Manuel Dayrit, Postinor, Emergency contraception, Rape victims

14 May 2005

Ms Rina Jimenez-David
Inquirer News Service

Dear Ms. Rina Jimenez-David,

I am glad you wrote about former Health Secretary Manuel Dayrit in your May 13th,"At Large" column ("Sacrificing science and health for politics", PDI, p. A15. May 13, 2005). The way you branded Dr. Dayrit's decisions as "playing politics" really amused me. You made it appear as victims those negatively affected by his policies such as the feminist groups (WomenLead and RHAN) while the prolife groups (Gabay Pamilya and POGS) came out as oppressors. By the way, I wish to correct that it is actually Abay Pamilya, not Gabay Pamilya.

It may be "playing politics" for you, but for many readers, including me, Dr. Dayrit's actions are manifestations of how he live up to his moral standards. Your article bolstered my belief that Dr. Dayrit is pro-Filipino. I also believe that he is more pro-women than WomenLead and RHAN.

Your description of Postinor's mechanism of action of "preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum-but only within a three-day period "window" after contact" in paragraph 11 is a confirmation that Postinor is indeed abortifacient. You failed to mention that Postinor is popularly known as the "Morning after Pill".

I also share your sympathy towards rape victims. They deserve understanding, respect and care. But I strongly doubt the benefit of allowing them to take emergency contraception to discontinue unwanted pregnancy. Is the child conceived through rape or incest no less human than any other child? "Dr. David Reardon (www.afterabortion.org) points out that abortion is the very worst "solution" that we can offer to the pregnant woman at this crisis time in her life. Abortion compounds her problems. Abortion makes her an aggressor against her own innocent child and it never makes the painful memories of rape go away. If a small child were killed in the street by a negligent driver and it was later determined that the child had been conceived in rape, would the driver be held less responsible? Is that child's death less tragic?" (www.lovematters.com)

This debate between pro-lifers and pro-choice advocates on economic and practical issues can go on forever. But a meeting of minds could possibly be achieved if the discussion is shifted on the ideological level. All arguments by both sides proceed from two opposing ideologies.

The first ideology have the following characteristics:
1. Human dignity is not universal. There are people of some race, color, ethnicity, social status, etc. that do not deserve respect.
2. Sex is a contact sport. The ultimate sport of pleasure-seeking individuals.
3. A child resulting from sex is a nuisance and a threat to someone else's quality of life.

The opposing ideology, on the other hand, have the following characteristcs:
1. Human dignity is universal. Everyone deserve respect regardless of race, color, ethnicity, social status, etc. It stems from the idea that a human being is created in the image and likeness of God.
2. Sex, which should be within marriage, is one way to express a free, total, faithful, and fruitful love.
3. A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The "supreme gift of marriage" is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged "right to a child" would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right "to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents," and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."

Tell me, Ms. Rina, which ideology do you subscribe to?

I hope you find my feedback worth reading and the ideas in it worth pondering upon. Pardon my grammatical and styling errors. Actually, I am making use of this feedback to practice writing. I would appreciate receiving your corrections.

Thank you for your time and best regards.