Unpacking Choice and Reproductive Rights
July 21st, 2009 by caffeine_sparksWhy is the reproduction of life political?
Fundamentalists rest easy on grounding reality on something solid, eternal, unchanging. There is security in anchoring one’s view of the world on basic principles from which spring beliefs about who we are and what we ought and ought not to do. Once these fundamentals become shaky, it is feared that identities (who we are) and morals that guide us (what we ought and ought not to do) become shaky as well.
The Reproductive Health bill is a landmark policy shift that gives women control over their body’s reproductive functions through state resources. It is revolutionary, and thus feared, on two accounts.
First, should the bill make it through Congress and approved by the Executive, the public domain will have acknowledged that reproduction, i.e. the creation of life, is not a completely private matter between mother and father. Motherhood confers to women a unique bodily function. It is often argued that because we have a uterus – ‘nature’ (i.e. God) has given us an immutable identity – that of bearing children. In other words, because we have a uterus, our biological make-up forever cements us in the mold of reproducing life. True, motherhood is a gift and fertility is revered in many cultures around the world. One then wonders why this matter is intensely political in a large and differentiated society such as ours.
Those opposing the bill have argued that the State should not dictate upon families the number of children they want to bear. Advocates have answered the bill makes no such imposition. Indeed, it does not. The bill, however, gives women a last say on what happens to their bodies. It is revolutionary in that it wrests control over the reproduction of life away from ‘nature’ (i.e. God) and men. The sexual act need not naturally result to pregnancy.
This is why anti-RH bill people claim that our society will develop a ‘contraceptive culture’ and that the young will become more ‘promiscuous.’ The image of the ‘loose’ woman offends many. This moral guidepost says women ought not to engage in sexual acts with any man of her choosing in any context. The sexual act is reserved for married heterosexual partners, because, fundamentalists argue, the sole function of sex is procreation. Unpacking this moral guidepost unearths many donts and hidden punishments:
1. Only men and women can have a union blessed by the most powerful institutions in our society – the State and the Church.
2. Marriage confers rights and protection to this coupling that is denied to any other combination (men-men, women-women).
3. Sexual intercourse should occur only in a marital context. To do otherwise paints one, especially women, as immoral and therefore undesirable.
4. Sexual intercourse’s sole purpose is to reproduce life.
Unpacking all that, we get to the heart of the matter – how to control and harness reproductive labor. At the top of this structure of control are the State and Church. Their powers to constrain individual behavior discipline and order human beings in such a way as to benefit both. The State must have a last say on all things public, i.e. what concerns all of us, and the Church on all things moral, i.e. what we should and should not do.
Between these two at the top of the pyramid however, the State is a much more democratic, more participatory and less opaque structure of power. We do not get to elect who mans the Church. We do not get to argue and debate over theological matters. We do not get to negotiate moral matters as per the Catholic hierarchy.
Secondly, the bill is revolutionary (thus feared) because it pierces the sanctity of the ‘family unit.’ The Catholic Church and other fundamentalist organizations jealously guard its sanctity. They often argue that the State (or the public domain) should have no say about reproductive matters. The same argument can also be made for domestic violence. What goes on between husband and wife is a private matter. What goes on between parent and child is also a private matter.
But the so-called sanctity of the domestic domain cloaks power hierarchies within the family unit. This traces back to the history of marriage as an institution where the wife is the husband’s property. Parenthood also confers ownership of children. To acknowledge that wives and children have rights independent of the societal unit to which they belong unveils the cloak of the family’s ‘sanctity.’ Women are individuals who are more than the sum of their mammary glands and uterus. Children are individuals who are more than the result of reproductive labor.
This is why the Church and other fundamentalists have fought tooth and nail against the Reproductive Health bill. It unravels the order of the ‘natural,’ that is, it unravels the order of God.
For more on the RH bill, click here.
July 21, 2009 at 3:59 pm
In what country in the world is not ‘reproduction of life’ not political?
Owning colts, puppies, piglets, calves alone are in fact, political on the ‘private ownership’ side of the political equation.
What of it, then?
Tell me, in a scale of 1 to 10, where are you if one says – had you wanted to be the unborn when still a fetus?
July 21, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Pinoys and Pinays from high-school to grandparents know that this is not true :
Even the United Nations has position papers urging countries and communities to behave more appropriately and to be more understanding towards prostitution as a means of employment.
July 21, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Sex’s sole purpose is to transmit genes!
July 25, 2009 at 11:21 am
hala. are you equating the creation of human beings to owning animals? lol. anlabo po ng comment ninyo.
July 21, 2009 at 5:36 pm
“The bill, however, gives women a last say on what happens to their bodies.”
with the exception of abortion, right?
July 25, 2009 at 11:19 am
*roll eyes*
how many times do you need to be reassured gabby?
July 29, 2009 at 1:16 am
many times, especially since its such an emotionally charged topic
July 21, 2009 at 5:46 pm
this whole post is confusing.
“…Parenthood also confers ownership of children. To acknowledge that wives and children have rights independent of the societal unit to which they belong unveils the cloak of the family’s ‘sanctity.’ Women are individuals who are more than the sum of their mammary glands and uterus. Children are individuals who are more than the result of reproductive labor….
This is why the Church and other fundamentalists have fought tooth and nail against the Reproductive Health bill. It unravels the order of the ‘natural,’ that is, it unravels the order of God.”
are you saying the Church is in favor of wife battery and child labor?
this is so weird, sparks…
July 21, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Actually, GabbyD, the Church favors a lot of “stuff” if these “stuff” becomes the necessary price to pay for “Bigger Stuff”. Similar to that BongAustero response to “…if a dictator leads Pinas to better, will you say YEA?”
July 21, 2009 at 10:10 pm
GabbyD: A number of times, the Church (various churches in various countries) would tell newspaper or TV reporters NOT to make public issues or stories that would be to the embarassment of the Church.
Similar to police or military telling media NOT to make too much noise that will harm the “good image” of the authorities before the public, especially teen-agers. Heck, even victims will tell media “… huwag na lang ibulgar, pati ako mapapahiya, wala din namang mangyayari.”
July 22, 2009 at 3:34 am
as a general matter, trading off values is something ethical people do all the time.
but lets talk specifics: wife battery and child labor.
i contend that the church is unequivocally against these things.
i ask anyone to correct me on these facts, if i am wrong.
July 25, 2009 at 9:18 am
The Roman Catholic Church say “NO DIVORCE” even when the husband unleashes violence regularly on his wife.
July 21, 2009 at 6:37 pm
It is economic as much as political. As long as the Philippines creates babies faster than it creates jobs, it drives people into poverty, overseas, and into crime and prostitution. So loose women already exist because there is NO reproductive rights bill. A woman’s body belongs to her, not to the church, men, Congress, or anyone else. Common sense can be achieved with education and birth control other than abortion.
After giving birth, the child belongs to both parents, and any parent who skips out of his (or her) responsibility to the child warrants fines and/or jail time.
Yours definitively,
Joe
July 21, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Empowering women through equal rights and employment opportunity is supplement to the current bill. When women are busy and career oriented , she will have a sense of self worth. She will decide in an informed decision with great consideration of personal economics. Same thing will apply to men in this country. As the head of household, he can better control the number of siblings according to affordability. Many studies have shown and in general, professionals and people who know how to make money have smaller families.
I will add more later.
Glad your back sparkie
July 21, 2009 at 11:07 pm
PRO-CHOICE or PRO-LIFE. It is your choice. Pro Choice are those for Abotion of Unborn Children. Pro Life are advocated by most religious
sectors like churches, moral guardians, etc… that opposes any
abortions.
The trouble here if we have a lot of abortions. The next generation
will not be there. They are aborted before their births. No replenishments for the deaths of the older generation.
We still believe that life is sacred and is a gift. Marriage is a good institution to help us face the uncertainties of life. To have
children and families. Happiness is to see your children grow from infant to adult.
We are Pro Life. We agree for abortion in cases of rape, incests and
when the life of the mother is in danger.
July 21, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Marriage evolved since it confers adaptive fitness. Monogamy evolved since it confers more fitness since women realised early in human evolution that fooling males to be monogamous, gave their children better chances of becoming reproductive themselves. The adaptation happened so early in our evolution and is probably linked with us being bipedal. Women don’t advertise that they are sexually receptive unlike in female apes whose butts turn red as a turn on to male apes! Keeping men guessing women’s sexual receptiveness is the first trick.
However postmodern female Homo sapiens of the femmie persuasion have CONVENIENTLY forgotten the tradeoff that makes up a few chapters in Darwin’s “Descent of Man”. In evolution, you can’t have your cake and eat it too! The tradeoff is that in order for monogamy to be workable and adaptive, women have to be under men! In fact it can be argued that women chose to be under men as a tradeoff.
If there is any thing that would choke social constructivists and gender constructivists, it is Darwin’s “Descent”. So far none of them have provided EMPIRICAL evidence to falsify the Theory of Sexual Selection.
The dogma of the Church here explaining why monogamy and the old way work is superfluous!
Evolution rules!
July 21, 2009 at 11:53 pm
“…the State is a much more democratic, more participatory and less opaque structure of power. We do not get to elect who mans the Church.”
I surely must agree. Now, we have a Church Ordained who desires to be Head of State.
As the venerable DJB would put it: Padre Damaso lives!
July 22, 2009 at 12:24 am
Because even if Among Ed Panlilio has resigned the priesthood, the guy lived by Church dogma and canon law all his adult life.
I’m not sure he knows how to build Bridges to Nowhere. Really makes me wonder. There’s a feeling I get, he’s building a Stairway to Heaven:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9TGj2jrJk8&feature=related
July 22, 2009 at 9:02 am
Phil M,
I’ve read the comments pro and con. The main con is that Mr. Panlilio is believed to be so attached to his faith that he cannot abide by the Constitutional provision of separation of state and religion. Yet, I look at the “old family” candidates, Roxas, Villar, Gordon, BF . . . and the incestuous incompetence that reigns within government as the needs of the poor are ignored for the enrichment of the well-to-do, and I say, give me faith any day. Give me the moral values of the Church.
The only Church-based value I seriously disagree with is its anti-birth control stance, and the Catholic Church worldwide is starting to wake up to the need for a change in position on the matter as the planet’s population careens headlong, like that of the Philippines, into the wall of poverty, starvation and maltreatment.
Given the inability of the entrenched families to distinguish right from wrong, I can live with the Church’s blindness on this matter.
My three criteria for selecting the best presidential aspirant are: (1) character, (2) ability to manage, and (3) platform. With scores ranging from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest), Mr. Panlilio right now scores: 9 + 5 + 0 = 14. He has offered no platform yet. Scores can change.
The family candidates score about the same: 3 + 7 + 0 = 10. No platforms yet.
Mr. Panlilio is for now the candidate of choice. If he comes up with a good platform, he will remain on top.
Joe
July 22, 2009 at 8:36 am
The RH bill is rough sailing in the House of Representatives.
And an earlier imprimatur from GMA herself will give it another wave of frustration.
Even if it passed in Congress, it might be vetoed by the president. Unless there can a congressional override.
Bottomline, the RH bill is everything about a global drug business, if I may so opine.
July 25, 2009 at 11:23 am
your opinion based on….?
July 23, 2009 at 9:11 pm
listening..
July 28, 2009 at 6:53 am
Precisely, in the new emerging culture of choice, the whole idea is that a woman owns her body that she can do everything about it for her own perceived good.
But given the inherent moral limitations or excesses of the RH culture, it would have reduced unborns, women, couples, children, and young girls and boys almost as no longer members of a human society but of an “animal farm”.
That sounds as coming from a purely moralistic point of view but nope. Any policy approaching abortion issues are quite problematic.