One in three newborns in Philippines 'unwanted'

[Alon]

MANILA (AFP) - – One in three newborns in the Philippines is unwanted or unplanned, the government said Thursday, as the country struggles with a population explosion and the Church's opposition to birth control.

The fertility rate of Filipino women stood at 3.3 children, even though four out of 10 said they preferred to have only two children, the National Statistics Office said in a statement, citing the results of a national survey.

The influential Roman Catholic Church, which forbids artificial birth control, has consistently opposed population control programmes. As a result, the government is reluctant to fund family planning schemes.

Full story Here



It's my belief that some form of artificial birth control would be helpful.  Excessive population growth makes it more difficult to assist those in need.

[KERSEY]

A very touchy subject Alon. Particularly for a place that is rampantly Catholic. In reality, any form of birth-control amounts to abortion. Where does it begin? Some say that a foetus of 3 months constitutes life (but then again, is that to do with a risk-assessment in regards to the health of the mother?) Stripped down to basics, the religious view (upheld most stringently by the Catholics) is that sex is purely for the sake of producing babies. In essence, men and women will by nature be horny, which will lead to the sex act, then a baby. And sex for any other reason is abhorred. So the question is - should people not be horny except in the time of their lives when they are best suited for giving birth, then nurturing and rainsing children? Meaning that they are not horny at all other times. (Well, this is seen in the reluctance of most women in engaging in sex in the months following child-birth... and is reflected in males inasmuchas the women are fat and ugly so therefore not attractive.)

Should being horny and not acting on the impulse be seen as a sin, as it negates the opportunity of giving birth?


Anyhoo... any form of planned birth-control reeks to me of being in the same league as ancient Spartan practices of throwing deformed babies off cliffs... they figured through their pro-active Darwanian "survival of the fittest" thoughts that they were doing the best for society as a whole. Putting what they figured was the best interests of the long-term survival of their civilisation above the individual. Which is, like an egg, what modern ideas of population control boils down to.

[Alon]

Yes it is a touchy subject, but it remains that uncontrolled population growth makes it much more difficult to address poverty.  One only has to look at their own personal finances to understand this.

[KERSEY]

Which is akin to saying you need to kill your third-born in order to feed your first two.

I am sure that most parents would not look at their kids as a "sund" or "unwise" financial investment considering their finances. If you look at your child and think "I am glad you were not aborted, or prevented from life through contraception", as most parents would do, then extrapolated... it is the same as not regulating population growth.

Of course, no-one in these times can understand such basic simplicity. Hopefully my words will be preserved so that future generations do not realise that the whole world up to the 21st century were so dim.

[Alon]

I am sure that most parents would not look at their kids as a "sund" or "unwise" financial investment considering their finances. If you look at your child and think "I am glad you were not aborted, or prevented from life through contraception", as most parents would do, then extrapolated... it is the same as not regulating population growth.

Agreed.  The conversation about bringing another human being into the world should take place beforehand, not afterward.  Having children isn't just about finances, but it should be one of several considerations.  It's easy to make a baby, but there's nurturing, food, clothing and shelter to think about.

[KERSEY]

Yes, but a child is not a commodity. It's not like deciding if you can afford petrol (gas), insurance, rego, etc. It is a decision whether or not to give life, and the alternative is... condemning to non-existence what would otherwise be born. The decision to not have a child, where it is possible to, is effectively killing a child. If my parents had not had sex, I would not exist. It's that simple, for all of us.

Where is the line drawn between deciding not to have a child; aborting a child; and (in-between) preventing the chance of having a child (through contraception, or by not having sex at all... for of course, having a child is SUPPOSEDLY the only reason to have sex at all.

As for people being fit parents... well, if a fair dinkum test needed to be undertaken prior to conceiving, our world would only suffer from under population.

[Alon]

Yes, but a child is not a commodity. It's not like deciding if you can afford petrol (gas), insurance, rego, etc. It is a decision whether or not to give life, and the alternative is... condemning to non-existence what would otherwise be born. The decision to not have a child, where it is possible to, is effectively killing a child. If my parents had not had sex, I would not exist. It's that simple, for all of us.

As you say, children are not a commodity and shouldn't be treated as such.  However, if one takes your position to an extreme, then everyone should be procreating with abandon because not to do so is effectively killing a child.  As things are now, there is a balance somewhere in the middle.

Where is the line drawn between deciding not to have a child; aborting a child; and (in-between) preventing the chance of having a child (through contraception, or by not having sex at all... for of course, having a child is SUPPOSEDLY the only reason to have sex at all.

There is no good answer.  I suppose it's up to each individual to make that choice.  (btw, who says the only reason to have sex is have a child?  Is that a rule or something? )

As for people being fit parents... well, if a fair dinkum test needed to be undertaken prior to conceiving, our world would only suffer from under population.

Fitness isn't up to anyone else to decide.  The responsibility is up to the individual.  The question becomes, what is being responsible?

[KERSEY]

It is not my position actually, it is the position of the catholic church. Unfortunately for them, the genius Darwin has yet again been vindicated... it is being somewhat admitted now that one of the reasons that priests so sickeningly continue to molest children is due to their vows of chastity.

The reality is that the catholic church is merely an extension of the Freemasons, who pull the strings in the most powerful nation (USA ... who would like to guess how many of the past 6 presidents were actually Freemasons?) and the powerful brainwashing catholic church.

According to the catholics, sex is merely for the sake of creating children, much as buying cake mixture and icing sugar is exclusively for the baking of cakes (not for the likes of me, who prefer to eat the comtents of the mixing bowl prior to baking.) Further to that, masturbation is also a goddamned wrong thing too.