This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
published an edition of their editorial, “Choose Life against the RH Bill”. The article started with a brief history of Eater when the topic diverted to the Reproductive Health Bill. Their report was based on the article written by former Senate Majority Leader Francisco S. Tatad and on the pastoral letter of the CBCP written by Bishop Nereo P. Odchimar, D. D. They also continued describing the RH Bill as “anti-life, morally neutral and unjust outlook on human sexuality, fertility and reproduction” --- a clear fallacy (specifically straw man) that could be easily identified since there were no concrete lines to defend it. After defining the editorial’s theme, the editors enumerated the four reasons why the RH Bill should be rejected. First was that it would be implying population control. Second, it would make the constitution pro-abortion, since it would be promoting the use of contraceptive pills. Third, the term Reproductive health meant “access to abortion” as it was usually defined by UN documents and other countries’ laws. Lastly, it would allow abortive pills such as R-486 since the bill will not prohibit these kinds of chemicals. Contrary to what The Manila Times wrote about the RH Bill, The RH Bill is not “antilife and pro-abortion” as it was written in the newspaper. In fact, the bill itself carries sections that promotes life reverence and disallows abortion in such ways it wouldn’t overpass the law for it (Revised Penal Code Act No. 3815, Article 256-259). Aside from that, there are also sections that could give significant arguments against the Church’s and the editorial’s speculations. In addition to these sections, this paper will also uplift the worthy segments of the bill that are rarely given attention.
It could be considered Ad Hominem because profession should not affect a person’s stand. It said that contraceptive drugs could make the fertilized ovum unable to hold on to the uterine wall. resulting to abortion. It criticized television and radio journalists for making the RH Bill sound like pro-life to every Filipino. Oral contraceptives.Before moving to the main arguments of the article. breastfeeding and infant nutrition. The article also discussed the provisions inside the bill that could make the country’s government a bridge that would connect reproductive health to abortion. It discussed that Section 14 (an error occurred in the editorial when Section 14 was mistaken for Section 18). the RH Bill has nothing to do with the mandate of compliance certificates to any legal processes that concerns the government (such as applying in a government-based company for a job) and likewise. In contrast. inhibit the pituitary gland from secreting sex hormones as if fertilization has occurred (Hadsall and . contraceptive pills work more on the hormonal process. that statement isn’t capable of defending its own context since it is entirely an opinion only. responsible parenthood. doesn’t give any precedent of the same concept to other bills. they shall first present a compliance certificate that would testify their participation in seminars and trainings pertaining to family planning. Though it is true that such instruments like intrauterine devices (IUDs) prevent the implantation of the zygote in the endometrium. Another part of the article that fails to give strong points is the part of the first fundamental reason for the RH Bill rejection. However. which sated that if a couple decides to get married. It also asserted that passing the bill with this kind of requirement will inevitably lead to such bills that would contain a requirement of compliance certificate proving that the applicant had voted in an election before having a passport. which contain progestin and synthetic estrogen. there was one fallacy that gave the introduction a bias.
dictionary. these essential medicines could be purchased in all national and lord hospitals and government health units (Section 10). Likewise. Likewise. there is a very little chance to experience abortion if the egg is still in a zygote stage. the Philippine sovereignty doesn’t promote abortion as it is written in the editorial. the term abortion itself is defined as “the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy” (www. the rate of abortion has a very little chance in occurring at the fertilized ovum (zygote) period in contrast of what has been said by the former. On the other hand. this . mental. provided that these are not against the law”. (stage from fertilization up to becoming a blastocyst).m. Reproductive health refers to “the state of physical.com). Aside from that. describes abortion as “a crime and is punishable”’ making intended miscarriage unlawful in the context of the RH Bill. UN documents and foreign constitutions don’t affect the definition of Reproductive Health in the Act. The bill classifies contraceptive pills under essential medicines (including IUD and injectibles) which will form part of the national Drug Formularly. Section 2. because 25% of miscarriages happen during near fetus phase (6th week-8th week) and the rest at the exact fetus stage already (www. Meaning. Even so. However. of the bill.wikipedia. in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes”. The bill promotes prevention of abortion and manageable of post-abortion complications under reproductive healthcare.c. Thus. the editorial highlighted the permit of using abortive pills like R-486 after legalizing the right to buy the more accessible contraceptive pills. according to Section 4.org). one of the opinions given is that the term Reproductive Health means “access to abortion” as it is used by United Nations and other countries. As has been noted earlier. the RH Bill also states that couples could have a “satisfying and safe sex life […]. Lastly. and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease of infirmity.Reamillo.reference. Therefore. 2008). On the other hand.
g. elimination of women maltreatment. Equally. the Act provides essential laws that could help a specific beneficiary whenever it needs any of .). since they were not included in the list of essential medicines. In fact. Interestingly. the reproductive health care would also involve maternal. These include the basic obstetric care (a service done for birth delivery) done by health facility or professional. vasectomy and IUD insertion) (Section 8 and 7). Thus. such that he or she should always be given a notification (Section3. gender equality (nonexistence of bigotry on basis of gender). treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers.f. and timing of a child). poor people could avail for discount though their PhilHealth insurance to cover their payments (Section 9).couldn’t apply to abortive pills. In general. one of the guiding principles of the bill is the freedom of informed choice. spacing. Aside from the four arguments. These include the reproductive health rights (rights for family planning).). the article also failed to consider other sections that provide great opportunities for the beneficiaries. family planning (program which will enable the spouses to decide liberally and sensibly the number. maternal death review (a qualitative study about maternal deaths) and sterilization surgeries (tubal ligation. infant and child health and sustenance. the hasty generalization present in the article is not beneficial to the whole argument of the editorial. and other gynecological conditions and reproductive health education for the youth (Section 4. which means a spouse has an option to receive or not to receive any services. it points out the roles of midwives/skilled attendants and hospitals in performing these practices (Section 6). encouragement of breastfeeding. Aside from that. It is also evident that the RH Bill includes the implementation of better hospital services pertaining to maternity and sterilization cases. and gender equity (fairness and justice in the benefits and responsibilities of a male and female while eliminating inequality) (Section 4).
the ideas written are absolutely against the RH Bill. 2011). similarly. In such ways. It is clear that the editorial “Choose Life against the RH Bill” enlivens its stands based on the title alone.the services. more than just of becoming an all-about-sex decree. when it happens. The very essence of the article is to attack the RH Bill based on the proposed law without delving more information about the moral considerations presented by the Act itself. . it should have seen the understated sections found on the RH Bill that give the law a stronger point of view about reproductive health. “The RH Bill cannot be seen in just black and white. people form stands either for or against the RH Bill that are not supported by the foundation of a thorough understanding of the issue” (The Guidon. More importantly.
com Unabridged. L.com website: http://dictionary. Reproductive health and population development act of 2008 . House of Representatives.wikipedia. April 24). (n.manilatimes. Santiago III. (2011. & Hontiveros-Baraquel. March-April). Makati City. 2011. Exploring science and technology II.com/browse/abortion Choose life against the rh bill. p. from http://en. Philippines: Diwa Scholastic Press Inc..Works Cited Abortion. Retrieved May 6. N. M. 6. (2008). M. A. J.net/ opinion/choose-life-against-the-rh-bill-2/ Embryo. Mendoza.org/wiki/Embryo Gray area. T.d. A. Garin.). E. Wikipedia.. Hadsall. Dictionary. (2011. Retrieved from http://www.C. (2008). The Guidon. Lagman. (2008)... 2011. from Dictionary.reference. and Reamillo. Retrieved May 06.
That bill now pending in the House of Representatives would impose an anti-life. is really a pro-abortion proposed law. unmistakably. morally neutral and unjust outlook on human sexuality. purged of the effects of our earthly sins. accurately reporting the arguments against the RH bill. it was the human Christ who died and the human Christ who came back to life by the power of the One God (whose Three Persons are Father. We will no longer get sick and die when we are resurrected for we will deserve to be brought back to life when we have become deified. as the Magisterium (the Teaching Authority) of the Church teaches. We also think the CBCP pastoral letter and the summary of reasons against the bill have not been given enough exposure in the most widely circulated media. Tatad summarizing the Filipino’s rationale reasons to reject the bill—because the bill fights the pro-life spirit of Easter. The real purpose of the bill is to prescribe and promote universal birth control for all married couples through an official program funded and run by the state and all its agencies and instrumentalities. . The Christian world today celebrates with joy the most fundamental and central truth in our faith: That on the third day after He died on the cross.” Therefore the RH bill in our House of Representatives. divinized. What is resurrected is the whole human being—his or her soul (which never dies) and the body are united in life again. The new flesh can no longer be corrupted. Here are some of the most fundamental reasons the RH bill should be rejected. which includes in United Nations documents and in the laws of countries that have passed RH legislation. Section 18 of the bill provides: “No marriage license shall be issued by the Local Civil Registrar unless the applicants present a Certificate of Compliance issued for free by the Local Family Planning Office certifying that they had duly received adequate instructions and information on family planning. the meaning “access to abortion. from the same motives and mentality that first invented the term Reproductive Health. 2…Some of its provisions are directly unconstitutional because these provisions would make the Philippine state an accessory to abortion for they make government supply contraceptive pills and devices that cause abortion by making the fertilized ovum unable to cling to a mother’s uterine wall and there receive sustenance and life from the mother. breastfeeding and infant nutrition. Easter is a celebration of life. Jesus Christ by His own power became alive again. 3…It proceeds. Jesus Christ’s resurrection affirms our hope and faith that He will also—as He promised—bring every Christian back from the state of death to the state of life. responsible parenthood.” We fear that passing laws with such compliance requirements will become a precedent for the state requiring a compliance certificate for having voted in an election before being given a passport. Therefore. It is both a celebration of human life—which God the Second Person continues to have in common with us—and our graduation to a permanent sharing of the divine life. Or a compliance certificate for having a woman ligated before being qualified for a government job. 1…As a consolidated bill (a melding of the bills filed) it pretends to be about reproductive health but it is really more an effort to impose measures that will lead to a reduction in the Philippines population. RH bill fights the Easter spirit Our special report today is precisely and purposely a presentation of the Catholic Bishops Conference’s pastoral letter opposing the Reproductive Health bill—and the article by Francisco S. This must be understood in the context of Jesus Christ being at the same time True God (the second Person of the Holy Trinity) and True man. Son and Holy Spirit). Some passages of Holy Scripture tell of Jesus being raised from the dead by God or the Father. It will become like the body of Jesus (which never experienced decomposition of any kind during the three days when he was humanly dead). Our resurrected bodies will no longer suffer the penalties of being heirs of Adam and Eve’s original-sin damaged nature. But the new body is a glorified one.Article:Choose life against the RH bill Happy Easter to all. in spirit and despite its stated and avowed prohibition of the killing of human embryos. Easter is a day of joy. fertility and reproduction—the very opposite of the culture of life that Easter commemorates. Leading broadcasters and radio-TV commentators have been summarily mocking the pro-life stand without honestly.
Source: http://www. 2.4…In making the use of contraceptives and access to them a universal right it would allow the use of even the clearly abortive contraceptive pills and chemicals. such as the notorious R-486 and similar pills. We are against the anti-life. the bedrock of law. especially in an area of life—sexuality—which is a sacred gift of God. For the bill does not prohibit pills.manilatimes. anti-natal and contraceptive mentality that is reflected in media and in some proposed legislative bills. The bill also does not accept the warnings made by even a division of the World Health organization. We denounce the use of public funds for contraceptives and sterilization. the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). We object strongly to efforts at railroading the passage of the RH bill. We object to the non-consideration of moral principles. 6. that certain oral contraceptives are carcinogenic. medicines and devices that do cause abortion. 3. in legislative discussions of bills that are intended for the good of individuals and for the common good. We denounce the over-all trajectory of the RH bill towards population control. We condemn compulsory sex education that would effectively let parents abdicate their primary role of educating their own children.net/opinion/choose-life-against-the-rh-bill-2/ . The CBCP objections Here is the Catholic Bishops Conference pastoral letter’s list of the prelates’ basic objections to the RH bill: 1. 5. 4.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?