The right to live

Having previously come out with the "right to die" issue, this time it's the turn of the "right to live" as centerpiece.

In our civil law, subject to a qualification, while birth determines personality, a conceived child or fetus is deemed born for legal purposes; provided, it be born later and completely delivered from its mother's womb. Even in its conception stage, the fetus is lent recognition with an expected legal personality, that is, a being with life, as also stressed in the Constitution.

The Roman Catholic Church led by the papacy in the Vatican brooks no buts or ifs, or exceptions whatsoever, in preaching its pro-life tenet. Any and all birth control methods other than the natural rhythm method based on the woman's menstrual cycle, are anathema. In effect, the church confers "life" or a "being" even before conception.

This is so true in the Philippines, such that a Fil-Chinese taipan who is a byword in business, decried that in other Roman Catholic-dominated countries, the Church isn't as strict against birth control measures, as in the Philippines.

Indeed, the right to live isn't just a legal right or privilege. Most human beings of whatever religious persuasions, agree that the right to live is God-given. Even the atheists, the deists, and the doubters in-between, believe the right to live is spiritually-sourced.

With 85 percent of the Filipinos being Roman Catholics, the nation pays obeisance to their priests and bishops who, in turn, toe the line drawn by the Vatican. Even PGMA, now supposedly a non-political president, doesn't touch birth control or family planning with a ten-foot pole, for fear of any church backlash. Thus, with the annual birth rate at 2.3 percent or so and still going, making babies in the Philippines is the only "cottage industry" that hasn't suffered any vagary or inconsistency.

The poor who "can't afford" to sire many offsprings are the most prolific, and the consistent champions of the right to procreate, in consonance with the right to live. "Ang Ginoo ray magbuot", is a common remark when so advised to practice birth control. One school of thought persuades that the right to live connotes decent and dignified life.

Not just the scratch and peck existence so common among the actually impoverished families with many mouths to feed, but with hardly enough food on the table, even at one-meal a day routine. Definitely, this isn't living, but hardly existing from one hunger to another.

The erstwhile "Ligtas Buntis" program of the Dept. of Health had been strongly opposed by the Church that its birth control program with the use of contraceptives, is non-negotiable; and, that the "Ligtas Buntis" mocks at the Catholic faith, the parents' free choice of what's good for their children, and the freedom of religion which condemns artificially-controlled contraceptions.

On the other hand, the DOH and the Population Commission argue that they do not encourage abortions, but for safe pregnancies; not premature deliveries, and not maternal deaths; for families to live a happy family life, to plan family size based on informed choice of methods; and free from unplanned and teenage pregnancies. In short, the family planning advocates are for responsible and mature parenthood, rather than indiscriminate procreation, like unthinking animals.

In fine, whether the right to live is strictly defined by the moral parameters of one's religious faith that condemns any artificially regulated procreation, or by the pragmatic approach to have a family size sustainable for living and not merely existing, is a choice addressed to the individual conscience.