Sec 3 on Guiding Principles of “The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011” stated at paragraph 13: The limited resources of the country cannot be suffered to, be spread so thinly to service a burgeoning multitude that makes the allocations grossly inadequate and effectively meaningless.

Is it because the rate of increase of number of lives to be sustained, is faster than the rate of increase of amount of resources that could provide sustenance?

I agree that our material resources are finite as all materials in this world are finite. 

Back to thousands of years earlier than 2000 years ago, did the people live in a situation of abundance of material resources for sustenance?  Sustenance for material resources was derived merely from gathering and hunting.  Was that abundance compared to today?  Even during the later period, when agriculture became the technology for material resources sustenance, there was no such mass movements to suppress population growth.  There were those who lived with enough.  But there were those like the rich and powerful kingdoms who conquered other territories of other kingdoms and slaughtered or enslaved the vanquished and looted their resources as a means to sustain the conqueror kingdom.  They lived then, as if resources for them were limited.  From those events, was there actually a shortage of material resources at that time?  Or was it more of fear due to greed?  Was the behavior of people then, towards the share of material resources any different from that of now?  The technology then, was mass murder of the living.


Today, the same fear of limited resources is gripping us.  Yet, despite of all the supposedly more advanced technology for material resources sustenance of the world, why is it that not all families can have food available for them?  How is it that today, we can have one family who, aside from owning long chain of supermarkets and large tracks of lands, could very well afford to feed each member of that family of say 12, the quantity equivalent of more than one hundred meals at three times a day if they could accommodate that much in their stomach?  Is this amount, not more than the equivalent of three good meals a day for 70 families with 12 children each?  Is this amount of food not excess?  Yet how is it that today, there are families who could afford to eat that much quantity of food, while there are families of 3 children who could not eat three adequate meals a day?  Is this not greed causing hunger? 


Some of those who belong to such families who could well afford to be fed more than a hundred meals in one mealtime if their stomach could accommodate that much, have blamed families who could not afford to have three meals a day to be lazy but high in offspring productivity.  Have they not seen family members with 3 children who had to labor 12 hours a day to be able to eat two times a day everyday because that is the only capability they have as a result of the business of this well-fed family members which: control markets; have contractual policies; have oppressive compensation policies; or which have been displacing small retailers from the areas they have established their own giant businesses?  Is this hunger the general result of laziness or too many mouths to feed?  Is not the RPRHPD Act of 2011, promoting greed for blaming high population growth as cause of hunger while ignoring greed as the cause?  Or is it sustaining lust by providing artificial technology to an imbalance of nature which can be corrected by a long and hard working natural behavioral developmental process?

Is the fear that drove the technology for material resources sustenance of many of the powerful people back in the period of more than 2000 years ago, any different from that of the fear that drives the guiding principles in the RPRHPD Act of 2011 today?  Is the technology being pushed not just that of a more subtle technology to block others from opportunities to life so that those who have the capacity to satisfy their greed can have all the opportunities of pursuing it without any hindrance?


Do we really think that this material world we live in, can be exempted from the universal material process of wear and tear, and from a finite existence?  If we believe in this, then if human population existence in it is extended to infinity, this world may be able to sustain it.

But if we think as we have seen from the universal process, that this material world we live in can not be exempted from a finite existence, then why do we attempt to extend human population existence to infinity?  Moreover, if we extend material world to infinity assuming we are able to, how are we again to take population management into our hands before a situation where there will be more elderly who by that time again have decreased capacity to carry the burden of the world but by them, increased the load to be carried by the young?  Such a burden definitely hampers our life of pleasure.

We are already laying the foundation for a culture of condomization of life reproductive parts or putting in our hands alone, when life of another human being should start.  This is based on our life of pleasure.  What should stop as now from developing towards condomization of life sustaining parts like the nose or mouth, or putting in our hands alone, when life of another human being should end?  This is based on our life of unhampered pleasure.

Is the culture of condomization, the culture of taking life from others so that we may live, the meaning of our life?

Based on scriptures, God our maker taught us to give our life so that others may live.  Based on scriptures, he sent his only Son Jesus Christ to pay with his own life here for the damage of our life which we, in our ignorance, indulged into here in this material world.  If we do not believe in God, this guide to the meaning of our life can only be validated thru experience.  I am not a good person.  But in a number of times in my own experiences, I have seen that having given a little of my life so that others may live have given me more than just a little joy seeing what amount of life, recipients around me have received.

José Miguel García


Anonymous said...

I was listening to a Catholic apologist talking about "rights" a few days ago and learned this:

For a "right" to be enacted into a law means that "someone" must provide that "right" to those who believe that they have the "right". Example: Abortion must be performed by medical practitioners to someone who believes that its their "right" to have it. This, being the law, does not take into consideration the conscience and religious beliefs of the medical practitioners. So a solution maybe is to have a medical practitioner who believes that such procedure is just. This then leads to the next issue, since its a law, someone else must pay for it, and this is the more problematic side of the issue as taxpayers, whether they agree with it or not, would have to pay for the procedure otherwise they would be violating a law which aims to provide the "right" of someone to have an abortion. So what really is a right?

Made me think... :)

josé miguel said...

It can not be right if it is just for a short time for the benefit of one or few and detrimental to others. It can only be right if it is for a permanent period for the benefit of every person. Whether a proposed law will result to the first or the second is the central area of dispute. Whether a proposed law will be enacted or not does not change it from not being right to being right and vice versa.

As to the claim to it's being right is the truth or not, leads to the question: "How can truth be established?"

Truth can only be established by consistent uniform pattern of occurrences with a cross reference on a previous occurrence or revelation which, may be the cause, the witness account, or prediction, having turned out as accurate and consistent. The information on the previous occurrence or revelation being referred to must be pure.