RH Bill vs. Natural Law - Debate Reflection

 Location: Philippines 

          Natural Law says we should not go against our nature. We cannot help what we are born to do. While the RH Bill on the other hand tell us to be more practical and save our future selves from the wrath of what we are doing today. Both principles for me are equally important to the survival of species. Hence, choosing a side or even pick an option is vitally critical. It will make you question your morality and even the things that you already know and stand firm at. I think that what is most striking in the debate.

            I agree on some level with the government side in the debate. As a biologist, we must know that the RH Bill brings forth more benefits that we could ever imagine. These benefits will make sure that our generations will experience life just as we know it. As the saying goes we borrow whatever we have now to our future sons and daughter. It will ensure that resources will still be abundant. Sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS will be prevented.  We cannot help the benefits RH Bill does and we cannot question that. The only catch here and the main argument here is that accordingly it violates the Natural Law. What I think is that RH Bill is not something too bad at all. Although part of the Bill is fertility control, we must remember that RH Bill is only a law that gives us permission if ever we want to seek one. RH Bill does not tell us to stop from doing our nature of consummation. It only permits us to protect ourselves from something that we do not want when we engage in that certain scenario. It is more like what doctors always tell us “Prevention is better than cure”. By using a protection while doing the “thing” isn’t against the Natural Law at all. Except when of course one is enforce to use one to prevent from possibility of pregnancy then that is another question. When there is already a question of enforcement to have a baby even if the couple wants to, I think that is where RH Bill draws the line. In anyhow, preventing, educating, caring for post-abortion and maternal care is not really that bad.

            On the other hand, many are against RH Bill because of the Natural Law. This is where all things become tricky. Natural Law is so natural that if someone will pass a law that tells us to stop breathing then all people will end up in jail. It is absolute. We cannot argue what we are structured to function. As the saying says “It goes naturally”. I think that there is no harm to stand firm of our nature. But sometimes life brings us at the edge of the cliff and the only other option is to make adjustments for us and every other people will survive. That is when I realize that although it is natural for us to breath; the earth has limited sources adding that to the fact that we are adding tons of air pollution every second. The only other way for us to have enough oxygen to survive and our generations to survive is learn how to change. Like when using a contraceptive will protect us and will help limit the population, we help clean the environment for us to have enough breathing space, to have a future we want for our generations.

            The main thing that I realize in this debate is that we should make adjustments. We must learn how to control one nature for our other nature to survive. More like giving people the right to limit their children, so that they will have much more breathing space. More like giving the Philippines a chance to limit population so that nature can cope up with our nature.