An Invitation to Speak Your Mind

On The Reproductive Health Bill.

I am blogging about this so that my friends, as well as contacts, if they wish, and I can express our views and actually discuss about,  as I found out today, a very sensitive and multifaceted issue: the reproductive health bill.

I was dragged into a debate about this topic which I have been avoiding both in learning more about it, i.e. the actual content of the bill, the specific stand of the church vis-a-vis the bill, and the points of view of other people particularly those who do not consider themselves part of the church, and of course in really reflecting and formulating my stand on the matter.

Before today, my deepest involvement on the issue was shallowly limited to helping a former student find references for his research paper on the topic for the Ateneo's English 12.  I led him to the website of the Varsitarian of the UST and its inflammatory dismissal of both the fourteen professors of the Ateneo and the institution itself and by extension the Jesuits, and to a book by Bishop Ted Bacani on the bill, ironically a reading material which as a freebie I received with disappointment and resentment during the San Jose Alumni Homecoming.

I know the basic stand of the church: protect human life. 

And this protection does not merely extend from the moment of conception, meaning making sure nothing hinders the meeting of the sperm and egg cells of any woman or man except their discipline and will nor that once the cells begin the process of becoming a zygote something would destroy it, i.e. abortion.

The protection of human life means ascertaining that a person will indeed be conceived, born, live, develop, die, and interred in the best possible social context--where best is to be understood, at the very least, as a situation fit for a human being.  That, for me is the extent of the church's desire to protect human life; in all its forms and in all its functions, human life is of the utmost importance.  This is where the opposition of the church against the bill is rooted on.

From what I gather from my two "opponents" today, the stand of those who are supporting the bill partially rests on the view that the church's reasoning belongs to medieval times.  The church (as if the church are the church leaders) do not care to understand the flight of the poor and how to live with many children while in a constant state of hunger and that it has not studied the matter thoroughly.  It also does not care to listen to other positions, particularly that of the minority. Instead, the church is resorting to a limited and therefore narrow view of democracy as the rule of the majority when it seeks to influence national policy makers through the signature campaign.

Everybody, my self-professed social liberal (not social progressive, he was quick to add, as if there are any other kind) and communist-feminist friends say, is using contraception nowadays and that because the Philippines does not have legal structures of any form to regulate the sexual practices of many citizens, AIDS is on the rise.  The two of them also say that there is no evidence that some artificial means of contraception is abortifacient and that Thailand is much better off than we are because their society is free from moral inhibitions.  The Thais, they claim has lesser incidence of AIDS. I ask therefrom if there are definite statistical studies supporting this claim.

My liberated friend said that all he wants now is that the government reach a consensus or as he said a secular stand and not just to follow the desire of the majority who are incidentally catholics since that is the essence of democracy.  He proudly proclaims that it would not do for our society not follow what they do in their school, as if this school is a perfect school and that he is an integral part of its system, where they reach a compromise agreement and only divide the house when this process fails.

I was not prepared nor looked for a debate this morning and so at first I listened to them start off against the church's stand but soon I did not anymore stop myself from stating my views, for I cannot, for the life of me, let the two of them malign the position of the church and the church herself while I do what many catholic filipinos do when their church is questioned: keep quiet and watch.

In my eyes, the church has kept relatively quiet for so long about so many issues for various reasons, her apologetical mission set aside for more urgent concerns.  And when I say the church, I talk about the whole body not just the leaders. It is because of this that I did not let this morning's tirades pass.

To be continued... But as of now, if you want, post your comments and stand on the matter. I need to understand this issue more.