Monday, December 22, 2008

issue: rights of the unborn

whereas, the constitution under article ii section 12 explicitly and expressly provides that: "...equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn at the moment of conception..." i felt it necessary to expound on the said matter.

what exactly is the right of the unborn?
does it have a right?

lets pick it up from the constitutional convention members...

The formula that is found in the second sentence of section 12 is the product of much debate. It is first of all important to understand what it does not assert. It does not say that the unborn is a legal person; nor does it deny, however, that the state under certain conditions might regard the unborn as a person. It does not assert that that the life of the unborn is placed on exactly the same level as the life of the mother. It recognizes that when necessary to save the life of the mother , it may be necessary and legitimate to sarifice the life of the unborn. It however, denies that the life of the unborn may be sacrificed merely to save the mother from emotional suffering or to spare the child from a life of poverty. The emotional trauma of a mother as well as the welfare of the child after birth ca be attended to through other means such as availing of the resource of welfare agencies. The provision , in fact, is intended primarily to prevent the state from adopting the doctrine in the United States Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade which liberalized abortion laws up to the sixth month of pregnancy by allowing abortion at the discretion of the mother anytime during the first six months when it can be done without danger to the mother.

The unborn's entitlement to protection begins "from conception," that is, from the moment of conception. The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception and that conception takes place at fertilization. There is however no attempt to pinpoint the exact moment when conception takes place. But while the provision does not assert with certainty when human life precisely begins, it reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.

Incidentally, too, the respect for life manifested by the provision harmonizes with the abolition of the death penalty and the ban on nuclear arms.-----SOURCE: The 1987 Consti. A Commentary by Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.; pp. 77-78


1. Roe v. Wade does not legalize abortion on the first six months. The period as stated by the controversial case is during the "first trimester". It is either that the convention was mis-informed or deliberately misled.

2. The provision has the effect of over-turning the U.S. Supreme Court. Without arguments, discussion of different views, consultations , public debate and consensus which can only be properly done in the legislature. It is a very broad sweep. Congress being the repository of sovereign will. Just like the way the pope handled the collegial body tasked to study the 'humanae vitae.' The holy-ass overruled it. Typical behavioral pattern. These religious people have no respect for the democratic process. The insertion to the new provision introduces a new subject . The subject is that of the "life of the unborn". A subject which did not exist in the previous 1973 as well as the original 1935 constitutional provisions and which were eventually carried over to the present. Noting the presence of the subjects on 'family as an institution" and "the molding of youth" relative to the mandate for government support-not regulation. Bernas has even admitted that it was basically inserted to counter the possible adoption of roe v. wade in this jurisdiction. It means that Bernas stands above the U.S. Supreme Court with regard to the controversial issue. Inappropriate in the sense that its like he just turned around, pulled down his pants then showed his butt. Abhorent in the sense that it is without regard for "the rule of law." Typical manifestation of "jesuit superiority complex".

3. Abortion of the unborn is basically immoral. The perversion of government/institutions to regulate it is equally unacceptable on grounds of 'due process.' The human body must never be tampered in order to conform with society's demands. To do so, would reduce the citizen to status of an animal. We are not large cattle nor sheep to be herded. Conscience prevails in each individual. The best the government and church can do is provide support in any way possible without being coercive or intrusive towards individual dignity.
Contraception is equally repulsive-it is not a solution. It makes women objects of sexual gratification. However, considering that persons have different outlooks and must be left as a personal option. Following the doctrine of parens patria, the limitation is clear.

4. One effective way to reduce abortion is through economic sufficiency. By providing proper reforms and opportunities for personal development. Where 20% or even less of the country's elite control 80% of the resources there is no social justice. This is the root cause of most social problems. The world's resources is not unlimited. But man's greed has no bounds. The reduction in rates of abortion in the US, for example, may be attributed to government support for 'unwed' mothers in terms of benefits like tax discounts-exemptions or periodic financial allowances for the mother and child. The effectiveness of institutions.

5. Coercion of the mother to give up the child for adoption traumatizes her and leaves a stigma.

6. I strongly believe that the issue on the 'life of the unborn' deserves a separate section within the article. It should not have been inserted in such a manner as to subscribe to the narrow dogmatic prescriptions of the church. This is a patent violation on the constitutional provision for the "separation of church and state." Marriage should be viewed as a solemn agreement between man and woman or two parties. Even without the intervention of the priest. As a civil union of human beings. Otherwise to subscribe to the religious doctrine that marriage is for procreation is to follow an outdated and obsolete idea. What about gay marriages? Adoption? Don't they also result in parenting the child?

7. The section definitely deserves a re-examination, an amendment, a devolution to its original state. The insertion partakes on the nature of fraud if not trickery. A 'rider' within legislative parlance.

In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point.
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 16



Post a Comment