Of Ectopic Pregnancies, Pre-Marital Sex, Choice, and Separation Between the Church and the State

I have read a Facebook thread regarding RH Bill and some issues have not been put to an end. I just want to try to put my stand on some points on the thread.*

First, I do not wish to comment on one’s experience on the pre-marital sex, because whatever a person does or have done before, does not affect the RH Bill. But the RH Bill consequently affects what a person does or will do, as it affects how a person decides.

Second, I do not want to talk about the Trinitarian belief as this is entirely off the topic. This thread is initially intended for the RH Bill issue. A new thread on the Trinity would be better to avoid spurious topics coming out.

POINT # 1: Ectopic Pregnancy

I think the RH Bill has nothing to do with this one. If a woman has ectopic pregnancy, neither a condom, a hormonal contraceptive, an intrauterine device, an injectable, or tubal ligation, would be a solution to this problem. Science, itself, will tell us only two steps how to solve this: remove the diseased tissue of the fallopian tube, or administer a drug that causes chemical abortion. Of the following provided for in Section 9, HB 96 (aka. RH Bill) and the deliberations in the Congress that follow, nothing solves the problem of ectopic pregnancy, unless if “methotrexate” or “microsurgery” are included for abortion purposes. And if they were included, then a lot more reason, we should reject the RH Bill, as it includes abortion drugs or abortion procedures.

POINT # 2: Pre-marital Sex

The pro-life side, that is anti-RH, has the conviction that legislating the RH Bill will increase promiscuity, thus increased pre-marital and extra-marital affairs. It is quite worth noting also that the pro-RH side believes that the RH Bill will not result to increased cases of pre-marital sex. In Sec. 4(o) of SB 2865 (a.k.a. RH Bill), Reproductive Health “implies that people are able to have a safe and satisfying sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when, and how often to do  so.” It is imperative, then, that the aim is to increase sexual activity among people, and the people are given the freedom “WHEN” to do so. This means, they can do so before marriage, thus pre-marital sex. They can also do so, outside of marriage, thus extra-marital affair. Moreover, the people are given the freedom “HOW OFTEN” to do so. This means, they can increase sexual activity as they want to. And since the people will be given condoms and contraceptives, which give a sense of security from getting pregnant, it is but proper to assume that there will be increased sexual activity. Thus, INCREASED PRE-MARITAL SEX and INCREASED EXTRA-MARITAL AFFAIRS.

POINT # 3: Choice

The right to choose is an inalienable right. This is not a point of debate. When the RH Bill is put to the trash bin, the right to choose is not trampled upon. Any woman may still use a contraceptive. Any man may still buy condoms at the nearest convenience stores. The problem is if the RH Bill is passed into a law. Catholic healthcare service providers, who choose to refuse to extend   healthcare services, out of conscientious objection, and refuse to refer to another healthcare service provider out of the same reason (cf. Sec. 28 (a) 3, HB 4244, RH Bill), shall be penalized by imprisonment, or a fine, or both (cf. Sec. 29). The inalienable right to choose of the Catholic healthcare service provider is now trampled upon!

POINT # 4: Separation Between Church and State

This does not at all imply that the clergymen, priests, pastors, and/or ministers are prohibited from speaking against any bill or government policy which they think is not good for the constituents and would destroy the moral fiber of the nation. Remember, these ministers are citizens of this country, too! And these pastors also have the freedom of speech. This constitutional rule means that the State does not have to tax a single Church; no single religion will be promoted by the State; no funds will be used for a particular Church. This is what is guaranteed by the Constitution.

There are still a lot more to say about this RH Bill. But I just used the ones which have been mentioned in the thread. I have excluded of course the issues on religion.






*you may fing the thread here: http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=3038875739595&id=1494063599&notif_t=close_friend_activity Accessed April 11, 2012