What's wrong with HB 3773? A LOT!!! (New Online Petitions added!)

[mannyamador]

---

The Commoditization of Populations

December 14, 2004
by Noel Sheppard

Twenty years from now, what might the world's most precious, depleting,
natural resource be? Oil? Steel? Lumber? How about working-age adults who
are still contributing to a nation's entitlement programs rather than
receiving benefits from them?

Want to know how short the future supply of such people is? Well, across
the globe, nations like Japan, Australia, and Singapore are actually
begging their child rearing-age population to procreate. For instance,
according to the Tokyo correspondent for the BBC:

Japan currently has one of the lowest birth rates in the world.
[And] the government says that unless the trend is reversed quickly,
the shortage of children risks doing damage to the economy. The
decline in Japan's birth rate is so severe they have invented a word
for it -- 'shoshika', meaning a society without children. Unless
women here start having more babies, the population in Japan is
expected to shrink more than 20% by the middle of this century.
Nearly half would be elderly, placing impossible burdens on the health
and pension systems.

AAP reports a similar condition in Australia:

Treasurer Peter Costello has already beseeched healthy young couples
to procreate for their country, and now a report on the economic
implications of the ageing population has given his words extra
weight. Far from blaming the baby boomers for a projected doubling
in the proportion of people aged 65 years or more by 2044, the draft
Productivity Commission report has found that falling fertility is the
major culprit.

Having a bigger proportion of older people will increase the nation's
healthcare costs and diminish participation in the workforce, the report
found. The commission estimates that gross domestic product (GDP) growth
per capita could fall to 1.25 per cent per year in the 2020s - about half
its present rate - while health spending is likely to rise from six per
cent to about 10.8 per cent of GDP by 2044.

Finally, a recent Times of London article forecasts a similarly dire
situation brewing in Europe:

In 50 years there will be almost 100 million fewer people living in
Europe, according to a United Nations report. The UN's latest study
on international migration released yesterday predicts that even
if Europe gains an average of 600,000 immigrants a year, its
population will fall by 96 million by 2050. Without the new arrivals,
the decline would be even more spectacular: 139 million. Already
immigration into Europe is partly helping to offset the impact of
declining birth rates. The continent's population would have shrunk by
over four million in the final five years of the past century if it
were not for the latest wave of immigrants.

Certainly, America is not immune to this global population crisis, as we
are projected to experience a doubling of our own senior demographic in
the next 30 years from the current 40 million to likely 80 million as our
Baby Boomers retire. Which begs the question: What has the world done
wrong to get into this predicament, and what can we do to solve this
looming international catastrophe?

To begin with, in 1968, Paul Ehrlich, Charles Remington, and Richard
Bowers created a non-profit organization called "Zero Population
Growth." Its primary goal at the time was to draw attention to the
global problems associated with overpopulation, and to get American
couples to start thinking about having families with two children or less.
Without question, this concept spread throughout the industrialized world.
However, the problem is that at roughly the same time as this restrictive
procreation policy was being advocated, entitlement programs were being
expanded, and the mathematics involved in most required a continually
increasing number of workers to be paying into the system to support the
ever-growing number of retirees that would draw from it. As a result, the
concepts of ZPG were running quite contrary to the expanding socialist
structure of many governments.

Further complicating matters were the changing mores of a species that
once felt that procreation was a requirement. Paradoxically, this new
ethos not only made it socially acceptable to not have children inasmuch
as couples were helping the population "problem" by remaining childless,
but also made such a condition practically a badge of honor. As a result,
people from all walks of life in an increasing number of areas around the
world just intentionally stopped having babies.

Where does this leave us? Well, fortunately, America appears to be better
positioned for addressing this imminent disaster than most of our trading
partners. As discussed in the previously referenced London Times article:

Recent years have seen North America overtake Europe as the
preferred destination for people looking to start a new life outside
their native country. Between 1960 and 2000, the foreign-born
population in the US more than tripled from 10 million to 35 million,
with a further 8 million in Canada. Whereas four decades ago, six out
of every 100 people in North America was an international migrant,
the figure has now climbed to 13 per cent.

Given this, the solution moving forward is clearly going to be job
creation. The nations that can employ people with the highest wages and
the most desirable standards of living are going to attract skilled labor
from all over the world, while enticing their own populations to not
emigrate elsewhere. As a result, contrary to the current arguments about
American outsourcing, it is quite conceivable that the exact opposite
needs to occur in our nation over the next several decades, and is already
being fostered by a lower dollar and higher energy costs.

In fact, a recent Wall Street Journal editorial addressed this concept
called "insourcing":

Insourcing is what happens when foreign-headquartered multinationals
operate subsidiaries in the U.S. These companies contribute both to
U.S. economic growth and living standards.... Insourcing provided
jobs for more than 5.4 million U.S. workers in 2002, or nearly 5% of
total private-sector employment. These are good-paying jobs, too. The
average annual compensation at such companies was a tad over $56,000,
or some 31% more than the average annual private U.S. compensation.

To be sure, the notion of insourcing is so foreign to most Americans that
Microsoft Word doesn't identify it, and the definition at Dictionary.com
is not applicable. Regardless, Japanese and German car companies like
Honda, Toyota, Nissan, and BMW for many years have been insourcing
employees and manufacturing facilities in America to combat fluctuating
exchange rates while significantly reducing transportation costs. Even the
just announced purchase of IBM's PC unit by China's Lenovo represents
insourcing inasmuch as Lenovo will be retaining all of IBM's employees,
and moving its headquarters to New York.

The bottom line is that with the current value of the U.S. dollar, as well
as the high cost of energy, we are likely going to see more foreign
companies expanding in America to overcome such rising expenditures.
Moreover, these same variables will likely make it less attractive for
American companies to move operations overseas thereby reducing the trend
of outsourcing that has been such a political hot potato. In reality, it
is quite likely that this ancillary benefit of the dollar devaluation that
we have seen in the past three years is by no means accidental, and is
probably a pivotal component of Americaâþ@~Ys global economic strategy to
create jobs here at home.

In addition to continually expanding the number of high-paying jobs that
are available in our nation, America is going to also have to quickly come
to grips with its illegal alien problem, and realize that immigration is a
strong component to our ability to grow our workforce. As a result, the
U.S. must not make the same errors that Europe appears to be heading
towards with regard to its Muslim population. As working-age, productive
members of the society will continue to command a high premium around the
world, American immigration policy should be taking advantage of the
apparent biases that are surfacing elsewhere to once again make our nation
the preferred vocational destination of people from all parts of the
globe.

Noel Sheppard

Noel Sheppard is a business owner, economist, and writer residing in
Northern California. He receives email at slep@danvillebc.com.

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive...pard121404.htm

[M@rv|n]

contraception != abortion
===================

1. The Bill Allows Abortifacient Contraceptives.

I guess we will identify which contraceptives are of this type and which are not. Or shall we say which contraceptives we will allow and which is to be banned.

2. The Bill is Coercive

Can be, but i guess it tries to promote a sense of responsibility.

3. The Bill is Unconstitutional

Can we cud ask the congress to revise it? i guess we can.

4. It is based on wrong assumptions

We also have to accept the fact that overpopulation is one of the factors of poverty.

[darkwing]

when a jeepney driver has 6 kids, now that's a factor

[gareb]

That is precisely what the authors have REFUSED to do even though it was pointed out to them.

are you even aware that your explicit acknowledgement above only shows the ineffectiveness of your campaign against these abortifacients? and now you attack post-haste what you percieve as an off-shoot bill from the deficiencies of the anti-abortion laws. that seems funny, considering the fact that you admit to know of where the error supposedly lies. and still you attack HB 3773.

if indeed the abortion laws in this country follows the Constitution is maintaing that the "life of an individual begins at conception (fertilization)", then anything that violates this is deemed "abortifacient" by technicality. now it just so happens that the "contraceptives" you mentioned in your previous post, aside from preventing fertilization, also prevents the implantation of the fertilized ovum. therefore they are abortifaceints. therefore they are illegal to begin with.

now it seems, that if the above preconditions are correct, these devices should be illegal as mandated by law. period.

now if you still see them around then the problem is not with the abortion laws (though it could have been more explicit), nor does it lie with HB 3773. it lies with the interpretation of the law and enforcement.

still, with it not being mentioned explicitly in the abortion laws, i advice that your efforts should be re-directed precisely where it is needed, and NOT bark on the wrong bill. arguments against the lawfulness of abortifacients in a non-issue in this bill. let us not fool the public by riding on its popularity only to push for a different issue.

Have you ever wondered why? Because to make it clear that abortifacients are illegal will decimate their efforts at population control and minimize the profits of their benefactors.

i will not argue in defense of these crocodillian bureaucrats. defense is simply out of the question. if indeed there is a profit motive for this, then that is a separate issue that must be addressed. but this does not remove the fact that the sustainability level of the population is not exactly at an all time high.

Humanity is nowhere near exhausting ALL oil supplies.

that may be true. only because there are some oil pockets that are too costly to extract. still, even if they were extracted, it would not be enough to sustain the growing world population. and when there is only a limited supply and prices go astronomical, what then?

Humanity's way of life is on a collision course with geology—with the stark fact that the Earth holds a finite supply of oil. The flood of crude from fields around the world will ultimately top out, then dwindle. It could be 5 years from now or 30: No one knows for sure, and geologists and economists are embroiled in debate about just when the "oil peak" will be upon us. But few doubt that it is coming. "In our lifetime," says economist Robert K. Kaufmann of Boston University, who is 46, "we will have to deal with a peak in the supply of cheap oil." http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/

As for environmental degfradation, there is no evidence this is caused by "overpopulation".

outright lie. environmental degradation is fueled by demand. i am not a fan of the capitalist drive for profits, but the fact should be pointed out that the demand for timber, fresh water, living spaces, arable land, food, etc. that is due to an increase of the number of people. simple logic. 100 years ago, there was less demand for resources from a world which has a fraction of the total population it has today. that is an irrefutable fact.

The answer is not in lessening the number of people (since large numbers are necessary for continued economic growth) but in rationalizing usage and minimizing greed, corruption, and waste.

i have already tackled the problem of "greed" and "corruption" and its underlyingc causes. i need not repeat them here. but economic growth? the question is, "is it sustainable?"

20% of the global population, coming from the developed countries, consumes 70% of its material resources and produces the bulk of pollutants. the 80% consumes what remains. imagine a scenario wherein that 80% even approximates what the 20% consumes? can we still say that this scenario is sustainable?

i am amused by your interchangeable usage of the term "overpopulation" with "population growth". i am not sure i you are doing this intentionally to deceive, but for the sake of clarification, overpopulation is "Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration." while population growth rate is "the rate of increase of population in size per unit time".

simply put, while we may have 6.5 billion people(2005) with a 1.2% growth rate per annum will have 78 million additional heads per year, compared to 3.0 billion people(1960) with a 2.2% growth rate per annum will have 66 million people per annum.

a 1.2% pop. growth rate today is bigger than the 2.2% in 1960's. this is an irrefutable fact.

let us not be mislead with which is what growth rate without first seeing the base population where this growth is supposed to be derived from.

ergo, the news that you have posted only props up my argument that the population is rising, and not falling as you think it is. myth? the figures that you gave blew you away.

malthus was wrong in thinking that the innovations during his time would remain static. but he was right on at least two. 1.) we have a growing population. 2.) we have limited resources.

The Church recognizes that ordinary poor people are VICTIMS of injustice and as such may have to limit their families in LOCALIZED and SPECIFIC instances. This is NOT a normal situation. These people have been victimized by injustice. Thus these means are TEMPORARY and mioral. The idea is to provide temporary relief. It does NOT justify the contraceptive mindset or population control as a natio0nal policy. You should know the difference and not remain blind to it.

what kind of injustice is this? social injustice? poverty is a social injustice. poverty is a common occurence in all localities. this is not the only social injustice that can be attributed as a correlate to poverty though. but as a matter of specifics, therefore, condoms can be used in these widespread situations of injustice. temporary? ah, an exemption. but that is precisely why the government is pushing for population control. to curb an increasing population that exacerbates the incidence of poverty and environmental degradation in the country.

splitting hairs in an obvious error of interpretation fortunately not needed.

You would do well to open your eyes and look at the evidence.

... evidence that precisely supported what i have been saying all along. therefore we need that incentive i was talking about.

[tolstoi]

We always complain that another baby is another mouth to feed, and that milk is very expensive. We are forgetting that with every gift of a baby, comes a bonus: free milk from the mother’s breasts which is the best food for the babies, and with every mouth comes two hands to help in the housework later on and help earn a living for the family.

For a long time, we have been told that contraceptives prevent conception. There, it became very clear to me, that IUDs work essentially as an abortifacient – it does not prevent conception, but it causes constant inflammation and infection in the uterus, thus, the newly conceived baby, cannot implant in that kind of environment. No wonder then that the most common side effect suffered by IUD users is severe menstrual bleeding. As our trainer said emphatically, that is not ordinary blood that is already a baby being aborted, what is called as micro-abortion. For pills and depo-provera, the video (taken by electronic microscope), showed that it makes the endometrial lining and uterus dry and barren like a desert, thus, the newly conceived baby cannot implant in that kind of environment.

the Philippines since 1973 has been a human laboratory for population control – in other words, we had been guinea pigs for a long time. I also found that contraceptives were being promoted as “a condition for receiving foreign aid, which tends to quiet the objections�, as Jacqueline Kasun, an American Economist says, in her book The War Against Population

i dont need to be a ***** or something just not to understand this things..this is an eye opener!

[darkwing]

please research more about IUDs, the old IUDs before 1980 were bad, the new ones aren't, these are some I searched in google.com

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/***_relat...eptivecoil.htm

http://www.rhtp.org/iuds/iud.htm

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/library/WO/00087.html

[tolstoi]

We always complain that another baby is another mouth to feed, and that milk is very expensive. We are forgetting that with every gift of a baby, comes a bonus: free milk from the mother’s breasts which is the best food for the babies, and with every mouth comes two hands to help in the housework later on and help earn a living for the family.

For a long time, we have been told that contraceptives prevent conception. There, it became very clear to me, that IUDs work essentially as an abortifacient – it does not prevent conception, but it causes constant inflammation and infection in the uterus, thus, the newly conceived baby, cannot implant in that kind of environment. No wonder then that the most common side effect suffered by IUD users is severe menstrual bleeding. As our trainer said emphatically, that is not ordinary blood that is already a baby being aborted, what is called as micro-abortion. For pills and depo-provera, the video (taken by electronic microscope), showed that it makes the endometrial lining and uterus dry and barren like a desert, thus, the newly conceived baby cannot implant in that kind of environment.

the Philippines since 1973 has been a human laboratory for population control – in other words, we had been guinea pigs for a long time. I also found that contraceptives were being promoted as “a condition for receiving foreign aid, which tends to quiet the objections�, as Jacqueline Kasun, an American Economist says, in her book The War Against Population

i dont need to be a ***** or something just not to understand this things..this is an eye opener!

This findings by Ligaya B. Anacta-Acosta on IUD is very recent, in fact she made that speech in Sulu hotel just last month, and most probably she was very aware on that research u made @darkwing...she must be very adept on every kind of contraceptives etiher from the 80's or the present, since after all she had been designated as Regional Program Manager for Natural Family Planning (NFP)..it would be impossible for her not to know on this..it is her cup of tea...

[darkwing]

well, if that is the case then the WHO and also our country should ban IUD as being an abortion agent instead of a contraceptive like condom, although I don't think this bill would get much attention with the VAT bill still around

[mannyamador]

darkwing wrote:

well, if that is the case then the WHO and also our country should ban IUD as being an abortion agent instead of a contraceptive

Yes it SHOULD! But the problem is there are VESTED INTERESTS that want to sweep these facts under the rug.

[mannyamador]

gareb wrote:

are you even aware that your explicit acknowledgement above only shows the ineffectiveness of your campaign against these abortifacients? and now you attack post-haste what you percieve as an off-shoot bill from the deficiencies of the anti-abortion laws. that seems funny, considering the fact that you admit to know of where the error supposedly lies. and still you attack HB 3773.

You're not making sense. We know that the bill is trying to sneak in abortifacients. And so do you, and yet you want it to pass? That's irrational. Why should we take such a risk when the stakes (the lives of the unborn) are so high?

but this does not remove the fact that the sustainability level of the population is not exactly at an all time high.

It's not an at an all-time low either. Overpopulation is a myth to begin with.

that may be true. only because there are some oil pockets that are too costly to extract. still, even if they were extracted, it would not be enough to sustain the growing world population. and when there is only a limited supply and prices go astronomical, what then?

Wrong. AVAILABLE reserves are not about to run out. And new technology has so far been able to outpace consumtption in practically every important resource area. Your fears of shortage have no scientific basis. Population has grown compared to decades ago, but that is not the point. Your claim that we are exhausting necessary resources has no basis. Yet you are desperately reinterpreting the figures to support your baseless claim.

but that is precisely why the government is pushing for population control. to curb an increasing population that exacerbates the incidence of poverty and environmental degradation in the country.

A sitatuion that does NOT exist on a national level at all. Poverty is caused by OTHER factors, not populaiton. You're going around in circles.

By the way, in case you haven't figured it out, overpopulaiton is:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...lation&x=0&y=0
Main Entry: over·pop·u·la·tion
Pronunciation: "O-v&r-"pä-py&-'lA-sh&n
Function: noun
: the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash

Therefore, population density MUST be the CAUSE of "environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash". So far you have totally failed to show this. You have not been able to discount other factors and you have not shown any causal link whatsover. Your logic is fatally flawed and based on a mere assumption which has been debunked.