Saturday, April 12, 2014

The Reproductive Health Bill and the Individual: Marriage and Life as Conceived by God

The potential for reproducing life is in each and every one of us. When two become one in marriage, that potential becomes a reality. The underlying problem with judicial processes, as applied in this issue, is their rejection of the ultimate origin and the basic motivation that allow each couple to fulfill a God-given relationship or institution which in the beginning was absolutely free of any other institution other than itself. Marriage, as conceived, is solely between God and two persons united. No other individual, human government or religion can curtail it or impose sanctions or limitations upon it. By extension, only the families involved, and to a certain extent, the community, should have any viable stake upon that union.

God, in fact, tried to “abort” marriage and reproduction when He delayed Eve’s creation. It is not good for a person to be alone. Of course, it was to highlight the principle and the process of individual and solitary will to accept and to enter into an unbounded, Heaven-designed, Earth-based and Nature-protected married life. This is the ideal state of marriage and reproduction so essential in understanding this whole issue.

Having missed or sidelined this vital dimension of marriage, our justices have conveniently skirted the moral issue or delayed it for a future decision. They may have succeeded in limiting the coercive power of our lawmakers to control reproduction; but they have not totally protected the individual's basic rights. Religious groups, on the other hand, which have taken upon themselves to become the vanguards or protectors of their unique perception of the fundamental nature of this issue, now want to impose upon couples such peculiar ways of seeing the issue. Government, armed with science and medical technology, remains adamant in promoting a way to achieve its political and economic goals. Hence, from many sides, the freedom of each individual or couple (Are they not one individual?) has been compromised, if not already violated.

The issue, if it has to be begged, is not whether we should have an RH Bill or not. It is not whether population should be controlled or not. It is whether we, as an individual, as a group, as a society, or as a government, have any right to interfere with a solemn covenant entered into by two persons (with their families) and impose any control or sanction. If the government means only to inform or provide assistance, there is nothing wrong with that. The couple is free to accept any information or medical aid. But knowing government and its ultimate or hidden agenda, the couple needs some protection. On the other hand, religion also has its own agenda. Beware of wolves and lions that lurk around us!

The multiplication of Adam and Eve’s children (or the so-called overpopulation, as seen from a political and economic viewpoint) has become the scourge rather than the blessing that it was intended to be. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court deserves to be commended for recognizing the negative effects of population control in other countries and for pointing out that the real problem is not overpopulation but the failure to distribute wealth. However, while it deserves some praise for upholding the RH Bill as being “not unconstitutional”, its decision, in totality, is politically aimed at balancing all the many forces that are equally at a loss as to the nuances of this controversial bill.

Unwittingly, the SC has come upon this decision by pure accident. That is, not by clear and voluntary will to uphold a divine principle established in the beginning when life itself began. In fact, it avoids its role as God’s potential voice by explicitly refusing to make the moral decision and seeing the RH Bill merely as a medical and scientific issue. It acts like King Solomon telling the false mother, “Let the doctors and scientists decide if the child is truly your own through a DNA test!” A case of legal wisdom escaping moral responsibility. A toothless, heartless ruler!

And so, the controversy will continue to rage for as long as we fail to accept and uphold the word of the Final Judge (and the True Solemnizer of Marriage and Giver of Life) Who rules above all authority and power. As always, when God is taken away from the equation (and religion, legalism, politics and economics take over), confusion and corruption arise.

The conditions that seem to justify the RH Bill are, at best, artificial and, at worst, intentional. A genuinely free, self-reliant, educated and morally-upright individual forms the basic unit of a productive and progressive nation. The replication of many such citizens, not the prevention of birth or the corruption of minds, is the most viable goal every nation must focus and invest on.

In the end, the individual is much better off thinking for himself or herself. For the final protector and arbiter, God Himself, resides in each person’s heart and conscience. As true children of Adam and Eve and, therefore of God, we have a legacy greater than what modern leaders promise us.

No comments: