Fr. Bernas thinks "the RH Bill does not favor abortion." The author of this blog argues that such a view is myopic.
First of all, we have to understand that the mindset of certain supporters of the RH bill mirrors that of those who openly support abortion, if they aren't the same already! BlackGenocide.org does a good job of comparing abortion and genocide by pointing the out the ideological similarities between the Holocaust, Black Slavery, and Abortion. For example, a point of comparison between the three is the fact that "Personhood is always redefined to exclude the intended victim class." In Nazi Germany, "the Nuremberg Laws codified the exclusion of Jews from German society." In 19th century America, "the U.S. Supreme Court declared Blacks '...a subordinate and inferior class of beings...' in [Dred] Scott v. Sandford." And "In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court found that 'the word "person," as used in the [Constitution], does not include the unborn.' Today, unwanted children are spoken of in dehumanizing terms: 'embryo,' 'fetus,' 'products of conception,' etc."
And who, among the RH set, supports this view? None other than Elizabeth Angsioco, who wrote,
First, all these bills speak of the unborn as a CHILD. I take issue with this because the Constitution does not call the unborn a child. If the framers meant to equate the former with the latter, they would have done that. An unborn can be anything from an egg, a zygote, to a fetus about to be born.
A child is someone who is born into this world, a complete human person like you and me. A child is a citizen, and therefore, has human rights.
Calling the unborn a child to me is going beyond what the Constitution provides.
And also espousing this view is another Elizabeth - Atty. Elizabeth Pangalangan. In a recent CBCPforLife article, it was noted that
... Pangalangan stated that “every human being is recognized as a person and as a right-holder,” her remark that everyone from the moment of birth — not from conception — is entitled to human rights, angered the audience.
During the open forum, suggestions by the lawyer that the unborn baby is of lesser value than the mother carrying the unborn further unveiled an openness to the justification of abortion on demand, thereby generating more reactions of disapproval from the audience. (CBCP for Life)
* * *
In BlackGenocide.org, another point of comparison is the belief that "Resources are inadequate to care for intended victim class if they are allowed to live." For the Nazis, killing was justified "based on the fact that they were using up resources needed by the German people." In 19th century America, "Pro-slavery advocates justified the continuation of slavery because they said the slaves, if emancipated, could not take care of themselves and would be a drain on society's resources." And in the US today, "Pro-abortion advocates attempt to justify abortion by stating that there are inadequate resources to care for all unwanted babies if they are not killed by abortion."
My my, though implicit, don't we see this view being espoused today?
Jim Paredes, and the senator who concurs with him, wrongly asserts that it is an either/or scenario. A certain Ronald Trinio, on the other hand, makes explicit what is implicit in the former's tweet.
* * *
Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.
Saint Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint Elisabeth of Hungary, pray for us.
Saint Elizabeth of Portugal, pray for us.
Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton, pray for us.
* * *