On condoms, contraception and intervention

by Eliseo Yanga III on March 12, 2010

We deprive people of the knowledge regarding sex and sexual behaviors and yet we expect them to do the right thing. At this very moment thousands, no, millions are suffering as a result of this deprivation.

This carnal drive we call sex and all the related behaviors and aspects streaming out of it is an inherent natural drive. It doesn’t matter if you’re a caveman or a city folk. It doesn’t matter what culture, faith or moral disposition you hold—sexual behaviors will always be a part of humanity. And so I find it callous and hypocritical to deny or even demonize its existence.

Those who are not aware of contraception or family planning will engage in sexual intercourse anyway. In fact our population continues to grow at an unprecedented rate because of ignorance and the lack of responsibility thereof. Those who are unaware will not wait for the time when all the relativistic moral debates have been settled. The problem continues to grow as people commit the very same mistakes simply because they have no idea what they are getting themselves into.

This is why I find the Church to be unreasonable when it sought to intervene with the Department of Health’s policy through their “anti-condom and contraception” stand, as stated by the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines (CBCP). I find this unfair and unnecessary because they are delaying legislation and criticizing actions taken for a problem that is already plaguing society using moral reasoning that only caters to their dogma. As much as we have to respect cultural and religious beliefs, this may be crossing the line. It is verging on state intervention when it should not. I also find it to be somewhat irrelevant, irrational and relativistic. It does not address the issue at hand.

Condoms encourage promiscuity?

Let’s begin with their argument that “condoms encourage promiscuity.” First of all, this is unfounded. There is no correlation between condoms and promiscuity. I think the reason behind the Church’s phobia is because condoms seem to remind people of engaging in sexual behaviors. But really, hiding sexual behaviors is like hiding an elephant inside a drawer. Fact of the matter is that people do not need the instructions at the back of condom packets to know what to “do”—it is innate among us. Condoms are not the precedent for sexual behavior. It was invented to prevent unwanted pregnancies as a result of sexual behavior, not encourage the behavior itself.

But looking at the bigger picture, perhaps a more general question to ask would be: “Are sexually educated societies promiscuous societies?” We have to realize that the two are very different things. Sex education fosters awareness on what sexual behaviors are. It does not resort to abstract concepts like guilt or shame to tell people the responsibilities involved when it comes to sexual behaviors, especially sexual intercourse and disease transmission. It does not seek to merely satisfy the lewd and the prurient without purpose other than pleasure as pornography would. And so I do not see why it would encourage unwanted pregnancies and promiscuous behavior.

This leads us to the second argument: that “condoms are not effective in preventing pregnancies”. I believe they are raising this argument because they are confident about their alternative solution—abstinence. It doesn’t matter if the chance of getting pregnant when using a condom is 2% on average should it be used correctly when the alternative method involves not even engaging in coitus proper. But then again, this is easier said than done. If you do not stress the importance of unwanted pregnancies and family planning, much less explain why people get pregnant in the first place and just rely on the fear of being burned in the afterlife (whatever that means in the context of this boring, gloomy and lonely ghetto or this far flung country side), how could you expect an effective turn out?

Last is their stand on being “pro-life” and “anti-contraception” which I take as allowing any process of “procreation” to go about unhindered. But seriously, what is so “pro-life” about indirectly allowing a couple to barely raise a family of 14? Will those children even have a chance of living a decent life? Contraceptives hold a lot of implications— mostly preventive and non-intrusive. And while the issue of abortion may be included, it is an extreme case that is a moral dilemma even to science. Contraception is not just about abortion.

Should the Catholic Church influence public policy?

But perhaps a relevant question to ask is “Should the Church even attempt to influence state policy and legislation?” Well I know what some are thinking: the Church should intervene because it serves as a check and balance, the upholder of morality in an otherwise corrupted system. Well, first and foremost the Catholic Church is but one of the many religious and cultural beliefs in the country. It is arrogant for us to assume that they have the right to influence the State simply because they are dominant. Also, the problem we have with our government is political in nature—it is a problem of our democracy, not our religion.

Well I guess what I am getting at here is that opinions of every sector of society should be considered when it comes to public policy making since we are a “democracy” after all. But the reasons behind them should be objective and impartial. It should not verge into the grounds of moral assertions that serve only one specific sect. It must seek to serve the general welfare of every Filipino. The problem of overpopulation and HIV need be addressed now. And we need awareness and proven action to do this, not guilt nor shame relative only to one side.

*** Eliseo Yanga III is Manila-based and has formal training in journalism and psychology. Eli also writes for emanilapoetry. Learn more.