Feedback to “Overwhelming case for the RH Bill”

Reposting. Original post by Jun Abejo here.

“The RH Bill, first of all, is about the right of women to control their own bodies. It is about choice, especially the primordial choice of a woman, together with her partner, to determine the size of her family.”
This statement springs from an “inadequate, insufficient and impoverished” anthropology of the human person. It is obvious that it treats the woman’s body as “inessential” to her personhood. It is as if the “body” is just a mere “external equipment” of the human person. In this line of thinking, begetting children is nothing different from animal reproduction. It negates the “spiritual” dimension of procreation where the Almighty Creator God is mysteriously involved in contributing to the “spiritual soul” of the new child rendering her or him a totally unique and totally unrepeatable human person.

This preoccupation to “control” reflects the “the modern passion to dominate the world and everything bodily by the means of technology. One looks upon the material world, and even one’s own human body, as nothing but raw material for human making and manufacturing, as if everything in nature receives its meaning from what man chooses to do with it. As a result, we become estranged from our bodies, looking at them as objects over against us”. (John F.Crosby, “Embodiment”, Lay Witness magazine, October 2000)

About these ads

One thought on “Feedback to “Overwhelming case for the RH Bill”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s