Introduction: Questions about RH Bill
In this paper of mine, I would like to critique the RH Bill using the different philosophies of the contemporary philosophers. These are Gadamer’s Interpratation, Habermas’ Consensus and Levinas’ Face.
Reproductive Health Bill or Responsible Parenthood Bill is a bill that would allow the government to distribute any form of contraceptives to the people for free. It would also allow ligation to the women. Aside from this, sex education will also be taught to the elementary students who are still at their innocent stage. The question is, why will they make it a law if the use of contraceptives is already allowed in our country? Why would they distribute contraceptives to the people? Is this really necessary? What is the very reason why they push RH Bill pass as law? Is it for the good of all or for the benefit of the people who are in position?
The RH Bill is a deadly bill. It is a deadly bill because many potential lives will not become life because of it. Many will become defective with the too much use of contraceptives. It even leads to the death of the one using it. It is because contraceptives have also bad side effects. If the RH Bill will become a law, for sure, time will come that there will be lesser Filipinos living in our country. RH Bill is a kind of genocide that will kill our Filipino race. It will slowly kill us Filipinos.
According to what I’ve heard to other people, the very reason why politicians would push RH Bill, is the big amount of money they can get from the foreign people who pushes it to us. Maybe, this is the reason why politicians wanted it to pass as soon as possible. They can’t wait for the big amount of money they can get from the passing of the bill. This is what is wrong with us. Our leaders are so selfish, thinking only of themselves, for their good. They don’t care anymore for the good of all. They care for themselves and families alone. RH Bill is a poison in us, is evil presenting itself to people as good. We should not let RH Bill swallow us.
Gadamer’s Interpretation and the Vagueness of RH Bill
Hans-Georg Gadamer is one of the famous philosophers in the field of Hermeneutics. The main point and subject of his philosophy is Interpretation. In interpretation, there are three things to be considered. These are the “Geist”, “Bildung”, “Sensus Communis” and “Taste.” “Geist” refers to the “flow” of history, its “spirit”, “where history is going”, and the “consciousness” of events. “Bildung” refers to the “imageness”, the context and culture. “Sensus Communis” refers to the usuh al understanding of the word, the “feel” of the word (including its nuances), and the standarrd understanding. “Taste” refers to the uniqueness in style and manner.
RH Bill is a liar bill. It is full of fallacies. The use of words would confuse and deceive us. The content of the bill contradicts to its title. The bill is not “healthy” in our part. It is “deadly” for us. If it is healthy, then it enables health, it enables living, but the reality would tell us that it does not. RH Bill is an anti-life, a bill that will lead to the death of innocent babies, of potential human beings. It is the nature of contraceptives to be anti-life. It is also stated in the bill that contraceptives are essential medicines. It shows that contraceptives are important medicines one must take. It is somehow similar to that of vitamins. If we will analyze the statement, how can it become essential medicines? Are they really necessary in our body? Is it good for our health, or a poison that will lead us to death?
`Habermas’ Consensus and the Wrong Understanding of “Representative”
Jurgen Habermas is a neo-marxist philosopher. He is Marxist in critique but not in philosophy. His philosophy is all about “Dialectics in Word.” In his philosophy, dialogue is being emphasized. The ending point of his philosophy is his emphasis on the necessity of reaching “Consensus.” Through consensus, no one is being “left-out.” All stakeholders should participate in the consensus. Those who are defective are given the chances to become capable of knowing the better side, the better decision. It is formative in the part of the one who explain things, who explain the reasons to the defective ones. If they give in, they become active participators of consensus. In order to reach the consensus, there are three things to be recognized/observed. These are openness, humility, and the unforced force of the better idea. First, both side must be open to the truths of the other side. One must recognize the truth from the other’s idea. One must also be open to see the “not-so-good-idea” in one’s idea. Being open to it is an act of humility. One must be humble enough to accept the “not-so-good-idea” in ones idea. If that happens, one must change his side. With that, better idea wins. It finds its way to surface. In agreeing and accepting, communal owning happens. In communal owning, winning happens to all because all became active participators of the consensus.
Philippines is a democratic country. All has a say, all has a voice. We are not monarchical, wherein the king/queen can decide on him/her own (because the king/queen’s decisions are considered as divine). Here in the Philippines, we vote for our Representative in the Congress. They are what we call Congressman/Congresswoman. They represent a certain district. As representatives, they are the ones to voice out the views of the people. Regarding the RH bill, they must share whatever the views of the people they are representing (about the RH Bill). The problem now is that, our congressmen and congresswomen who are supposed to be representing us in the congress, do not even ask us about our views in the RH Bill. They just decide on their own. With these problems, I can say that we have problems about Consensus. For Habermas, the views/ideas of all must be heard and considered because we are all stakeholders. Our ideas and personal views really matter to contribute for the good of all. As representatives, they need to ask us first whatever our view about the RH bill. For them, because of their being representatives, they thought that whatever their personal decisions are, would serve as the decision of the entire district. They are very wrong with that. They are known to be representative. And so they must represent the entire district. Supposed to be, all their decisions would come from the people they are representing.
Levinas’ Face and RH Bill as “Anti-Face”
Emmanual Levinas is known in his philosophy, the “Infinite Responsibility” to the other. Levinas did not agree with Husserl’s “Immanent Transcendence.” For Husserl, the Other is part of the Ego, but the Other is other and not the Ego. Levinas would not agree with him. For Levinas, the Other is totally “Transcendent”, totally alien. The Other is a foreigner, and never be part of the ego. Even though the Other is not part of the ego, the ego has responsibility to the Other. The measure of responsibility is infinite. There is surplus of responsibility in every ego. This surplus can explode the ego because it’s too much for the ego to contain. This is what Levinas called the “Infinite Reponsibility” to the Other. The essence of the Other is “Face.” For Levinas, there is a great calling in us to “face the Face”, to face our responsibility to the Other.
The “Face” is the essence of the Other. The Other’s “Face” begs to others “be for me”, to “face the Face.” “Facing the Face” means recognizing one’s responsibility to the Other. That responsibility to the Other is infinite. In relation to the RH bill, is “facing of the Face”possible with it? Is there any acceptance of responsibility?
The RH Bill is an “anti-Face”. It is “anti-life.” It is for the death of both the potential face and the formed face. Contraceptives are a form of abortion. There is a killing of life with the use of it. Using contraceptives would also mean denying one’s responsibility to the “Face”(both in the baby’s face and mother’s face”. There is an unacceptance of responsibility with the use of contraceptives.
RH Bill is really evil. If this will become a law, the government will distribute contraceptives to the people for free. In their distribution of contraceptives, it is as if saying “Go and use these contraceptives. Enjoy life and be merry. “It encourages us to use the contraceptives and have sex (not in the proper time). Is this not evil? What kind of people are our government want us to be? Do they want us to be maniacs and sex addicts? After having sex, will the “Faces” be responsible to each other and responsible to the new “Face”, to “face the Face”(if the contraceptives don’t work).
Conclusion and Summary
The RH Bill is a vague bill. Evil is always vague and will distort everything as if it will look good. It is a bill with full of fallacies. The title itself would speak about health and life but its content is about the slowing death of the Filipino race. In other words, RH Bill is a deadly bill. It is a genocide that will later erase our race in this world. If the RH Bill will become a law, for sure it is not a product of consensus. The representatives don’t even find means to ask the people about their views with the bill. Most of the representatives will just agree with the bill because they can benefit from it financially. What’s proper is that, the representatives will ask all the people they are representing, about their views, and discuss things. The main point is to reach the bloody consensus. It is what is ought because all are stakeholders. All are responsible with the decision. It is also very clear that the RH Bill is an “anti-Face” and “anti-life.” If it will become a law, many innocent faces will be killed. It promotes death. The RH Bill is denying ones responsibility to the “Faces” one should be responsible of.
In this paper of mine, I would like to critique the RH Bill using the different philosophies of the contemporary philosophers. These are Gadamer’s Interpratation, Habermas’ Consensus and Levinas’ Face.
Reproductive Health Bill or Responsible Parenthood Bill is a bill that would allow the government to distribute any form of contraceptives to the people for free. It would also allow ligation to the women. Aside from this, sex education will also be taught to the elementary students who are still at their innocent stage. The question is, why will they make it a law if the use of contraceptives is already allowed in our country? Why would they distribute contraceptives to the people? Is this really necessary? What is the very reason why they push RH Bill pass as law? Is it for the good of all or for the benefit of the people who are in position?
The RH Bill is a deadly bill. It is a deadly bill because many potential lives will not become life because of it. Many will become defective with the too much use of contraceptives. It even leads to the death of the one using it. It is because contraceptives have also bad side effects. If the RH Bill will become a law, for sure, time will come that there will be lesser Filipinos living in our country. RH Bill is a kind of genocide that will kill our Filipino race. It will slowly kill us Filipinos.
According to what I’ve heard to other people, the very reason why politicians would push RH Bill, is the big amount of money they can get from the foreign people who pushes it to us. Maybe, this is the reason why politicians wanted it to pass as soon as possible. They can’t wait for the big amount of money they can get from the passing of the bill. This is what is wrong with us. Our leaders are so selfish, thinking only of themselves, for their good. They don’t care anymore for the good of all. They care for themselves and families alone. RH Bill is a poison in us, is evil presenting itself to people as good. We should not let RH Bill swallow us.
Gadamer’s Interpretation and the Vagueness of RH Bill
Hans-Georg Gadamer is one of the famous philosophers in the field of Hermeneutics. The main point and subject of his philosophy is Interpretation. In interpretation, there are three things to be considered. These are the “Geist”, “Bildung”, “Sensus Communis” and “Taste.” “Geist” refers to the “flow” of history, its “spirit”, “where history is going”, and the “consciousness” of events. “Bildung” refers to the “imageness”, the context and culture. “Sensus Communis” refers to the usuh al understanding of the word, the “feel” of the word (including its nuances), and the standarrd understanding. “Taste” refers to the uniqueness in style and manner.
RH Bill is a liar bill. It is full of fallacies. The use of words would confuse and deceive us. The content of the bill contradicts to its title. The bill is not “healthy” in our part. It is “deadly” for us. If it is healthy, then it enables health, it enables living, but the reality would tell us that it does not. RH Bill is an anti-life, a bill that will lead to the death of innocent babies, of potential human beings. It is the nature of contraceptives to be anti-life. It is also stated in the bill that contraceptives are essential medicines. It shows that contraceptives are important medicines one must take. It is somehow similar to that of vitamins. If we will analyze the statement, how can it become essential medicines? Are they really necessary in our body? Is it good for our health, or a poison that will lead us to death?
`Habermas’ Consensus and the Wrong Understanding of “Representative”
Jurgen Habermas is a neo-marxist philosopher. He is Marxist in critique but not in philosophy. His philosophy is all about “Dialectics in Word.” In his philosophy, dialogue is being emphasized. The ending point of his philosophy is his emphasis on the necessity of reaching “Consensus.” Through consensus, no one is being “left-out.” All stakeholders should participate in the consensus. Those who are defective are given the chances to become capable of knowing the better side, the better decision. It is formative in the part of the one who explain things, who explain the reasons to the defective ones. If they give in, they become active participators of consensus. In order to reach the consensus, there are three things to be recognized/observed. These are openness, humility, and the unforced force of the better idea. First, both side must be open to the truths of the other side. One must recognize the truth from the other’s idea. One must also be open to see the “not-so-good-idea” in one’s idea. Being open to it is an act of humility. One must be humble enough to accept the “not-so-good-idea” in ones idea. If that happens, one must change his side. With that, better idea wins. It finds its way to surface. In agreeing and accepting, communal owning happens. In communal owning, winning happens to all because all became active participators of the consensus.
Philippines is a democratic country. All has a say, all has a voice. We are not monarchical, wherein the king/queen can decide on him/her own (because the king/queen’s decisions are considered as divine). Here in the Philippines, we vote for our Representative in the Congress. They are what we call Congressman/Congresswoman. They represent a certain district. As representatives, they are the ones to voice out the views of the people. Regarding the RH bill, they must share whatever the views of the people they are representing (about the RH Bill). The problem now is that, our congressmen and congresswomen who are supposed to be representing us in the congress, do not even ask us about our views in the RH Bill. They just decide on their own. With these problems, I can say that we have problems about Consensus. For Habermas, the views/ideas of all must be heard and considered because we are all stakeholders. Our ideas and personal views really matter to contribute for the good of all. As representatives, they need to ask us first whatever our view about the RH bill. For them, because of their being representatives, they thought that whatever their personal decisions are, would serve as the decision of the entire district. They are very wrong with that. They are known to be representative. And so they must represent the entire district. Supposed to be, all their decisions would come from the people they are representing.
Levinas’ Face and RH Bill as “Anti-Face”
Emmanual Levinas is known in his philosophy, the “Infinite Responsibility” to the other. Levinas did not agree with Husserl’s “Immanent Transcendence.” For Husserl, the Other is part of the Ego, but the Other is other and not the Ego. Levinas would not agree with him. For Levinas, the Other is totally “Transcendent”, totally alien. The Other is a foreigner, and never be part of the ego. Even though the Other is not part of the ego, the ego has responsibility to the Other. The measure of responsibility is infinite. There is surplus of responsibility in every ego. This surplus can explode the ego because it’s too much for the ego to contain. This is what Levinas called the “Infinite Reponsibility” to the Other. The essence of the Other is “Face.” For Levinas, there is a great calling in us to “face the Face”, to face our responsibility to the Other.
The “Face” is the essence of the Other. The Other’s “Face” begs to others “be for me”, to “face the Face.” “Facing the Face” means recognizing one’s responsibility to the Other. That responsibility to the Other is infinite. In relation to the RH bill, is “facing of the Face”possible with it? Is there any acceptance of responsibility?
The RH Bill is an “anti-Face”. It is “anti-life.” It is for the death of both the potential face and the formed face. Contraceptives are a form of abortion. There is a killing of life with the use of it. Using contraceptives would also mean denying one’s responsibility to the “Face”(both in the baby’s face and mother’s face”. There is an unacceptance of responsibility with the use of contraceptives.
RH Bill is really evil. If this will become a law, the government will distribute contraceptives to the people for free. In their distribution of contraceptives, it is as if saying “Go and use these contraceptives. Enjoy life and be merry. “It encourages us to use the contraceptives and have sex (not in the proper time). Is this not evil? What kind of people are our government want us to be? Do they want us to be maniacs and sex addicts? After having sex, will the “Faces” be responsible to each other and responsible to the new “Face”, to “face the Face”(if the contraceptives don’t work).
Conclusion and Summary
The RH Bill is a vague bill. Evil is always vague and will distort everything as if it will look good. It is a bill with full of fallacies. The title itself would speak about health and life but its content is about the slowing death of the Filipino race. In other words, RH Bill is a deadly bill. It is a genocide that will later erase our race in this world. If the RH Bill will become a law, for sure it is not a product of consensus. The representatives don’t even find means to ask the people about their views with the bill. Most of the representatives will just agree with the bill because they can benefit from it financially. What’s proper is that, the representatives will ask all the people they are representing, about their views, and discuss things. The main point is to reach the bloody consensus. It is what is ought because all are stakeholders. All are responsible with the decision. It is also very clear that the RH Bill is an “anti-Face” and “anti-life.” If it will become a law, many innocent faces will be killed. It promotes death. The RH Bill is denying ones responsibility to the “Faces” one should be responsible of.