Are We Really Overpopulated?

              “We are not overpopulated.” This is one of the many defenses of those who are against the Reproductive Health Bill. According to them, ACROSS the globe, people are having fewer and fewer children. Fertility rates have dropped by half since 1972, from six children per woman to 2.9. And demographers say they're still falling, faster than ever. The world's population will continue to grow—from today's 6.4 billion to around 9 billion in 2050. But after that, it will go sharply into decline. Indeed, a phenomenon that we're destined to learn much more about—depopulation—has already begun in a number of countries.

               However, we are not talking about other countries are we? We are talking about the Philippines, a country that’s been held back ethically. Apparently, we also lack the common sense to look at population at every angle. True, the world still has enough land to meet the lands of a growing population but that is not the problem. What about resources? Do we have enough to feed every single person in the world? If you answered yes then why are people still starving? Obviously, it’s because resources aren’t being allocated equally. Let’s say we reach 9 billion by 2050. How many people in that number are capable of feeding themselves and how many people can’t? How many people in that group are smart enough to only have as many children as they can support and how many people are dumb enough to try and support ten kids with a job that pays less than minimum wage? It’s not as simple as saying that just because we’re not overpopulated doesn’t mean people won’t starve. There are people who will never get their fair share because there are other people who are never satisfied. Is it really “ethical” to protect a life of an unborn fetus if he/she ends up starving when he/she is born into this world anyway?

                We also keep talking about land when it comes to population. Should land really be a basis in measuring overpopulation? When it comes to overpopulation, isn’t land simply this flat surface that people can occupy? But the problem here is LAND IS NOT FREE. Just because there’s enough land for everyone doesn’t mean that I can simply start moving my stuff to the park and start living there. Land is owned and it is being used. Not to mention that people, by nature, are also selfish, territorial animals. We are not just going to simply give away any land that we own for free. Most probably we’re going to make the most out of something before we ever decide to give it away for free. If you disagree with me then invite the next homeless man you see into your house, give him your bed and sleep on the floor. Since he’s there, you might as well feed him, give him some clothes and support him for the rest of his life. Yep we are definitely selfless and loving creatures *sigh*.

               

http://fightrhbill.blogspot.com/2009/06/misconceptions-and-clarifications-on.html

Ethics in the R.H. Bill: Benefit or Hassle?

            Ethics can be such a pain in the ass sometimes. Even when the answer is conveniently placed in front of people, they still find a way to contemplate about every single irrelevant ethical detail. Take the R.H. Bill for example; how long has this argument been going on? Most people would say that it’s been going on for almost a decade but if you research further the issue about reproductive health stems as far back as late 1970’s. And all of this is because of something as petty as ethics. Sometimes, when thinking about issues like the R.H. Bill, I actually question how human culture has devolved into something this diverse and indecisive.

            Let’s face it, we all like sex. It’s a part of our human nature. It’s a physiological and psychological need that exists in each and every person. Having said that, it is still, however, left to every single individual who and when they have sex. So why not apply that same reasoning to people. I’m pretty sure that the only reason why the government is stalling on something as simple as this is because of the church. I understand that much. What I don’t understand is why the church is so frustrated with it. Yes the church disagrees with it, fine. We all get that. But why stop us from making our own decisions? The church follows the word of God ridiculously literal that it’s actually funny sometimes so why not follow God when he gave us the free will to make our own decisions? Yes, we know we’re going to hell when we screw with God. To be honest, we’ve been hearing about that since we were kids and we’re sick and tired of it. So why not just let us make our own choices and let us face the consequences of our screw-ups in our own way? Isn’t that what God has been doing ever since He created us?

            Another thing I’d like to seriously point out about the beliefs of the church is that most of the time, their own beliefs clash with one another. It doesn’t even make sense sometimes. Let’s give a hypothetical situation. Let’s say there is a family in poverty and they live in a slum area. They already have three kids which obviously more than they can afford. When asked, they prefer not to have another child. So how does that work? They’re married so they obviously have the right to have sexual intercourse. If they no longer want children they’re not allowed to have sex anymore? Doesn’t that also contradict their beliefs that married couples should be allowed to have sex as a symbol of their love?

            I know that life is never a black or white situation but sometimes, there are black or white situations. The R.H. Bill is about choice and not about life, or morality, or any ethical crap people keep bringing up. It’s for people to make their own decisions and for the progress of society.