Taking poverty by the horn

Contraception and the country's dominant religion, except for the rhyme as spoken, could never be and will never be accustomed with each other.   Likewise, the proponent of the contraceptive's use and the leadership of the denomination that opposes it are at loggerheads, all the time, in the slightest of provocation.

Recently, the animosities escalated on account of the brave and unprecedented support of the president on the RH Bill that gives couples the freedom of choice. Demonstrating the Roman Catholic hierarchy's usual dictatorial tendencies, they threatened to excommunicate the president for such support. Admirably, however, embracing the thought that he is the president of the Filipino people, who are Christians (who are Catholics, Protestants, Pentecostals, etc.), Muslims, atheists, etc., President Aquino is steadfastly standing firm. 

Indeed, though poverty alleviation is their common objective, their approaches are oceans apart. With such unavoidable disparities in points of view, conflicts or disagreements naturally pervaded. 

Nonetheless, before we delve further into their animosities, let us objectively dissect the very root of their disagreements. Actually, it all boils down to the government's position to give couples the freedom to use birth control methods in determining their appropriate family size. In these issues, the government's and the country's catholic hierarchy's positions are similar, except on the use of contraceptives 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.

Before new threats of excommunication and people power will even again float in the air, 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. Apart from Pres. Aquino, some well-informed citizens and well-meaning government executives, like former DOH Sec. Cabral, in fact, made several options (like abstinence and condom use) to solve these debilitating 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 the use of contraceptives 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].