Monday, June 6, 2011
Angsioco: letting the cat out of the bag
Angsioco versus unborn
With prominent RH bill proponent Elizabeth Angsioco's latest tirade entitled "Unborn versus mother", one is convincingly left without any iota of a doubt as to the main agenda of the RH bill: it is all about Abortion with a capital A. Unless the RH bill proponents disown Angsioco's statements, her astonishing message reveals the strikingly clear motive. The title of her opinionated (and grossly erroneous) piece is in itself a dead giveaway. Why, is there an inherent war between ''Unborn vs Mother"? Does Angsioco herself feel that her mother is at war with her from the moment of her conception up to every breathing moment of her life? I suppose not, for even Elizabeth Angsioco herself should probably make a convincing case for the timeless adage "only a mother can love''.
Angsioco takes umbrage at the various bills pending in Congress that seek to put teeth into the Constitutional provision requiring the State to ''equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception". While she acknowledges the provision, in the same breath she claims:
''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."
So according to Angsiocotic philosophy, the unborn is not a complete person until it is "born into this world". If the unborn is not a "complete person'', what is it then? A half-person? A quarter-person? Semi-person? A clump of inhuman cells? She bolsters her argument by referring to the Constitution but I do not see anything in there that says the unborn is a partial human person. What I do see in there, is that the unborn is accorded by the State a presumptive personality from the moment of conception. A presumed person that merits protection by the State. Why, because the Constitutional Commission precisely said so. If the state presumes the personhood of the unborn it does not consider it as an incomplete human unworthy of protection. She harps about the right of the mother (the unfettered right to abort, if that is not clear enough) and completely turns a blind eye to the right of the unborn. The records of the 1986 Commission flatly rejects her imaginations:
"Whats being affirmed in this formulation is the moral right as well as the constitutional right of the unborn child to life, If this should entail the granting of presumptive personality to the unborn befinning at the moment of the conception, then so be it. Xxx Respect for the rights of the woman with child and respect for the rights of the child in her womb are by nature intimately linked such that any deliberate harm that should come upon one will doubtless effect a corresponbding harm to the other. Conflicts of rights is fictitious. Xxx The conflict is only apparent. It is easily resolved by applying the following principle: When two rights come in conflict, the more basic right and/or the right concerning the graver matter takes precedence over rights involving the less basic or less serious matter. It is clear that the right to life is more basic than the right to privacy or any other posterior rights. Therefore, since removal of the fetus would most certainly result in violation of its right to life, the woman has no right to evict the temporary resident of her private womb.”
(Bernas, J.. The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers (1995), p. 119.)
Not only does Angsioco twist legalities, she also manages to twist mathematics as well. EQUAL Protection means, well, EQUAL Protection. The right of the mother for protection is EQUAL to the right of the unborn for protection. Not GREATER THAN nor LESS THAN. Of course there are exceptional cases where the medical treatment of the mother might result to a NOT DIRECTLY INTENDED harm to the unborn. Angsioco apparently, is not capable of acknowledging the nuanced distinction whatsoever. She is clearly all for the 'rights' of the mother to abort the unborn regardless. After all according to her, the unborn has no rights whatsoever until it is born. Well, she has a right to her opinion, however twisted it may be. The State guarantees EQUAL protection of freedom of speech to the erroneous person as well as to the factual person. I presume her mother would love her in spite of that. As to the rest of the pro-RH bill advocates, I presume they would love to gag her from now on. She just let the screaming cat out of the bag.