When Women Don't Want Babies

The usual excuse for allowing the government to distribute contraceptives is for the "quality of life" of women, especially the poor. It always has to be for the poor; it's either they won't admit that they also want to benefit from free contraceptives paid for by our taxes, or they're intellectually dishonest (or foolish) to think that contraceptives would really help the poor. I don't know about you, but I have yet to see someone become a millionaire from drinking all those pills.

We're so poor our mommies need pills! - said no poor, hungry kid, ever

So aside from the fact that contraception for the poor does not alleviate poverty, what harm does it do? Isn't this a personal decision that should be made by the woman?

There is a difference between letting women decided for themselves whether they want contraceptives or not, and crafting a law that "offers freedom" to women who want to use contraceptives (as if women were barred from using contraception prior to the RH law).

When women take contraceptives to delay the rearing of children, they form a habit of contraception, and a mentality of not wanting children. Their actions become their habits, and the collective habits of a society whose women practice contraception will lead to a contraceptive culture, and a significant drop in the total fertility rates. Simply put it, any demographer worth his salt knows that a society needs an average of 2.1 babies per woman in order to have a sustainable population. Anything below 2.1 and the population goes down as well. Imagine losing your people to some unknown plague that does kills not immediately, but persists from generation after generation.

Do we really want to follow their example? 

Of course, one could always make the excuse that these countries are steeped in progress by this time because of the same birth control program that is being handed to us through the RH law. That excuse is itself problematic, first of all because we don't really know whether the drop in population, as manifested by the drop in their society's total fertility rate, or TFR, did cause their progress or not. Second, would anyone really do anything for progress' sake, solving their economic and social problems by creating more problems? One can argue that we should let progress take its course, and worry about that problem later. I don't know about that, since no country has ever gone from below 2.1 and recovered their population without resorting to immigrants. The country is then slowly choked to death, its people slowly eroding away, replaced by immigrants.

But I am getting ahead of myself. What problems do we create when we fail to create enough children, so to speak? Simplistically speaking, a drop in birth rates will cause dire consequences, especially affecting the workforce and social security, for starters. The video below will expound this further.

Of course, there are other explanations as to why the birth rates and total fertility rates are plummeting down. The documentary "Demographic Winter" offers some answers as to why births are down:

• Women working - Simply put it: if both daddy and mommy are working, they both get tired. No energy for baby-making at night after work. 
• Prosperity - studies show that as countries and individuals become prosperous, they tend to desire less children
• The Sexual Revolution - ingrained in men and women the contraceptive mentality. It was no coincidence that the emergence of the pill in 1960 ushered in the sexual revolution. 
• The Divorce Revolution - if women can't count on their partners being there for them next month, let alone next year, let alone forever - women will naturally not want to have children with their spouse. The risk of divorce decreases the couple's chances of having another child. 
• Inaccurate Assumptions - like overpopulation causing poverty, and lesser children equating to poverty. 

In this postmodern world, it is easy to think that birth control is vogue; sire several children and you will be the target of jokes like "ang sipag ni kumpare ah!"  or "konti na lang, may basketball team ka na" Of course, we know that the use of contraceptives is not in any way modern; contraception was used in the past by our ancestors as well. This site tells us how old contraception is. 

"The Greeks used Silphium, known commonly as giant fennel. Its pungent sap was good in cough syrups and gave food a rich, distinctive taste. These plants were also known to have contraceptive and abortifacient properties. The plant was honored on a four-drachma Cyrenian coin showing a seated woman touching the plant with one hand while pointing to her genitals with the other hand. The demand for the plant was so great that by the third or fourth centuries, Silphium was extinct. Related plants survived, but were less effective.

The ancient Egyptians also practiced birth control. A medical document from 1500 BC lists substances that it claims 'stops pregnancy.' According to the papyrus, unspecified amounts of acacia gum, dates, and an unidentified plant were mixed with plant fiber and honey and formed into a pessary (vaginal suppository). Modern researchers have found acacias to be spermicidal."

The RH law's existence hangs in the balance, until after the oral arguments on July 9. But with or without the RH law, we will always have to contend with the contraceptive culture, a culture where men, and most crucially, women, don't want babies for all the wrong reasons. And because of this, regardless of what happens after the Supreme Court decides on the fate of RH, we have to continue educating people, especially our youth, to welcome all new life as a blessing, and that we should uphold and protect human life. 

The future rests on our hands. Literally.