Hello there. I don’t know where you learned this, but you are sadly misinformed. In the past 200 years, the worlds population may have increased sixfold, but production and availability of resources has increased EIGHTYFOLD! It is quite clear that available resources are not only keeping up with population growth, it actually outruns it!

The so-called “reproductive health” bill (HB 5043) has NOTHING to do with free choice, since it FORCES employers, doctors, and health workers to dispense abortifacients and other contraceptives.

Allow me to quote from a position paper against HB 5043 (PDF version at: http://www.phnix.net/Position_Paper_Against_HB_5043.pdf) (Online version at:
http://mamador.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/a-position-paper-against-hb-5043/):

Section 21 (e) of the proposed bill lists the following as a prohibited act: “Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.” This provision is overly broad and “disinformation” could (and most probably will) be construed as prohibiting the expression of objections to the Bill, such as what we are presently doing. This provision is is obviously going to be used to suppress dissent, and is an undue restriction of freedom of speech.[5] It has no place in any of the laws of a democratic nation.

Section 17, on the other hand, mandates employers must provide such abortifacients and other contraceptives to employees. It states that, “All Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers.” Employers, therefore, are not given any choice despite the fact that distribution of these abortifacients and contraceptives may be against their conscience.

Section 21, number 5, requires doctors and health workers to dispense such abortifacients and other artificial contraceptive devices and methods. If they refuse to do so on religious grounds, they must still refer those who want to use such abortifacients to another person who will dispense them. Conscientious objectors are thereby required to cooperate in such acts, and if they refuse, they are slapped penalties ranging from one to six months imprisonment and a fine of P10,000-P50,000! HB 5043 eliminates any choice for conscientious objectors and makes no room for their legitimate concerns.

This bill is all about COERCION and making money for contraceptive manufacturers.

HB 5043 has NOTHING to do with health either. if it did, then it would have provided funding and institutional support for basic health care, which will prevent over 90% of maternal deaths. But this bill doesn’t even do that. Instead, its focus is on FORCING doctors, health workers, and employers to dispense abortifacients and other contraceptives.

This same flaw has been noted in “An International Open Letter in Response to the 14 Signatories of the Ateneo Statement:” (http://monkshobbit.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/an-open-letter-in-response-to-the-14-signatories-of-the-ateneo-statement/), which said:

Sections 6 and 7 of the Bill, which provide the only concrete health care and services to prevent or eliminate maternal mortality, are not mandatory, and the bill earmarks neither institutional support systems nor finances for their implementation. The POPCOM, which is established in Section 5 to implement and oversee the commitments outlined in the bill, has nine specific areas related to reproductive health and reproductive health services, yet no explicit mention of any responsibility in the area of maternal and ObGyn care. This most important section of the bill – and the only section actually consistent with Catholic social teaching – has been entirely neglected in the allocation of responsibilities to the agency established to oversee its implementation.

HB 5043 is very deceptive indeed. We should see though it and dump it along with the trapo politicians who authored it!

I haven’t seen any argument better than how Julian Simon puts it. Google him up for his profile.

“Idiots like Erlich and organizations such as Planned Parenthood, the State Department’s Agency for International Development and NFPRHA constantly sound nonsense warnings about how overpopulation produces disaster and poverty. There is absolutely no relationship between high populations, disaster and poverty.

“Population control idiots might consider Zaire’s meager population density of 39 people per square mile to be ideal while Hong Kong’s population density of 247,501 people per square mile is problematic. Hong Kong is 6,000 times more crowded than Zaire. Yet Hong Kong’s per capita income is $8,260 while Zaire, the world’s poorest country, has a per capita income of less than $200.

Planet Earth is loaded with room. We could put the world’s entire population into the United States. Doing so would make our population density 1,531 people per square mile. That’s a far lower population density than what now exists in New York (11,440), Los Angeles (9,126) and Houston (7,512). The entire U.S. population could move to Texas and each family of four would enjoy 2.9 acres of land. If the entire world’s population moved to Texas, California, Colorado and Alaska, each family of four would enjoy nine-tenths of an acre of land.

So-called overpopulation problems are really a result of socialistic government practices that reduce the capacity of people to educate, clothe, house and feed themselves. “

The immediate motivation of much of the cutting trees is economic. Peasants are hungry. They have little available work. But wood is in constant demand as , or to sell to others to make money. Peasant wood-cutters who do understand the soil erosion problem will argue that they have no alternative. They either cut and sell wood or they starve. Mainly they are right. Probinsyano suffers massive unemployment and most peasants have inadequate access to farm lands.

Because of the problems of illiteracy and lack of education wood cutters do not really understand the extent of damage their cutting does. They are contributing misery by cutting the few trees.But what alternatives of hunger or even starvation facing the wood sellers,

There is little motivation for wood cutters to replant more trees. Mainly they do not own the land. They cut here or there as sharecroppers or renters, then move on to other lands. The land owners are often city people or more wealthy village folks and they do not keep a close watch on their lands. Were they to replant, it is likely that the neighbors’ animals would eat the seedling trees since there is little forage left.. Of course, it is in the interest of the nation as a whole to replant trees. But, no individuals who own, share-crop or rent lands are personally motivated to do this costly and troublesome, and non-economic work.

Like my case,I always plant productive trees and people in my neighborhood just watch me.They don’t want to dig a circle hole in there backyard to plant santol.

Most of them have heard of a friend’s friend or an uncle’s cousin said to have found work in the City. But there are few jobs to be had, and the slums grow. These unemployed masses put increasing pressure on the already inadequate city infrastructure.

The problems of unemployment and underemployment are caused in large measure by the lack of an adequate infrastructure and the domination of all wealth by the few. The political instability of the present moment does not help. Members of the wealthy elite and foreign investors are leery of investing since no one knows where this Arroyo government will move.

However, millions and millions of dollars donated by foreign governments and charitable groups for infrastructure projects have been stolen by government officials. Cheating and corruption in dealing with these funds are widespread. Lastly, the economy is run for the benefit of the rich elite. There are too few just taxes to provide the needed income for the basic infrastructure which makes a decent life possible.

Since hunger is caused by the present social system, it would seem that it is not overpopulation which causes the crisis in our country. But this view is shortsighted. A reformed use and understanding of agriculture would make it possible for Philippines to feed its present population and even the expected population into the next century. But, eventually, Philippines will face a population crisis. Certainly population growth rate will make Philippines incapable of feeding her people in the best of circumstances.

These population control programs simply don’t work. Moral preaching, sex education, available contraceptive measures and even force do little to reduce populations in very poor people. This is because poor people need lots of children. They need them for reasons:
As workers in the farm fields. As old age insurance for parents who have no other security. Because in a life of low material gratification, raising children is among the few joys and delights one can have. Because they suffer high children mortality rates, poor people must have many children so that even half of them died enough will survive to one,two or three.

Only economic development can effectively lower the birthrate, and that economic development–providing old age security, and some level of material comfort, almost invariably lead people to voluntarily limit birth rates. Such a rise in material standard is also accompanied by higher levels of education, which further contributes to voluntary birthrate limits.

I think the real issue on the Reproductive Health Bill is population “growth” management. It is the worsening of the Philippine economy that calls for a unified action so as not to create a situation of widespread famine and social instability in the country should the Philippine population double in a few years time.
I also believe that one significant factor to economic stability low fertility rate and low birthrate. Allowing a large segment of the birth capable Philippine population to increase our fertility level will only jeopardize whatever is left with our ecomic gains.
As of now we have no problems on workforce because we have a very young population. Granting we shall mentain a zero growth rate, of our population, in twenty years time we still have sufficient workforce who are young and physically capable.
Legislation adjusts to the need to times. If we come to a point that we have more older than younger people, then it’s time to change the law.

Another construct on population dynamics is migration. People who get tired of living in the rural areas find their way to the urban centers. In effect they are adding up to the yearly growth of population in the urban centers.

Part of efficient population management is the provision of livelihood projects and establishment of infra-structure projects such as farm to market roads, schools, commercial centers, and recreational facilities may deter the influx of rural dwellers to the urban centers. Likewise basic social services such as health, social welfare, and education shall be made visible and available in the rural areas.