This article discusses the health care difficulties this Asian nation faces- it frames the discussion as a conflict between religious beliefs and economic hardships, between deeply held beliefs and crushing poverty. In order to really discuss the issue, you should look beyond the Philippine's example to other examples in the world - either examples of where contraception initiatives were successful or where the opposition to these medical interventions have been overruled - what were the outcomes?
Again, in your case for or against this concept you need to do the following -
- Summarize the main point of the article and identify which position you take (AFFirmative or NEGation)
- Use evidence from at least 2 other sources to support your evaluation of the argument put forth in the original piece
- Use appropriate quotation format and cite your sources
- Write 300-500 words (proofreading is critical)
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines declares "the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable", stating that freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion are guaranteed by the Constitution of the Philippines. However, that hasn't stopped the Catholic church from interfering with the government's proposed bill to make contraception free in the Philippines. According to the article, contraception is too expensive for women with many children. And because of this expense, (along with the church's indifference towards contraception), women are scraping the poverty line trying to support their children while simultaneously staying faithful to the church. But some women are redirecting their priorities to their family instead of their religion. Personally, I support this bill for a number of reasons. It stops the skyrocketing population in the Philippines, which is currently at a whopping 95 million. It raises the standard of living in poor countries like these, allowing income to be put to the most important necessities like food and water. It allows families to do what they want in their private lives without worrying about another child. And finally, it sends a colossal middle finger to the Catholic church, reminding them of the Constitution and the separation promised BY that Constitution. The church shouldn't worry about this bill. Why? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T AFFECT THEM. Anyone who is willing to stay faithful to the church will not use contraception at all in the first place, so how does making that unused service without charge do any harm to them? The president of this nation is on the right path, and anyone willing to interfere with the private lives of other people by refusing this health bill do not deserve to live in a country that is making a giant step in stopping poverty.
ReplyDelete- Parker Tirrell
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_Philippines
Parker, not only does this sound like you have done your research, it also sounds like you are passionate about it. Which is GREAT. This was a very well written piece along with very smooth to listen and to read, with a clear beginning, middle, and end that makes it that much more enjoyable to read. Now, all I am going to say is, is that statement (you know which one), though it is a FANTASTIC ear catcher that grabs your listeners attention, it should be used with discretion. As a Senator, high five, as a captain, be careful, because you have to have the type of personality, which we will talk about in class, that allows you to use that kind of statement once and a blue moon.
ReplyDeleteAll and all, another great piece. :)
-Kelsey
Thank you! I kinda gambled on that statement to see if I could get away with it, but I guess not.
ReplyDelete