Many have already been written and said about the proposed Reproductive Health Bill. For awhile I kept my mouth shut because I don’t want to be yacking on something I have limited knowledge of. I would not want to base my opinion merely from what I hear. I needed something concrete. I needed to see the copy of the said proposed RH bill and understand the provisions contained therein as well as do a little reading on my own before I can form an opinion on this important issue which is causing a stir in our country.Be Fruitful and Multiply (Genesis 1:28)
That’s the main contention of the Catholic Church. If that’s their main argument to oppose the RH bill therefore it’s absolute that all forms of birth control should not be acceptable. Then how come they promote what they call the “natural” method? Isn’t the purpose of the so called “natural” method is also for birth control? On this note, I think they are contradicting themselves. Granting their use of the biblical verse is correct, isn’t one or two, enough to fulfill such instruction from God? The RH bill does not prohibit anyone to have kids but merely encourages a couple to have two children as an ideal family size. It’s not even mandatory or compulsory and no punitive actions will be imposed to anyone should a couple decide to have more than what is recommended. As such, I see no basis why this biblical verse should be used to argue against the RH bill.
Birth Control Methods
Contraception
Examples of artificial methods are use of condoms, diaphragms, and contraceptive pills (progestogen only pill). Sterilization methods such as vasectomy and tubal ligation are also considered under the artificial method. For the natural method, the church promotes lactational method (determining the length of a woman's period of breastfeeding infertility), withdrawal, and total abstinence. Either through natural or artificial method, both have the same purpose, to prevent the union of the sperm and the egg cell as such, I don’t see any difference between either methods. So for me, either method is acceptable.
Examples of contragestions are oral contraceptives (Combined Estrogen and Progestogen), hormonal injectibles and Intra-Uterine Devices (IUDs). Through this method, it is said that it prevents the implantation of the zygote (product of the fusion of the sperm and egg cell) to the uterus and thus is expelled, as such, considered by the pro-RH advocates as abortificient.
Abortificient
Abortificient is defined as drugs or substances that causes pregnancy to end prematurely and causes an abortion. However, it is only during at which the zygote attached itself to the wall of the uterus the process of pregnancy begins. Therefore, if this process will not happen by preventing the zygote to attach to the uterus, the process of pregnancy will not occur, ergo, there is no abortion. How can you end something which has not even started yet? However, conservatives might still argue, and what of that zygote? They adhere to the belief that human life begins at that moment when the union of sperm and egg cell occurs (conception). Do we consider zygote as a human being? Where does the human life exactly begin?
Beginning of Human Life
First, I do not agree that human life is created during conception. The exact moment at which the sperm and egg cell unite is just part of a process to create life. It is not a definite or distinct point in time when we can say human life is created. This zygote would still have to undergo various stages of physical and chemical processes before the “process of creation” is said to be completed. I personally believe that life begins when pregnancy begins, when the process of fertilization is complete and the zygote finally attaches itself to the uterus. However, the conservatives insist that zygote should be protected still for its potential to form human being. Well, my sperm has the potential to form human being too right? Should it be protected too? I am sure they would further argue that my sperm would need the egg cell to complete the process. Well, just as equally important that the zygote must attach itself to the uterus, till then, they are nothing but a group or mass of human cells.
To sum up my points with regard to acceptability of artificial birth control methods, both contraception and contragestion in a moral context (or should I say, my moral judgment), I see no reason why I should object to it. However, there may be legal impediments as to the applicability of contragestion, which is unfortunate, and may be considered unconstitutional for it was explicitly stated in the 1987 Constitution that the State “should equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” I therefore say, that this provision of the constitution should be amended.
Sex Education to Grade Five to High School Students
The Catholic Church strongly opposes this provision in the RH Bill for they believe that it would allow parents to abdicate their primary role of educating their children especially in the area of life sexuality which as they say is the sacred gift from God. Personally I grew up not learning about sex and sexuality from my parents. In a conservative society such as ours, sex is not a common topic in any household. Whether the parents are embarrassed to open up such topic to their children or they do not want to embarrass their kids. I do agree that the primary responsibility of educating children about sex should be on the parents but are these parents well informed and educated themselves to pass on to their children their knowledge on this sensitive topic? The rise in cases of teen-age pregnancy is an indication where the church and the parents failed miserably. Have they done enough to educate it’s their children on pre-marital sex? Seems not, now let the State do its job. In our time when Maria Clara is now Mary Claire, with or without sex education, many children will continue to engage in pre-marital sex. At least with enough education on sex and sexuality these children would know how to protect themselves. RH Bill does not take away from their parents even from the church the responsibility to teach these children about sexuality. It is still their responsibility to teach them, at least the moral context of sex and sexuality. However, I believe that sex education should be taught only to high school students. Are cases of pre-teens pregnancy (11 to 12 years) that significant to include the grade five and six students as well? I think not. Now this is where I think the RH Bill should reconsider.
Over Population and Poverty Alleviation
RH bills aims to address the alarming population growth rate in the country which can indirectly help address poverty. Again, let me stress the word “indirectly” for there in no one solution that can eradicate poverty. Addressing overpopulation is only but one of them. Each country has its own resources. Resources it can use to provide nourishment to its people. But more often than not, these resources are limited. Don’t you find it alarming that we are now importing rice and sugar from other countries just so to meet our demand? It is indeed alarming for we are not generating enough food supply to feed our people as such importation becomes inevitable considering the fact that we are an agricultural country. There are just too many mouths to feed. Many would continue to argue that people is the best resources of a nation. I wouldn’t disagree, but how many is enough and too much? Let say for example a family of 10. The father earns enough to feed only 4 children. Then what happens to the other 4? What kind of human resources do we end up with? A population of undernourished people? Will that benefit a nation? I think not. We have time and again recognized that our country is facing a serious issue on population growth but have never taken concrete actions to address such issue. The Philippines currently sits as the 12 most populated country in the world and continues to be on a sharp increasing trend. With limited and dwindling resources, how can we ensure there would still be left for generations to come, resources which are vital to their existence? We must take actions now!
I am pro RH bill. I too have a long list to say about this. If you watched the recent debate in GMA 7, I suppose you did, it was mind-boggling. Everything was pointed out and both had good arguments, very didactic yet I remain.
ReplyDeleteIm glad we're on the same boat ken! Yes to RH Bill!
ReplyDeleteYup, I am totally Pro RH bill!
ReplyDeleteI did a write up when i was in college, it was about birth control lol! : )