When UAAP Meets the RH Bill: It Means More Than ‘Academic’ Tension!
- NOTE: I first posted this note as a Facebook status.
Here’s my comment on this UST Varsitarian blog article that is now circulating on Facebook and other social network sites. The oped writer calls La Salle and Ateneo academics “lemons and cowards. Of course, ‘academic tension’ is very much expected.
Apparently here’s the red button that now stirs what I call UAAP-triggered ‘academic tension’ between conservative UST and DLSU-Ateneo tandem:
It’s quite shocking that Ateneo and La Salle professors should harbor naive and misguided thinking about health and social problems. How could they argue that an RH measure would be needed to lower maternal mortality when the Philippine government not too long ago had told the United Nations that it was on track to meet the Unesco millennium development goals by 2015, one of which was the lowering of maternal deaths? How could they argue that alleged high mortality must be checked by an RH measure when pregnancy complications are not in the Top 10 causes of women’s deaths? How could they argue that contraceptives which allegedly worth billions of pesos must be given to women to avert pregnancy risks when contraceptives have been known to cause cardiac problems, which are the No. 1 cause of death of Filipino women?
I agree that the UST, which is a catholic university or institution, has all the right to oppose- and it’s justified to do so- the RH bill. Here’s one thing that many pro-RH bill folks fail or refuse to understand: THE RH BILL SEEKS TO FORCE Catholic doctors and hospitals, including employers and the entire private sector, to breach their FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE and religious freedom. You don’t have to be a catholic or religionist to oppose the bill… and I am a rabid ATHEIST. There are many atheists or agnostics who oppose the RH bill on secular, non-religious grounds. We oppose the bill on the ground that it would violate or negate people’s rights and freedoms. We believe that rights and freedoms should not clash with each other!
A number of Catholic priests previously said, or clarified, they’re not against public consumption of birth control per se; it’s government funding of birth control they’re against. I thank them for making that point. With that, I find them to be MORE RATIONAL and LOGICAL than the self-confessed atheists and leftists who naively support the bill.
The writer said: “How could Ateneo and La Salle professors dismiss the medically established dangerous side effects of contraceptives when they are not even physicians?”
Please do not focus on that particular issue. The point is, everybody must have a right to use contraceptives. Any person- or any woman- must have a right to take contraceptives. What we should focus on is the government’s attempt to finance contraceptives through people’s money and to violate doctors’ (both catholics and atheists) and private hospitals’ freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. I repeat: the RH bill was designed to put the entire medical industry and private sector under a HIGHER DEGREE OF STATE CONTROL! That’s why I consider the bill to be as evil or immoral as the recently passed Cybercrime Law!
Should the government force/coerce a person to support things or programs that he/she considers to be against his conscience or belief? The answer should be NO. If pro-RH bill politicians argue their proposal is all about a poor woman’s ‘freedom of choice’, what about the freedom of choice and rights of catholic and atheist doctors? Focus on that issue and we’ll WIN this debate!
Let me address that disgusting LIE perpetrated by pro-RH bill politicians that without such a program Filipino women and poor people would be deprived of their right to RH services. That today they’re deprived of their ‘freedom of choice’.
Filipinos have that freedom of choice, and there is NO SUCH THING as a right to RH services. A right does not impose any form of obligation on others. Many people who have this ‘entitlement mentality’ believe their right to RH or food means the State must provide them the RH services and food they need. But who will pay for all these services? Who will be immolated or sacrificed to serve some people’s right to RH care?
A ‘right’ simply means freedom of action in a social context. Here’s a phrase or statement that proves the intellectual precision of America’s founding fathers: “The right to PURSUIT of happiness”. The keyword here is PURSUIT. They didn’t say people are entitled to ‘happiness’, because that would mean some people are obliged to make you happy. They said everybody has a right TO PURSUE happiness. This should give our intellectuals an idea that a ‘right’ simply means freedom to act.
Your right to LIFE means you have a right to PURSUE things or certain activities that would serve your well-being. That you have a right to work and to practice the profession of your choice. It does not mean the state or your neighbor is obliged to feed you.
Your right to property means you have a right to keep and spend the fruits of your labor. It does not mean the state must seize your neighbor’s property to serve your needs.
Your right to liberty means you are entitled to due process and protection of our laws. That you cannot be jailed without being found guilty by a competent court.
Contraceptives are available almost everywhere. Men and women still have the right and freedom and free will to undergo vasectomy or ligation operations. That’s what freedom and choice is all about. But if you want something, you must be ready and willing to pay for it.
I think UST Growling Tigers’ and Ateneo Blue Eagles’ Game 2 face off is going to be more exciting…