RH bill: Say inkatangawtangaw di Villegas tan Cruz (The ignorance of Villegas and Cruz)

No siopa ray kongrisista tan sinador (Enrile, Sotto) ya onsosomlang ed ipasa na RH bill, kapara iran tangawtangaw ya sikara di Villegas tan Cruz.

Duaran taga-Bataan so nansublay ya nanbenben ed Arsobispado na Lingayen-Dagupan ya agda amta so mansalitay Pangasinan. Akin iraya - sikara Cruz tan Villegas - numiro unon mimibiang ed agda kaokolan ya pibiangan so inmirong tan akairong, duaran Tagalog so manmando ed saray Katoliko ya Pangasinense?

Nanaral iraya na doktorado ed ley ya kanon balet iray argumento da somlang ed RH bill et makapoy, aga ninonot ta anggapon talagay ilaban da ed manepeg ya pankaokolan ya nipasa so ley.

Villegas declares, "Contraception is corruption." But I dare say, "It is the Catholic Church, which is the hotbed of corruption."

Natan nitan lay Cruz ya patron nen Villegas ya say kuanto: "The Reproductive Health bill does not like life, hates life, wants to do away with life!"

How ignorant! Ag to binasa may intiron bill.

In fact, the RH bill is pro-life. Those who oppose it like Cruz and Villegas are the ones who are anti-life.

Villegas even used the Pangasinan language to justify his claim that Pangasinans do not know or practice contraception. There is no Pangasinan word, he said, for contraception. How did he know it when in fact he does not know Pangasinan?

He does not know that Pangasinans before the Spaniards came practice infanticide when they think that having so many children would make them poor. In other words, this is at worst a form of family-planning.  We cannot say this is barbarism  because we cannot judge the early Pangasinans why they committed such practice but they must have been very practical.

RH bill is pro-life because it cares for the life of the mother and the living children. It gives the guarantee that the mother could live a healthy life with proper medication and that the children could be pampered, nourished and educated in a family that is properly provided for. It gives the mother or the woman to choose between artificial and natural method.

The status quo does not provide the minimum condition for a mother or a woman to have the critical choice in upholding life for her and for her existing children if she has given birth.

The RH bill promotes life by making sure that those who had been born as a child and as a mother would be given the maximum security to continue living and enjoy life. 

The anti-RH people do not realize that by rejecting the bill they are sanctioning the continued deprivation of the guarantee that makes the mother and her children alive because with unmitigated family reproduction it does not only endanger the life of the mother who is the bearer of the seed of life but also threatens the lives of her existing children. A family of twelve children would no doubt illustrate this: two or three would suffer from malnutrition resulting in death, the remaining nine would struggle to go to school perhaps with five getting to elementary grades while others would help their parents for their livelihood . In times of epidemic or calamity, with poor health and a shoestring budget, some members would die of disease and starvation. Some would get married at a young age repeating the cycle.

This had been the scenario and the Philippine Roman Catholic church wants to perpetuate it. It is anti-life. It promotes the viciousness of poverty, lack of informed choice and ignorance.

I am beginning to believe more and more that the Philippine Roman Catholic church is a factor in the underdevelopment of the country. First, it is a church of opulence in a sea of poverty. Second, it is not a beacon of enlightenment; it is more the instrument of darkness by perpetuation of medieval ideas. Third and last, it is a church that is bent in protecting its self-interests cavorting with powers-that-be than keeping its flock.