Everything about : RH Bill ( Reproductive Health Bill)

[masakiton]

---

Yup, I'm with you with that,
but,how many families are there in 2 billion,
why is it that China was able to uplift
their economy with the same scenario
as ours,even far worse?.

dili ang tanan 2billion na uplift.
sama sa pinas ug sg.. maski na post sa news nga nag cge saka ang gdp.. naa mga citizen nga wala imporovement sa panginabuhi

[masakiton]

Nop, they are number 2 in world economy,
that really is something,
bested even the European block itself.

kung ingon ana ka sagana ang china..
ngano daghan man taga china nga manarbaho as bus diver, factory worker sa ubang nasud

[Tirong-say]

China is formulating plans to change the country’s controversial one-child policy to keep economic growth on track as the population ages fast, a government adviser has said.

Source:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...327340693.html


BEIJING, Nov. 21 -- China should tap into the potential of its population, the world's largest, to jolt the country's weakening economic growth, an expert said on Wednesday.

At a seminar held by the National School of Development (NSD) of Peking University, Lin Yifu, former chief economist of the World Bank, said China's enormous population remains a comparative advantage in refueling the economy.

Source:
Eastday-China's population is a boon for economic growth: expert

I think they even considered
their enormous population an asset.

[masakiton]

quality sa population

[Tirong-say]

quality sa population

But the RH bill
is not subjective.

[vipvip68]

Nop, they are number 2 in world economy,
that really is something,
bested even the European block itself.

It doesn't matter even if they are the number 1 sa world economy. That economic wealth belongs to the government and a select few at the expense of the rest of their society.

Why do you think the government enacted the 1 child policy in the first place? Could it have something to do with their lack of resources vs. their population at the time?

Kita, we are thinking so far ahead... wala pa gani ta ka tarong ug manage sa atong population growth, ga huna huna na ta nga mapareha ta sa Singapore nga kulang ang population...

I'd rather have an underpopulation problem like Singapore rather than an overpopulation problem like ours. At least nindot ang quality of life sa average person.

[vipvip68]

China is formulating plans to change the country’s controversial one-child policy to keep economic growth on track as the population ages fast, a government adviser has said.

Source:
China considers relaxation of contentious one-child policy - The Irish Times - Sat, Dec 01, 2012


BEIJING, Nov. 21 -- China should tap into the potential of its population, the world's largest, to jolt the country's weakening economic growth, an expert said on Wednesday.

At a seminar held by the National School of Development (NSD) of Peking University, Lin Yifu, former chief economist of the World Bank, said China's enormous population remains a comparative advantage in refueling the economy.

Source:
Eastday-China's population is a boon for economic growth: expert

I think they even considered
their enormous population an asset.

A large population is good when it is fully utilized meaning... there's healthcare, education and jobs for everyone... until that happens in our country, adding more people to our population and hoping for the best isn't the smartest thing to do.

Like all our other resources, we need to properly manage our population. That includes getting the population growth rate to a sustainable level so it can benefit our economic growth. It's practically all about economics... supply and demand..

[emow]

It affects all of us because we are paying taxes that the government uses to provide healthcare, education, employment opportunities and other government subsidies.

In the same way some people don't want their taxes to be spent on condoms, I'd rather the government not spend it on irresponsible families who have more children than what they can provide for. These poor families are victims because of lack of access to education and RH services.

Bottom line is... I'd rather have better quality of life for all over a lot of poor kids fighting for scraps and scarce resources.

Whatever the social status of your fellow men, it doesn't affect you directly. You may be compelled to help them, but there is no direct correlation with your neighbor's status in life with your well being.

I don't agree that our taxes be dispensed for welfare. Socialism is secondary to communism. If we are paying taxes for the government to provide us with health care, education, etc.... why can't we just pay for ourselves and cut the middle man (government) out? Is it because not all of us can take care of ourselves? We have private charities who can provide better care than the massive waste through government welfare.

Some people don't want to pay the condoms of others, only their own. I'd rather have the government do less and demand less from the people, in that way it is easier for the poor to climb from their predicament since there will be less government involvement. The more welfare is dispensed, the more there will be poor. These poor families are not victims of lack of access to education and RH services, most of them are infused with the entitlement system and pity-myself syndrome that erode their dignity and cripple their ability.

Bottom line, id rather have the government allow all of us to pursue our own happiness and never engage in wealth distribution programs. A man's worth is built upon the actions he make for the betterment of his life, and not by the actions others do for him to make his life better.

[Tirong-say]

It doesn't matter even if they are the number 1 sa world economy. That economic wealth belongs to the government and a select few at the expense of the rest of their society.

Why do you think the government enacted the 1 child policy in the first place? Could it have something to do with their lack of resources vs. their population at the time?

Kita, we are thinking so far ahead... wala pa gani ta ka tarong ug manage sa atong population growth, ga huna huna na ta nga mapareha ta sa Singapore nga kulang ang population...

I'd rather have an underpopulation problem like Singapore rather than an overpopulation problem like ours. At least nindot ang quality of life sa average person.

We're talking about the economical attributes
of the population here.
Whether the income goes
to the government or widely distributed does not
matter, the thing is how did they earn such a degree
of economic prowess while burdened with a bludgeoning number of people.

RH bill was furnished because of the reason mentioned
above, overpopulation, but as I could see it that a greater populace
is not really a liability, it's even a resource that we can tap if the economy
could be manipulated correctly. For sure you would agree that one of the major driving
force behind a strong economy is manpower, no industry can function without
manpower.

Then I wish to ask,
Isn't it that RH bill is just a scapegoat
of our economist as to alleviate poverty
and to uplift our standards of living?

[vipvip68]

Whatever the social status of your fellow men, it doesn't affect you directly. You may be compelled to help them, but there is no direct correlation with your neighbor's status in life with your well being.

Bro, as a Catholic and a Filipino, I care for my fellowmen... It's not right for me to say "bahala na mo diha basta ako maayo akong kinabuhi". And I'm not even a religious person... but I believe it's the right thing to do.

I don't agree that our taxes be dispensed for welfare. Socialism is secondary to communism. If we are paying taxes for the government to provide us with health care, education, etc.... why can't we just pay for ourselves and cut the middle man (government) out? Is it because not all of us can take care of ourselves? We have private charities who can provide better care than the massive waste through government welfare.

Our taxes are already being used to provide healthcare and education... If you want to be blunt about it... it costs less taxpayers money to buy a condom and prevent a family from having more kids than what they can afford than it will cost to pay for the hospital bills and schooling. In a family of lets say 8 people, the Family only sends maybe half of them to school.. maybe 1 will die due to lack of healthcare, and of the 2 who actually graduate from college, only 1 will find a job abroad and ends up supporting for his/her sibblings plus the parents... Mao na' ang realities sa atong country karon.. and that needs to stop.

Some people don't want to pay the condoms of others, only their own. I'd rather have the government do less and demand less from the people, in that way it is easier for the poor to climb from their predicament since there will be less government involvement. The more welfare is dispensed, the more there will be poor. These poor families are not victims of lack of access to education and RH services, most of them are infused with the entitlement system and pity-myself syndrome that erode their dignity and cripple their ability.

If the government stops providing basic services, it would be tantamount to givng a big "F.U." to them ..."bahala na mo mangamatay diha...".. In a Machiavelian way, maybe some people wouldn't mind that but If my image of a devout Filipino Catholic comes to mind, he would at least try to help his brother out of poverty than play the survival of the fittest game.

Bottom line, id rather have the government allow all of us to pursue our own happiness and never engage in wealth distribution programs. A man's worth is built upon the actions he make for the betterment of his life, and not by the actions others do for him to make his life better.

The problem is, some people lack access to education and don't know any better. We are lucky to be able to see it from this perspective but others are not as fortunate. I consider them victims of this predicament we are in and they are caught in the "rat race". It is up to us to leave them be or try to help them get themselves out of their situation.