The RH debate

Here's the thing. I think people would normally assume because I have firsthand experience with infertility, I would be anti-RH and would be anti-contraception. On the contrary, I am very much pro-RH and am even more convicted about it because of my infertility experience.

The main point behind my stand is that I believe children should be born by choice and not by (unwanted) chance. My experience punctuates this even more. Imagine the joy and love poured upon a child because he or she was wanted, welcomed and dreamed of. Now imagine the reverse when a child is met by unwelcome surprise and dread. I know that children are a blessing (boy do I know that!) so all the more they should be conceived and brought into this world if the parents will be "deserving" of them -- meaning they will be able to give them quality of life, not just an existence of the barest minimum. Sex definitely starts the process of making a child, but being a good parent has nothing to do with sex.

I think this bill is at the heart of it, a population control or a contraception bill. Everything else like maternal care is already provided for by other laws. Sex ed is optional and only for secular schools (which can already mount these already anyway). And this pro-contraception part is what the anti-RH people are getting riled up about.

To each his own. If they feel their religious belief dictates that this is bad, so be it. But I believe in the separation of church and state, and the bill only gives access to these tools. It does not mandate anything. Choice is given to women and I think it's more an injustice to make a woman powerless over her body, than it is to let children go unconceived. An unwanted child is a sadder state to have than an unconceived one. I guess my stand is to spare the child if bringing him to the world will only give him a life of disadvantage. I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with that.

So yes, I'm happy congress passed it. Let's go, RHBill!!!