My Take on the RH Bill

6 Comments

April 25, 2011 · by Sonnie · Ask Sonnie, Parenting, Personal Social Responsibility, Social Responsibility

Tweet

image courtesy of quierosaber.wordpress.com

 

Update 4/28/11: A friend since our youth days wrote a comment after this post and explained why they are not in favor of the RH bill. As medical practitioners, they explained using the knowledge of medical science why they disagreed and why they think this can lead to legalizing abortion. The thoughts are enlightening and deserves an explanation/answer from the proponents of RH Bill.

There is an ongoing debate as to whether the RH or RP Bill should be passed or not mainly because of the strong resistance of the Catholic Church. With that, several friends have asked of my stand on the issue, thus, this blog post.

First and foremost, as Christian, I don’t believe in abortion. Life is sacred, therefore, must be respected. This is one of the debatable issues of the bill.

• According to about.com civil liberties, abortion is “the intentional termination of a pregnancy after conception. It allows women to put an end to their pregnancies, but involves killing the undeveloped embryo or fetus.
• Different  schools of thought tried to explain that at the “early stage” of pregnancy ,  an embryo is “not” a person,  just a part of a woman’s body. Because of this, proponents of abortion believed that woman has the right to decide what is best for her body. Read here and here

But I believed that a new person is formed the moment spermie meets eggie. Because to believe that a new individual is only formed after some time [some believed that at the early stage of pregnancy, there is "no new person yet", zygote has not developed or still incomplete to be called human being], then it’s like saying that those born w/ disabilities are also “not a person”. This, in itself, is cruel and injustice.

¹⁵ God made me in my mother’s womb, and he also made them; the same God formed both of us in our mothers’ wombs. Job 31:15 (NCV)

⁵ “Before I made you in your mother’s womb, I chose you. Before you were born, I set you apart for a special work. I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”  Jeremiah 1:5 (NCV)

I am against the termination of life regardless of the stage of pregnancy BUT preventing spermie from meeting eggie for purposes of managing the ideal size of the family commensurate to their ability to provide a decent life is acceptable. The artificial methods that will be promoted under RH bill should be focused on “prevention”.  Any intervention “after” conception, regardless of the stage or timeline, is tantamount to termination of  life.

I talked to a “doctor” friend who is “anti” RH bill because there are allegedly contraceptives being branded as preventive but is actually “abortive”. Since abortion is one of the divisive issues here, I suggest both pros and anti’s of the bill discuss about abortion since both group says they are against it.

Secondly, as Christian I believe on responsible parenthood. And to me, responsible parenting should be defined by this:

Prov 13:22a A good person leaves an inheritance for their children’s children…

Every parent should look at this as their benchmark for responsible parenthood. It may not look achievable given the PH present condition, but if couples will plan the size of  family commensurate to their ability to move closer to the above benchmark, is a good start. The next generation can over achieve their parents accomplishment until future generations can look at the benchmark as an achievable goal.

I have not read the intricacies of the proposed bill, but given the parameters I set, yes I am pro quality life, pro choice to whatever the family planning method would be and to determine the size of family commensurate to ones ability to provide. The state should give access to any method that the couple would chose, but should ensure artificial methods are safe on international standards, preventive [union of eggie and spermie] and will not  intervene on the development of the new person on the mother’s womb. And the state should give equal protection to the health of both the mother and the  unborn child.

I also believed that reproductive health should be taught to everyone, including kids, in an objective, “values centered” and scientific way to make sure young people can make intelligent and responsible choices along the way. I am for “healthy sex life”, it’s good for “married couples”.  Happy couple = happy family.

As a democratic nation, each belief or non belief should be respected in passing a law as sensitive as this. Name calling, disrespect to a person or group or any faith should have no room in the process. Let the law respect all faith, and the state to respect the choice of each citizen, provided this will not violate the constitution and freedom of religion is upheld. The state should guarantee that it will protect life at all cost, both of the mother and the unborn child and will not play god in the life of another person.

Each sector should play their role in upholding the sanctity of life. To live free from hunger and oppression. To empower citizens so they can make responsible choices.

Just for purposes of discussion, better  have a bad law, being overshadowed by the good decision of individuals who are properly guided and taught by their religion. Than pass a good law to address the bad decisions or behavior of individuals who do not respect and follow the teaching of their religion.

Change starts from within, one person at a time.

Related content:

1. Easter Thought: Freedom Of Religion Or Freedom From Religion?
2. Man.. Integrity.. And Woman
3. “Born This Way Ball”
4. Purpose Driven Recruitment
5. What Is CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing Protection Act) And How It Affects PH

Better Related Posts Plugin

Philippines

6 Responses to “My Take on the RH Bill”

1. Richard April 27, 2011 at 12:16 PM

   

   Amongst the educated, population control is not a problem, because we are educated and understand the consequences of having lots of kids and because we are responsible parents. I strongly believe that the RH bill is for the mainstream masses, the uneducated, the poorest of the poor which is 60% of the Nations population. Para naman sa kanila yan. We need RH bill to educate the mass not the ones na educated.

2. Dra. M. Poblete April 27, 2011 at 9:38 PM

   

   Kindly allow me to post my comments on your blogpost, Kuya Sonnie.

   1)You are right in saying that life begins at conception, also called fertilization.

   2) I am glad you are against the termination of life no matter what stage it is- that would mean you wouldn’t agree if a zygote(the fertilized egg, the human life resulting from conception) or a fetus were killed. I distinctly remember, years ago, that our church leaders refused in vitro fertlization for themselves because they were told embryos may be killed or discarded in the process.

   3) If life begins at conception, therefore any contraceptive that kills a conceived life or prevents a human life from implanting in his mother’s womb (thereby killing him) after the point of conception, causes death of a human life. As you said, you are against these contraceptives.

   4)Re the RH bill and contraceptives: it includes purchase of all contraceptives by all LGUs as essential medicines. Let me point out the contraceptives that act on a conceived human life or what is called a “post-fertilization effect”: these are the IUDs and the hormonal contraceptives. I present here the medical data proving this post-fertilization effect.

   a) IUDs- According to medical researchers in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, IUDs have both a prefertilization and postfertilization effect: “Both prefertilization and postfertilization mechanisms of action contribute significantly to the effectiveness of all types of intrauterine devices.”Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: update and estimation of postfertilization effects.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187(6):1699-708 Stanford JB; Mikolajczyk RT
   b)Hormonal contraceptives- According to two editors of the peer-reviewed reproductive health journal “Contraception” :“To make an informed choice, women must know that emergency contraceptive pills — like all regular hormonal contraceptives such as the birth control pill, the progestin-containing implant and the injectable depot medroxyprogesterone acetate — may prevent pregnancy by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, inhibiting fertilization, or inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg in the endometrium.” – Editorial / Contraception 74 (2006) 87 – 89
   James Trussell and Beth Jordan.

   Two other authors also found very good evidence supporting postfertilization effects for oral contraceptives in the prevention of clinically recognized pregnancy(or implantation- this is when the placenta starts to secrete HCG which can be clinically detected by a blood or urine test). They said: “Evidence based on ectopic-to-intrauterine risk ratios from multiple case-control studies supports the possibility of postfertilization preimplantation, peri-implantation, or postimplantation effects…The available evidence supports the hypothesis that when ovulation and fertilization occur in women taking OCs, postfertilization effects are operative on occasion to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy(implantation).”-Walter L. Larimore, MD; Joseph B. Stanford, MD, MSPH, Archives of Family Medicine. 2000;9:126-133.

   5) You mentioned that contraceptives must be safe. But there is a whole lot of medical evidence both foreign and local, that hormonal contraceptives increase the risk of developing breast cancer. Here is just one: “Use of oral contraceptives is associated with an increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer, especially with use before first full term pregnancy in parous women.”-Oral Contraceptive Use as a Risk Factor for Premenopausal Breast Cancer: A Meta-analysis.Chris Kahlenborn, MD, Francesmary Modugno, PhD, MPH, Douglas M. Potter, PhD and Walter B. Severs, PhD Mayo Clinic Proceedings October 2006 vol. 81 no. 10 1290-1302. Even RH bill advocate Dra. Cabral admitted today that oral contraceptives increase the risk of breast cancer when she was asked by a reporter. There are also several studies that show that taking oral contraceptives increases the risk of venous thrombosis. I may email you all the links on breast cancer and thrombosis risk from oral contraceptives if you wish.

   6) Regarding sex education, I agree that it must be values-centered, because sex is a moral issue. The Lord has clearly defined in His Word what is immoral sex and what is not. Sex education can never be valueless. I firmly believe it is the parents’ and the church’s duty to teach sex education. Remember how our youth pastor taught us then? But what will State-controlled sex education teach our children? Will it teach them to flee from sexual immorality? Will it teach that lust is a sin? Will it teach them that sex should only be between a man and a woman and only within marriage? I highly doubt this.Wrong values taught to children will only rape their minds.In fact, a Bible Baptist bishop saw a DepEd sex ed module for Grade 5 and it contained discussion questions on condom breakage during intercourse. That is not age-appropriate. One more thing, the RH bill will implement sex ed fr gr5 to HS=6 years.

   7) But one of the main reasons I oppose the RH bill is that it condones abortion . “Management of post-abortion complications” is the bill’s 9th guiding principle, and the 3rd element of reproductive health. It specifies “abortion” as the cause of the complication. What this does is that it sets apart induced, illegal, morally wrong, criminal abortion as a procedure or cause necessitating management. Why not just make it a more general “provision of emergency obstetric care to everyone who needs it”? The very fact that abortion is specified as the cause of the complication means that the RH bill condones abortion and gives it special treatment. This phrase also shows that the unborn baby is not valued or protected by the bill at all. But the “post-abortion complication” to an unborn baby is death. Instead of restricting all means of access to drugs used in induced abortion, and catching, jailing and punishing the abortionists and the sellers of abortion drugs, which should be done to reduce abortion, the RH bill will provide access to management of complications specific to medical and surgical abortion. Women will just abort their babies more because of the legalized access to abortion-specific complication management. Abusers will just be free to abort the babies of their victims and then present them to hospitals with all the complications.Access to abortion, whether it is legal or illegal in a country, guarantees more abortions. And if abortion-specific complication management is legalized and institutionalized, it disregards the illegality and criminality of abortion, hence condoning it.

   I believe we cannot afford to have such a law because it invades Biblical moral values and it disregards unborn babies’ lives. It also does not uphold life from conception. We need maternal care,infant care, more skilled birth attendants,doctors, nurses and health facilities, disease prevention, responsible parents, but these can be done without the RH bill and all the controversial, objectionable provisions it has. A new bill must be proposed, without all the unacceptable portions.

   I apologize for the extra-long comment, Kuya Sonnie. Thank you for reading.

3. Sonnie April 27, 2011 at 11:22 PM

   

   Thank you [Doctors] Gel and Lisa for the valuable input, appreciate it. You provided an objective but scientific argument on the use of contraceptives that affect the health of mothers and the unborn child. Very rare that “anti” RH advocates can articulately and scientifically explain their disagreement. I would love to have this posted in separate article but It would be better if you can guest post in this blog to further educate the readers, I hope it is ok with you.

   Though we differ on minor issues, like the role of the state. What is important is we are in agreement with our core convictions.

   My take on the role of the state is to let them do their job, and compliment it with the role of the church and parents. Let’s face it, majority of parents are not capable of planning and managing their own family, much more educate their children to be responsible. Likewise, not all parents are going to church, thus, maybe out of reach to the ministries of the church. It’s such a huge task and we need all hands to address the problem.

   In my opinion, it will be better if Christians in the field of medical science will get involve with NGOs and the Government in [1] development of training materials/ lesson plan for pupils and formulation of IRR to ensure biblical standards are upheld, 2] training and equipping the health workers and teachers to ensure a balance view of reproductive health.

   Furthermore, I believe having a national philosophy on population management is equally important as addressing corruption, poverty and alike. If the present draft is unacceptable, then an alternative bill should be proposed, but again, we need a national philosophy on responsible parenthood and population management.

4. Dra. M. Poblete April 29, 2011 at 8:57 PM

   

   Thank you Kuya Sonnie for graciously allowing me to post my comment. I would gladly guest post on your blog to further educate the readers. Just email me or send me a message po so I can prepare and do research. God bless you po.

5. MARVIN May 5, 2011 at 11:39 AM

   

   Sa akin pananaw, madalas dinadahilan ng mga pro- rh bill ay ang paghahalintulad sa mga bansang may mataas na ekonomiya. Gumagamit sila ng sistema na limitado ang maaaring maipanganak. Mas kaunting tao, mas kaunting gastos nga naman, ngunit ito ay napakaliit na dahilan para ipatupad ang RH bill. Dapat unahin muna ang pagpapalakas ng hustisya, ang paglilitis sa mga nagnakaw ng pera ng bayan, ang pagpapalakas ng welfare, pag- unlad sa edukasyon ng public schools, at pagkakaroon ng mga disenteng trabaho. Parang akong nangangamapanya dito pero ito lang muna ang mga isyu na dapat pagtuunan ng gobyerno.

6. Sonnie May 5, 2011 at 12:21 PM

   

   Thank you for your thoughts Marvin.