I WISH to make some comments on Rina Jimenez-David’s column titled “Reproductive coercion.” (Inquirer, 2/22/11)
The greater part of that column cited an article written by Roni Caryn Rabin about the violence done by men forcing women to get pregnant against their will. The report concluded that “young victims of violence by intimate partners are at an increased risk for unplanned pregnancies and for sexually transmitted diseases.”
The Church has always recognized the existence of and denounced the crimes of violence committed against women, including those that lead to unwanted pregnancy. The means, which the Church has always preached to solve the problems involved in these acts of violence, are what Jesus has taught us: respect people and their rights, turn away from sin, bring offenders to justice and work on their conversion; and practice charity by helping these victims of crimes and violence.
It seems that the solution advocated by David goes in a different direction: she wants women to have contraceptives ready at hand so that in case they suffer violent assault, they will not get pregnant. “This is also the reason women have long agitated for methods of family planning that put contraception firmly in their hands,” she wrote.
The question is: Will using contraceptives stop the violent assaults? Will contraception change the mind of the assailant? Will it do justice to the victim? Will it solve the problem of crimes committed against women? Or will things get worse? It seems to me that David is using a simplistic and erroneous means to solve a complex problem. It may seem to her that using contraceptives is an act of self-defense in such situations of violence. But it may really turn out to be more of an act of acquiescence to the act of violence. More violence may ensue.
David also wrote, “It’s all very well for celibate bishops and priests to insist that couples engage in ‘natural’ family planning only, but another thing for these clerics to be around when the man comes home drunk and horny, or harbors hidden motives for keeping his partner ‘barefoot and pregnant’.” I do not want to make hasty conclusions or judgments about what the author wanted to express; but there seems to be an argumentum ad hominem here, a fallacy that can render the whole article cheap.
Finally, David wants the rights of women to be respected when it comes to when they want to bear a child or not. Of course, that right must be respected. But will using contraceptives achieve respect for that right where there is sexual violence? Suppose a wife was using contraceptives to avoid getting pregnant and the husband forces himself on her, is he respecting the wife? Will the wife’s rights be respected?
The answer is obvious.
—FR. CECILIO L. MAGSINO,
111 B. Gonzales St.,
Loyola Heights, QC