On Reproductive Health Bill/ Family Planning

It was the 25th of Dec, 2006, when a newly delivered infant showed up in the front door of the emergency room where I was working.

Like that of the original one, this baby was delivered in a non-traditional place because no hospital would accept them. But that’s the only similarity.

Unlike it, that birth was in broad daylight. There was the sun shining in all its glory. No northstar nearby. (but I’m pretty sure, it’s there, just that, it was overshadowed by the nearer sun)

This one was in no Bethlehem, but a birth inside a taxicab! The good thing though is that, it was in a Toyota Avanza. More space was allocated to the family (the parents and two of their kids) to have this moment at the back of the car.

Having played a role (with me as one of the 3 kings... or queen, and the other staff as sheperds) in what appeared to be a re-enactment of the birth of our Lord in the 21st century should have felt as a privilege.

But during this time, it’s more of a stress or a distress.

Not because this wasn’t Jesus himself (nor because t’was just an ordinary infant). But for the reason that this was born not of a virgin! Oh NO! ( And YES, that’s the reason! )

Rather, It was from a woman who had previously delivered to 8 term babies, with this birth, as her 9th! At the age of 32!

But this scenario is not unusual. In fact, if we’ll consider birth in a non-traditional place and the denial of admission as criteria to label such occurrence as Christmas, then, in the Philippines, everyday is one.

Having so many children is actually not the issue. But the fact that a family with entirely no means to support even a small one could afford to have a bigger one. Describing this family, physically is upsetting, thus it suffices to say, that they obviously lives in penury.

In a not so progressive country like the Philippines, population growth becomes both the effect and contributor (if not entirely the cause) of poverty. In a world, wherein money becomes the tool of trade, living in scarcity strips man of a lot of opportunities. Without education, he fails to realize why planning the size of the family is important (and how he could carry out such) aside from, per se, not having a decent job. The rarity of work prospects (if not the total lack of it) then gives him generous amount of time, ironically, to spend in nothingness. That, (plus the smallness of the living area not to mention the paucity of a blanket) literally, makes him yield to his instinct. To procreate, that is. In the end, the numerous mouths to feed coupled with the lack of resources leads to a vicious cycle of poverty. Not to mention, irresponsibility.

It is clear then, that though, overpopulation may not be the original cause of our destitution, it largely contributes to it. Thus it follows, that managing the size of a family, cuts its financial needs, in the end reducing the impact of poverty in our society.

Thus it is not surprising why some of our fellowmen and legislators alike advocate the use of artificial means of family planning (like the use of OCPs, condoms, etc which are given for free). In fact, they are now studying and trying to pass a bill about reproductive health which promotes the distribution of such artificial tools of reproduction. The natural method is besides, (and ironically) more complex and less successful than its artificial equivalents. For somebody who hasn’t been properly schooled, moreso, in dire need of money, spending some 14 days (or more) of a month would be translated to a waste of time rather than an assistance, in which they are less than willing (or not at all) to participate in.

However, one of the hurdles of the use of these artificial means is the institution that advocates life itself, the church. I am catholic myself, and in total support of its dogmas and teaching. However, in this issue, I am not an ally.

Working as a healthcare personnel enabled me to deal with the richest and sadly, the poorest of the poor (but in our country, more of the latter.) There are countless occasions and demonstrations of how instructions about well being (that would include family planning and, yes, life’s lessons) would always seem futile. Every year, you would get to meet the same pregnant women, in the same living condition (if not worse). That, teaching them the use of OCPs, and condoms, would appear as a desperate alternative, and a much easier solution to the problem. Besides, it’s understandable that their quest for food should come first than worrying when their next ovulation will be. A hungry mind wouldn’t care about anything but bread, anyway.

Finally, yes, as believers of Christ, we are taught to support life, advocate procreation. But then again, like many of what’s written in the Bible, this shouldn’t be interpreted literally as to mean existence. It is not just being physically present, nor just have the chance to experience life’s difficulties, only because we lack the means to feel its pleasures because we are poor. But it should be life with quality, with worth, with value. Though money is not the only mean to reach this, we have to accept that it is an invaluable tool in achieving this end.

And also, preventing conception is different from abortion because, in the latter, one kills life that is already created.

For a conservative Catholic like myself, I feel guilty to think that I support something that is totally opposed by my faith. It is understandable though, that the church would always uphold what’s most right and ideal. I don’t know if such is considered a sin, but I’d rather commit one than stand to see more lives left unnurtured.

As to what happened to the family above, they were sent home, without shedding a penny. Besides, as much as we’d hoped to, there isn’t anything to give anyway. Well, it’s Christmas, and the free service (which came with a free reprimand by the way), is anything but less than enough gift for a newborn we named Emmanuel.