The Moral and theological aspects of family planning

Media

Part of The Cross

Title: The Moral and theological aspects of family planning
Language: English
Year: 1972
Rights
Abstract: Continued on next issue.
Fulltext: possible brain damage and chromo some breakage. Drops—LSD taken orally, usually dissolved in water and placed on a sugar cube. Reefers—marijuana cigarets also called "joints” and "sticks.” "Roach” is the butt end of a "joint.” DEPRESSANTS This category of drugs depresses the functions of the brain. Some ad dicts use depressants with stimu lants to achieve a "see-saw" effect. When combined with alcohol, the re sults can be fatal. Prolonged use could lead to impaired judgment and sluggish thought. Its most common effects are slow movement, sljirred speech, dilated pupils of the eyes and symptoms similar to those of alcohol intoxication. Barbiturates These drugs—taken in tablet or capsule form—are called "sedativesmedicines” and are aimed at causing sleepiness. They are highly addic tive, and repeated use results in physical withdrawal. The most popu lar here are Seconal, Mandrax, Nem butal, Amutal, Luminal or Tuinal. Related Slang S e c o n a 1—"red devils," "pula" (red), "bala” (bullet) and "balatong" (mongo beans). Mandrax — "Mx,” "Blue Max," "Puti" white), "M" and "bala.” FAMILY PLANNING The Moral and Theological Aspects of Family Planning Morality means responsibility. When we deal with responsibility in conception control, two problems confront us which are distinct but not unrelated. They are the prob lems of the (1) Development of Fam ily Life, and (2) the Control of Po pulation. I shall deal with these two problems separately. These two are not mutually exclusive; in at tending to one, the other is not ne cessarily neglected. And yet not any solution of one, e.g. Population Control, will automatically guaran tee the authentic solution of the other, Development of Family Life. Of the two, the more fundamental is the problem of the authentic dev elopment of Family Life. In the fi nal analysis, the basic problem con fronting us is the problem of dev elopment; and the crucial target of development is not material resour ces, but the spiritual quality of our human resources. Let us then examine the problem of responsibility in the development of family life particularly in the exercise of parenthood. Areas of Responsibility The area of our responsibility, in general, expands as the area over which we exercise conscious control, expands. Thus in the area of parent hood, responsibility was exercised, in our long history, only after new life came to birth; Man had no control over the process of gestation of life in the womb; much less, oVef the moment of its conception. It is only in fairly recent times that this res ponsibility was extended to pre-naPage 16 tai care with the advances in medi cal science. And in our own days, when the time and frequency of con ception have finally come-, into our power, these two now become mat ters for responsible deliberation The day may not be too far off when the determination of even the sex of some future child will be added to matters of parental responsibility. Responsibility Over Conception Control Responsibility over the control of conception is peculiarly critical in our times because of the changed conditions in our life. New demands of a medical, economic, social, eu genic and cultural character have been created, and they have imposed themselves as needs for human life in the societies of today. Responsi bility dictates that parents take these into their reckonings, if the children they are to raise are not to become socially handicapped in their world. I need not dwell on this; it has been sufficiently treated. I just want to note that the newness of this responsibility over conception control is catching many parents by surprise, and has consequently found them unprepared. It will be our task to prepare them for this. There are two qualities that the exercise of this responsibility calls for:’ 1) a personal, and 2) flexible exercise. No Imposed Decisions Responsibility can not be exercised by any other than the person upon whom that responsibility rests; it can not be imposed by another. Thus, in decisions involving the exercise of parenthood, the responsibility for such decisions must rest with the parents or parents-to-be themselves. And that, jointly. No other person or institution can substitute for them —not their own parents, nor pub lic authority, nor their pastor. To opt for a limitation or expansion of the size of their family belongs ex clusively to the couple, as an exer cise of an inalienable right. This principle is upheld by both Vaticah II and the United Nations. The role of interested agencies is to help cou ples to develop as to be able by them selves to arrive at responsible deci sions in this matter. Our role is es sentially educational. This is why the primary orientation of our Prog ram is towards Education, a forma tion in Responsibility. No Irreversible Measures No decision that parents make can truly be responsible, if made irrevo cably, once and for all. For the de cision affecting the exercise of pa renthood is conditioned by the hu man situation; and since human sit uations are ever changing, decisions must be open to revisions necessary to meet the changes. Can we say that a couple is truly responsive to their vocation to mar riage when from the very beginning of their married life, they have al ready determined for 'che entirety of that life what the number of theii children is to be? Marriage is a vocation to a love whose creativity is an ever present challenge. What that challenge calls for, can be res ponsibly determined only from mo ment to moment; it is conditioned by variables: the medical condition of spouses or of the children, their fiMay—June, 1972 nancial situation, social circumstan ces of the family or of the commu nity to which they belong, etc. As these change, they will call for a change in previously made decisions. Hence the dynamic character of the exercise of parental responsibility. The freedom to meet new challenges is crucial to the development of per sons. This why measures that in effect render decisions irreversible such for instance as surgical sterilization, are rejected by a virtual consensus of interested experts. The same dynamic character of this responsibility dictates against an ideal family size that would be common to all families. Each couple faces a situation that is necessarily unique to itself, not common to all. The ideal family size can not pres cind from the situation of the family. As situations vary, so also must the ideal, necessarily, vary. So far, we have seen how the con ception of new human life must be the result of an exercise of respon sibility—an exercise that is at once personal and dynamic. This sense of responsibility does not necessarily rest upon any religious belief; it emerges from reflections of that with which all men are endowed, common sense. That one is a Buddhist, or Christian, or Muslim or Pagan, has no relevance here. What is of relev ance is that one act like a man, re sponsibly. The Quality of Human Life When, however, we closely exa mine the values that this responsi bility is intended to safeguard, ,we note that the more widely accepted and more frequently urged values— namely, health, food, shelter, educa tion — are those of a material char acter. It is true that these Bhould be a serious concern of parental re sponsibility; that these values, for people taken at a mass, are indispen sable infrastructure for a human way of life. But we can question whether they are the prime values to be sought in human development {which is the objective of parental responsibility).* In other words, do we understand quite accurately the true meaning of “Quality of Human Life”? Let us suppose that a couple sets out as their primary objective Ju. con ception control, adequate food'and clothing, improved health care and housing, a higher quality of educa tion, for the children they are to May-June, 1972 We can question whether values of a material character are the prime values to be sought in human development. The quality of human life pertains to the development of moral resources. bring into this world. Let us further suppose that to obtain this objective more securely, they decide to restrain the size of their family. Can we now conclude that in their case, a smaller family will be a happier fa mily? Let me propose the thesis that given material values as the main preoccupation in conception control, a smaller family will not necessari ly emerge a happier family. On the contrary, it runs the risk of develop ing into a deteriorating family. We have an illustration for this is a well known phenomenon that is puzzling well meaning parents. We refer to parents who by sheer indus try and courage, succeeded in rising from the economic and social handi caps of their earlier years, to posi tions of security and comfort. A day dawns when they are faced with chil. dren who reject order in their fami ly and society. The children are a cause of much unhappi ness. "How could they turn out to be so?” the parents ask themselves. "We provided them with all their needs—spared them all the hard ships we ourselves suffered!” The parents are puzzled; but social scientists see the answer in their ve ry words: "We spared them all hard ship”. These children were provided with all they could consume. But consdtaption however rich, does not promote maturation. They were starved of opportunities, of the chal lenges, to mature. Achievements for the family in material values do not necessarily carry with them progress in moral values. The Quality of the People We can raise the same question to the macro-level, the level of the nation as a whole, and ask ourselves: "Supposing we did succeed in help ing Filipino families contain their size, so that the country now began to number small-sized families in the majority—will we thereby have suc ceeded in reducing conflicts and ten sions in the country? In reducing the accumulation of power by the few? In achieving a more equitable distribution of wealth? Will we have succeeded in minimizing cor ruption in the exercise of public power, and graft in the rendering of public service? Will external peace and order have finally settled over our land? Will we have truly suc ceeded in the task of development of a people? The problem of raising the type of children who will be equipped to face the problems of their world is not solved merely by reducing their number. The ultimate answer does not lie either in making provisions for everyone, of a sufficiency of goods that are largely or exclusively material. It lies, fundamentally, in the development of the moral re sources of the young. By itself, how soever rich in material goods, popu lation control can lead to population deterioration, (cf. Eric Fromm : the bankruptcy of the consumer society). Hence a fertility control program that relies for its thrust largely on the attractions of material values will not solve the fundamental prob lem of human development. We do not minimize the importance of ma terial resources; we should be on guard against giving them the pri macy. Again, let us reiterate the need for conception control. At the same time, conception control is merely a tech nique; and techniques are morally ambiguous. They need an ideology to guide them and give them meaning. Even the practice of Rhythm, of it self is not necessarily laudable. The selfish practice of Rhythm is a be trayal of the married vocation to ere. ative love. What we aim to impart is an ideology rather than a tech nique. It is to highlight this that we have preferred the name RESPON SIBLE PARENTHOOD to Family Planning. (Continued next issue) Page 17