Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

John Rey D.

Abellanida

The debate last May 07, 2016 about The Responsible Parenthood and
Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10354) or commonly known as RH
Law was very informative. As an audience, the following statements are my reactions,
criticism, and opinion as to how each speaker from the pro rh law and anti rh law
presented their facts and arguments to their opponents.

The first speaker to present her constructive speech was from the pro rh law Maam
Jaspe. She stated that RH law is one of the solutions to alleviate poverty. With controlled
and planed children, with less population in the community means less hunger and more
job opportunities to all. With RH law the diminishing numbers of poverty will be
foreseeable in the future.

From the anti rh law, Sir Tagnipez interpolated that which is more effective in
solving poverty, education or with the free distributions of contraceptives? Maam Jaspe
answered and had put emphasis that RH law is not the direct solution to poverty but only
one of the keys in keeping poverty in check.

Sir Tagnipez in his constructive speech stated that population is not what causing
poverty. He emphasized that bigger population means more man power for our country.
He also had stated that countries with bigger populations such as China and Hongkong
are at one of the top in world economies. He also further added that Japan with an RH
Law equivalent in their country has probleMaam in the halt in their population growth thus
less man power for their development which forced them to accept overseas workers to
alleviate human resource probleMaam. In the last part of his speech, he concluded that
population is not the cause to poverty.

Maam Jaspe interpolated, if population is not a problem, then why did the
government implemented 4P’s in our country? Sir Tagnipez answered that the relation of
population and 4P's is not related.
Engr. Equipaje on pro rh law on his constructive speech stated that the RH Law
is for the right of children and mother of assistance, for protection, from abuse, and from
abortion. He said that majority of our populations today are under poverty line. Families
within the poverty line cannot sustain the needs of their family. Mr. Martinez has no
interpolations for Engr. Equipaje.

From the anti rh law, Sir Martinez presented a statistical data showing that the
population has still been growing even after the implementation of the law thus the law
has been ineffective. He also said that, the RH law lacked the necessary publication, that
many were still not informed that such law exists. Engr. Equipaje stated that the budget
should be allocated for the education in RH law.

Maam Berico from pro rh law is for all women and children. In china, she stated
that China even though has big population but has recently recognized an population
control program and that is one child policy. Thru RH law, abortion and unwanted
pregnancy will be reduced thus promoting better family planning.

Maam.Luceñera argued that she opposes the RH Law because she believes that
this law promotes abortion. Berico replied that RH Law has never promoted abortion, in
fact rh law limits the use and distribution of abortificient drugs.

Engr. Cahayag pointed out that RH Law may be promoting obscene thoughts to
our teens nowadays. Sir Cordero answered that they simply must be educated with RH
law. He added that why would you go against the RH Law when you still your rights as to
follow or reject the law itself.

Maam Camello from the anti rh law on her constructive speech stated that RH Law
is unethical. The practice and teachings with the RH Law goes against the word of God.

Mr.Palomata from pro rh law stated that RH law is not anti-life, it is pro quality life.
It does not interfere family life, it encourages quality life. There is no way that it will lead
to legalization of abortion. It does not promote contraceptive mentality no have any life
threatening effects.
Overall the debate presented by the pro and anti rh law went smoothly. Smoothly
that I was a bit disappointed. Honestly I was expecting a quite fuss within the debate. I
expected that the interpolation would be exciting because the law itself concerns
everyone entirely. During the debate, only few facts were presented and many fallacies
were observed. I have appreciated Facts presented by Sir Martinez and Sir Palomata
because from their respective sides, they were able to support their stands in their debate.
Fallacy by Maam Jaspe during her interpolation such as concluding that RH Law will
solved poverty and Maam Camello on her constructive speech on utilizing the Bible as a
source of information that is unverifiable and invalid in the debate. During the debate, they
were not able to show the true essence of our subject Public Policy and was not able to
portray the policy analysis that should have been observed on their interpolation and
rebuttal speeches. Nevertheless, even though of this mishap, the debate was resource
for those who are unaware of the provisions of the law.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen