Abstinence & condom: Proponents must set good example

Condom and religion, except for the rhyme as spoken, could never be and will never be accustomed with each other.   Likewise, the proponent of the object’s use and the leadership of the organization that opposes it could never see eye to eye. Though their objectives maybe the same, their approaches are oceans apart. With such unavoidable disparities in points of view, conflicts or disagreements pervaded. 

The campaign for the condom’s use had never been this open. As expected, the Catholic Church hierarchy never took it sitting down by accusing some government officials of making money out of this endorsed product.   However, by declaring the Philippines to be in a state of an HIV/AIDS epidemic, Department of Health (DOH) Secretary Esperanza Cabral has somehow put some legitimacy on it. 

Nonetheless, before we delve further into their animosities, let us objectively dissect the very root of their disagreements. It all boils down to two concerns, curbing the spread of HIV/AIDS and prevention of unwanted pregnancies. In these issues, the government’s and the country’s catholic hierarchy’s positions are similar, except on the use of contraceptives (that includes condom) and some thoughts that there is no need to curb population. Anti-contraceptive backers are even emphasizing that countries with bigger population than us are, obviously, enjoying better lives. Therefore, being plenty has no direct correlation with poverty.

As HIV/AIDS concerns are as clear as daylight, let us go deeper into our misconceptions about population per se. In this regard, I have to reiterate some facts about population in my previously written column. Standing alone as a statistic, population data is nothing but an incomprehensible assembly of numbers. In 2006, the US Census Bureau estimated that the Philippines is the 12th most populous country in the world. Ahead of us are, (1) China - 1,313,973,713, (2) India-1,095,351,995 (3) USA - 298,444,215, (4) Indonesia - 245,452,739, (5) Brazil-188,078,227, (6) Pakistan - 165,803,560, (7) Bangladesh - 147,365,352, (8) Russia- 142,893,540, (9) Nigeria - 131,859,731, (10) Japan - 127,463,611, (11) Mexico - 107,449,525.

If the number of inhabitants in a country is the sole determinant as far as poverty incidence is concerned, then, the United States of America and Japan should not just be hungrier than us but should be among the hungriest countries in the world today. The reality is an absolute “NO”. The answer is simple. With their vast land area, naturally, they will have more residents or bigger population.

The more logical question, therefore is-are they crowded? Population-wise, this is the most relevant statistics. Coherently, the better statistics should be the data that reveals the fewer number of people for every square kilometer in a given country. This information is called density. 

So, where are we as far as density is concern? With 292.86 per square kilometer, we ranked 26th overall. Notably, better off countries like Monaco ranked 1st with 16,205 per square kilometer, and Singapore followed with 6,386.29. Bahrain is in 5th with 1,035.44 per square kilometer, South Korea is in the 11th place. Starving countries in the list includes Bangladesh in 6th and Sri Lanka in 23rd. The United States of America is 124th.

If density or the level of congestion in a country is a principal barometer on poverty incidence, then, Monaco and Singapore, the most densely populated countries should have higher incidences in this regard. But no, they are among the world’s richest countries. 

If the bigger number of inhabitants and the higher level of congestion do not directly connote poverty incidences, then more relevant information is necessary to understand this crisis we are in. Such significant information is family size.

Despite the level of congestion in countries like Monaco or Singapore, the average number of children per family in these countries is just about two. More often, some are just happy with one kid. Due to limited space, they are living in world-class tenements even comparable to what we popularly referred to us “high-end condominiums”.  

Clearly, in these progressive countries, the common denominator isn’t their sheer number of residents or the density factor of their population. Apparently, these countries have kept their family sizes at manageable levels. 

Learning from these countries’ experiences isn’t difficult. Understanding their ways of managing their families isn’t incomprehensible too. Having manageable sizes of families simply bring about positive consequences. Obviously, taking care of dozen children is so different from taking care of just two. The parents can spend quality time with their kids and can handily remember their birthdays and immunization schedules. 

In a very manageable family size, the wives or mothers benefit the most. They can find jobs or do more productive chores apart from taking care of the kids. With all these preoccupations, women will try to space their pregnancy or most probably just be contended of having a few. With both parents doing productive undertakings, families’ needs would be handily and responsibility taken cared off.

However, as more and more couples are rendered jobless, they just make it a preoccupation to have more babies. Also, most families tend to breed more kids, so that, there will be more warm bodies to send to the dumpsites to collect recyclable garbage or simply having more hands to work as meagerly paid farm workers, or, worst, to have more appropriately dressed kids to beg in the streets. 

The problem, therefore, is in our problem-solving ways. We are not wanting in ideas in this regard. Some well-informed citizens and well-meaning government executives, like Sec. Cabral, in fact, made several options (like abstinence and condom use) to solve these debilitating HIV/AIDS and poverty incidences. While abstinence is mutually acceptable to both the government and the catholic, Sec. Cabral didn’t consider this option effective. Obviously, she has a point because even some catholic bishops and priests, the staunch proponents of abstinence, cannot even abstain from having sex. Worst, they are not also helping the country in curbing population growth by having illegitimate kids themselves. 

Indeed, knowing fully well that in this country’s kind of democratic ways where a religious sector tend to dictate, even the most logical option maybe trampled before it gains ground. 

Likewise, therefore, knowing that condom use maybe a tool to having a manageable family size is the key to conquer hunger isn’t enough. Imparting them to those who needed education (despite some sectors’ oppositions) is the most challenging part. 

For your comments and suggestions, please email to [email protected].