RH Bill: Why more and more Catholics are supporting the bill

More and more Catholics are supporting the Reproductive Health Bill. Even professors of well-known Catholic schools are in support to this bill. The proponents themselves still strongly claim their Catholicism, and still claim that the bill is not anti-Church nor is it going against the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Now, for what reason are these Catholics in support to this bill? Because they see its practicality. It is campaigned that the bill is for the Filipino families, and that it even aims to alleviate poverty in the country. The bill also aims to address the health concerns of Filipinos, especially with the increasing mortality rates of women and of infants. It aims to give freedom and informed choices to the people. With these reasons, one would think twice on why not to support this bill. It has a lot of positive intentions, and it presents a win-win situation for everyone.

Now, for what reason am I still against this bill? To simply say I'm a Catholic would have been enough, but with the present situation, it wouldn't explain much because of the many other Catholics who strongly support this bill. To simply say I'm a pro-Family and pro-Rights would have been enough, but with their claim that the bill is pro-Family and that it promotes the rights of women, it really wouldn't explain much.

While I believe majority of its supporters are really not anti-Church, nor do they have ill intentions, I also believe they have been misinformed about a number of truths and facts. I am one with their aim of alleviating poverty in the country. I am one with their aim of helping the women and infants of achieving better quality of life in terms of their health. I am one with their aim of giving freedom and informed choices to the people.

But why am I still against the bill? Simply because I believe its said practicality is not really leading to practical solutions, but rather solutions that could actually worsen the situation. It claims to alleviate poverty by controlling the population growth. The thing is, the population rate is actually decreasing, and if there would be a cause of poverty, it would be the unjust distribution of resources and overcrowding in one place, not the growing number of people. Manpower is an asset, and this could actually be a means to better the country's economy. Evidences are clear that a country's big population is not enough reason to blame for the country's poverty. There are several countries that have a big number of population but are still able to have a good economic standing. Demographic winter? It is very much possible to our country.

RH bill is really not necessary since population reduction is not the solution to the country's economic status. Aside from this, they say they wanted to widen the choice of the poor families by giving them easy accessibility to contraceptives, etc. But these things are not illegal in the country. These things are legal and they could easily access these without the presence of the bill. And though I do not support of these, the fact that contraceptives are very much accessible to people, shows that the RH bill would be unnecessary.

One of their questions, if RH bill remains in agreement with the anti-abortion law, then why is the Church still against it? Because we cannot allow that we be fooled by vague statements and incorrect definitions. Some contraceptives are abortifacients, meaning they act as if abortion is carried out because life is killed. They insist that life begins at implantation and not at conception. I remain firm that life begins at conception and this is clearly stated in the Philippine constitution. Why are we being particular about these things? Because it's life being talked about, and this is no laughing matter that one can just consider in passing. These details matter, especially if one fully respects life and its sanctity.

RH bill does not aim to change the anti-abortion law, but it promotes the same ideals as abortion. Simply, to stop life.

But primarily, I do not support RH bill because I believe in the greater capacity of man to achieve higher virtues --- that man is capable to have the virtue of temperance, and to be more generous with life. I believe that man is capable of pursuing solutions that may require more thinking but would address better the root of the problem.

And most importantly, I believe that man is capable of loving truly -- unselfish and unconditional. The Church is not being unnatural with its teachings. On the other hand, it wants people to love. What it tries to save is not the virginity of its people, but the sacredness of sex as an expression of love.