here's excerpts of the bill as per the Inquirer in:
http://beta.inq7.net/nation/index.php?index=1&story_id=1959

"The controversial House bill, recently filed by Albay Representative Edcel Lagman, offers "incentives" to couples who would have two children or less

"Titled Reproductive Health Act of 2004, the proposed measure seeks to arrest the country's high birth rate, considered a major impediment to economic growth. The Philippine population is currently pegged at 84 million and growing at a rate of 2.36 percent a year.
...

"The proposed policy is drawing strong objections from Church leaders, too.

"Lagman's bill has triggered proposals to enforce a five-year moratorium on child-bearing and calls for the use of contraceptives.

"Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz yesterday branded these as "quick-fix reactions."

feel free to defend your stand.

It could very well help in the country’s population problems. I believe that it’s the responsibility of the parents for the families’ availability of basic needs such as water, food, housing…etc. In either case, it doesn’t matter how many children you have as long as you can provide well for your family. <Right?>

Lagman explained that under his proposal, limiting family size to two children is not compulsory or mandatory as the government’s role is only to encourage but will not require two children as the ideal family size. "HB 16 does not infringe on any Constitutional right of couples and parents to determine the size of their family and the timing and spacing of their children because the underlying philosophy of the bill is freedom of choice on personal conviction and religious beliefs," he said.

For some reason I’m starting to hate the catholic church’s idea of not using condoms and contraceptives, because it violates the sanctity of God? Does the church always have to rebut on political issues when it is clearly stated the separation of the church and state. I believe the Philippine constitution is almost the same as the US.

Lagman's bill has triggered proposals to enforce a five-year moratorium on child-bearing and calls for the use of contraceptives.

Hindi ba nakikita ng simbahan kung gaano kahirap mag-palaki ng mga anak? They should also realize that prayer and ideology doesn’t always help solve the problems.

"Those who want to deny life to others are already counted among the living. Those who do not want babies were once babies themselves," Cruz pointed out.

Cruz warned: "Violate nature and nature fights back."

Let’s go back to Darwin’s Survival of the Fittest. In its simplest form, evolution represents the view that the ordering principle of reality is "the survival of the fittest," So if there is any standard at all, that standard is simply "what works." Whether you want to call it survival, dominance or superiority, the standard is simply "what works."

thanks for spelling this out. i always get queasy when the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is part of the problem.

This is one issue where the Catholic Church really should lighten up. In five year's time, the UNDP projects a population of over 150 MILLION in the Philippines. That's 150 million people who will need food, clean water, housing, clothing, education, medicine/health care and other basic services. We cannot get this done now, with only about 90 million, and I seriously doubt we can get it done in five short years (GMA's present term). To quote former President Fidel Ramos, Lagman's is indeed a very enlightened piece of legislation.

I would not be so critical of the stand of the Church if it would put its own money where its mouth is. How about Cardinal Sin moving into a smaller home than Villa San Miguel, then selling it off with the money to go to some sort of trust fund for the education of a marginalized sector? How about all these grandiose churches, art in the Church's possession, real estate and other assets, sold off and the proceeds given directly to programs directly benefiting the poor? Do it through the UN or Red Cross for better logistical coordination. The Church puts out good, do gooding and feel good press releases, but still operates as a Medieval society that is over and above the great many of its subjects.

Fr. Hans Kung is right, the Church can still play a very powerful and significant role in modern society. But it must first examine itself the way it did in the Second Vatican Council, critically and self-critically. This proposed legislation is already being attacked primarily by the Church in "its" Philippine Province. HELLO! Wake the hell up Fathers! There's a population problem in our country, and neither you nor the government have done much to alleviate it; it is still very much a problem!

And I find it wholly insulting that a Bishop (?) would actually go on record as saying "The problem with population control programs is that they are made by those already born." or some such bullshit like that. And what the f--- are you, Bishop? Who the f--- appointed you spokesperson for those yet to be born? Take a good goddam look at the world around you, a world the Church (may I just remind you) helped to create. Do you really want any more human beings to be born into poverty, filth, pollution, crime, violence, war and hunger? The chances a human being will be born in these conditions is pretty high considering the Developed World comprises less than 10% of the planet.

So to answer the question: YES I AM! AS FAR BACK AS 20 GODDAM YEARS AGO.

I guess part of the problem lies in the fact that those in government do not recognize separation of church and state. Oh, they do when it's convenient for them, but reality is that they see themselves beholden as individuals to what the church says. The funny thing is, the church is NOT infalliable. In fact, one just has to look at history to see this. Gallileo, Copernicus, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades are examples proving this. In fact, it was only in John Paul II's reign as Pope that the whole Gallileo affair started to have closure as far as the church is concerned.
I feel the 2-child policy has its merits as well as its setbacks. For the short- and perhaps medium term, it would be of benefit in offsetting the strain on resources. In the long term, however, this should be reviewed. A low or negative growth rate is beneficial up to a point and then problems which are presently besetting Germany and Australia (whose birth rate cannot replace those dying) may be upon us. Foresight is needed in this regard. Unfortunately, we Pinoys have not been too strong on that aspect and the present clowns government (majority anyway) seems to have been absent when God was giving out foresight...

I voted for somewhat in favor out of my personal belief. As a single catholic woman, i'm having second thoughts. Plus, I wasn't able to read the news from the link. An error occured. Anyway, I think it will help to control the citizens' growing population and it might cushion the effects of economic crisis. Filipinos loves incentives. This might win approval to some, but I don't think majority will, considering the bulk of it are catholics.

I agree on AnimoTeneo's statement that it's ok to have many kids as long as you provide well for your family.

Maybe in recognition to the different reactions from the populace, the government would like to respect each judgment on the matter. The decision is up to us. Discipline... Discipline...

As a catholic, I respect the church's say on population control. But, in view of the alarming population growth, I do agree on using contraceptives for those who can't control themselves. There's an urgent need for population control. Pero ika nga ng gobyerno mas marami ang prayoridad na programa.

P.S. I'm scared of giving birth in the future, kaya ok lang ang dalawa o kaya isa na lang. hehehe

Quite frankly this is an issue that should have been addressed a long time ago, right around that time when we were already seeing more mendicants and more street dwellers in urban areas, when squatter colonies were sprouting up seemingly every other day even in the most unlikely of places (Have you seen the people along the banks of the river at Araneta ave corner E Rodriquez near De Los Santos medical center? How do those people survive the seasonal flooding?)

The best time to have started a whole new population control program was right after the Ninoy Aquino assasination had died down, sometime in late 1984 or thereabouts. Unfortunately events overtook the country (the 1986 EDSA Revolt) and we were all of a sudden all agog over the greatness of the miracle provided by the Church yet again. Hirap din kasi sa Pinoy magkaroon lang ng kahit konting buenas lahat na inaasahang buenas henceforth. Before you know it, the 39 million population of early 1986 is now close to 90 million some 18 years later, close to 3 million a year in births, without the corresponding social safety nets from the Government AND the Church.

Make no mistake about it, there is a problem. I'm no sociologist or demographer, but I'm sure even the younger ones here would agree that there is far more congestion, pollution and population now, especially in Metro Manila than there was even just five years ago. Just look at how serenely traffic-free the Metropolis is during Holy Week and the days between Christmas Day and New Year's Day. Even during the summer vacation for godsakes! Look at the huge difference in Ortigas Center and the Makati Business District on weekdays and weekends.

Time to do something about it peeps, and yes, it seems it has to be something really drastic.

I read in the NY Times last year that the Siberian region near Vladivostok will be needing loads of immigrants to cultivate its unproductive land. There is already a growing Korean population in the area.

Which UNDP document is this? This is not quite right. Even if your base of 90M is correct (it's actually closer to 80M) that still implies a compounded annual growth rate of close to 11%. The population of the Philippines is not growing that fast. It "only" hovers at either a little under 2% or slightly above on any given year.

The point of course is that real GDP is not growing quite as consistently (although last year it was appreciably high). Whenever real GDP growth is less than population growth that means a poorer nation per capita.



Urban congestion is quite another issue apart from population growth per se. The problem is that the prospects for rural income is so much lower than urban income, hence exacerbating Harris-Todaro rural-urban migration: Even if the population did not grow there are just more people (rationally) flocking to urbanized areas. If the demand for labor in cities is not growing as fast as urban population, then the problem of the urban poor is exacerbated. So the solution for urban congestion is to raise rural incomes -- easier said than done (review the history of land reform in the Philippines).

Several stop-gap measures that try to curb population growth have been tried in the past: Juan Flavier's condom policy in the DOH and this "two-child policy" are fine proposals, and they might work, but only up to a point. The real solution is to encourage sustained economic growth that will bump up demand for labor and provide income opportunities, particularly for women: Once women (and to a lesser extent, men) begin earning wages and looking at future career prospects the opportunity cost of having children rises and therefore most couples choose to (1) have children at an older age, and/or (2) limit the number of children they have. That's why there is an inverse relationship between national income and population growth.

good point victory_fils - come to think of it, if both the husband and wife are working or are more career oriented then there would be less time for "play"... im not a sociologist so i never saw it this way

... but i think the government should "require" this population control policy - instead of just "encourage" it... more people means more mouths to feed and more pressure for the economy... and anything that can be done to relieve it of some pressure must be done - now. my apologies for the oversimplification of the problem but i think it makes sense.

implementation of course is another issue... but i believe it can be done.

can we hate the church for being so lofty in its ideals and still keep the door to heaven open for us. could be more than a silly question and actually be philosophical.

These are the facts from the 2002 Philippine Human Development Report. Population growth rate for the Philippines in the 80s was 2.35 annually, and this accelerated to 2.36 in 1995-2000. While the global average is 2.9 children per woman of child-bearing age, it's 3.7 for the Filipina. One of these births is unplanned.

I am a dunce when it comes to discussing the morality of artificial birth control. But I do know that throughout the years, per capita gains in income that we may have enjoyed have largely been dissipated by rapid population growth. Furthermore, the high dependency ratio leads to a low savings rate, which is one reason for our lackluster economic performance. This is assuming the kids are dependent and not peddling all sorts of wares in god-forsaken places. So I'm glad that someone in government is taking the bull by its horns (or whatever metaphor you'd like) instead of turning a blind eye to the problem just to remain in the clergy's good graces.



I don't hate the clergy. I just wish they'd stop keeping us in the Middle Ages.

A good one-third of my professional life is spent working on and teaching about the problems of development economics, so it's my job to think about these things.

China already has some experience with the one child policy. They have tried to "require" or "implement" it since 1979. Despite the often brutal consequences that this policy has helped generate (female infanticide, for example), China remains the world's most populous nation.

Implementation of this policy is exceedingly difficult, particularly in remote rural areas where children are seen as assets contributing to the agricultural production process. There are far easier and less costly ways to solve problems of growth and development than implementing limits on child-bearing.

As a SocSci graduate my stand is...

Up the standard of living of the poor so as they no longer see children as a means to ease them out of poverty but as an expense.

These days it is still ingrained in the poor so have as many children as possible in hopes that one of them will help them oout of poverty. For instance, one or two kids will go to school while the rest beg, or do labor.

Yet it's easier said than done...

As a Policy Analyst...

With regards to the bill, such a bill is not feasible because there are no means to implement it. You can't very well do a killing spree like what they are doing in China. And as long as the church meddles there's really nothing you can do to convince the masses to have less children.

It's high time to emulate what Sen. Mechai Viravaidya has done for Thailand. Read the biography of Mechai Viravaidya:

From Condoms to Cabbages by Thomas D'Agnes.



I actually met Sen. Mechai Viravaidya and he's a real great guy. He's not afraid to promote ideas in ways that are unorthodox like condom blowing contests and so forth. He's also friends with Sen. Juan Flavier so you know where Flavier got his ideas from. Thanks to Sen. Mechai Viravaidya, he's brought down Thailand's AID's scourge and we probably can't say the same about the Philippines since it is probably rising...

Also Tom D'Agnes, the author of From Condoms to Cabbages was my teacher and he's a consultant for ADB. One thing about Tom D'Agnes is, he has done extensive research on population in the Philippines. In his research, the Philippines has the highest abortion rates in Asia, especially quack doctor abortions in the rural areas.

So it kind of hits a snag on what the church is emphasizing. The Church speaks out against contraceptives therefore many are resorting to quack means of terminating pregnancies that could've been avoided.

Furthermore, the Church recently called USAID's budget cut on the contraceptive donations as a victory. Well that victory as the Church sees it will also raise unwanted pregnancies, abortions and not to mention the rise of STD's as well.

But we have to try and at least staunch the current problem i.e. the growing population. Look, like I said I am no sociologist or demographer. All I know is that things turn from bad to worse every year, or at least this is my experience. Now I may just be a lone voice, but then again I hear the same thing, or variations thereof from folks of different ages, persuasions and backgrounds all of whom happen to be residents of Metro Manila. Even friends who live in the provinces who used to come to Manila an average of once a week, would rather not be here at all if they could help it. I've noticed congestion and pollution are also creeping up on formerly pristine locales like the Subic coast, the Lipa hills and even as far away as parts of Quezon and Masbate.

Guys, there are simply more and more people, putting more and more of a strain on our resources. We need to staunch the bleeding before we can even think about what to best do for the patient. If we don't at least implement some kind of birth limit, all our plans and programs will go straight to shit. We tried working with crap-ass assumptions before and paid for it. Besides, we may be enlightened enough to think about planned parenthood, but there's no way this applies to the rest of this country. More jobs, more work, more productivity, would be great. But in the MEANTIME what do we do about the population?

and there's the church-sanctioned 'demographic gift' being espoused by the bald prophet of CRC.

Nothing, if the cost/benefit ratio of "doing nothing" is better than that of "doing something" (or worse, "doing something stupid").

bakit kaya kahit naghihirap ang mga pinoy, wala pa rin effort na ipractice ang birth control. alam na ngang walang ipangtutustos sa dadagdag na anak, gawa pa rin ng gawa. bakit ganun? parang di nag iisip eh, kung nag iisip man, sarili lang nila iniisip nila. sorry ha, nakakainis na kasi eh.

sa roxas blvd. pag dumaan ka, marami ang may bitbit na baby na nanlilimos. nakakaawa yung mga bata kasi ginagamit lang. kahit mainit, kahit umuulan tuloy pa rin ang ganitong klase ng hanapbuhay.

you're asking that question only because you side with the catholic church in NOT believing that uncontrolled birth is caused, in large part, by poverty and lack of education. actually, cosmopolitan middle class filipinos have long been practicing a 2-child family plan. i have one kid and i don't 'plan' to add to that. my brother, with 4 kids, is an abberation (most of our friends think so). our father had six kids and it was normal then.

I must say I have to agree with mac on this. I also have 1 kid (though we "plan" to have at most 1 more). The reason why family planning is not practiced is because it is not preached. Government feels beholden to the Church. Whether the people who matter in government are afraid of losing votes or their souls (although I think most have sold their souls a long time ago anyway, so it must be the former) that is the very reason why no active population control program has been implemented.
No, I do not hate the clergy. Some of my best friends are in various orders, but there should be an awakening of the hierarchy of the Church to let the government run the country devoid of clerical influence.

We might also consider an article written by the sociologist Michael Tan, that the higher the degree of education of a person, said person tends to mary at an older age, and also to have less children, if they even plan on having children at all. So it seems there really is a co-relation between level of education and preponderance for family planning. So again we go back to the question: What do we do in the MEANTIME?

Diba sabi ko ipa-migrate nalang natin sila sa Siberia? No kidding, I read such an article. The regional governor said they might need an initial 500,000 to 1M immigrants initially with more opportunities for more immigrants to come as their economy develops. Already the Koreans are leading this bunch. Natawa nga ako when I read this, but if I were the DOLE Secretary with a yearly job creation quota for overseas Pinoys, I would at least lift an eyebrow at this possibility.

But on a more serious note, gaya nga ng sinabi ni victory_fils, better not do anything at all if a family planning program will be ineffective or make things worse. A family planning program, for one, would require the gov't to import millions of dollars in contraceptives from the pharmaceutical companies, not to mention the additional expenses of doing a nationwide advertisement and awareness campaign. If the intended beneficiaries are not going to use the family planning kits properly anyway, why even spend the money at all? On the other hand, educated people like some of those who posted in this thread do not have to attend family planning clinics and are willing to buy contraceptives when they have to, using their own money. Sometimes not doing anything for the meantime makes more sense.

I'm not much of an urban planner but I think we have to start coming to terms with urban migration. Lack of opportunities in the countryside will only get worse because emerging agricultural superpowers like Brazil and China are dominating not only commodity products like sugar or grain, they are even getting into cash crops like fruits and soybeen - and getting very good at it. American and Canadian farmers are already feeling the pinch - either they migrate to lower-cost agricultural countries like Argentina or Brazil, or their kids get educated and move to the cities. The last thing we want is US-style SPRAWL - people going to work in cities but going home to faraway neighborhoods. This could be very wasteful in terms of productivity and resource consumption.

Education is a confounding variable; the main driver is income opportunities. There are dozens of well-educated Filipinos (and Indians and Chinese) who still do not curb child-bearing because there are not enough jobs to raise the opportunity cost of having kids. In poor countries children are also seen as productive income-earning assets and "investments" for social security when parents reach old age.



Is this not already the case for people living in Alabang and places further down south and working in Makati / QC? That said, "urban sprawl" in the US is widely exaggerated, mainly by people who live in cities. Only 3-4% of US land is paved. There's plenty of s-p-a-c-e available but for one reason (usually agglomeration economies) or another (available land is desert? mountains? national preserves? swamplands?) the US population prefers to live in concentrated spaces.



I agree with victory_fils too.

I had to say it in a more roundabout way. As you may already know, some of the folks here live in the Metro Manila suburbs.

Right. Just like someone leading a case discussion might do.

Kumusta ka na?

Rab,

Funny you should mention Siberia. There was an article once in GQ, and I still cannot for the life of me figure out if it was satire or serious. The title? LET'S BUY SIBERIA! The LET'S of course referring to the United States. I forgot the writer. Sonovagun even had a mini-feasibility thesis and development plan for the whole thing. I must say though, it was indeed a very intriguing idea.

Pinoys may not have the means to buy territory. But we can certainly populate territory. Put sveral dozen Pinoys in one place and if they do well, you can bet that hundreds more will follow after them. This is what happened at the pineapple fields of Hawaii, the orange groves of NorCal and now the hospitals all throughout the US and UK. An ex-officemate of mine from Alaska told me that there were quite a lot of Filipinos in his home state doing all sorts of things from crab fishing to seal hunting. At first I thought he might have mistaken them for another nationality, then he told me he played street basketball with them when he was growing up, and they even taught him some dirty moves. Pinoy nga talaga!

wow, this topic is certainly blossoming into something else.
may developmental suggestions na.

I'm not asking that question for that reason. I have no other motive whatsoever for asking that. It just crossed my mind out of disgust to what is happening in the streets.

I do not take sides on the issue. I said "As a catholic, I respect the church's say on population control. But, in view of the alarming population growth, I do agree on using contraceptives for those who can't control themselves." I just didn't elaborate my positive support on 2-child policy. Up to now, i'm still weighing the principles both of the church's and of the government's. Both parties have a just opinion regarding the population issue. Archbishop Cruz has already reacted to that issue. As usual, the church don't support a policy such as this. I will not explain the reason anymore. It's quite obvious. As of the moment, I don't have an idea of the figures of how many among the legislators are pro or anti-2-child policy. I've only read about one (legislator) who opposes the 2-child policy. Nene Pimentel says proposed 2-kid policy is unconstitutional

It's but fair that the government acknowledge the citizen's opinion about the population issue. I have but little knowledge on the 2-child policy. From what I've heard (a little) in the news, there's an implication that the government wants to push this policy through but the church doesn't want to allow this. That's my impression upon watching the commercial on channel 2. It's not clear to me if the government is indeed demanding the implementation of it. Before I've heard and read about the 2-child policy, I'd read in the net and the newspaper (I don't remember the exact date, sorry guys), the administration's stand on population control is that the government encourages some birth control techniques but does not demand the people. I've also read that it (population control) is not a priority for the moment.

i am in favor of the two child policy. malamang maraming papayag kuno pero hindi naman gagawin. ive also heard na voluntary naman daw to kaya walang dapat magreklamo.

The End of the Population Explosion Myth

(24 September 2004)

Birth Dearth - Remember the population bomb? The new threat to the planet is not too many people but too few.


Read the original NEWSWEEK expose... http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6040427/site/newsweek/

Phil. Population: Runaway Growth Rate... Exposed as FALSE.

The contraceptive & anti-family zombies keep publishing in the newspapers that the Philippines has a 2.3x% population growth rate, etc. Sure, but that was 10 years ago. They do not tell you that it was much higher, 20, 30 and 40 years ago. These are called the LIES of OMISSION. They do not dare tell you that the population growth rate today (July 2004) has dipped to 1.88% !!!



* The above is public data. You can check the various sources of the UN, ADB, Pop Com, and the CIA.
** For the latest July 2004 data of 1.88% growth rate, see http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rp.html

Philippine women give birth to too many babies -- NOT.

The contraceptive & anti-family zombies keep telling you that there is an unmet need (to eliminate children) because women only aspire (they claim) for 2-3 children, but they again claim that women are having 3-4 children each. Sure, but that statistic was 10 years ago. They do not tell you that it was much higher at 5, 6 & 7 children per woman 20, 30 and 40 years ago. In 2004, rich, middle class, poor, NATIONWIDE, on average, women are only giving birth to 2-3 children TODAY. These again are called the LIES of OMISSION.



* The above is public data. You can check the various sources of the UN, ADB, Pop Com, and the CIA.

** The projections were made by Florante P. Gonzaga, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, College of Medicine, University of the Philippines
His web site paper is called Specific Situation in the Philippines

The above graph plots low, medium and high estimates of total fertility rates, the expected number of children a woman will have in her reproductive life.

Basic GRAPHS of historical, present and future population projections has exposed the lies of the Anti-Family lobby.

It is time to shout out and proclaim an end to their brazen LIES OF OMISSION in their pursuit to institutionalize a new cash cow in the form of contraceptives funding via that moot, academic and useless HB 16 aka 2-child policy, which aims to spend 17.1 billion pesos to COERCIVELY reduce fertility rates to lower levels than have already been reached today!

It is time we, the family loving Filipino people come out in full force to denounce all the 9++ anti-family bills being filed in congress. We will post a list of those bills, authors and their full content here in this web site.

Volunteers are encouraged to print these articles, graphs and get copies of Newsweek and other major popular magazines who in the next few weeks will all come out and proclaim The End of the Population Explosion Myth. Flood the offices of congressmen and senators with multiple copies, please.

See our web site for intellectual discussions on the matter.
http://www.prolife.org.ph

http://forums.prolife.org.ph/yabbse/index....did=150;start=0

The Truth About Philippine Overpopulation

You've heard and read somewhere that the Philippines population is running away uncontrollably.

But did you ever stop and read the statistics that matter?

Do you run a country without looking at the true figures?
Do you run a company without checking its financial figures?
Did you swallow the overpopulation propaganda without checking if it is true?

----------
See exciting, heated discussions on this topic here:
http://forums.prolife.org.ph/yabbse/index....did=150;start=0

From a Libertarian point of View:

The government does not feed people.
It is people, parents, relatives, FAMILIES who feed their own young.
We feed ourselves.

Those in favor of the 2, 1, or 0 children policy should implement their DOGMA only on THEMSELVES.
LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE.

Intellectual Morons: How smart people fall for stupid ideas

People can be so blinded to reality by the causes they serve that they espouse bizarre, sometimes ridiculous, and often dangerous positions. The most influential social movements have spawned ideologues who do not care whether an idea is good or bad, true or false, but only whether it can serve their cause.

Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted environmental apocalypse in The Population Bomb. He maintained that “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death” in the 1970s. When it didn’t happen, he merely delayed the day of reckoning—numerous times. So long as Ehrlich’s prognostications furthered the right agenda, wealthy and influential admirers celebrated him.

The act of abandoning an idea when contrary evidence disproves it is hardly unusual in the hard sciences. Contrary evidence in the social sciences and the humanities often has the opposite effect: devotees tighten their embrace of the theory. As a result, their grip on reality loosens. When you tether yourself to ideology, you necessarily liberate yourself from facts. You become an intellectual moron.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...130233?v=glance