Reproductive Health Bill

                    Science and technology never exist in a vacuum. Inexplicably rational, they together even unfold in a definite context. However, envisioning all-encompassing factors, issues and proposals relatively raised by studies of science and technology are oftentimes are led off track. Because of this, we find ourselves caught in a nonetheless our own unsubstantial view of things. While we remain holding onto our beliefs, those we have grown up with, we tend to neglect the potential noteworthy positive effects of our discoveries regarded as those that can alleviate the society’s condition in general.

                    I’m here before you neither to encourage you nor to influence you the other way around regarding the concern of our group. Anyway, after all, at the end of the day, it depends on each one of us, among the factors raised, which one would sufficiently comply with our needs.

                    Generally, to weigh things in equity, here are the concerns of the RH Bill:

(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.

                    Disregarding any selfish concerns that might be prevailing among the proponents of the bill, as rational beings, we all know that this would not arise if we sufficiently are equipped with necessary tools to progress as a society. Population is not a burden and it will never be as long as (in a conditioned premise) the society can undergo sustainable development concerning the environment, maintain resources and preserve the instilled culture and tradition the society is born with. There’s actually no need to interfere with the natural process of reproduction, but as it remains inevitably a great concern for the whole society’s capability of pronouncing its needs, there arises the need to partake the very essence of humanistic method of abreast of the setbacks related to it.

                    While this kind of bill is proposed, a number of different social issues and concerns also merit a careful consideration. For an instance, one may inquire up to what extent will the domination of researches and developments impede or promote the civilian concerns and to the whole humanity at stake. How should the proposals be funded and organized and be maintained sustainably for the citizenry? And lastly, how can the society sit assured of the benefits they will enjoy while preserving their innate ideational, societal, personality and material perspectives as a whole? While these three questions may appear perplexing, it only suggests that to comply with causes and consequences of our schemes, it is a requisite to always mull over the potential constructive effects and underlying ethical conflicts it may pose.

John Mark Katindig Torres