Smaller population, stronger economy
This is in response to Ernesto M. Pernia’s article titled “RH will help economy reach ‘sweet spot’” (Inquirer, 8/15/12). After I read the article, I became convinced to go pro-RH bill.
The first time I heard about the Reproductive Health bill, I did not choose between going pro or going anti; I was in between. I had reasons for supporting it and reasons for opposing it, and one of the reasons I opposed the bill was the economy. But after I read Pernia’s article, I saw the RH bill as a solution to poverty: The lesser the population, the fewer people we need to support and the higher the chances that the economy will get stronger. Sure we have to sacrifice a few pesos to achieve this, but compared to how much we would lose if there were more mouths to feed, we would have better chances with an RH law. Also, I agree that we have more young nonworking people and the cause of this may be unwanted pregnancy or poor family planning.
I agree that the RH bill should be passed. I think that the only reason we are holding back from doing this is the “morality issue” raised by the Catholic Church against the bill. Being a person of faith, I can understand that, but a different perspective doesn’t necessarily mean we’re killing human beings, it rather means we’re maintaining the balance of the population.
There may be a valid point in saying that with more people there would be more great minds to (probably) help improve our country, but how can this happen if our economy is struggling or, worse, in the process of collapsing?
Less lives, less problems, stronger economy, higher chances of improving our country.
—MARAGOLD JEWEL G. VILLAMOR,
