By Atty Ted Laguatan
As to situations such as the RH Bill, whose nature call for much debate, listening in good faith to varied points of view allows a more complete assessment of the facts and issues involved - leading to better decisions and policies for the good of all.
Of one thing of which there should be no issue, well meaning people on both sides of the RH debate should recognize that they both want only what's best for all Filipinos. Accusing the other side of bad faith and malice is not going to help any.
I wrote an article in the Inquirer in March 2010 entitled "The Catholic Debate on Condoms" where I supported former Secretary of Health Esperanza Cabral in her position of distributing condoms in order to prevent the spread of the HIV virus which causes AIDS - as against the opposition of CBCP.
Among other things, I wrote: "Rather than for people becoming sick, suffer much and die early, a more humanistic Christian attitude is to provide protection...We cannot have a Church that proclaims love but cannot provide love to AIDS-challenged poor and powerless sex workers. We cannot have a Church that proclaims life but sows the seeds of death by refusing to allow the use of effective practical means against AIDS.."
Hopefully, these words dispense any thoughts that I am either a blind follower of the Church or an apologist for the CBCP.
What good goals are we trying to achieve in seeking the passage of the RH Bill.?
Certain couples or families are not in a position to having more children because of financial, material, psychological and other inadequacies. Rather than have unwanted neglected children, it is better for them to learn how to use morally acceptable and safe contraceptive methods to avoid unwanted pregnancies. As a result of accomplishing this good goal - cumulatively, population growth is also controlled.
Obviously, cold turkey abstinence from sex is an option that will not result in pregnancies - but that is an absolute impossible choice because of biological imperatives. For healthy men and women - especially for those where the pleasures of lovemaking borders on mystical ecstasy - sex is a big part of what life is about.
So the number one question becomes: What morally acceptable means can be utilized to keep Juana from having another - not ready to be wanted or unwanted baby - when she and Juan hits the sack?
To many Catholics, other Christians and others - abortion - at any stage of fetal development - is not morally acceptable.
In the Catholic faith, once the egg fuses with the sperm, we have a human life with a soul. This dogmatic article of faith is non negotiable. This is core Catholic belief - a reality everyone involved with the RH Bill in one way or another - has to deal with. It is not just a CBCP or Catholic Hierarchy belief - but the actual belief of millions of true believer Catholics.
Pointing or referring to surveys indicating that 70 percent of Filipinos which certainly must include a majority of Catholics - approve of the RH Bill - does not necessarily mean that Filipino Catholics do not subscribe to this core belief. The question repeatedly asked of respondents in these surveys was: "Are you in favor of the RH Bill?" "RH Bill" to the respondents meant population control. We know a huge majority of rational Filipinos, Catholics or otherwise, wants population control.
The legislative history, the language, the campaigns of pro and anti RH groups and individuals and even Malacanang which indicated a qualified support for the RH Bill - affirm that it is generally perceived as a population control measure.
Call it what you want, but essentially, at it's root, it is a population control measure. I see nothing wrong with that. But for marketing purposes, supporters want to call it by something else - "Reproductive Health", "Responsible Parenthood", etc.
Now, supposing the more specific question asked of survey respondents was: "Are you in favor of the RH Bill even if it includes abortion as a means of limiting the population?"
Can anyone seriously believe that the results will be the same? Obviously not. I believe only a relatively small number will say yes.
As such, it is not the case that most Catholics approve of the RH bill in toto or as drafted even if contraceptive means or methods perceived as causing abortion or described as abortifacient are involved.
It is obvious that well meaning individuals on both sides must work together to arrive at a viable answer for our number one question if we are to have an RH Bill acceptable to most Filipinos.
The heart of the question has to do with the terms "morally acceptable means". In other words, what kind of contraceptives - pills, mixtures, creams, mechanical devices, methods, etc. - can many true believer Catholics find morally acceptable even if the CBCP and Church Hierarchy do not - that can soften their stand against the RH Bill?
The answer is really simple except that getting the parties to agree is a little more complex.
If in the draft of the bill, the use of contraceptive means that are abortifacient or at least perceived as such - are specifically identified and declared as banned - millions of Catholics are likely to soften their otherwise immoveable position.
But pro RH advocates claim: Didn't the World Health Organization (WHO) say that there is no such thing as abortifacient contraceptives?
On this issue, such an opinion from a representative of WHO, an organization which has openly, consistently and for a long time has been advocating for population control in the Philippines and other third world countries - is about as credible as a Bishop who says that any and all kinds of contraceptives are abortifacient.
A so called "expert opinion" from a WHO representative stated that hypothetically, certain contraceptive pills, IUDs and other means and methods can cause a fertilized egg not to be engaged or attached to the womb which amounts to abortion but that there is no scientific evidence that they do. I submit that this sword cuts both ways, There is no scientific evidence either that these contraceptive pills and other means and devices considered abortifacient - do not in fact cause abortions. Some scientists say they do.
Some say it's not clear.
A Catholic, acting in good faith, given these uncertainties , will not take the risk of killing his own child.
Some RH Proponents argue: "Abortifacient or not, people should have a choice as to what kind of contraceptives he wants to use."
Response: "Sorry, I believe you are killing your own child if you do - whether you think me right or wrong. You are not going to do it with my approval or my money to supply the means to do your killing."
Perhaps if well meaning RH Bill proponents are able to see that it is not fatal to their cause to specifically remove the possibility of contraceptives perceived as abortifacient of being used in connection with the implementation of this bill - the probability that it might become law is very much increased.
There are other clearly non abortifacient contraceptive pills, devices and other means and methods which are equally effective in preventing pregnancy. Why force a contraceptive method unacceptable to millions that may result in the non-passage of the RH Bill and therefore does not lead to the accomplishment of the end goal? Remember? The good we are trying to do is to keep Juana from getting pregnant and bear an unwanted child using moral and otherwise acceptable means when she and Juan makes whopee.
Catholics, who some say are really heroic, others say stoic, still others say
As to situations such as the RH Bill, whose nature call for much debate, listening in good faith to varied points of view allows a more complete assessment of the facts and issues involved - leading to better decisions and policies for the good of all.
Of one thing of which there should be no issue, well meaning people on both sides of the RH debate should recognize that they both want only what's best for all Filipinos. Accusing the other side of bad faith and malice is not going to help any.
I wrote an article in the Inquirer in March 2010 entitled "The Catholic Debate on Condoms" where I supported former Secretary of Health Esperanza Cabral in her position of distributing condoms in order to prevent the spread of the HIV virus which causes AIDS - as against the opposition of CBCP.
Among other things, I wrote: "Rather than for people becoming sick, suffer much and die early, a more humanistic Christian attitude is to provide protection...We cannot have a Church that proclaims love but cannot provide love to AIDS-challenged poor and powerless sex workers. We cannot have a Church that proclaims life but sows the seeds of death by refusing to allow the use of effective practical means against AIDS.."
Hopefully, these words dispense any thoughts that I am either a blind follower of the Church or an apologist for the CBCP.
What good goals are we trying to achieve in seeking the passage of the RH Bill.?
Certain couples or families are not in a position to having more children because of financial, material, psychological and other inadequacies. Rather than have unwanted neglected children, it is better for them to learn how to use morally acceptable and safe contraceptive methods to avoid unwanted pregnancies. As a result of accomplishing this good goal - cumulatively, population growth is also controlled.
Obviously, cold turkey abstinence from sex is an option that will not result in pregnancies - but that is an absolute impossible choice because of biological imperatives. For healthy men and women - especially for those where the pleasures of lovemaking borders on mystical ecstasy - sex is a big part of what life is about.
So the number one question becomes: What morally acceptable means can be utilized to keep Juana from having another - not ready to be wanted or unwanted baby - when she and Juan hits the sack?
To many Catholics, other Christians and others - abortion - at any stage of fetal development - is not morally acceptable.
In the Catholic faith, once the egg fuses with the sperm, we have a human life with a soul. This dogmatic article of faith is non negotiable. This is core Catholic belief - a reality everyone involved with the RH Bill in one way or another - has to deal with. It is not just a CBCP or Catholic Hierarchy belief - but the actual belief of millions of true believer Catholics.
Pointing or referring to surveys indicating that 70 percent of Filipinos which certainly must include a majority of Catholics - approve of the RH Bill - does not necessarily mean that Filipino Catholics do not subscribe to this core belief. The question repeatedly asked of respondents in these surveys was: "Are you in favor of the RH Bill?" "RH Bill" to the respondents meant population control. We know a huge majority of rational Filipinos, Catholics or otherwise, wants population control.
The legislative history, the language, the campaigns of pro and anti RH groups and individuals and even Malacanang which indicated a qualified support for the RH Bill - affirm that it is generally perceived as a population control measure.
Call it what you want, but essentially, at it's root, it is a population control measure. I see nothing wrong with that. But for marketing purposes, supporters want to call it by something else - "Reproductive Health", "Responsible Parenthood", etc.
Now, supposing the more specific question asked of survey respondents was: "Are you in favor of the RH Bill even if it includes abortion as a means of limiting the population?"
Can anyone seriously believe that the results will be the same? Obviously not. I believe only a relatively small number will say yes.
As such, it is not the case that most Catholics approve of the RH bill in toto or as drafted even if contraceptive means or methods perceived as causing abortion or described as abortifacient are involved.
It is obvious that well meaning individuals on both sides must work together to arrive at a viable answer for our number one question if we are to have an RH Bill acceptable to most Filipinos.
The heart of the question has to do with the terms "morally acceptable means". In other words, what kind of contraceptives - pills, mixtures, creams, mechanical devices, methods, etc. - can many true believer Catholics find morally acceptable even if the CBCP and Church Hierarchy do not - that can soften their stand against the RH Bill?
The answer is really simple except that getting the parties to agree is a little more complex.
If in the draft of the bill, the use of contraceptive means that are abortifacient or at least perceived as such - are specifically identified and declared as banned - millions of Catholics are likely to soften their otherwise immoveable position.
But pro RH advocates claim: Didn't the World Health Organization (WHO) say that there is no such thing as abortifacient contraceptives?
On this issue, such an opinion from a representative of WHO, an organization which has openly, consistently and for a long time has been advocating for population control in the Philippines and other third world countries - is about as credible as a Bishop who says that any and all kinds of contraceptives are abortifacient.
A so called "expert opinion" from a WHO representative stated that hypothetically, certain contraceptive pills, IUDs and other means and methods can cause a fertilized egg not to be engaged or attached to the womb which amounts to abortion but that there is no scientific evidence that they do. I submit that this sword cuts both ways, There is no scientific evidence either that these contraceptive pills and other means and devices considered abortifacient - do not in fact cause abortions. Some scientists say they do.
Some say it's not clear.
A Catholic, acting in good faith, given these uncertainties , will not take the risk of killing his own child.
Some RH Proponents argue: "Abortifacient or not, people should have a choice as to what kind of contraceptives he wants to use."
Response: "Sorry, I believe you are killing your own child if you do - whether you think me right or wrong. You are not going to do it with my approval or my money to supply the means to do your killing."
Perhaps if well meaning RH Bill proponents are able to see that it is not fatal to their cause to specifically remove the possibility of contraceptives perceived as abortifacient of being used in connection with the implementation of this bill - the probability that it might become law is very much increased.
There are other clearly non abortifacient contraceptive pills, devices and other means and methods which are equally effective in preventing pregnancy. Why force a contraceptive method unacceptable to millions that may result in the non-passage of the RH Bill and therefore does not lead to the accomplishment of the end goal? Remember? The good we are trying to do is to keep Juana from getting pregnant and bear an unwanted child using moral and otherwise acceptable means when she and Juan makes whopee.
Catholics, who some say are really heroic, others say stoic, still others say
No comments:
Post a Comment