UNMASKED: The true face of the RH bill?

Elizabeth Angsioco of the Manila Standard Today is one of the most vociferous proponents of the RH Bill, and an opponent of the various bills for the protection of the unborn now pending before the Philippine Congress. In her latest column bashing the proposed bills for the protection of unborn children, Angsioco unmasks her real views regarding the status of the unborn:

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.

Anyone who understands basic logic can see the implications. For Angsioco, the unborn cannot be defined as "children". Angsioco admits that children have human rights, but denies that the unborn are children, the inescapable conclusion being that for her, the unborn obviously do not enjoy the rights -- the HUMAN rights -- that children have. (She leaves the obvious conclusion unsaid, perhaps realizing what it will do to her advocacy, but we will neither mince words nor play games in this blog.)

Thank you, Ms. Angsioco, for showing us the true face of the RH Bill.

If the supporters of the RH Bill indeed uphold the rights of the unborn -- as many of them claim to do -- then they must distance themselves from this shameful statement and repudiate Angsioco as well. Not that I expect them to do so...