DARE A REPAIR ON POST-ABORTION CARE

            Abortion is a hot topic nowadays due to RH law’s alleged hidden agenda of legalizing it once this law is fully implemented. Generally, abortion is the intentional expulsion of a fetus which cannot survive by itself outside of the womb of a mother. Abortion is distinguished by the moralist to be therapeutic abortion – performed for the purpose of saving the life of a mother, and selective abortion – done for the purpose other than saving the life of a mother who is not endangered at all. The latter is not justified for whatever reason. (Agapay, 2008) Moral Theology affirms that abortion is immoral, per se. It is always mortally sinful to procure an abortion, even though both the mother and child will otherwise die. However, indirect killing may be permitted for grave reasons, although generally it is forbidden.  (Jone & Adelman, 1960) For one, the Lord commanded all of us: Thou shall not kill. Hence, any form of killing human life is intrinsically evil. And whatever end we have in mind cannot justify the morality of the act of killing. We are likewise violating one Christian principle - the principle of the inviolability of life, should we kill or commit abortion. Given all the evilness and immorality of the act of killing or abortion, whether therapeutic or selective, are we supposed to help these women who seek post-abortion treatment? Do they deserve non-preferential treatment given that they harmed their body by procuring abortion? I would say YES! For one, we are responsible to take care of the body, others or ours, especially those who seek medical attention specified in the principle of stewardship.

            I was able to watch a documentary entitle AGAW-BUHAY which narrated some fatal experiences of women who underwent abortion either by force or by choice. There was a doctor who was raped and was forced by the rapist to had abortion and eventually died because of severe complications brought about by abortion. Another woman decided to abort her baby because her partner left her and had a hard time getting treatment from various hospitals she visited. Hospital personnel were presented as arrogant and inhuman in their dealings with the patients in providing post-abortion treatment. It is on these grounds that RH Law includes in its provisions that if someone committed abortion, she has the right to be treated by any public health care provider and worker. The ultimate question remains: Should we support the RH Law on this basis?

            My memory leads me to mentioning the famous sinners of our church who are now venerated saints. There is St. Peter who denied Jesus thrice. Mary Magdalene was known whore but was defended by Jesus when stoned by the Pharisees and eventually became Jesus’ disciple. St. Augustine was once a pagan but was converted to Christianity through the prayer of his mother St. Monica and finally became one of the greatest teachers of the Church. St. Paul was a pagan, too, and prosecutor of the Christians but was converted in his encounter with the Lord and became the greatest apostle of the Gentiles. Lastly, Dimas was a criminal, but before he had his last breath he was able pronounce his faith in Jesus and was promised of heaven right there and then. Had they been deprived of second chance they could have had not returned to where they should be – to be with Jesus in heaven. Had Jesus became so cruel to them because they have sinned against Him, they would have remained sinners. Instead, Jesus cured them and healed them until they finally embraced Christianity and promoted life afterwards. These women, like these sinners of the Church, deserves a second chance – a chance that could change their perspective in life. Who knows, they may be like those sinners of the church who used to destroy life but now promotes life. Who are we, then, to ignore the needs for medical attention of these women in critical condition? How dare we say they deserve such near-death sufferings? If Jesus rouse the dead and healed the bleeding women, the crippled and the blind, who are we to let these women die without providing proper medical attention? On the basis of rampant neglect and high disregard for post-abortion care, passing the RH law is deemed necessary. Once implemented, hospital facilities and personnel will be upgraded to cater post-abortion patients, hence death rate may be reduced on this ground. Once treated, these women who opted to incur abortion might realize the value of life even more. We cannot ignore the fact, though, that there may be abuses among women who would prefer abortion as an immediate solution for unwanted pregnancy due to accessible post-abortion care. Here, the government can implement serious penalty system to correct the offenders. Establishment of charitable institutions to house the babies from unwanted pregnancies is deemed impractical, too. What is important for incidences like these to be avoided is if the church, as the custodian of one’s conscience, will ensure a correct conscience among its faithful, women and men alike. Somehow, RH law can be a good measure on the effectiveness of the Church’s efforts in instilling morality in the mind of its believers so to speak. And, this we should not fear. For through correct conscience and authentic freedom inculcated in the mind of each faithful we can get rid of the perceived evil influences of the RH law. It’s a reminder, then, for everyone in authority in the church and its lay members to fortify its strategies in teaching its doctrine on life preservation and promotion. It is only by exercising freedom we can identify those faithful who live the faith we all believe in.

            RH law and its provisions may be immoral but what is most alarming is the kind of conscience, an erroneous one perhaps, we have formed in the minds of our faithful through the ages and we are afraid to know that we failed on our part as custodian of morality.