I took up SOC107, otherwise known as Gender Relations, as a core course when I was a college senior in UPLB. And I remember the Reproductive Health Bill being one of the topics of dogmatic discussion in class. It goes without saying that I had been able to study and make a stand on the bill long before it has gripped the public consciousness.
Still, I have my fist in the air on the affirmative side.
To make my statements, I choose to debunk the propositions which to me are the lamest ones of the negative side.
The RH Bill would NOT legalize abortion. It is downright stupid how this is misconceived by most. Don’t people read and understand the bill before they react, really? In our country where the Catholic church has this preeminent authority to compel belief and submission to the moral standards, I put my foot down that abortion would remain unforgivable and criminalized even until post-apocalypse. What the bill simply states is that the government shall make sure that non-judgmental treatment and counseling would be given to all women needing post-abortion care.
Having mentioned morality, the RH Bill would not be one for sending individuals to hell all because the promotion of contraception is abortifacient. Contraceptives do not logically induce abortion for what is there to abort yet when you use, say, a condom which entraps the sperm cells hence preventing one from meeting the egg which may or may not have started reproduction in the first place. The mere promotion of contraception is only in itself a safeguard to pitfall – unwanted pregnancy, that is, which is the main precedent of induced abortion. Now, where is the immoral in that when the use of contraception is but an attempt at securing the good?
Still on matters of pointing a finger at who is morally wrong or right, the RH bill would not promote promiscuity. Let’s face it. We no longer live in the era where Maria Claras grow on trees. People are becoming much more liberated than they’d care to admit. Well, I know so as I am no ignorant to the hook up trend in call centers for one. Instead of making people guilty by insisting on the dictates of conscience which has worked to no avail, why not prep the young people with positive sex education so they can be more responsible sexual decision makers. Leaving them ignorant would only breed incautious curiosity which is no good.
I can go on debunking a couple more of the arguments raised by the negative side. But these rebuttals suffice to illustrate that the RH bill is not a huge blow on immorality as how the Catholic church sensationalizes it to be. I am not saying however that the RH bill is exclusively an issue of ethics.
There are reasons for the separation of the Church and the state but of course that is a different story.