Home > Ronald Roy > Pro-Life, Pro-Choice And Anti-Life

Pro-Life, Pro-Choice And Anti-Life

Pro-Life, Pro-Choice And Anti-Life
Ronald Roy  30 July 2008

         Pro-life, pro-choice and anti-life are the three main categories of people locked in interminable debates over such a wide range of burning issues as overpopulation, birth control, contraceptives, etcetera.  This comment, #5438, does not deal with the extreme categories of the bigoted and the benighted, since no sensible outputs can come from them.  At the outset, consider me as a pro-choice participant in the cacophony of public opinion provoked by House Bill #812, otherwise known as the Reproductive Health and Population Development Act. 

        We proceed with the postulate that the sex urge is a normal and natural urge which people discover at the age of puberty.  When a boy in high school is hungry or thirsty, he eats or drinks in obedience to natural law.  A denial of either can be deleterious to his health, as he eventually finds out.  By the same token, a self-imposed restraint of his sex urge may be harmful because, for one thing, he may fall prey to a badgering neurosis until he solves his discomfort.

        Thus, his self-administered relief is not unusual.  No hassle; although the boy often wonders why he must confess his relief as a mortal sin.  Thus, the cycle of relief becomes perfunctory since; in the first place, he remains unconvinced that hell is the just punishment for the act.  He has learned to rationalize, rightly or wrongly, what could have become a habit, unaware that his self-cultivated orientation of masturbation’s veniality will encounter severe moral problems in the future, as in the case of a married life or priestly vocation.

        Perhaps he has also been influenced by the Old Testament story of Onan.  If memory serves, there was a law requiring the tribe of Levites to observe the preservation of family lineages.  Thus, in accordance with this law, Onan married his dead brother’s wife.  Trouble is, he still committed an error in that he chose to spill his seeds on the ground rather than make love with his new wife.  Onan was then punished not for the spillage but for disobedience.  On closer scrutiny, however, what if she had been so repulsive, like a foul-smelling dwarf, that only a miracle could have produced an hour of erectile efficiency?  Would Onan then have been blamed for his sloppy remedy?

        Overpopulation is an explosive world-wide phenomenon, #5438, particularly among poor peoples who have to wrestle with moral issues arising from clashing views between pro-life clerics and so-called anti-life secularists.  Catholic Filipinos are not easily intimidated by the Church’s caveats against birth control methods it finds contrary to Canon law, moral law, or Ethics, as can be gleaned from a general disregard of family planning among the poor and lower middle sectors of our society.

       In my personal view, where an ovum is not fertilized because of the unnatural intervention of an artifice, marital coitus does not deserve to be condemned as there is no human life that has been killed, not having been created by the spouses’ act of love in the first place.  And this is what I find strange about some Catholic priests who believe otherwise in more whimsical than logical terms. Take this actual case.  In consultation with a priest, a married couple asked if they could use the condom.  He angrily replied, “Absolutely not, because that’s murder of sperms which are life forms!!” Wow!  So, elimination of harmful termites or pesky mosquitoes is a sin?

        They also think the same way in other situations.  For instance, they require observance of the Philippine Constitution in the matter of GMA’s ouster, even if the Filipino people are superior to the fundamental law, being the authors thereof.  Likewise, they require adherence to natural methods of contraception, such as theBillingsor rhythm method, even if their defiance is not repugnant to the realm of dogma where the Holy See, speaking ex cathedra, is considered infallible. 

         For some wives, these methods just don’t work, and yet churchmen do not give them individual dispensations.  Worse, some lawmakers now stand to be denied holy communion – a virtual case of excommunication – for taking a stand to stamp out the disastrous pitfalls of runaway birthrates.  Are these reasonable acts of our moral guardians?

        Have Catholic prelates forgotten about T.R. Malthus, an English clergyman and economist (d.1834) who advocated sexual restraint as a means of preventing an increase of population beyond its means of subsistence? Do Filipino priests now prefer to brook a starvation-fueled rise in the crime index, and to risk an eruption of food riots and anarchy in a prelude to revolution? Incidentally, don’t they realize that their natural–method advocacy could be an absolute prescription for what they so passionately wish to avert: a sanguine end of the lucky bitch?

        I haven’t read the reproductive health house bill yet, but some media accounts appear to raise serious moral questions anent what the Church has identified as “access to abortion” among its provisions.  This could be heaven at work, yes!  But, then again, it has been prophesied that in the end times Lucifer and all his demons would invade theVatican, exert their influence over the Pope and his Cardinals, spread their evil all over the world, drag souls to hell, and trigger Armaggedon!  Hmm, this could be the Devil at work, too!  So, what now?  

  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: