Pro-life. Pro-choice. Pro-quality life. One wades through a lot of buzz-words when exploring the issues surrounding reproductive health. It has been a free-for-all -- the Google search results page shows that even a group of "Philippine atheists" have joined the fray, signing a petition supporting one of the RH bills -- and it doesn't look like a consensus will be reached anytime soon. Or ever.
My two cents' worth of disorganized thoughts:
Is population really a problem? Some say it is, some say it isn't. The urban centers are doubtlessly overcrowded, because that's where the jobs are. But I've also seen tracts of land with nary a human soul seen for miles. I
think population won't be so much of a problem when the country's money goes to building roads and supporting agriculture and funding cooperatives and creating widespread employment opportunities instead of going to our officials' pockets. Which is to say, never.
Isn't the Catholic Church being just a bit too meddlesome? If by meddling, one means that the Church is being very vocal about what it believes and is trying its darndest to get everyone else to believe similarly, I suppose so. But it really
is the Church's business to look after its flock's souls. The separation of church and state may be set in stone, but one can't separate earthly life from eternal life. It wouldn't be much of a church if it didn't try to tell us what is right and what is wrong.
What should be the role of religion? Um. As a general question, that's a bit "above my paygrade." Personally, I am a Catholic, and I try as much as possible to behave myself. I know a lot of Catholics who do not feel bound by moral obligations, and I know non-Catholics who believe differently from me. I think
each person should listen to what his or her respective church has to say, but I don't think
the state should feel itself obliged to please any one church. After all, if this country had been predominantly Muslim, I would dearly mind if the state banned
lechon.
Is the use of contraceptives really a sin? That's what I'm not really sure of. In a Bible study I once attended, our speaker -- one of the more outspoken Monsignors in Cebu -- explained that contraceptive use is wrong because it "blocks the transmission of life," life being a gift from God and all that. But I would
think that the "natural" methods of family planning block it just as well. I mean, no baby is conceived in either case.
Will providing "artifical" means of contraception encourage promiscuity? Seeing into the future is not one of my talents. Statistics will decide. A couple will, I suppose, find the decision to hit the sack easier to make if they don't have to worry about unwanted pregnancy. But, as much as I dislike the thought, there will always be promiscuous people, whether condoms are free or not. The fate of their souls is their own problem, but I equally dislike the thought of children being born into an environment where they are not wanted, where they don't have enough to eat, where they don't have a shot at a decent life in the future, just because their parents didn't have anything else to do on a Saturday night.
I heard someone say on TV that sex education for children would be just like telling your kid, "Anak, stealing is wrong, but just in case you do steal, here's how not to get caught." Oh, come on. In the stealing scenario, you deny the victim the chance for justice. But in the use of contraceptives, who, really, is the victim? Isn't it the child who would be born without them? I am a Catholic myself, but even I see that if contraception is done properly, there wouldn't
be a victim.
I'm only eleven years old! Do I really need to know all that?! I didn't read the actual House bill authored by Rep. Garin, but news reports say that the sex education will be optional and age-appropriate. Gosh, I sure hope so! When I was a kid, I used to think that couples got pregnant just by
deciding that they wanted to get pregnant. I got my first hint that maybe that's not how it actually happens while I was struggling to understand my Advanced Bio textbook in 3rd year high school. I'm sure the eleven-year-old me wouldn't want the burden of all that knowledge, so I hope that the lawmakers will find a way to make "optional" and "age-appropriate" truly operational terms.
Am I for the Reproductive Health Care Act or not? Let's see... I believe irresponsible and indiscriminate sex is a sin. I think letting a child -- who didn't ask to be born -- suffer poverty, malnutrition and miseducation is also a sin. I believe life begins at the moment of conception, and taking away life at any point after that is murder. I think that, whether the population is too big or not, it would definitely benefit an impoverished family to have just two children instead of eight. Having said all that, I still think that what makes our country so poor is not how many we are but how corrupt and incompetent are the officials we elect. So...I don't know. Hehe.
*
This is my contribution to TBR 18, hosted by Dr. Tess at
Prudence, M.D.Further readings:
Reproductive health bill: facts, fallacies - by Rep. Edcel LagmanRebuttals by Atty. Jo Imbong (in behalf of the CBCP) and Sen. Kit Tatad*
Health News On A Platter - the latest health news, served fresh and bite-sized