing me to this world and for raising me in the best way they could despite limited financial resources and the like. However, the claim “I ponder if our parents who happened to be ahead of us will do the same criminal act by not giving us the change to live...... do you think we can enjoy the life we have now.....?” is a relative contention derived purely from a singular life experience. This argument may apply to those who were born to responsible parents and to children of well-off families. What about those children on the streets whose lives are overwhelmingly miserable? Do you think they enjoy their lives? Do you think those impoverished children would share the same sentiment with you or any of those privileged to live good life?

The problem with the rapidly increasing population and other social dilemmas which co-exist with it maybe are viewed by some to be negligible. Population control, which has never been done effectively through natural method, has to be done in some unpopular means like the use of artificial contraceptives. This again is not a measure to expunge one’s right to exist but a measure to protect the nation (with more than 90 million people which majority of it lives below the poverty line) from rapidly escalating social “catastrophies” which are very destructive in whatever context it will be viewed. To which logical and pragmatic basis is the claim that the use of artificial birth control methods is a means to obliterate one’s right to exist? To whom does the rule apply? While I contend the notion that right to exist is universal and divine, I am steadfast with my resolve that this isn’t purely a right but a responsibility. I agree that the right goes with duties. It is therefore our duty to protect and respect the rights each of us is due of.

This measure is not created to challenge our morality nor ruin our moral fibers. The Philippines, as a conservative Christian nation, should not be reluctant to embrace measures which are geared to better   state of the Filipino nation. As previously stated, everyone is bestowed with rights and so everyone is expected to be responsible. Part of this share of these responsibilities we have is our consciousness of what practically is happening around us which greatly affect our very existence. Morality, while it is viewed in many different perspectives and is very obscure and relative proposition, should never be taken as a sole basis on expounding trivial arguments. Distribution of condoms should not be taken as a scapegoat to the decay of our moral fibers, as others argue this promotes promiscuity. It is the education of our people.

What kind of education do we get from our homes, from the churches, and from our schools? What kind of leadership and guidance do we get from stakeholders of society who are supposed to embody the core of moral education? Education should be holistic and impartial. Should the use of artificial methods of birth control be discussed without malice and reservations of partiality, I am confident that its essence will be engrained into the social consciousness and moral backbone of every individual. Poor moral education, mediocre judgment and lack of understanding of underlying issues must be the reason of the country’s trepidation of decaying moral fibers of its people.

The proposition which states that “when we receive condoms, we are not talking about party, we are talking about sexual acrobatics....... giving condoms publicly as if they distributing candies and chocolate will only instigate humans prurient tendencies”, is I strongly refute. It is our view of things that leads us into actions. Should you view condoms as tool to gratify sexual pleasures, then it should instigate your desire to engage in sexual activity. However, if you, as a responsible person imbued with strong moral foundation are aware that condom is a reminder that sex is an act of love and responsibility, I don’t think receiving condoms would motivate you to be sexually active. The availability of condoms should not in any way affect your moral behavior. It is stupid to reason out that the distribution of condoms is what makes the people immoral. It is our perception of things based on acquired knowledge and understanding.  I contend that the use of condom promotes human health. Based on this argument alone, it is clear that the proponent of the argument agrees that use of condom can be practiced zilch doubts.

The argument which says that “Sexual intercourse is not an accident because I can't defend an argument before the plinth of reason that will insult my common sense..... having a penis inserted into the vagina is not an accident; it is plan without intelligent determination......”, is far beyond the context of the issue. However, to further refute the point, the construction of the sentence does not in any way express unity of the proponents thought; thus, the argument is frivolously insignificant. The proponent is merely disagreeing himself. Should sex be done without intelligent determination, then if it cannot be defined an accident, what is it? Notwithstanding, to make sense out of this, sexual intercourse is not only an act for pleasure but a responsibility; thus, it is arbitrary that when a couple do it, there is an intelligent decision to do it. Otherwise, this will give rise to another moral issue, rape.

With my points stated, let me reiterate my firm conviction that RH bill is a pragmatic measure that our government should take and implement. However, such measure maybe is not as parsimonious as the natural birth control methods, I am confident that such would deliver surefire advantages in controlling the constantly increasing population and in alleviating if not totally eradicating social dilemmas which in any way are caused by the surge of  population. 

Note: This is just my two cents.