The great debate between the church and the government is what that irritates me. Both of them have closed minds and ears. Both simply do the talking without listening. Could they just shut up and listen to each others argument? If there's something in the bill that they go against with then trash that part. Can they just do this and leave all of us in peace?
I am not pro or anti-RH bill. As a physician all that I am sure of is that I am a protector of life. I am a catholic and I am against abortion. I believe that I have faith in my creator and that I respect His ministers. What bothers me however is that why is the church pushing its stand that the RH bill is pro-abortion when in fact the bill states that abortion remains illegal and is punishable by law? Why does it have to exaggerate facts or be very strict with semantics? That contraceptives are abortifacients? Abortifacients since it stops fertilization then basically "aborts" life. Man! Kalurkey! What kind of argument is this?
Yep! There are means of contraception that may cause abortion based from the little knowledge that I can remember from long ago. Tops the list is the intrauterine device or IUD. Its purpose is to prevent the sperm from meeting the egg so the sperm goes around the maze created by the IUD inside the uterus until it dies. Abortion happens when a wise sperm finds its way towards the egg and fertilization begins. This fertilized egg should implant itself in the uterus in order to live. Abortion takes place if the moron, er morula gets lost in the maze and dies before it can implant itself. If there's a problem with the IUD, can the RH bill authors just remove it from the contraceptives they are proposing?
The guiding principle of the bill so they say is responsible parenthood, reproductive health and population development. The church is afraid that should the bill push the use of condoms and introduce sex education among the youth it will promote promiscuity and pollute the minds of these adolescents. Why don't they agree on one thing then? Since it's the money of the taxpayers that is involved in this debate, then these contraceptions be only given to married couples. The church should also hold responsibility on the morality aspect. Sad to say, the media is more influential than the church in promoting the so called "norm" in our society. The church can't blame the RH bill if it wants sex education to be included in the school curriculum. It maybe just wanting to do some damage control. In the first place, being the moral advocate, the church should have strengthened the value formation and religion classes. It should have drawn the youth towards them before wordly influences overpower their young minds. If this is happening now, then do we still need sex education if our youths are aware of what is right and what responsibility is all about?
How about the newly married couple? I am aware that an about to be wed couple needs to attend a seminar with the church and this included family planning. Why not the RH bill advocates help with the church in inculcating knowledge to the couples for the so called responsible parenthood instead of emphasizing on sex education? A friend who happens to be a doctor underwent this kind of seminar before her wedding. What she couldn't take was the misconceptions of the old woman who gave the seminar regarding reproduction. Good for her she has a knowledge of it. How about those who needed the right knowledge? Will they forever be misled by the seminars given to them by the church? Are these women who are giving seminars certified to give such training by the way? No wonder, regardless of these seminars that the church gives, our population growth is still uncontrolled.
As to the pro woman aspect of the bill, RH bill advocates promote use of contraception so that women who are forced by their intoxicated husbands to have sex are prevented from getting pregnant. Blimey! So where did the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 go? One of its amendments is the recognition of marital rape as a crime. Will contraception promote good relationships among married couples just because the wife gave in to her husband's call of the flesh without fear of getting pregnant? A good relationship I believe is not measured on the number of times that a couple have sex. This too isn't an assurance that it will protect women. I'm afraid, this will even be a venue of exploiting us. You are taking pills, so I can have sex with you anytime I want for you are safe. Is this our idea of protecting women? I would rather go for the strict reinforcement of this marital rape law. Women empowerment must be emphasized here and not just submissiveness to a husband who is under the influence of alcohol.
I know I'm blabbering. My diminutive mind however can no longer grasp the arguments of both parties. Instead of the church giving emphasis on abortion and morality issues against the RH bill, why don't it tackle the issues on the success rate of this RH bill in the countries that already implement this? Was abortion lessened in these countries? Did it decrease divorce rate among couples and improved relationships? I don't think so. If this is their argument, maybe I would be one of those who will be supporting them.
Question is, at the end of the day, is this all worth it? Whoever wins, will this holistically upgrade the lives of the Filipinos? I just hope that everyone will be enlightened on this issue that they start to listen instead of talking. I'm a tax payer. I have the right to air my opinion. This is my blog so violent reactions must be reserved in your own cozy nook of a blog.=)