Friday, October 7, 2011

Casting Doubts about the "RH" Bill

I'm pretty interested about the RH Bill topic. I normally don't buy something out of face value. When the bill was first mentioned (prolly in 2006/2007?), I was hopeful and open-minded about it. But, when I got educated about the implication of contraceptives (moral, physical, social, cultural, etc.), and so on, my opinion changed. I think those who "deny" the disadvantages of contraceptives, and it's heavy connection with the bill, are highly uneducated about it, and that they do not really have a decent say about this bill.C To be fair, I want to learn more about the bill, too. But, maybe I can do that by asking questions.

Here are the things I want to scrutinize about the RH Bill:

- What does it say about adoption/people who have difficulties in child bearing?
- What does it say about orphans, and the people who already are the "victims" of poor reproductive healthcare, particularly "mistakes" that cannot be undone?
- What about the idea that the poor should've had been unborn, instead of living an "undignified life"? Does the RH Bill really dignify human life by deciding, or suggesting, that those who live "undignified lives" should not suffer, and not be born instead for that to happen?

Also, in the future, I want to comment about this post: - I heavily want to criticize the comments of the Tapat leader. It's worth criticizing.

I also hope that those who are against the bill present more credible, logical arguments against it. We need modern thinkers. But, just because something is not modern, does not mean it's not good at all.

(I had to cut this short because I need to sleep already)