The church, the state and women's bodies in the context of religious fundamentalism in the Philippines
The church, the state and women's bodies in the context of religious fundamentalism in the Philippines
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0968-8080(04)24152-0
复制
发表时间：
2004-11-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Austria, CSR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Austria, CSR
经过近 500 年的西班牙殖民统治，低级教会法和源自西班牙的法律继续主导着菲律宾的家庭法、民法和刑法。大多数（如果不是全部）这些法律都严重限制了妇女性权利和生殖权利的实现。自2002年以来，现任总统格洛丽亚·马卡帕加尔·阿罗约越来越多地用教会教条取代国家政策，即废除前任的生殖健康和计划生育政策，拒绝所有现代避孕方法作为堕胎形式，限制政府对计划生育的支持，只为已婚夫妇提供自然方法，并限制获得紧急避孕药具。本文反思了当保守的教会利益主导国家政策时，哪种倡导方法最能服务于性权利和生殖权利的目标，就像菲律宾目前的情况一样。宗教原教旨主义者有时会以宗教自由为由主张国家在宗教上包容他们的观点，但拒绝接受、更不用说包容关于妇女性行为的多元观点。因此，将支持性权利和生殖权利的案件建立在政教分离的基础上是不够的，因为尽管国家声称自己是世俗的，但它仍然设法对妇女的身体施加限制和控制。 (C) 2004 年生殖健康问题。版权所有。
After almost 500 years of Spanish colonial rule, Canon low and laws of Spanish origin continue to dominate Philippine family, civil and penal law. Most if not all of these laws place serious limitations on the realisation of women's sexual and reproductive rights. Since 2002, the current president, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, has increasingly substituted church dogma for state policy, i.e. revoking the reproductive health and family planning policies of her predecessor, rejecting all modem contraceptive methods as forms Of abortion, limiting government support for family planning to providing natural methods to married couples, and restricting access to emergency contraception. This article reflects on which advocacy methods will best serve the goals of sexual and reproductive rights when conservative church interests dominate state policy as is currently the case in the Philippines. Religious fundamentalists, at one and the some time, argue for religious accommodation of their views by the state on the grounds of religious freedom but refuse to entertain, let alone accommodate, a plurality of views on women's sexuality Thus, it is not enough to base a case in support of sexual and reproductive rights on the separation of church and state since, even though the State claims it is secular, it still manages to impose restrictions and control over women's bodies. (C) 2004 Reproductive Health Matters. All rights reserved.