Theory as conclusive proof?
Antonio J. Montalvan II’s attempt at injecting an objective and scientific perspective into the debate on the Reproductive Health bill (Inquirer, 9/10/12) is much appreciated. This is a refreshing approach to the usual dogmatic and/or anecdotal—even plagiarized—views that find their way to the public audience through media outlets. However, with due respect, Montalvan’s conclusions, drawn from an Ateneo de Manila University study, are misleading, to say the least.
Unlike in a clinical study, there were no actual scientific tests done for that study: No actual Filipino women were put into separate control and trial groups; and no experiment was ever conducted taking into account our country’s unique cultural and socioeconomic situation. Instead, the data for the study was culled from various foreign research papers, some as old as 20-30 years. Notwithstanding the age or cultural relevance of the sources, the study can only be taken as it was intended to be—a hypothesis.
For Montalvan to suddenly imply that the study has weight because Nobel laureates are behind it is just as bad as a senator delivering a plagiarized speech. One cannot simply foist a theory or unproven scientific study as conclusive evidence—to favor any side of the issue. Even the study itself clearly states: “So this paper does not settle the debate regarding the RH bill.”
Plain and simple common sense should prevail regarding the RH bill. Regardless of what that study says, it is irresponsible to imply that “protecting car occupants from the consequences of bad driving encourages bad driving,” so they might as well not wear a seatbelt. One is always better off wearing a seatbelt (i.e., having the choice to use contraceptives) while driving. After all, accidents (i.e., unwanted pregnancies and venereal diseases) can happen any time, often beyond your control. Why not raise the odds of your survival?
—SOLIMAN DELARIARTE,
