...And yeah, ready your eyes for everything you'll see from this point. It's gonna get bloody.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Who is more important, the unborn or the mother? No, this is not a trick question [Yes, it is not a trick question, but to answer you, both are important]. Unfortunately for women, some of our legislators seem to believe that the unborn is more important than the mother [Excuse me! When did our legislators stated that the unborn is more important than the mother? They're just balancing the importance of both the mother and the unborn. Stupid point.].
I refer to several bills on the “protection of the unborn” filed in both Houses of Congress [So what?].
At the House of Representatives, Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golez [the frontliner...] filed HB13, “An Act Providing for the Safety and Protection of the Unborn Child and for Other Purposes” lodged with the Committee on the Welfare of Children. Manila Rep. Amado Bagatsing, for his part filed HB3667, “An Act Increasing the Penalties Against Abortion, Amending for the Purpose Articles 256, 257, 258 and 259 of the Revised Penal Code, and for Other Purposes” referred to the Committee on Revision of Laws [So what?].
In the Senate, Senators Juan Ponce Enrile [huh? Manong Johnny's pro-life? Sweet....] and Bong Revilla, Jr. [...and Kap too!] filed identical bills, SBs 2497 and 2635 both entitled, “An Act to Uphold the Human Rights and Promote the Welfare of the Unborn Child, Amending for the Purpose Articles 256, 257, 258 and 259 of the Revised Penal Code, and for Other Purposes.” Sen. Ralph Recto on the other hand, authored SB2584, “An Act for the Safety and Protection of the Unborn Child and for Other Purposes,” an exact replica of the Golez bill [And I say again, SO WHAT?].
Needless to say, all the bills mentioned have the same intent: to protect the unborn. Nothing in these bills takes cognizance of the mother’s needs and rights [You got it all twisted, madam. Reference, please.].
Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution clearly says, “The State… shall EQUALLY protect the life of the mother and the life of the UNBORN from conception…” (emphasis mine) [So what?].
Let’s see if these bills follow this Constitutional provision which, authors say is the foundation of their legislative proposals [Let's see if her comments follow her premises].
First, all these bills speak of the unborn as a CHILD [Huh? So what do you call the unborn aside as a mere unborn PERSON? (sarcasm here)]. I take issue with this because the Constitution does not call the unborn a child. If the framers meant to equate the former with the latter, they would have done that. An unborn can be anything from an egg, a zygote, to a fetus about to be born.
A child is someone who is born into this world, a complete human person like you and me. A child is a citizen, and therefore, has human rights [True....].
Calling the unborn a child to me is going beyond what the Constitution provides [(buzz) WRONG! An unborn is a person still developing its physical abilities inside its mother's womb. Duh....].
Second, the Constitution speaks of EQUAL protection of the mother and the unborn. The bills in question fully protect the unborn but completely neglect the mother [like the RH Bill could fully protect both the mother and the unborn. Prove to everyone that it does, and further arguments would be unnecessary.]. Some provisions can even be interpreted as protective of the unborn at the expense of the mother [Reference, madam. REFERENCE.].
Section 5 of bills of Enrile and Revilla (contents are the same with Sections 6 and 7 of Recto’s bill) reads, “Protection of the Unborn Child. - The unborn child shall be protected from abortifacients, abortive acts and practices that include abortion… which endanger or expose the unborn child to damage, injury or death, WHETHER COMMITTED WITH OR WITHOUT VIOLENCE, AND WHETHER COMMITTED WITH OR WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE MOTHER…” (emphasis mine) [So, what's the point?]
While the Constitutional prohibition against abortion must be observed, this provision is at best blind to the plight of women who are in problematic relationships or abused by their partners [and that's from an ultrafeminist. Remember that everything in excess is harmful--even too much women empowerment.]. Why would the law punish a pregnant woman who was subjected to violence that resulted in an abortion? Why would the absent of consent of the woman not taken into consideration? Under these circumstances, the woman is a victim, not a criminal [Begging the question? No idea. But whatever it is, it's twisted.].
Section 6, Parental Rights and State Power Over the Unborn Child of the Enrile and Revilla bills (similar to section 7 of Recto’s) gives superior powers to parents of a pregnant minor [which is really a default and irreplaceable responsibility] and the only time that the State can come in is to protect the unborn child from abortion [So, what's wrong with it? Admit it, Angsioco. Your mantra is "MY BODY, MY CHOICE!"].
This provision doesn’t at all care about the welfare of the pregnant minor [Huh? Are you out of your freakin' mind? In the first place, the matter of these things are so personal that not even I could infiltrate. Just let them be, for crying out loud.]. It is as if the young woman does not have any rights at all [1. Define "young woman" in terms of age. 2. What right do you want to promote to the case you present?]. What if the pregnancy was due to rape? Worse, what if the perpetrator is a family member (which is not unthinkable)? [Uh, aren't these provisions existing in the status quo?].
These “unborn bills” may be in violation of the very Constitutional provision they are anchored on [Assuming, BUT NOT CONCEDING, that that would be the case, the RH Bill is much more in violation to the Constitution. But in reality, How would you say so? Any proof than personal interpretations?]. There is no equal protection for the mother’s life here. In fact, these bills are very harsh on women [Talk about bitterness....].
Third, to protect the unborn, we must first protect the mother [How?... Well, here's a suggestion: If you wanted to protect the unborn, why not let the mother be? She is the one pregnant; and even if you sympathize with her being a mother, you are still not the mother of the unborn in her womb.].
It is frustrating that these bills tend to pit the unborn against mothers [And it is also frustrating that these people are meddling in personal matters.]. Why do our honorable lawmakers resort to this? [And you got the nerve to call them honorable, eh?]
We do not need expertise to know that for as long as the unborn remains inside the woman’s womb, it is completely dependent on the woman’s body systems. Science has not advanced to that level where a woman is no longer needed to give life to others, or to make men capable of being pregnant and giving birth [Now her true colors are showing....].
For as long as this is the situation, the health of all unborn depends upon the mother’s health. The unborn will not be born without the mother [Uh-huh.].
Laws, therefore, should protect the mother and address her needs. Make pregnancies and childbirths safe. This will redound to the protection and welfare of the unborn [And how will you do that without harming both?].
The Constitution says the mother and unborn shall be equally protected. The way to protect the unborn is through the mother. This is the way to do it [Incomplete. Let me continue it: The way to protect the unborn is through the mother; THE WAY TO PROTECT THE MOTHER IS TO LET THE UNBORN LIVE.].
***
My piece, “The church of the poor” elicited much response and the big majority expressed indignation (and I am being mild here) about the riches of the Philippine Roman Catholic Church [Mild? I call it a low blow.]. They share the view that the Roman Catholic Church should do a lot more in helping poor Filipino Catholics [They are, you just don't give a damn about it.].
There are those who gave more information and I would like to thank them even if they choose to be anonymous. I intend to verify these information before using them.
To those interested, all the data I wrote about are publicly available from the sources I named. Moreover, I intend to write another piece if more information come my way.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone still alive?
I have to admit: This bitch is getting crazier by the minute!
Too much doublespeak shit.
I rest my case.
hahaha, you really got pissed off ian! way to go! the woman deserves it. bus she should be the one who should be pissed off and go postal. she should be the one stressed and go hypertensive! -restyo
ReplyDeleteThanks for the compliments, Sir. That's the way I do it....
ReplyDelete