Monday, January 13, 2020

Endorsement of the Reproductive Health Bill as a Law Essay

The â€Å"The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Act of 2011† or simply the RH bill, has been a very controversial topic for the past decade. Not a few disagreements came between MalacaÅ„ang and the Catholic Church. The later making every step of the acts approval a hard one. Whose side should we support? There are several points in the Reproductive Health Bill that should be reconsidered. The third guiding principle which states that ‘since human resource is among the principal asset of the country, maternal health, safe delivery of healthy children and their full human development and responsible parenting must be ensured through effective reproductive health care’, is being challenged by the bill’s Section 11 ‘Procurement and Distribution of Family Planning Supplies’. The phrase full human development will be put in jeopardy because some of the items that will be distributed are not good for the development of the first stages of life. One of its functions is killing the fertilized egg – a stage where life started – which is no difference to aborting an infant, or killing an adult. In addition, the fifth guiding principle states that the State shall promote, without bias, all effective natural and modern methods of family planning that are medically safe and legal – the supplies would all be legal, safe for the mothers but definitely dangerous for their babies. Another hole to this Section (11) is the funds to be used. Instead of using the nation’s money on items for killing the beginning of infants the government could use it on more reasonable projects – project that might help the poor, develop the services offered, or stop corruption perhaps. The amended last phrase of Section16 ‘Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education’ states that Age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall be integrated in all relevant subjects – but the section says that this kind of education is mandatory, once again violating its own principle for freedom of choice. The Section 20 ‘Ideal Family Size’ opposes the first guiding principle of the act. Section 3 no. 11 talks about freedom of choice, a matter not considered in the making of the 20th section. On the other hand, there are also good points to consider in the act. Sections 5 and 6 promote the protection of the health & lives of mothers and saving babies undergoing dangerous delivery, support and deploy more public midwives, nurses and doctors. The Bill also responds to those who want smaller families, in the form of promoting various family planning methods and at the same time it helps prevent induced abortions. It also guarantees funding for & equal access to health facilities. Section 15 ‘Mobile Health Care Service’ promotes the medical services in the mountainous areas in the country – it would be such a help to the indigenous people who cannot reach the aid of medical facilities in their town. There are pros and cons to be considered in the endorsement of the Reproductive Health Bill as a law. There may be more pros we could gain through it but there is one con that should be well thought-out first and foremost, that is the use of substances to destroy a natural process – the process of reproduction. By making this bill a legal law we are violating the law of nature, as well as the God’s. No one was given the right to kill anybody. There are many ways to avoid unwanted pregnancy without consciously or unconsciously killing a life from developing, we should implement that instead and with it all we need is discipline and responsibility to make the Philippines a better country and its people better citizens.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.