Even if population as a whole is not a problem (which I am not conceding), it is incontrovertible that individual families are better off with smaller number of children. Ito ang isang study on the impact of number of children sa pag attend ng paaralan
The estimation result shows that there is negative impact of the number of children on the proportion of school-age children attending school. The average effect for the children 6 to 24 years old is a 19% decline per additional child or almost 1 in every five children. Estimates considering per capita income quintile show that for the poorest quintile the impact is a 24% decline or almost 1 in 4 while for the richest quintile this is an 16% decline or around 4 in 25 per additional child. In addition, while this impact is not significant for the elementary school-age children, these are much bigger in magnitude and much more regressive at higher school-age groupings reaching as much as 77% for the poorest quintile for the tertiary school-age group or 8 in 10 children for this age group.
Eto naman ang isang study sa impact ng mas madaming anak sa savings rate ng pamilya
"..each additional child reduces the savings rates by -0.36 for definition 1. Table 5 shows that in the case of definition 2, the impact of additional children is not significant. While the estimates may look small in absolute value but they are not relative to the recorded average saving rates. Given the average savings rate in the sample of 0.028, this represents a reduction of about 13%.
The best argument they have is that, population is not an obstacle to development, which means it is not a boost either, so if individual families are better off with lesser number of children why should we not encourage that?
Their other arguments are bullshit. Number 2 and 3 and 4 is the fallacy of false dilemma they present it as if we cannot do the things they say, stable, secure well paid jobs and better education etc etc if we pass the RH bill. In fact, with less population, our government can channel more resources per capita to the policies they advocate.
Number 5 is not even wrong, condoms are not meant to prevent HPVs, we have bakuna's for that. Isipin niyo na lang kung gano kataas ang infection rate sa Thailand ng STI kung walang condom, another fallacy by the way, it is a non-sequitur, it does not follow that because we and Bangladeh have lower HIV infection rate, it follows that it is because we do not promote the use of condoms. Condoms, properly used, have been proven to prevent the transmission of STDs and HIV.
As an aside, napaka macro ng pagtingin nila, gaya nung sa population at economic development, maski na hindi makatulong ang condom sa pagpigil sa paglaganap ng HIV sa isang bansa, hindi maitatanggi na makakatulong itong sa pagsalag ng HIV infection sa mga indibidwal na tao. Bakit mo aalisin yung choice sa isang tao na piliin niyang gumamit ng condom para hindi siya mahawahan ng sakit dahil lang sa ayaw mo ng condom?
At yung pang huling punto, eto po yung relevant statement sa WHO
"As stated in the IARC's review, the use of COCs modifies slightly the risk of cancer, increasing it in some sites (cervix, breast, liver), decreasing it in others (endometrium, ovary).....Assessments based on risk-benefit calculations are carried out by different teams withing WHO....They regularly review the safety of COCs and assess the balance of risks and benefits of COC use and they have determined that for most healthy women, the health benefits clearly exceed the health risks."
No comments:
Post a Comment