Thanks, Caucasusbeetle! My favorite critter is the jumping spider with its large beady eyes. :)

Check out the divorce bill and see for yourself whether or not it contains safeguards/criteria that would prevent people from divorcing so easily on a whim:
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/222970/news/...

[Who ever said the Catholic Church has a monopoly on morals and ethics? Your words , not mine. ]

Okay, good. At least you made it clear that you don't believe the RCC has a monopoly on morals and ethics.

[The truth of the natural process of life was not manufactured by the Catholic Church.]

Of course not, but the Church is claiming to have received divine revelation on this natural process of life.

[We've gone back and forth.]

Not really. First, I've noticed that you no longer tried to refute my assertion that the issue is not whether pregnancy ought to be prevented with a drug, but if it should be prevented at all. Second, by saying, "Who ever said the Catholic Church has a monopoly on morals and ethics?", you saved us a lot of time that would have been spent trying to argue whether or not the RCC does have a monopoly over morals and ethics. So I don't think we've gone back in forth. In fact, we're nicely moving forward.

What do you mean "instead of trying to be objective"? Were my arguments not objective? Kindly explain why you think so.

[Just don't promote it as a health initiative.]

Why not? If the WHO and the FDA deem contraceptives as effective to prevent reproductive health risks caused by closely-spaced pregnancies, why should the government not promote them as a health initiative?

[It should not require institutions against it to promote it as public health.]

Which institutions are you talking about? If you're referring to our DOH and baranggay health clinics, they are mandated to implement our laws, so if we have an RH law that promotes contraceptives, they are in no position to go against it. By the way, the RH bill does not really "promote" contraceptives but merely seeks to make the option available to poor couples who can't afford them. If these couples prefer NFP for whatever reason, an RH law will not force them to use artificial methods. But if you're talking about the RCC or other "pro-life" institutions or even private hospitals, the more they are not required by the RH bill, if it becomes a law, to "promote" contraceptives.

[Fortunately, secular laws are not divorced from morality and ethics.]

I agree. But even more fortunately, the RCC does not hold a monopoly on morality and ethics.

[Unfortunately for you, you live in a predominantly God believing country and so teachings such as Humane Vitae will always come up when morals, ethics, and truth are perverted. ]

And who determines whether morals, ethics, and truth are being perverted? Surely not the RCC – unless the morals and ethics you are talking about are CATHOLIC morals and CATHOLIC ethics, and that the "truth" you're referring to is the RCC's dogma which it 'claims' to be true. Fortunately for me, jurisprudence expanding the constitutional separation of Church and State says that "the morality referred to in the law is public and necessarily secular" and that "public moral disputes may be resolved only on grounds articulable in secular terms."

I think the overlying question (and the one I keep on asking to show the double standard of the RCC) is not whether pregnancy ought to be prevented with a drug, but if it should be prevented at all. Whether with natural birth control or contraception, the intent is the same: to prevent pregnancy.

Anyway, to answer your question about whether or not one ought to prevent pregnancy with a drug, my answer would be, why not? If a couple wants to enjoy sex during the woman's fertile period (when she happens to feel sexiest and horniest) without getting pregnant, they ought to use contraception. But I know you will never agree with me because unlike me, you hold the premise that Humanae Vitae is God's word, not to mention that God exists in the first place. Fortunately, we live in a secular country, or at least that's what our Constitution says, meaning we don't have to refer to Humanae Vitae when crafting our national laws.

[You agree that pregnancy is not a disease then why are we still arguing why it should be treated with medicine.]

I am not talking about treatment, but prevention, particularly why the RCC allows couples to prevent pregnancy at all regardless that the only prescribed methods are the natural ones.

[Your comparison of pregnancy and diabetes or any other disorder does not hold water because they are apples and oranges.]

Both pregnancy and type 2 diabetes can be prevented using natural methods (heck, I still haven't heard of a healthy person trying to avoid acquiring type 2 diabetes by taking drugs). Which means that a condition doesn't have to be considered a disease for it to be prevented, and that prevention doesn't necessarily mean taking drugs. Which means that the RCC's argument that pregnancy is not a disease does not hold water. You are focusing too much on the "cure" and "treatment" aspect. I am not arguing about those things. I am arguing about prevention.

As for the rest of your comment, I have already answered those issues at length in an article I've previously written titled "Why the Church Allows Natural Birth Control (But Not Contraception)." If you don't mind, I would like to direct you to that article and perhaps we can continue our discussion there:
http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/03/20/why-th...

Pregnancy is NOT a disease, so why prevent it at all? Take note that the issue here is prevention per se, not the method of prevention (natural or artificial).

To drive my point, consider type 2 diabetes. It is a disease, right? But is prevention limited to the use of drugs/medicines? No. In fact, it is "naturally" prevented by a having a healthy lifestyle (i.e., proper diet and exercise). Nevertheless, we try to prevent it by whatever means available. This means that your "not a disease = not a drug" does not follow, because "disease = not a drug" applies to the prevention of type 2 diabetes.

Going back to pregnancy, why does the RCC allow natural methods of prevention while at the same time condemning artificial methods? If your standard is the premise that pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented, you have to condemn all means of family planning - natural or artificial. But if you condemn one but not the other, then you are employing a double standard.

@Pinoyindy:

Perhaps you didn't see my previous comment below clarifying what ARM meant by the RCC's double standard, so allow me to restate the argument here:

According to the RCC:

1. Natural Family Planning: OK for prevention of pregnancy
2. Contraception/Artificial Methods: NOT OK for prevention of pregnancy

The RCC also keeps on asking the rhetorical question, "Is pregnancy a disease? (If not, why prevent it using contraceptives?)" So the standard used for their objection towards contraception is the premise that pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented. But if you apply the same standard (i.e., the premise that pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented) to natural family planning, NFP should also be unacceptable. But why is NFP acceptable to the RCC? Are they using another standard/premise that makes them conclude that NFP is okay? If so, there is a double standard.

@Pinoyindy and ARM:

I hope you don't mind me butting in. I just want help make it clear to Pinoyindy what ARM means by the RCC's double standard:

1. Natural Family Planning: OK for prevention of pregnancy
2. Contraception/Artificial Methods: NOT OK for prevention of pregnancy

The RCC keeps on asking, "Is pregnancy a disease? If not, why prevent it using contraceptives?" So the standard used for their objection towards contraception is the premise that pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented. However, it seems they don't apply the same standard (i.e., the premise that pregnancy is not a disease to be prevented) to the issue of natural family planning. Are they using another standard/premise that makes them conclude that NFP is okay? If so, there is a double standard.

Thanks, Miguel. As for your being Catholic, I don't think it's really ironic because being Catholic doesn't necessarily mean being dogmatic or having the illusion that your beliefs should be shared by everyone. No wonder you are my favorite theist. :)