Conscience.

(From Philippine Daily Inquirer)

THE TWO-CHILD policy proposed by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman is fraught with danger. In particular, it opens up the possibilities of institutionalizing discrimination in the name of economic progress. However, as a starting point for much-needed discussions on population control, his proposal is a welcome development.

The Lagman proposals have sparked contending proposals from other politicians as well as comments from the private and religious sectors. The urgency of a population control program is clear. What should concern us today is defining the parameters within which further discussions should take place.

A paramount parameter is the sacredness of life, as enshrined in the constitutional prohibition against abortion. It is precisely this constitutional injunction to preserve the life of the unborn that should provide the impetus for the other defining parameter in any discussion on population control: information.

Fear and ignorance drive women, in many cases, to resorting to abortions to end unwanted pregnancies. Our country should desire fewer babies, but most of all, no unwanted babies. As a country and society that respects religious faith, we must all agree to respect the strictures of many faiths, while ensuring that no faith unduly imposes its teachings on others.

Referring to the Constitution, which leaves us free to belong, or not belong, to any faith, we are all bound to protect the life of the unborn fetus. However, on things that may prevent conception in the first place, people of varying faiths may disagree. Protestants and non-Catholics in many instances have no objection to various means of preventing conception, while both Catholics and non-Catholics more often than not, at least in the Filipino context, see eye to eye when it comes to protecting a child once conceived. Therefore, if we are to give full expression to the right to religion and the practice of religion, and the equality given to those who have, and do not have, faith, then we must all agree on the primacy of conscience.

Each citizen is armed with a conscience, and it is not within the ambit of the state-and even religion-to interfere with the exercise of that conscience. The ...