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

[mannyamador]

---

The reason other countries encourage their citizens to have more babies is because they have a rapidly ageing but affluent and educated population. Furthermore the economies of these countries are more than able to absorb new entrants into their workforce.

If you take your own advice and THINK you will find that those countries generally experienced their greatest economic growth at the time they were greatly expanding their populations. Most market economies (and that's most of the developed world) rely on population growth to fuel economic growth.

If you wish to take issue with Guyito, why not write him at INQ7?

Perhaps you have failed to read the articles posted on this thread. They clearly demonstrate that poverty and ignorance is not caused by "overpopulation". Curbing population growht will do little to improve the economy or the education situation. Improving governance and a stop to wasting money on useless "population control" programs will.

[mannyamador]

New NARAL Abortion PR Campaign Focuses on "Responsibility"

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The pro-abortion lobbying group
known as NARAL is being criticized for its latest public relations
campaign. The organization's leaders claim they will be shaking up
the debate over abortion by talking about responsibility. But William
Saletan, a writer for the Internet magazine Slate, suggests the new
strategy may backfire. "I've hounded Democrats for years to talk
about responsibility," Saletan writes. "But great ideas can
be dangerous. The last time NARAL invented a new message, it came
back to bite them."

"In 1989, when their backs were against the wall, they repackaged
abortion rights as an issue of getting the government out of the family.
That message won over millions of pro-family, anti-government
people. But the pro-family, anti-government people thought pro-family
meant supporting parental notification laws and anti-government
meant opposing government funding of abortions. Pro-choicers got
beaten with their own words," Saletan writes. Saletan indicates
NARAL faces an uphill struggle in trying to sell its message. He cites
poll results showing only 22 percent of Americans believe abortion
should be "generally available." Twenty-six percent say "regulation of
abortion is necessary, although it should remain legal in many
circumstances." As a result, the pro-abortion total is just 48 percent.
Meanwhile, 50 percent of respondents believe abortion should be legal
only in the "most extreme cases" or illegal altogether.

[benign0]

The reason other countries encourage their citizens to have more babies is because they have a rapidly ageing but affluent and educated population. Furthermore the economies of these countries are more than able to absorb new entrants into their workforce.

If you take your own advice and THINK you will find that those countries generally experienced their greatest economic growth at the time they were greatly expanding their populations. Most market economies (and that's most of the developed world) rely on population growth to fuel economic growth.

If you wish to take issue with Guyito, why not write him at INQ7?

Perhaps you have failed to read the articles posted on this thread. They clearly demonstrate that poverty and ignorance is not caused by "overpopulation". Curbing population growht will do little to improve the economy or the education situation. Improving governance and a stop to wasting money on useless "population control" programs will.

Useless? Try telling that to those kids eating and living off mounds of garbage.

And another thing, in case you haven't noticed, this society of ours has a strong tradition of failing to improve governance as well.

And yes, maybe I'll should take up that issue with Guyito. How convenient for you, right? Maybe that's the reason you're only good at copying-and-pasting stuff.


Typical.



----------------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this.

[K]

I think people of both camps are concerned of the plight of kids living off mounds of garbage. One side thinks ligtas buntis is the solution and the other side thinks its just a waste of resources.

Maybe we could restart (as in all arguments) with why we think so?

Useless? Try telling that to those kids eating and living off mounds of garbage.

[bad donkey!]

That is the thing..both sides are concerned on the plight of this children..The church views only one side and that is there side.Â* What are they doing to these street children?Â* They feed them, they cloth the, they try to put them to school.Â* But that is only temporary.Â* They are only taking car of a very and I say VERY small fraction of these street children.If this bill passes it could reduce if not stop the unwanted pregnancies and give more women a choice and a life..Yes the government and the church has a budget alocated for the children but the numbers keep growing EXPONENTIALLY and the budget stays the same.Â* If we don't do anything right now it will get worst and out of control..poverty will increase..CRIME will increase...education will be affected. have you seen the public schools lately?they don't even have enough room for the children and the numbers grow every year.

[benign0]

Check out this brilliant article Zero Population Growth by the esteemed Manuel Gallego for some insight into how we might overcome our population debacle!!

Happy reading!

[mannyamador]

Useless? Try telling that to those kids eating and living off mounds of garbage.

As if distributing contraceptives will eliminate that!

In case you haven't figured it out yet, high population density doesn't cause poverty. There is no proof whatsoever that it does so, and in fact many studies (includingnthe recent one by the economist of UAP) have shown that it is poor gvernance that has a greater effect in causing poverty. They certainly have more credibility than your fantasies. Overpopulation? A MYTH.

And another thing, in case you haven't noticed, this society of ours has a strong tradition of failing to improve governance as well.

And you think population control will improve governance? That's idiotic.

Maybe that's the reason you're only good at copying-and-pasting stuff.

Your fear of other people's words exposes the flimsiness of your reasoning. No wonder you can't even construct a logical argumentt without using logical fallacies. Oh well... such ignorance!

[mannyamador]

The UNPD has already predicted the disastrous effects of such an idiotic and ill-advised endeavor such as the ZPG.
[code] "The primary consequence of fertility decline, especially if
combined with increases in life expectancy, is population aging,
whereby the share of older persons in a population increases
relative to that of younger persons."

"Globally, the number of persons aged 60 years or over is
expected almost to triple, increasing from 672 million in 2005 to
nearly 1.9 billion by 2050. Whereas 6 out of every 10 of those
older persons live today in developing countries, by 2050, 8 out
of every 10 will do so. An even more marked increase is expected
in the number of the oldest-old (persons aged 80 years or over):
from 86 million in 2005 to 394 million in 2050. In developing
countries, the rise will be from 42 million to 278 million,
indicating that by 2050 most oldest-old will live in the
developing world."[/PRE]
Now let's analyze the article benign0 so heartily recommends. The author of the article on ZPG, the so-called "esteemed" Manuel Gallego III, seems to have unexplained lapses in logic, as in this section from his article (the error is in boldface; note that I have quoted MORE than needed so as not to quote him out of context):

  In the foreword of the Population Policy for South Africa, April
  1998, Geraldine J. Fraser-Moleketi, Minister of Welfare and
  Population Development, states: 

    "Our country is one of the few countries in the world where the
    fertility rate has been significantly reduced while the
    majority of the population has remained poor, which contradicts
    the belief that the majority of our people are poor because
    they have too many children."

  The observations derived from Table 1 and the above statement
  represent a dominant school of thought, which suggests that
  mitigating population growth in and of itself does not alleviate
  poverty. Unfortunately, while such school of thought is arguably
  correct in every respect, the same has diminished the emphasis
  to mitigate population growth as one of the critical elements
  in alleviating poverty -- particularly with respect to developing
  economies. In the case of developed economies, which generally
  exhibit low or even negative population growth rates, such
  de-emphasis on mitigating population growth, as one of several
  means of alleviating poverty, would appear appropriate. However,
  in the case of developing economies like the Philippines, which
  generally exhibit alarmingly high population growth rates (from
  the least educated sectors of society), mitigating population
  growth, among other factors, should be at the forefront of poverty
  alleviation. Even the above statement of South Africa's Minister
  of Welfare and Population Development, while supporting the said
  school of thought, is indeed a tacit admission that most other
  countries that have mitigated population growth have resulted
  in the reduction of poverty.

Now how in the world did Gallego conclude that the statement of the South African Minister admits what it clearly denies? Gallego openly admits that the idea that the dominant school of thought is right in saying that "overpopulation doesn't cause poverty, but then turns around and effectively claims it does, justifying it by saying it happens in poor countries. What an unjustified leap in logic! He clearly doesn't understand that he has just contradicted himself. Neither does he understand his own data and quotations. He obviously shares bening0's propensity for bad reasoning.

Now is this the kind of "brilliant" thinking Bening0 wants us to heed? Such nonsense!

Nancy Suleik, in an article in the Financial Executives (FINEX) Digest has this to say (emphasis added):

  "It is, however, intellectually dishonest to continue to harp on 
  this old argument which has been used to justify sterilization,
  abortion and contraception, when the UN itself came out with a 
  report in 2001 that debunked the most dire predictions about the
  consequences of population growth. The study said that these have
  been proven unfounded, and remain unlikely to occur even if world
  population rises up to 8.9 billion in 2050. Moreover, arguments 
  about rapid population growth resulting in the depletion of
  non-renewable resources such as oil and minerals have also been 
  disproved with findings that although the consumption of such
  resources has risen, the estimated amount of resources as yet 
  untapped has also risen. Likewise the environment argument --
  pollution, habitat destruction, global warming, etc. -- has also 
  been shown to be specious, as these environmental concerns have
  largely been "due to modes of production, not to the size, growth 
  and distribution of population."

Sheldon Richman of the CATO Institute, in his testimony on International Population Stabilization and Reproductive Health Act further revealed that the United States, England, Hongkong, and other countries became rich during unprecedented growth in population. The most densely populated nations are among the richest. There are many nations much richer than the Philippines where population density is greater. There are also many nations much poorer than the Philippines where population density is lower. Low population density may contribute to poverty.

COUNTRY ----------------GNP($) PER CAPITA----------------PERSONS PER SQ. KM.

West Germany--------------10,940---------------------------------635
Netherlands----------------9,316---------------------------------346
Japan---------------------11,300---------------------------------840
Hongkong-------------------7,136-------------------------------4,850
South Korea----------------2,150-------------------------------1,121
India------------------------270---------------------------------606
Philippines----------------1,740---------------------------------161
Ethiopia---------------------284----------------------------------27
Zambia-----------------------730-----------------------------------8

Source: Statistical Abstract of U.S. World Development Report 1987

I also noticed that the "esteemed" Manuel Gallegos III has a factual error in his article, which should put up a red flag for any intelligent reader concerned with accuracy. For example he claims that the Catholic Church retracted the excommunication of Galileo. This is false. Galileo was never excommunicated. He was "condemend on SUSPICION of heresy", which in itself is a debatable ruling since Copernicanism had never been declared heretical by the Church. Obviously the tribunal in Galileo's time was wrong to issue such a condemnation, but so is Gallegos today wrong when it comes to the facts.

Needless to say, benign0's admiration is quite misplaced. But thanks anyway for helping keep this thread active (har har!)

[benign0]

Useless? Try telling that to those kids eating and living off mounds of garbage.

As if distributing contraceptives will eliminate that!

In case you haven't figured it out yet, high population density doesn't cause poverty. There is no proof whatsoever that it does so, and in fact many studies (includingnthe recent one by the economist of UAP) have shown that it is poor gvernance that has a greater effect in causing poverty. They certainly have more credibility than your fantasies. Overpopulation? A MYTH.

And another thing, in case you haven't noticed, this society of ours has a strong tradition of failing to improve governance as well.

And you think population control will improve governance? That's idiotic.

Maybe that's the reason you're only good at copying-and-pasting stuff.

Your fear of other people's words exposes the flimsiness of your reasoning. No wonder you can't even construct a logical argumentt without using logical fallacies. Oh well... such ignorance!

Dami mo pang sinabi, but it all boils down to this downright incredible response of yours:

benign0: Useless? Try telling that to those kids eating and living off mounds of garbage.

mannyamador: As if distributing contraceptives will eliminate that!

In case you haven't figured it out yet, high population density doesn't cause poverty. There is no proof whatsoever that it does so, and in fact many studies (includingnthe recent one by the economist of UAP) have shown that it is poor gvernance that has a greater effect in causing poverty. They certainly have more credibility than your fantasies. Overpopulation? A MYTH.



Anybody who considers overpopulation to be a non-issue is surely delusional.

Poor governance is certainly a cause of poverty -- but not the only cause. Overpopulation also is a cause of poverty, just as feeding a brood of eight on a teachers salary is far more challenging than feeding a brood of two.

Simple mathematics, dude. Obviously not simple for people like you.






----------------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this.

[mannyamador]

Anybody who considers overpopulation to be a non-issue is surely delusional.

Still blinded by your unfoudned assumptions? Oh well... GET REAL and look at the facts kid.