In support of a secular RH bill debate

Much has been said about the issue of Reproductive Health in the Philippines. The debate is sure to rage on for some time yet, tonight’s Harapan debate on ABS-CBN being little more than the televised version of the discussions that happen all over the country every day.

My qualm about the debate is that religious groups have such an insistent voice in this discussion. In last night’s debate I was disappointed to find out that the CBCP’s spokesperson and at least two medical experts affiliated with the Pontifical and Royal University of Santo Tomas were speaking in opposition to the RH bill. Rodrigo Tano, a Protestant bishop and chairman of the Interfaith Partnership for the Promotion of Responsible Parenthood, spoke in support of the bill, as well.

I’m not surprised that religious groups have a say on the matter of reproductive health in a society as conservative and religious as ours. The CBCP, I need not mention, has been furious in its offense against the bill, occupying all the airtime and column space the networks and publishers will allow them. Catholic teachings, of course, prohibit the use of artificial family planning methods, although Jay Salazar has pointed out that many clerics were in favor of contraception.

The church to which I belong, the Iglesia Ni Cristo, is opposed to natural family planning methods and advocates the use of modern family planning so long as it is not abortifacient; this has been the church’s stance since at least the 60s. Ka Eduardo Manalo, the Church’s Executive Minister, explained the INC’s stand to Rep. Rogelio Espina, chairman of the House committee on population and family relations, in a letter he wrote in October of last year.

The Interfaith Partnership for the Promotion of Responsible Parenthood, Inc., comprising several Christian denominations, similarly expressed their support for legislated Reproductive Health.

The fact, however, is that these opinions do not matter in a secular debate such as this. Or at least, they shouldn’t. 

Much of the time that could have been spent discussing the merits of the bill in last night’s debate was wasted on irrelevant religious banter; for a fleeting, painful moment the discussions swerved into excommunication and priestly celibacy. Many anti-RH bill tweets sadly professed that to prevent the bill’s passage was to preserve our country’s morality, as if anyone has a right to define morality for 90 million people based on their religious beliefs.

This is my problem with the debate. I am a non-Catholic Christian living in a secular democratic state. My being non-Catholic doesn’t make me any less Filipino than Oscar Cruz; why should my opinion matter less than his?

So why don’t we stick to our beliefs—you to yours, I to mine—and discuss the bill in a secular context? To do otherwise, that is, to use any religion’s argument in any way in the RH debate, is to disrespect all other religions. It is, more importantly, an insult to democracy.

In simpler terms, I don’t care what your or my religion’s stand is, it doesn’t matter in the debate.

Of course, I don’t expect pious Catholics to oppose their Church’s teaching, the same way I don’t expect my brethren in my own faith to oppose ours. This is precisely the point, without getting too wordy: you do what is right in your belief, I do what is right in mine, and let’s argue the RH bill without stuffing the King James Version down each other’s throats. The result, hopefully, will be a bill that is forged on common ground and that respects the diversity of our country’s culture and faith.

* * *
DISCLAIMER: I am a member of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. These are my personal views and opinions. They do not necessarily reflect those of the INC.

11 thoughts on “In support of a secular RH bill debate

  1. I'd like to think the bill aims to allow access to contraceptives to those who need it, political beliefs notwithstanding.The debate on whether public money should be used to fund such a contentious program is another one entirely; that line of reasoning does not target the RH bill specifically. That said, saying "I don't want RH programs to be funded using taxpayer money because they violate my religious beliefs" is, again, not a proper way to argue about secular legislation. And frankly, if you want to talk about our taxes being used for something we're opposed to, there are many more things we ought to think about getting rid of aside from legislated RH measures, aren't there? Haha.I do agree that RH matters can never be secular (not entirely, at least), but only because the Philippines is still such a deeply religious society. Imagine how much more motley the Divorce Bill debate will be once it generates the same amount of buzz the RH bill does now.

  2. hmmmm.. I agree, I was just citing out, loopholes in the system with regards to preventing non-secular idealism from flourishing in what's-supposed-to-be-a-purely-secular-debate. I simply think these are areas that religious groups will most likely target

Have a say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s