RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD and THE RH BILL By Nene Pimentel July 29, 2012

[Note: The views discussed here are based on the writers interpretation of what the Constitution and the laws of the country provide. This is not a theological treatise. Spiritual or religious arguments are left to our betters, meaning, our theologians and pastors].

The phrase Responsible Parenthood

is not bad by itself.

If it is bad, then, we should not have allowed its inclusion in the Constitution. > In fact, the phrase is found in the Constitution, Article XV, Section 3 paragraph (1) on The Family. The Section and the paragraph state: Section 3. The State shall defend: (1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their

religious convictions and the demands of RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD.

Parsing the sentence, the following ideas emerge:

(1)

The subject of the sentence is the right to found a family which means starting one, not merely belonging to one.

(2)

The owners of that right are the spouses. The word, spouses, in its common connotation at the time the Framers crafted the Constitution meant man and woman who became husband and wife.

(3) (4) (5)

They become spouses by getting married according to their RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS, and Pursuant to the demands of RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD, the spouses may now raise a family. Raising a family means their begetting children which makes them the father and the mother, the tatay and the nanay of their respective families.

The discussion on the issue of the family continues on page 8 of this paper. For the moment,
> Attention is called to the fact that based on Article XV (The Family), Section 3, paragraph 1, responsible parenthood imposes the added duty on the parents to use their power of procreation guided by their religious beliefs to beget children who they shall raise to adulthood assured of their (the childrens) right to: (1) assistance including (a) proper care, (b) nutrition; and (2) special protection from all forms of (a) neglect, (b) abuse, (c) cruelty, (d) exploitation, and (e) other conditions prejudicial to their development.

In a word, responsible parenthood precludes spouses from begetting children like rabbits. It also means that their religious convictions have primacy in determining the number of their children they can raise and the methods of spacing them. Responsible Parenthood cannot encompass the agenda of the RH bill, such as the promotion of: 1. condoms because their use will promote promiscuity. I am not sure that there is way of regulating condoms to deter their promiscuous utilization as for instance limiting their use to spouses - who, either or both, may be suffering from an ailment - and

2. contraceptives or contraception devices, means or methods that harm the health of the mother and even kill the baby inside the mothers womb.
> To promote the use of condoms or harmful contraceptives described in #1 and #2, above, would contravene Article II, Section 12: The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.

The

use

of

condoms

or

harmful

contraceptives

will

promote

promiscuity. And promiscuity undermines the sanctity of marriage and will certainly weaken the family as a basic autonomous social institution.

> Moreover the State is mandated by the Constitution in Article II, Section 12, second sentence to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.

The use of harmful contraceptives - as determined and confirmed by reputable doctors and scientists - injures the life of the mother or of the child in her womb or both. The RH bill is inspired by a foreign ideology originating from countries which do not have a constitutional provision like or similar to the provision of our Constitution cited above. That is the reason, among other things, why laws that promote the use of condoms and even harmful contraceptives and devices have not been struck down and are allowed in other jurisdictions.
> Another Constitutional principle, Article XII, Section 12, third sentence asserts that The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the

development of moral character shall receive the support of the government.

This provision is significant in that it underscores the proposition that the rearing of the youth is primarily the duty of parents - of responsible parents - who will ensure that their children will grow up to be responsible citizens. That constitutional right cannot be supplanted by the State, any agency of the government or other organizations in the guise of law or executive policy. Approving the RH bill with its devious intentions as crafted will negate the governments duty to support the natural right and duty of the parents in the rearing of the youth (a) for civic efficiency and (b) the development of moral character. > Also, the RH bill will hamper the States duty to promote and protect not only the youths physical, intellectual, and social well being but their moral and spiritual welfare as provided by Article II, Section 13.

The discussion now shifts to an issue that can no longer be avoided in relation to the basic premises of responsible parenthood. Thus, in addition to the arguments stated in the opening sentences of this paper that uphold the sanctity of marriage as an inviolable social institution and as the foundation of the family, the following thoughts are suggested for the consideration of our colleagues in the pro-life advocacy. May responsible parenthood result from same-sex marriage? It is said that the RH bill will make it possible for persons of the same sex to get married.

If it does, there is a law, the Family Code, that squarely denies the right of same-sex couples to get married.
> The Family Code in its Article 1 states: Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. Moreover, the provisions of the Constitution previously cited are premised on the family being founded by the marriage of a man and woman. > Because how else could Article XV on The Family or Article II on the Declaration of State Policies, particularly, Section 12, Sentence #2 find justification? To repeat, Article XV on the Family recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. And that marriage as an inviolable social institution is, in turn, the foundation of the family. And Article II, Section 12, Sentence #2 ordains that the State shall equally protect the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.

Man marrying another man or a woman marrying another woman cannot result in the conception of a child in the womb of the mother whose life must be protected from conception or start a family that is envisioned by the Constitution. Man marrying another man or a woman marrying another woman cannot possibly bring about life by their union. Nature abhors such a possibility. Even Genesis tells the world that the first human family started with a man, Adam, getting hitched to a woman, Eve. And they begot Cain and Abel and their other offspring.

Unless marriage is entered into between a man and woman, the protection extended by the Constitution to their child whose life in its words must be protected from conception would be an empty play on words. And so would the other basic tenets concerning marriage and the family be rendered nonsensical or meaningless. Which was never the intention of the basic law of the land.
CONCLUSION

In itself, the phrase RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD IS NOT BAD. Twisting it would make it bad. That is what we have to guard against.