 |
| Editorial cartoon. Obtained from: http://angelcao.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/edcartoon_big.gif |
The RH Bill is a debate. Should the bill be amended into a law or not? Why should it be (or not be) amended? Who will be affected by the said bill? How will it benefit the country?
I think that these are questions that should be answered in the debate. Not questions on "Catholic identities" of schools. Not questions on why Tito Sotto's son died. Not questions on why professors from Catholic universities are pro-RH. This debate is about the RH Bill. And since it is a debate, the argument of each person must be respected if it warrants, or deserves, the respect it should deserve.
2.) Since when did religion become a tyrant?
Second, this debate isn't really about the Catholic status of any school. Yes, it is "mandatory" for Catholic schools to be anti-RH. That is why Ateneo, as a Catholic school, has an anti-RH stance. However, it isn't "mandatory" for individual members of such schools. The "mandatory" fiasco DOESN'T MERIT that the individual members of the said school should submit to that said (anti-RH) stance. Each member is ENTITLED to his/her own opinion.
In any decision that we make, it should be guided by the morality we formed as individual human beings. This shouldn't stop the individual members of the school to think for themselves, and thus individual members SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR STANCE, whether they are pro-RH or anti-RH. As Dino Santos mentioned:
In any decision that we make, it should be guided by the morality we formed as individual human beings. This shouldn't stop the individual members of the school to think for themselves, and thus individual members SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR STANCE, whether they are pro-RH or anti-RH. As Dino Santos mentioned:
"As a matter of fact, as far as I know, Ateneo has in fact retained an anti-RH stance with regards to the matter, and they have stuck with the teachings of the local Church. They do not however impose their stance on their students; rather, they encourage students to think for themselves, to think what is right for them, for the country, and for the Church they are in. They do not want their students to be sheep; rather, Ateneans are are brought up to be shepherds."
As Ateneans, or as members of Catholic schools, I have to agree with Mr. Santos' stance that we are trained not to become sheep, but rather, become shepherds. We are trained to become BOTH followers and leaders. We are trained to decide for ourselves on what we think would be for the best: of ourselves, our countrymen, and our country.
[Dino Santos. "To Mr. Sorreta of Pro-Life Philippines," Accessed: August 19, 2012. http://www.facebook.com/notes/dino-santos/to-mr-sorreta-of-pro-life-philippines/10152042084460177.]
3.) Since when did attacking the opposition become an argument?
The argument of Mr. Sorreta of pro-life Philippine [and the CBCP] isn't really an argument per se (this is with regards to them demanding that the 192 professors, who support the RH Bill, to resign). I think that the objective of an argument is to show (to the opposition) why your stance should win/be accepted (by the opposition). Yet, in my opinion, he clearly fails to argue about something. He fails "argument". An argument isn't about attacking a person/ a group of people just because they don't agree with your stance or the stance of their religion. Rather, an argument is something that is said (or done) to prove why your side should win the debate. In the first place, Mr. Sorreta [and the CBCP] is being unfair with his arguments precisely because he attacks people, not the argument of the people. He doesn't counter the argument with his own argument, rather, he attacks the opposition (the opposing arguer).
[Edit: 10:41 PM]. Furthermore, attacking the opposition, rather than the opposing argument, shows that the attacker lacks faith that their argument will win. So instead of strengthening your argument or your stance that you're against the RH Bill, you weaken it instead. How does it get weakened? What's the point in even arguing if you lack the faith that your argument will win?
4.) Senators and lawmakers are called to be arbiters in a debate.
[Edit: 10:41 PM]. Furthermore, attacking the opposition, rather than the opposing argument, shows that the attacker lacks faith that their argument will win. So instead of strengthening your argument or your stance that you're against the RH Bill, you weaken it instead. How does it get weakened? What's the point in even arguing if you lack the faith that your argument will win?
4.) Senators and lawmakers are called to be arbiters in a debate.
This fourth point is with regards to the whole Tito Sotto issue. While it is sad that his son died in 1975, the fact remains that his arguments don't really deserve much respect. Again, to the camp of Tito Sotto's supporters, respect is something EARNED not DEMANDED.
But why doesn't his argument deserve respect?
Simply because his argument offers misleading information that would, otherwise, weaken the spirit of the debate. An argument should be fair to both sides and it shouldn't be shaded with information that is, otherwise, false (this is with regards to the year at which "Diane" was officially manufactured; and if there really is there really a connection with the son's death to the said pills). Also, the very fact that he plagiarized and stole the work of someone, and still doesn't admit to his crime, just shows that a person HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO TRUST HIM. Why? In the first place, would you expect a person, who clearly lies (and not admitting it) to be fair in a debate? The answer is: NO!
I think that senators and legislators are called to be arbiters in a debate, they are called to serve as judges of the said debate. If they clearly lie, then the debate wouldn't be fair because it would favor one side over the other. I am not saying that they shouldn't have their own opinions. They are, in fact (and should be), ENTITLED TO IT, but they should voice it through fair means.
But why doesn't his argument deserve respect?
Simply because his argument offers misleading information that would, otherwise, weaken the spirit of the debate. An argument should be fair to both sides and it shouldn't be shaded with information that is, otherwise, false (this is with regards to the year at which "Diane" was officially manufactured; and if there really is there really a connection with the son's death to the said pills). Also, the very fact that he plagiarized and stole the work of someone, and still doesn't admit to his crime, just shows that a person HAS THE RIGHT NOT TO TRUST HIM. Why? In the first place, would you expect a person, who clearly lies (and not admitting it) to be fair in a debate? The answer is: NO!
I think that senators and legislators are called to be arbiters in a debate, they are called to serve as judges of the said debate. If they clearly lie, then the debate wouldn't be fair because it would favor one side over the other. I am not saying that they shouldn't have their own opinions. They are, in fact (and should be), ENTITLED TO IT, but they should voice it through fair means.
5.) It's a debate of rights, not a debate of morality.
This debate is about the RH Bill. It isn't a debate about morality. It's about rights. While it is correct that human laws should be guided by natural laws, which is based on morality, this bill isn't about morality, but about the rights of each Filipino. The point of a debate is to prove to the opposition that your argument should win, given valid evidence. The point of this debate is to answer the question whether the RH Bill would do the country more good, or would do the country more harm.
Although this debate isn't about morality, it is important to point out that morality plays a key role in this debate because it strengthens the spirit of the debate such that members from both sides are guided according to what they believe is for the best of everyone. Thus, I think that a logical argument warrants a counter-logical argument and not a moral or ethical argument. In the same sense that a morality argument warrants a counter-morality argument and not a logical argument. Debates aren't about pity, debates aren't about drama. Debates ARE about showing why your stance is the better stance.
6.) For the nth time, it does not amend abortion.
Although this debate isn't about morality, it is important to point out that morality plays a key role in this debate because it strengthens the spirit of the debate such that members from both sides are guided according to what they believe is for the best of everyone. Thus, I think that a logical argument warrants a counter-logical argument and not a moral or ethical argument. In the same sense that a morality argument warrants a counter-morality argument and not a logical argument. Debates aren't about pity, debates aren't about drama. Debates ARE about showing why your stance is the better stance.
6.) For the nth time, it does not amend abortion.
The RH Bill DOES NOT, again... does not amend abortion. In the first place, abortion isn't the moral issue in the said bill, I think that the true moral issue behind the said bill is that it has the capacity to violate the natural law on what sexual intercourse is for - procreation. The RH Bill DOES NOT AMEND abortion.
I, for one, think that contraception is a morally neutral issue. In a sense the prevention of conception of human life isn't really morally good nor is it morally bad. It's morality depends much more on the circumstances and the intention on why contraception is used in the first place.
I, for one, think that contraception is a morally neutral issue. In a sense the prevention of conception of human life isn't really morally good nor is it morally bad. It's morality depends much more on the circumstances and the intention on why contraception is used in the first place.
[For a deeper understanding of this I recommend the article:
Kenneth Magnunson. “What does Contraception Have to do with Abortion? Evangelicals v. Augustine and Roe v. Wade.” Accessed August 15, 2012. http://www.sbts.edu/resources/files/2010/07/sbjt_072_sum03_magnuson.pdf]
7.) Why should morality be in danger in the first place?
Finally, if the RH Bill gets passed as a law, the ones mostly affected by it would be the lower to lower-middle class sector of the Philippines. It's really about the accessibility of contraceptive pills or condoms. It's made much more cheaper, so the lower class community would have more accessibility to it, which would, in turn, PROBABLY allow them to live better lives. It gives people additional rights, so... why should morality be in danger?
Again, morality doesn't really count here. It's about the rights of these people.
In a debate of rights, morality is another issue. While it is correct to say that morality SHOULD GUIDE the law, morality is something we form personally, it is subjective. Morality, however, is not something that gets shoved down our throats.
Why should a person's morality falter just because a bill gets amended into a law? Isn't morality subjective (personal) in the first place? In the end, the whole morality issue doesn't really stand out since MOST (not ALL) of the people primarily using this argument aren't even part of the lower class, and I think, shouldn't really be affected by the said law [,some people, who are using this argument, shouldn't be even affected by it in the first place because they took a vow of chastity]. These people can easily afford these contraceptive pills/condoms at present, so, in my opinion, the law shouldn't really affect their rights that much either.
Morality, again, is something personal. Thus, I think that external factors shouldn't really level down a person's morality. If it is 'leveled down', it is a personal decision and it's not caused by an external factor. The said bill shouldn't affect morality at all! The only time morality would be affected is when a person decides that it should be affected by the said bill.
Concluding Remarks
In the end, whether the RH Bill becomes amended into a law or not, the more important question, at the end of the day, is not about how many arguments a side won nor is it about why Catholic universities should keep their "Catholic identities". In the end, the most important question would be: did the debate help our country (the Philippines) move forward or did the debate hinder the country from moving forward? Did the debate help us become united or did it divide us? I, for one, think that it's about time to get back to the real issue here: the RH Bill.
Copyright 2012 - Gab Molina
Again, morality doesn't really count here. It's about the rights of these people.
In a debate of rights, morality is another issue. While it is correct to say that morality SHOULD GUIDE the law, morality is something we form personally, it is subjective. Morality, however, is not something that gets shoved down our throats.
Why should a person's morality falter just because a bill gets amended into a law? Isn't morality subjective (personal) in the first place? In the end, the whole morality issue doesn't really stand out since MOST (not ALL) of the people primarily using this argument aren't even part of the lower class, and I think, shouldn't really be affected by the said law [,some people, who are using this argument, shouldn't be even affected by it in the first place because they took a vow of chastity]. These people can easily afford these contraceptive pills/condoms at present, so, in my opinion, the law shouldn't really affect their rights that much either.
Morality, again, is something personal. Thus, I think that external factors shouldn't really level down a person's morality. If it is 'leveled down', it is a personal decision and it's not caused by an external factor. The said bill shouldn't affect morality at all! The only time morality would be affected is when a person decides that it should be affected by the said bill.
Concluding Remarks
In the end, whether the RH Bill becomes amended into a law or not, the more important question, at the end of the day, is not about how many arguments a side won nor is it about why Catholic universities should keep their "Catholic identities". In the end, the most important question would be: did the debate help our country (the Philippines) move forward or did the debate hinder the country from moving forward? Did the debate help us become united or did it divide us? I, for one, think that it's about time to get back to the real issue here: the RH Bill.
Copyright 2012 - Gab Molina
No comments:
Post a Comment