EVERY Oct. 15, the Philippines observes National Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day, established under Proclamation 700, Series of 2024. It is an occasion to remember children lost through miscarriage, stillbirth and infant death, and to recognize the grief of families whose children never had the opportunity to grow up.
This observance comes amid renewed advocacy for the decriminalization of abortion, including proposals to amend Articles 256 to 259 of the Revised Penal Code. Although congressional discussions on revising penal laws have recently taken place, the reported hearing on abortion decriminalization and the status of a specific bill in the present Congress still require confirmation.
The debate nevertheless raises a fundamental question: Can the State protect women by withdrawing legal protection from unborn children?
The Constitution protects two lives
Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution commands the State to “equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.”
The language is unmistakable in recognizing both lives. In Imbong v. Ochoa (2014), the Supreme Court also interpreted conception as fertilization in resolving challenges to the Reproductive Health Law. While this does not conclusively decide every proposed amendment to abortion laws, it establishes a serious constitutional question that Congress cannot ignore.
Supporters of decriminalization raise legitimate concerns: unsafe abortions, maternal deaths, rape, poverty and bodily autonomy. These deserve serious answers, not condemnation.
But do these problems necessarily justify the proposed solution?
Answering the arguments
First, proponents argue that criminalization drives women toward unsafe abortions. Medical evidence confirms that unsafe procedures can cause grave harm. However, proving that a problem exists does not establish that every proposed remedy is constitutionally permissible or practically sufficient.
Republic Act 10354 already requires humane, nonjudgmental treatment of women suffering post-abortion complications. Government must ensure that emergency treatment is never withheld because of stigma or fear. Clear medical protocols, accessible obstetric care and accountability for negligent facilities are urgently needed.
Second, poverty and unintended pregnancy are cited as reasons for abortion. But poverty is fundamentally a failure of economic opportunity and social protection. If a mother fears she cannot afford to raise her child, should society respond by making it easier to end the pregnancy, or by making it possible for mother and child to survive and flourish?
We need accessible prenatal health care, maternity assistance, employment protection, childcare and financial support for struggling families.
Third, proponents invoke rape and incest. These are profoundly difficult cases requiring compassion, trauma-informed care, protection from perpetrators and appropriate medical treatment. No victim should be blamed for the violence committed against her. Neither should serious medical emergencies be reduced to slogans. The State must provide lawful, timely, life-saving treatment and clarify medical standards where uncertainty endangers patients.
Finally, the argument of bodily autonomy deserves examination. A woman unquestionably possesses dignity, bodily integrity and rights to health care. Yet pregnancy also involves a developing human organism with its own biological identity, dependent upon the mother. Science establishes that human embryonic development ordinarily begins at fertilization, although science alone cannot settle legal personhood or moral status.
The constitutional challenge is precisely how to protect both.
Life is more than comfort
Scripture provides a deeper foundation for the dignity of life.
Genesis 1:26–27 teaches that humanity is created in God’s image, the Imago Dei. Human worth does not depend upon wealth, health, independence or usefulness.
God told Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (Jeremiah 1:5). David declared that God knitted him together in his mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13–16). Jeremiah’s passage specifically concerns his prophetic calling, yet both passages reveal God’s knowledge and purpose extending beyond birth.
The ancient Israelites were forbidden to sacrifice children to Molech (Leviticus 18:21). Such practices were associated with attempts to secure divine favor or prosperity. Modern crisis pregnancies are not identical to ancient child sacrifice, and we must never presume that every woman seeking abortion acts from selfishness. Nevertheless, the moral question remains: Should one human life be surrendered to secure another person’s comfort or prospects?
Christianity presents a radically different picture of sacrifice.
God gave His Son so humanity might receive eternal life (John 3:16). Jesus voluntarily laid down His life (John 10:17-18), offering the abundant life described in John 10:10. The Greek word zoē speaks of life, which John’s Gospel presents in its fullest meaning through Christ.
The Christian ideal is not children sacrificing their lives for parental comfort, but parents sacrificially loving and caring for their children.
The blood of the innocent
When Cain murdered Abel, God declared that Abel’s blood cried out from the ground (Genesis 4:10). Proverbs 6:16-17 identifies hands that shed innocent blood among the things the Lord hates.
For Christians who understand unborn human life as deserving protection, these passages carry a solemn warning against intentionally destroying innocent life.
The familiar slogan “My body, my choice” expresses a concern for personal autonomy. Christian teaching adds another consideration: The child in the womb is also a life entrusted to God’s purposes.
But conviction must never become cruelty toward frightened mothers.
Psalm 82:3–4 commands God’s people to defend the weak and needy. Jesus welcomed children when others sought to turn them away (Mark 10:13–16).
That responsibility extends to vulnerable unborn children and to mothers confronting abandonment, violence, poverty or fear.
Protecting life requires more than prohibition
A genuinely compassionate response must offer practical help.
Government, churches, families and civil society should establish pregnancy-support services, temporary shelters, prenatal assistance, counseling, support for single mothers, and accessible adoption and foster-care pathways under Republic Act 11642.
Women facing dangerous pregnancies need competent medical care. Survivors of sexual violence need protection and justice. Those who have experienced abortion deserve compassionate care, not humiliation.
The debate must therefore go beyond criminal penalties to ask whether our institutions are doing enough to protect the lives already entrusted to their care.
As we observe Oct. 15, let us remember that the value of life is not measured by its convenience, productivity or material circumstances.
A society that truly values life must protect the unborn without abandoning the mother.
The Constitution calls us to protect both. Scripture calls us to defend the vulnerable. And the Gospel reminds us that genuine love is measured not by whose life we are willing to sacrifice for our comfort, but by what we are willing to sacrifice so that others may live.