let's hope that the senate majority floorleader did not shoot himself in the foot with his
turno en contra speech assailing the rh bill and end up not helping the cause. just wondering...
some salient points of his emotional(!?) speech on the senate floor, and the reaction of former health secretary dr esperanza cabral.
Sotto: My wife Helen and I, nawalan po kami ng anak dahil sa contraceptives... Wala sila [mga doktor] makita na dahilan kung bakit nagkaganun yung bata kundi dahil nagcocontraceptives yung asawa ko. Nabuntis pa rin kahit gumagamit ng contraceptives.
Cabral: Without meaning to belittle the anguish that Sen. Sotto felt and apparently still feels over the loss of his son, allow me to say that condoms, hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices etc., have not been shown by scientific methods to cause “weak hearts†in babies born following their mothers’ use of these contraceptives.
Sen. Sotto seems to have fallen into the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this" – or... "My wife used contraceptives, then my son was born with a weak heart; therefore my son’s weak heart was caused by my wife’s use of contraceptives."
Following that line of argument, if at the time of Vincent Paul’s conception, Sen. Sotto failed to brush his teeth, it could be argued that his son was born with a weak heart because he failed to brush his teeth before having sex with Mrs. Sotto.
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=53593.0