Spirituality Page

Just this afternoon, I attended a supposed to be symposium and consultation regarding the Reproductive Health Bill or the proposed House Bill 5043. The chief author of the bill is Rep. Edcel Lagman. Lagman was there as resource person.

I was expecting that there has to be an interaction because the consultation was primarily for the faith-based organization and inter-faith partnership. It turned out that, the 'symposium' became advocacy meeting. People from different religious groups were present, leaders from Muslim and various Christian denominations including Iglesia ni Cristo. However, there was no representative from the Roman Catholic bishops.

The gathering was held not for the purpose of dialogue and establishing a common ground for discussion between the RH Bill advocates and the oppositionist namely the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy.

I am particularly concerned about the heated and pointed rhetoric of both camps – one pro RH Bill and the other anti RH Bill. Those who believe that RH Bill is anti-life, and that the only antidote to anti-life is the pro-life stance, their rhetoric gears toward building a wall that protects them from the intrusion of the opposite camp.

The Catholic Church has been on the stance of pro-life, and it has re-affirmed itself to stand by the side of the unborn child. The Church champions natural law as strong basis to oppose contraception (or spermicide). The Church is pro-life in the sense that it affirms life as gift of God, and that naturally sex is always connected to procreation. Secondly, the Church champions anti-abortion. This means that life is always affirmed.

However, this fundamental pro life belief is also used to wedge against the perceived anti-life legislators punishing them with refusal of communion and church wedding. Religion, I believe, has the great potential and capacity both to affirm and deny life, as well as to deny religious rites to its members when they err against the church’s set of standards and beliefs.

On the other hand, the pro RH Bill camp wielded a rhetoric that also creates a wall that protects them from the attacks of the opposite camp. They devised pointed arguments to discredit the claims of the anti-RH Bill. When those who oppose the bill argued that they are pro-life, the defenders of the bill replied that they are pro-quality life, that is limiting the number of children in a family by preventing life from conception enhances the children’s quality of life. This line of argument becomes almost a mantra in order to win the popular vote in congress discrediting the argument of the oppositionists.

This House Bill 4053 hangs on the primary question: When does life begin?

The pro lifers say life begins when the ovum is fertile, and pro quality lifers say life begins when egg and sperm meet. Both affirm though that a fetus is already a formed life, and definitely abortion is anti life, that is against the life of the unborn. I too believe in the sanctity of life, and I support anti-abortion policy provided that there is an exemption when the life and health of the mother is threatened. Mothers in consultation with doctors, parents, legal advisers and religious ministers should be given the free choice to abort an unborn when they need to depending on their circumstances.

The second article of the 1987 Philippine Constitution on the Declaration of Principles and State Policies sates (Art. II, Sec. 12): “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

The government “shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” It is a constitutional right of mothers and the unborn to be protected by the state – equal protection of life. The constitution affirms life and is and always been pro-life and pro quality life.

Both camps – the pro and anti RH Bill – align themselves to be affirming life. The right to life is our fundamental right.

RH Bill solicits heated arguments from both anti and pro. A warning to those who oppose the bill is that we should refrain from using the faith and religious authority as tools to build a wall that divides us. A warning also to those who use the sacred texts to defend their position on RH Bill to refrain from manipulating religious texts to counter natural law and ‘natural’ method of family planning. How can the ancient texts address our contemporary issues that require scientific evidences?

A common ground should be met. And I believe that the common ground between those who oppose the bill, particularly the CBCP, and those who champion the bill cannot be identified by just a single person. In a democratic process, we need to arrive at the consensus; this means that both oppositionists and champions of the bill should sit together and find the common ground rather than simply discrediting each other’s argument. We need a compromise.

Let’s say that majority of the members of the house voted for the bill, shall we then undermine the argument and opinion of those who voted against? Shall we push this bill for the sake of winning the popular vote, or to build a consensus bridging both arguments for the benefit of the general public? Let’s say that out of 100 there are 51 votes for the bill and 49 against, shall we discredit the desires and aspirations of the 49 expressed in their opinion? I propose then for a democratic promulgation of the bill and identify contentious issues that need to be revised to affirm the opinions of those who oppose the bill.

Even if the bill passes, would it benefit the 49 who voted against it? Will they implement it? Besides they have the constitutional right to freedom of opinion and religious expression. Although the bill provides room for such possibilities, we also need to open our ears to the Catholic Church which is also a political block that needs to be considered in crafting a public policy. To the Catholic hierarchy, I pose the question that maybe you have to listen also to the voice of your constituents rather than obstinately imposing the revered theological bias.

Various Protestant denominations are quick to assert and impose their beliefs against the Catholic Church, and the participants of the symposium felt that it's a battle between the religious majority versus the 'enlightened' minority. The rhetoric was divisive and it continued to further polarize the discourse.

I honestly prepared for the symposium. I brought new barong and black pants for the event because I was invited to sit among the bishops. However, the symposium failed its objective to establish a commonality, on the contrary it created a huge block that polarizes the nation further. I was hoping for an inclusive synthesis, but I was frustrated. My only redemption is my new polo barong and new black pants.

I am tired of divisive rhetoric in Philippine politics.

[get this widget]