The issue on Reproductive Health has already drawn many people to say so many things. In fact, various sectors of the society have taken various positions on proposing or opposing a supposed national mandate that, proponents claim, will alleviate poverty as it manages the population—as if this is possible.
Just like the untimely resurrection of moves to amend the Constitution, the premature stir of the Congress to push for the reproductive health bills brings to mind some practical questions that proponents of this unnecessary legislation should answer.
First: Should the issue on reproductive health be more objectively and properly called instead “unreproductive health”?
This is but calling a spade nothing else than what it is, i.e., a spade. Don’t you agree that the essence of thesis and the consequent phrase adopted in terms of “Reproductive Health” is to promote health by making this physical attribute precisely unproductive? For this reason, reproduction is thereby seen as inimical to health. In other words, reproduction should be avoided for reasons of health whereas it militates against such a physical well-being—particularly on the part of women.
Second: Is health good if this is deliberately rendered unfruitful, intentionally made unproductive or unreproductive?
Stagnancy, inertness and non-life giving when apparently considered expressions of health is beyond rhyme or reason. While recourse to euphemism is every now and then understandable, to claim that women’s health equals their non-generative state is unreasonable and wherefore unacceptable.
Third: Why is it those already produced or reproduced, are the ones against the reproduction of others just like them?
Do they feel so depressed and oppressed that they do not want others to be born, to see the light, to feel the world? Would they neither not have been reproduced at all? Do they find life so futile in having so inutile in living that they simply do not like others like them to be born at all? Would they rather have themselves instead “unreproduced” at all?
Fourth: Are those advocating for zero reproduction certain that they themselves have not in any way reproduced someone – like a bubbling son or a cute daughter?
In the event that they have in fact did, would they rather have their offspring returned to nothingness? To dislike if not to hate others who love to reproduce themselves is neither right nor fair.
Fifth: Those who are batting for a “two-children policy,” how would they count those born as twins, as triplets if not even more?
How would they count the children of a man from his other women? What about the widows and widowers with already two if not more children from their previous spouses and who then remarried? What children fall into the “policy?” What should be declared uncovered by it?
If the above questions sound funny or appear ridiculous, well, I was just asking.
September 5, 2008