How to start? Where does life start? This seems to a big issue in the Philippines nowadays. Bishops are going on a head to head battle with the Lower House as to where life begins. Even legislators are hitting on each other. Everyone’s going loco over this issue. Why? All because of the RH Bill or the reproductive health bill. (There are many versions and they are trying to come up with one that will be best for all).
How does one define life? What’s your definition of life? Where does it begin? Scientifically, life is the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally (taken from dictionary.com).Biblically, it starts with the Love of God and thus leading to the creation of the world: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness." (Genesis 1:1-4). However technical life’s definition maybe, “experts” agree that it starts with conception. With this, the plot thickens. The “experts” have different ideas as to what conception is. From what I have been hearing in issue debate and commentaries on television and news reports, it’s a battle between science and religion. The church see it as something conceived; notion, idea, design, or plan (when you plan to do the act, life starts). Legislators and other see in equal with fertilization (the egg meets the sperm). For my part, I agree with the scientific version of conception as it is more definite. A plan or notion is difficult to gauge and is more of an abstract thought. An abstract thought would not help us go forward and help protect the rights of the citizens.
Perhaps, another source of conflict is the meaning that individuals put into reproductive health. Reproductive health is not entirely concentrated on a pregnant women’s health or condition. More aptly, it involves a “state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of reproductive disease or infirmity.” Reproductive health deals with the reproductive processes, functions and system at all stages of life. Furthermore "reproductive health ... implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so. Implicit in this last condition are the right of men and women to be informed and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice, as well as other methods of their choice for regulation of fertility which are not against the law, and the right of access to appropriate health care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant. In conclusion, it includes sexual health, the purpose of which is the enhancement of life and personal relations, and not merely counselling and care related to reproduction and sexually transmitted diseases. This is a clear and definitive conceptualization as to what Reproductive Health is as stated and agreed upon on The International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action – UN and WHO.
Basing on these concepts, it is clear the RH bill is not after the suppression of the people’s right to life rather it puts premium on life’s improvement and having it on an optimum state. It is not entirely and solely about the prevention of STDs. It is note solely about promoting family planning methods. It does not promote unsafe sex or premature especially amongst the youth. Nor it has the “hidden” agenda of “legalizing” abortion. It has been clearly expressed that abortion is out of the RH concept, repeatedly! I do not know why certain people get these ideas. Where specifically are these notions stated in the RH bill? Any logical person would not HYPOTHESIZE on these. Be fully informed before reacting on this issue. The RH bill aims to give the people a HOLISTIC approach to sexual health. It offers the people information to decide on what would be best for them to obtain optimum sexual health. For crying out loud, informed consent means having to decide on a matter after being fully given of the information including risks and benefits. It is not coercion and not limiting the people only into one choice. Every individual is unique, a concept or method or procedure may not be effective for him or her as it was for others.
Erratum #1: A legislator claims that oral contraceptives being able to slightly increase the incidence of breast cancer among women as being one of his reasons why he is anti-RH but a health expert claims that it can cause a decrease in incidence of other cancer. The bottom line on this conflict in a recent television debate program is Informed Consent. A woman is informed fully of a family planning method including its risks and benefits and is given a chance to decide for herself after weighing the facts. Furthermore, a woman is assessed by the doctor before being recommended a family planning method. (All other existing medical procedures or methods have risk but it has been accepted as the benefits outweigh the risks.) The only method I am not favorable is the IUD. IUDs affect the mobility of sperm and preventing them from joining with an egg. But if it does not prevent the union, the foreign body inside the uterus irritates the lining and wall making it hard for an embryo to implant. In this sense, the IUD can be abortifacient. I think IUD should be removed as a family planning method in the RH bill to eliminate all apprehension that it promotes abortion in its entirety.
Erratum # 2: The legislators do not claim that the family planning concepts within the RH bill will solely be the solution to overpopulation but rather it can be one way that can help decrease the population which can subsequently can help decrease poverty.
Erratum # 3: The sex education contained within the RH Bill should be properly placed in the education curriculum of the country for it to be beneficial. Sex Education is not plausible for all ages in the education curriculum of the country. It should be placed in an age category that permits wide and mature comprehension. It is not applicable to young elementary children. Coercing its placement in the elementary curriculum would further cause conflict. (Try remembering that the country has somewhat of a strict catholic and traditional Filipino values). Sex education is not after teaching the youth of the act rather it is for having them be responsible adults.
Erratum # 4: What most people are wary about is maybe the implementation of the RH bill. How sure it is that there will be no corruption? The government should be transparent in its transaction once the RH bill is implemented. How much will be used for its implementation? Where would they get the fund? How would it be used that the people will entirely benefit from it? Reports on how funds are to be utilized and follow-up reports on fund usage and program implementation should be publicly published.
