One of the most shocking things that happened to me marching alongside thousands of others by the Alameda was viewed as different views came together in something basic: the right to decide. No doubt this is the most important of what happened today. I'm Catholic, and that might surprise my position as "logic" should be to the death to defend the decision of the TC. Well, in that sense I think the decision of the TC is not something to rejoice, but rather a matter of concern.
First, I think the discussion is not based on a scientific subject, even in a religious or philosophical. I think the issue is purely legal, if not political. We live in a secular and democratic country, as such, there are certain rules of the game that must be met in order to function.
The first rule is that we are all equal before the law, and in that sense, everyone has the right to make our own choices, without discrimination. Consider the following example (I thank my friend Rocio for this). A Hindu person openly believed in reincarnation, therefore, one of the reasons for not eating beef is the deep conviction that there is a soul comparable to that of a person. If you eat a cow or, worse, if he kills, which would be doing is to eat or kill a person. While I believe that the Hindu está en un error en su creencia, no es rol del Estado imponerle mi visión por sobre la suya. Asimismo, si yo como católico estoy convencido del efecto abortivo de la famosa píldora del día después (que de hecho no estoy convencido de este efecto, sino más bien del contrario), no por eso debiera imponerle a otros mi opinión. Pero como dije que esto no era científico ni religioso, pasemos a la siguiente consideración.
En segundo lugar, hay que tomar en cuenta que la pregunta hay que definirla entre aquellas disciplinas orientadas a definir las causas primeras y aquellas que buscan las causas segundas. La filosofía o la religión (Theology in between) looking to study the root causes of the universe, that is, those that are not susceptible to empirical proof, but rather rational and / or dogmatic. In contrast, science seeks secondary causes. In that sense, the certainty of the existence of a soul to the human equivalent of a cow, as the certainty of the miracle of life happens in the fertilization of the egg does not come from science but from religion or philosophy . Therefore, as we will not impose to stop eating beef, we will not stop those who want to use the pill's use.
Third, to live in a democracy, there are some questions to be answered by democratic means. A decision like that taken by the TC does not follow this logic. A body that strives to be the watchdog of the Constitution (which believe it is a commandment written in stone, unalterable), whose members do not obey any democratic logic, does not represent the population even less sense in secular and democratic regime like the one we advocate. Was not given adequate discussion at the public - only after this decision has been enough dialogue - and it was an issue discussed in Parliament. These are the ways in which democracy is manifested and, in my opinion, the CT missed these facts. In defense of the Court, we must remember that their function is legal, not political. Nevertheless, one of its members has been opened to put aside their convictions by blindly following the Church (democratic, right?).
Fourth is an issue that can not be determined and that is a burden that have been dragging from lack of definition of the constitution drafting committee. This theme is to where we are willing to protect the "life of the unborn." Or put another way, since when is life. As this is a definition in which science, objective observer, not the final word, we must ask the philosophy or theology does. But if we do that we return to the initial problem do we have the power to impose a philosophical, religious or ideological over another?. In a country with a political system like ours, this has no place.
Beyond the personal views (I am a Catholic, believe in life at conception and I am inclined to believe that the morning-after pill is not abortive), the most important thing is to set up where We can extend the power of the state in our lives. As a good liberal do not believe in socialist panaceas - or "progressive" - \u200b\u200bin which the state is the solution of the problems is, I think that solves problems of the country, organized citizenship. Thus, private enterprise, not state, is called upon to define intimate matters like this. Should be the people with his intelligence and discernment, who want to define whether or not to take the pill.
The magic of living in a democracy is that events may occur as today. A group is manifested in a certain way at noon and the rest is done in the afternoon, without insults or odiosidades (with exceptions, of course). All this implies that the choices we must go for that line: protect the right of individuals to choose how to live their sexuality.
reproductive self-determination, elevated to the category of Human Rights by the CEDAW treaty, signed and ratified by Chile, means that a woman can choose when, how and under what conditions to have a child. This is not incompatible with a Catholic concept, but rather gives them the freedom to have all those children God sends them, if they want. Just as we should condemn the Chinese state to ban the birth of more than one child per family, we should condemn that prohibit our state to decide the time of pregnancy.
The die is cast and only wait to see how the public is still evident and calling for a basic concept: Freedom. Hopefully we can go ahead and get a good result.
0 comments:
Post a Comment