Bagman: When does life begin? RH debate rages

The Philippine Daily Inquirer on August 3, 2008, published two articles at “Talk of the Town” written by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, principal author of the proposed Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008. Lagman’s first article highlighted the main features of the measure, while his second noted the campaign to discredit it, both of which are at this blog for easy reference. On August 16, 2008 “Talk of the Town” published two articles, one Kit Tatad and another from Jo Imbong. Other contradictory responses coming from Fr. Virgilio Delfin, Pet Palma Dureza, Maria Concepcion S. Noche, Jose Fernandez and Minyong Ordoñez did not see print because of limited space.

The Bagman is a dyed-in-the-wool opponent of the RH Bill and believes that there is a need to consolidate the voice of those who oppose its legislation.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

When does life begin? RH debate rages

By Niña Corpuz

When does life begin?

Bacolod Rep. Anthony Golez Jr. tried to answer this question Wednesday at the Talakayan sa Bayan debates on the reproductive health (RH) issue at the Unibersidad ng Maynila.

Golez, who is also a doctor of medicine, is against the RH bills in Congress.

He is on the side of the Catholic Church and Bishop Emeritus of Novaliches Teodoro Bacani, who also attended the forum.

Former Akbayan Rep. Rissa Hontiveros-Baraquel was on the other side of the fence at the debate.

'Pills are abortifacents'

Golez gave a presentation on why modern contraceptives like pills and intrauterine devices are abortifacients or cause abortions.

He believes that life begins at fertilization, the same view as the Catholic Church as expressed by Bacani.

Golez said that he is not against the objectives of the RH bills, such as for parents to have the opportunity to plan the spacing of their children, and promoting infant and maternal health,

"Pero ang hindi sinasabi ng RH bill ay ang ibinibigay na serbisyo dito ay abortifacient,” he added.

Using a picture of a woman's reproductive organs, Golez said life begins during fertilization. He said this is when the egg and sperm meet in the ovary. After 6 or 7 days, the fertilized egg will travel to the uterus where it will be implanted.

When does life begin?

The debate now is when does life begin? During fertilization or implantation?

When IUD is used and placed in the uterus, it alters the uterine lining and makes the uterus not suitable for implantation, Golez said.

"Di siya ma-implant sa uterus, nasira ang fertilized egg, abortifacient di ba?” he explained.

Pills may also be abortifacient, according to the lawmaker.

Pills have 3 modes of actions – prevent ovulation, thicken cervical mucus, and alter uterine lining.

The first 2 actions are not abortifacient but the third action is, according to Golez.

"Pills have a failure rate of less than 10%, kahit uminom ka ng pills, may chance na mag-ovulate ka pa rin,” said Golez.

For Golez, life begins during fertilization. "That's my stand as a Catholic doctor."

RH bills do not legalize abortion

Hontiveros-Baraquel, meanwhile, clarified that the RH bills in Congress do not legalize abortion. "Nananatili syang krimen".

She insisted that modern methods of family planning are not abortifacient. "We want to give couples a choice, kung natural or modern".

Golez, however, wants the government to first answer the question: When does life begin?

Golez said under the constitution, the state must protect life at the moment of conception. "Kailan ba nabubuhay ang isang tao? Define when life begins. Pag na-define natin yan, tsaka natin pag-usapan ang RH bill."

However, Hontiveros-Baraquel said, "Matagal ng dine-debate yan, centuries na yan. In the meantime, mahigit 18 years na pinag-uusapan ang RH bill. Masyado nang delayed. Bigyan natin ng choice ang tao."

Bacani, meanwhile, said that the church is not against reproductive health bills because they agree with the objectives.

"Hindi yung buong RH bill ang abortifacient. Don't get us wrong, the church is for responsible parenthood and family planning."

No comments:

Reproductive health bill: Facts, fallacies

By Rep. Edcel Lagman
Philippine Daily Inquirer

THE BILL IS NATIONAL IN SCOPE, COMPREHENSIVE, rights-based and provides adequate funding to the population program. It is a departure from the present setup in which the provision for reproductive health services is devolved to local government units, and consequently, subjected to the varying strategies of local government executives and suffers from a dearth of funding.

The reproductive health (RH) bill promotes information on and access to both natural and modern family planning methods, which are medically safe and legally permissible. It assures an enabling environment where women and couples have the freedom of informed choice on the mode of family planning they want to adopt based on their needs, personal convictions and religious beliefs.

The bill does not have any bias for or against either natural or modern family planning. Both modes are contraceptive methods. Their common purpose is to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

The bill will promote sustainable human development. The UN stated in 2002 that “family planning and reproductive health are essential to reducing poverty.” The Unicef also asserts that “family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race.”

Coverage of RH. (1) Information and access to natural and modern family planning (2) Maternal, infant and child health and nutrition (3) Promotion of breast feeding (4) Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications (5) Adolescent and youth health (6) Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, HIV/AIDS and STDs (7) Elimination of violence against women (8) Counseling on sexuality and sexual and reproductive health (9) Treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers (10) Male involvement and participation in RH; (11) Prevention and treatment of infertility and (12) RH education for the youth.

Strengthening of Popcom. The existing Population Commission shall be reoriented to promote both natural and modern family planning methods. It shall serve as the central planning, coordinating, implementing and monitoring body for the comprehensive and integrated policy on reproductive health and population development.

Capability building of community-based volunteer workers. The workers shall undergo additional and updated training on the delivery of reproductive healthcare services and shall receive not less than 10-percent increase in honoraria upon successful completion of training.

Midwives for skilled birth attendance. Every city and municipality shall endeavor to employ an adequate number of midwives and other skilled attendants.

Emergency obstetrics care. Each province and city shall endeavor to ensure the establishment and operation of hospitals with adequate and qualified personnel that provide emergency obstetrics care.

Hospital-based family planning. Family planning methods requiring hospital services like ligation, vasectomy and IUD insertion shall be available in all national and local government hospitals.

Contraceptives as essential medicines. Reproductive health products shall be considered essential medicines and supplies and shall form part of the National Drug Formulary considering that family planning reduces the incidence of maternal and infant mortality.

Reproductive health education. RH education in an age-appropriate manner shall be taught by adequately trained teachers from Grade 5 to 4th year high school. As proposed in the bill, core subjects include responsible parenthood, natural and modern family planning, proscription and hazards of abortion, reproductive health and sexual rights, abstinence before marriage, and responsible sexuality.

Certificate of compliance. No marriage license shall be issued by the Local Civil Registrar unless the applicants present a Certificate of Compliance issued for free by the local Family Planning Office. The document should certify that they had duly received adequate instructions and information on family planning, responsible parenthood, breast feeding and infant nutrition.

Ideal family size. The State shall encourage two children as the ideal family size. This is neither mandatory nor compulsory and no punitive action may be imposed on couples having more than two children.

Employers’ responsibilities. Employers shall respect the reproductive health rights of all their workers. Women shall not be discriminated against in the matter of hiring, regularization of employment status or selection for retrenchment. Employers shall provide free reproductive health services and commodities to workers, whether unionized or unorganized.

Multimedia campaign. Popcom shall initiate and sustain an intensified nationwide multimedia campaign to raise the level of public awareness on the urgent need to protect and promote reproductive health and rights.

Smear offensive

By Rep. Edcel Lagman
Philippine Daily Inquirer

THERE IS A CONTINUING campaign to discredit the reproductive health bill through misinformation. Straightforward answers to the negative propaganda will help educate and enlighten people on the measure.

The bill is not antilife. It is proquality life. It will ensure that children will be blessings for their parents since their births are planned and wanted. It will empower couples with the information and opportunity to plan and space their children. This will not only strengthen the family as a unit but also optimize care for children who will have more opportunities to be educated, healthy and productive.

The bill does not interfere with family life. In fact, it enhances family life. The family is more than a natural nucleus; it is a social institution whose protection and development are impressed with public interest. It is not untouchable by legislation. For this reason, the State has enacted the Civil Code on family relations, the Family Code, and the Child and Youth Welfare Code.

The bill does not legalize abortion. It expressly provides that “abortion remains a crime” and “prevention of abortion” is essential to fully implement the Reproductive Health Care Program. While “management of post-abortion complications” is provided, this is not to condone abortion but to promote the humane treatment of women in life-threatening situations.

It will not lead to the legalization of abortion. It is not true that all countries where contraceptive use is promoted eventually legalize abortion. Many Catholic countries criminalize abortion even as they vigorously promote contraceptive use like Mexico, Panama, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Paraguay and Ireland. The Muslim and Buddhist countries of Indonesia and Laos also promote contraceptive use yet proscribe abortion. According to studies, correct and regular use of contraceptives reduces abortion rates by as much as 85 percent and negates the need to legalize abortion.

Contraceptives do not have life-threatening side effects. Medical and scientific evidence shows that all the possible medical risks connected with contraceptives are infinitely lower than the risks of an actual pregnancy and everyday activities. The risk of dying within a year of riding a car is 1 in 5,900. The risk of dying within a year of using pills is 1 in 200,000. The risk of dying from a vasectomy is 1 in 1 million and the risk of dying from using an IUD is 1 in 10 million. The probability of dying from condom use is absolutely zero. But the risk of dying from a pregnancy is 1 in 10,000.

The bill will not promote contraceptive mentality. The bill does not prohibit pregnancy. Critics are mistaken in claiming that because contraceptives would be readily available, people would prefer to have no children at all. Couples will not stop wanting children simply because contraceptives are available. Contraceptives are used to prevent unwanted pregnancies but not to stop pregnancies altogether. Timed pregnancies are assured.

The bill does not impose a two-child policy. It does not promote a compulsory policy strictly limiting a family to two children and no punitive action shall be imposed on parents with more than two children. This number is not an imposition or is it arbitrary because results of the 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey show that the ideal of two children approximates the desired fertility of women.

Sexuality education will neither spawn “a generation of sex maniacs” nor breed a culture of promiscuity. Age-appropriate RH education promotes correct sexual values. It will not only instill consciousness of freedom of choice but also responsible exercise of one’s rights. The UN and countries which have youth sexuality education document its beneficial results: understanding of proper sexual values is promoted; early initiation into sexual relations is delayed; abstinence before marriage is encouraged; multiple-sex partners is avoided; and spread of sexually transmitted diseases is prevented.

It does not claim that family planning is the panacea for poverty. It simply recognizes the verifiable link between a huge population and poverty. Unbridled population growth stunts socioeconomic development and aggravates poverty. The connection between population and development is well-documented and empirically established.

UN Human Development Reports show that countries with higher population growth invariably score lower in human development. The Asian Development Bank in 2004 also listed a large population as one of the major causes of poverty in the country.

The National Statistics Office affirms that large families are prone to poverty with 57.3 percent of families with seven children mired in poverty while only 23.8 percent of families with two children are poor. Recent studies also show that large family size is a significant factor in keeping families poor across generations.

Family planning will not lead to a demographic winter. UP economics professors in their paper “Population and Poverty: The Real Score” declared that the threat of a so-called demographic winter in the Philippines is “greatly exaggerated, and using it as an argument against a sensible population policy is a plain and simple scare tactic.”

The National Statistical Coordinating Board projected that a replacement fertility of 2.1 children per couple could be reached only by 2040. Moreover, despite a reduced population growth rate, the effects of population momentum would continue for another 60 years by which time our total population would be 240 million.

Humanae Vitae is not an infallible doctrine. In 1963, Pope John XXIII created the Papal Commission on Birth Control to study questions on population and family planning. The Commission included ranking prelates and theologians.

Voting 69 to 10, it strongly recommended that the Church change its teaching on contraception as it concluded that “the regulation of conception appears necessary for many couples who wish to achieve a responsible, open and reasonable parenthood in today’s circumstances.”

However, it was the minority report that Pope Paul VI eventually supported and which became the basis of Humanae Vitae.

Even 40 years ago when the encyclical was issued, theologians did not generally think that it was infallible. Monsignor Fernando Lambruschini, spokesperson of the Vatican at the time of its release, said “attentive reading of the encyclical Humanae Vitae does not suggest the theological note of infallibility… It is not infallible.”

Five days after the issuance of the encyclical, a statement against it was signed by 87 Catholic theologians. It asserted that “Catholics may dissent from … noninfallible Church doctrine” and that “Catholic spouses could responsibly decide in some circumstances to use artificial contraception.”

The following wrote opinions against the RH Bill. Click on the name to read the article.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

When does life begin? RH debate rages

No comments:

Post a Comment

Blog Archive