On the tail-end of the RH bill debate

Now is the tail-end of the debates on the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill before the Lower House deliberates the bill on second reading, then for voting on final or third reading.

 Perhaps RH Bill No. 4244 could be the most divisive measure for now, that has the Filipino Catholic nation in stormy, heart-wrenching, and belligerent verbal debates, either pro or con, often ending in tantrums. Instead of logical discussions of the merits and demerits, some arguments include outright lies or misrepresentation of facts, half-truths, fallacious theories, resorting to “argumentum ad hominem”, open denials of facts or the truth, or altogether mental dishonesty.

 For one, those who are against the RH bill dub themselves as “pro-life” or “anti-abortion” in such intensity as if it were the “truth” and, calling those in favor of the bill as “anti-life”. That’s an instance of “argumentum ad hominem” by resorting to a fallacious and misleading personal accusation, instead of arguing logically on the debatable issue. In a way, it is even mental dishonesty because nowhere in the proposed bill that provides for, or encourages abortion.

 The letter and spirit of the bill does not, directly or indirectly, target the “killing” of an already “fertilized being” inside the womb of the woman, but before or prior to fertilization of the man’s sperm and the fertilized ovum of the impregnated woman. What the bill emphasizes is to give the couple a free choice, or liberty, to decide whether to risk marital intercourse, especially those prolific couples who could hardly feed or clothe their already many off-springs. Incidentally, it is these class D parents who often “blame” God by saying, “Pagbuot man na sa Ginoo.”

One has gone over the verbose, repetitive, and redundant RH bill, which needs refinements, but there’s nothing “anti-life” or “pro-abortion”, or any immoral or unethical provision about it. To repeat, the bill is for responsible parenthood, or free choice of parents in family planning on the number, spacing, and timing of children they can afford to feed, clothe, provide a “home”, or even a decent “house”, not lean-tos, dilapidated shacks along rivers, esteros, and street sidewalks.

On the other hand, why would some proponents of the controversial measure, like, party-list Rep. Emmi Amaya de Jesus outright deny that the RH bill proposes national population policy obviously intended to reduce poverty or population, and in effect, reduce unemployment? While it deleted the two-child policy, the primordial aimed effect is to regulate or control over-population especially among the “can’t afford” couples.

It is a fact that there’s over-population beyond control. A few years ago, the population was over 80 million, but now it has exploded to 92 million. And yet, why does the Roman Catholic Church insistently deny the undeniable fact? Arguing that there’s no over-population and/or denying that it contributes to utter poverty and unemployment or utter under-employment, is in the least misleading. For the past many years, the annual birth rate hovers between 2.1 to 2.3 that constitutes one of the top ten in the world and, top in Asia.

 On the issue of the Department of Health giving free condoms and contraceptives, the Church counters and insists on the natural method of family planning. So, it is a matter of free choice for the couples to decide. One takes exception though, to the “threats” of ex-communication as a matter going back to the Middle Age.

 It can be argued that there are many high government officials, like, some senators, many congressmen, governors, and mayors, including some Cebu officialdom. While some pro-RH advocates attribute the avoidance of the anti-Catholic negative impact of the Catholic vote during elections, that’s a matter of opinion.

What is ultimately momentous for the heated conflict ought to be fair, logical, and factual on the pros and cons over the issue. Misleading and mental dishonesty, or fallacious arguments do not help the constituents to arrive at the fundamental truth.