The debate for and against the measure spills in various fora, including facebook. A friend, Peter Casimiro, posted this in his fb wall last July 23:
The demographic time bomb..is beginning to explode. Time for Pinas to use leverage wisely!!
I commented on it, below are our exchanges from July 23 to 30. Posting this with Peter's permission, thanks Peter.
Nonoy Oplas That is why government-sponsored or taxpayers' funded population control measure, aka RH bill, is wrong. People are assets, not liabilities.
Peter Casimiro LOL!! on the bogeying of the holes Michael!. So true on the natural resources issue as well, and particularly water..it's already wrecking havoc in some parts of the world (ex. India). Hi Nonoy! I somewhat agree with you on the population control measure, but the RH Bill isn't a population control measure per se, it's really on women's reproductive health and on pre-natal care (both mother and child). It certainly includes a bunch of family planning measures, but even that is much needed in Pinas, as it's more of a resource issue (closely tied to Michael's point as well). Just the simple math of our pop sustainable issue throws us into a tizzy - Pinas total land area is the size of the state of Arizona which has only 6 million people and Pinas has way over 90 million people - we can't sustain that "well" as it is, what more if the growth rate stays at the current rate? (that's "partly" why we import a lot of agri products, rice, etc.).
Nonoy Oplas When government spends billions per year for NFA subsidy to sell cheaper rice, it gives "more options" to rice consumers. When govt subsidizes by at least P5 B/year MRT alone, it gives "more optioins" to commuters whether they take the bus or jeep or MRT. All govt subsidy programs are giving "more options" to their supposed beneficiaries, the only people who have zero option whether to finance those programs or not are the taxpayers. So what prevents the pro-population control people to pitch in their own money to buy condoms, pills, maternal facility, etc.? Why do it via coercion?
Peter Casimiro Haha..Nonoy who's being coerced? The bill provides only the "opportunity" to take the benefits of subsidized care, your presumption of coercion is perhaps "somewhat" true if these subsidies were only possible if tax rates were increased. As to your point, there is nothing that prevents those who wish to help from helping, the problem is it isn't sufficient. Now since the target audience of the RH bill are mostly the poor who do not have the personal resources to seek such medical care then are you saying that assisting to provide such care from those able to pay taxes (which by it's very nature is a form of wealth redistribution) is a form of "coercion"? If so, then all other uses for taxation is also a form of "coercion". Who then would build the roads you drive on? the police force you rely on for safety? the teachers that impart knowledge on our children?..if its coercion..I'd say allow more of it..because there isn't a single country in this world that has successfully developed into a stable nation without such coercion.
Nonoy Oplas Sure, I do not advocate zero government and hence, zero taxation, zero coercion. I advocate limited govt and hence, limited or minimal taxation and coercion. If you read the explanatory note of the previous bills (Cong. Lagman, etc.), they were very explicit in saying that the country's fast population growth is a problem, that we are now the world's 12th largest country in terms of population size, is a problem. Hence, the need to control population. Since this looks "unpalatable" to control population, they called it "RH" or "pro choice" bill when it's clear, control population. China did that, Singapore and Japan did that. And precisely why you posted that article in the first place -- that countries like the Philippines with fast population have the advantage. Check what you posted again.
