In the first part of this three-part blog, I examined the arguments of those who believe that the Reproductive Health Bill should be passed. Most of them believe that the R.H. Bill is an excellent idea because it provides people with the chance of family planning thus giving them the choice and control over their lives.
In the second part of the blog, I examined the arguments of those who believe that the R.H. Bill should not be passed. Most of them, particularly the Catholic Church, believe that the R.H. Bill should not be passed for the specific reason that it negates the value of life thus making it immoral. Some of them even believe that it is not the solution to the problem in our country because it does not attack the main problem of society which is corruption. In this blog I plan to analyze both sides of the argument in order to attempt to answer the question of which argument really is better: Rational Pro or Ethical Anti?
Most people at this point would probably think that those who are against the R.H. Bill don’t really have a valid argument because it doesn’t really talk about anything except that it violates “life” and how it is against “God’s Will”. But if you remove that part of the argument, some of their reasoning is actually somewhat compelling and valid. The only reason why their argument is considered insignificant by a lot of people is because they keep putting God into the picture. They actually have a point when they argue that the R.H. Bill may not solve anything at all because it is not attacking the root cause of the problem. We are wasting so much time in this argument that it is distracting us from the true problem which is corruption. It also makes sense that the R.H. Bill may be manipulated by minors so that they can take advantage of sex.
On the other hand, those who are for the R.H. Bill argue that though it may not be the solution towards our society, it is a possible solution for controlling or fast-rising population. It also protects women from unwanted pregnancy who attempted abortion. It gives those in poverty an opportunity in a developmental process and it also teaches minors as well as those who are unaware about the importance of Reproductive Health and Sex Education.
When you compare both sides of the argument, how will you respond to such a argument? I will not answer the question because when I answer it, I feel like I am taking a side and letting my biases take over. The main question here is whether the R.H. Bill should be passed based on these arguments. When you seriously look at it, it actually isn’t a simple black and white case. It is actually a complicated argument which has been dumb down so that everyone will understand. If you remove the lame and repetitive arguments, It really becomes a sophisticated and interesting argument worth tackling.
No comments:
Post a Comment