Sunday, May 22, 2011

Another Sexually-active Bill (Not Monica's Bill)

Intense is how the RH (Reproductive Health) Bill has created quite a controversy. It instigated varied reactions and arguments. Each has something to say and a conviction to back it up. The problem with the concerned people’s line of reasoning is that it becomes a case of WHO is more precise more than the supposed contention as to WHAT is right. Focused on the ratification of a worldly regulation, does anyone between the opposing sides even consider and understand the law of nature?

Debated to be passed into law with big names joining in as expected, it has become a credibility match (a heated one at that) as to who would sound more believable of which resolutions and decisions are dependent on. Would their decision for a belief be based on popularity as an assurance for support? Are they even taking advantage of the people’s lack of sense, as they claim (thus pushing the bill as an intelligent choice), to secure backing rather than educate? The reason behind every dispute on the matter says otherwise. The RH Bill-concerned people to whom they’re pushing it for are not dumb. These people don’t lack understanding but discipline. How superficial it is to be even fighting over contraceptives.


Getting to the root of it all with population control as the main issue, the bottom-line is sex. Do they not know anything about it – its pros and cons? Come on! As a matter of fact, they’re familiar with it so much that the designed responsibility for its purpose is just overlooked. Another displeasing reality is that those whose concern for its substantiation is rather for their contribution not to get pregnant (or not getting someone pregnant). That would certainly be something “responsible” in actually controlling the population but that’s just about it. It could as well be an unfailing way to promote or engage in promiscuity. Well, for them, why not – if indeed the urge within human nature is uncontrollable…


Fact of the matter is that sex is good. Really good! But not to sound too “heavenly”, I won’t even go to its divine purpose. It’s so good that it’s actually addictive. Yet as enslaving as it is, the more we have to be responsible; not just for its consequential realizations but control over impulse.


How can someone even say that the use of a contraceptive is being responsible when the reason for its use takes away the sensible judgment to be in control instead of simply giving in? The reason as to why it is harder to resist than to succumb is because of the required accountability. Simply giving in to one’s selfish desire is lacking thereof. If one doesn’t want to get pregnant then by all means practice the natural birth control. Women’s bodies are created with the capacity for them to be in charge of… and men, strong as they’re stereotyped to be (NOT just physically), have to be selflessly responsible. Before this RH Bill for a choice, we have already been and “naturally” offered with choices (or should I say people are created with the benefit to enjoy these healthy choices). It’s not as if there’s no other option given to us that we rather choose what won’t require us “liability” over our earthly cravings. With RH Bill, you’ll be sexually satisfied (Can’t you not be intimately resourceful enough other than “exploding” in?)… Anything for our shallow mortal convenience is not being generous of these likings; we’re selfish that way. Is that being responsible? Is there a need for another choice of which is even expounding another preference among us by dividing us? For those who less-understand it, it’s marketed to sound so right… But think, don’t just agree or take part and smartly sound as well…


From a different perspective, has “responsible parenthood” shifted into the validation of artificial birth control to rather instill in their children the “meaning” of unwanted pregnancy? Is it because it’s embarrassing among the eyes of people? Because it smears the “reputation” (never mind character)? Who are we pleasing anyway? “Oh I forgot – it’s better to be discreet about one’s iniquity, that way, there’s outwardly no malice.” I suppose what they don’t know won’t hurt them… Who knows? Are we not hurting anyone? We are…


During the “olden times”, one’s honor is kept pure as carnal indiscrimination could cast vulnerable judgment. Now, would it be ok to be promiscuous regardless of gender considering there won’t be any evidence of one’s debauchery? It eliminates the fear in anyone to cheat. While there could be other means to get caught, this eradicates the principal confirmation. It confers confidence to do as one pleases… “Oh yes as aforesaid – what your partner doesn’t know won’t hurt her (or him).” And oh, you’re responsible that way…



I’m not someone who’d deny that sinking my teeth into bait won’t appeal to me… However, we are by nature full of impurity already, let’s not add or at least try to… There are even times when we already get into something wrong without knowing it, let it not be intentional…

No comments: