RH Bill is making its rounds again in the news and now have warranted their own “TV Specials” on the larger networks because of the popularity(?) or notoriety of the topic. this morning, i thought of listening to the morning news program because i don’t have a TV where i stay.
in an interview with Neil Ocampo on Radyo5, Rep. Edcel Lagman, the RH Bill’s principal author, defended the motivation of the bill. one thing that i could not reconcile with my conscience was his first reason: reduction of maternal and infant mortality rates.
yes, from the face of it, you would think that i would be narrow-minded. what’s wrong with reducing maternal and infant mortality rates? shouldn’t that be a goal if we are to be caring and humane? but here’s the clincher in his explanation:
because we have high maternal and infant mortality rates, we should lower this rate. (not a problem with me there.) because pregnancies cause maternal and infant mortality, we should prevent pregnancies. (uh-oh).
is pregnancy to be treated as a disease?
cancer causes people to die. to reduce the rate at which people die of cancer, we prevent cancer.
people die of TB. to lower this rate, we vaccinate against TB. so does this mean because pregnancies cause death we should prevent pregnancies? religious or not, do you really consider pregnancy, that baby in your womb, is a disease?
pro-RH bill say that there should be no ‘baby’ to speak of because condoms prevent the meeting of the sperm and the egg. but the motivation for such thinking — that pregnancy is a ‘disease’ to be prevented — does not sit well with me.
again, i am for reproductive health and responsible parenthood. but this mentality, this motivation for a bill that will require me follow once it’s enacted into law is wrong.