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

[mannyamador]

---

Riiight. Really, just take apart my post to nindotkanon. It would go a long way to disprove me.

You know we would look really silly if, after examining everything, it turns out our disagreements were based on misunderstandings! For example:

A necessary contributing factor? Did you just ackowlege the term "contributing factor"? What's more, did you just acknowlege that contributing factors are in fact a CAUSE? You just stuck your foot in your mouth there.

It only proves that in the case of fire. Oxygen is a cause. But we're not talking about fire. We're talking about "overpopulation." The definition of "overpopulation" does not acknowledge "contributing factors."

But let's even assume, for the sake of this post, that population density is a "contributing factor" in the supply equation since people do consume. But they also PRODUCE (as you already admitted), just like other productive activities such as manufacturing. Now if you can claim we are "overpopulated" because people's consumption is a "contributing factor", then manufacturing and ALL productive activities are also "contributing factors". Are we then "overproductive"? And since decreasing population growth is the common solution proposed for "overpopulation", then shouldn't we also decrease production to solve "overproduction" and make it less of a "contributing factor"? I think you should be able to see the absurdity this logic -- of claiming that population density is a contributing factor and therefore there must be "overpopulation" -- leads to by now.

The bottom line is that you have not been able to prove the existence of overpopulation as defined. In fact, you even deny that you need to show how high population density causes poverty. So how can you even claim we are overpopulated? Claiming it is a "contributing factor" (the growth of which must be hindered) is absurd, since then ALL productive activity (since it also consumes) would be "contributing factors" (and should also be hindered).

No, you MUST prove that population density CAUSES poverty, population crash, etc. And you have failed to do so. Claiming it is just a "contributing factor" just doesn't cut it.

So now markets are overflowing? I thought they were being kept to artificially hold up prices? Which is it?

Both. There are many markets scattered all over the country. Or did you just think there was one?

But then, a "crashing TFR in just 40 years!" wouldn't strike me as especially damaging if you already had a bloated population to begin with.

There's the error right there. You can't even prove that we have a bloated population. You haven't been able to prove that in ANY national economy so far, let alone in the Philippines. Your claim is based on an unproven assumption. Argument sunk.

You should also try to analyze the data and correlate it with history. The nations with declining TFRs are now faced with depopulation. It takes decades for the effects to be felt, but it also take decades to reverse them. The Philippines has had a rapidly declining TFR for 40 years and is now at the brink of going below replacement level. Do you thionk usch a trend can be reversed overnight? It would take a generation to do so if we started RIGHT NOW. But with idiotic laws like HB3773 and mindless ninnies thinking we're overpopulated, that's not likely to happen. Then we WILL feel the effects of stagnation and even depopulation.

Riiight. Really, just take apart my post to nindotkanon. It would go a long way to disprove me.

More excuses, eh? Look, ff you have proof, state it. Making all these lame excuses really does wonders for your credibility.

[mannyamador]

Australian bishop warns against "chemical abortion"
http://cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=42288

Feb. 07 (CWNews.com) - Australian Bishop Anthony Fisher has warned a parliamentary panel that approval
of the abortion drug RU-486 will not cut down on the number of surgical abortions performed in the country.

Bishop Fisher, a Sydney auxiliary, argued: "Australians are deeply concerned that the abortion rate is already
too high, and clearly this new treatment will not help to reduce abortion." He warned that the move to
"chemical abortions" would have a powerful social impact.

The bishop was testifying on a plan to remove the question of approving RU-486 from the authority of health
minister Tony Abbott, a pro-life Catholic, and leave the decision in the hands of the Therapeutic Goods
Administration, which supervises pharmaceuticals. Church leaders have argued that RU-486 cannot be
considered an ordinary medication.

[Deus]

But let's even assume, for the sake of this post, that population density is a "contributing factor" in the supply equation since people do consume. But they also PRODUCE (as you already admitted), just like other productive activities such as manufacturing. Now if you can claim we are "overpopulated" because people's consumption is a "contributing factor", then manufacturing and ALL productive activities are also "contributing factors". Are we then "overproductive"? And since decreasing population growth is the common solution proposed for "overpopulation", then shouldn't we also decrease production to solve "overproduction" and make it less of a "contributing factor"? I think you should be able to see the absurdity this logic -- of claiming that population density is a contributing factor and therefore there must be "overpopulation" -- leads to by now.

And the reality of production vs. current markets was one I discussed in a previous post. Like I said, you equating pure production=growth is now an obsolete system. You now have to take into consideration what type of product you create and what is it's value in relation to the resources it consumes. A thousand people making a thousand shirts consuming for a thousand people would get you profit, sure. But it would be profit gained only after deducting the resources consumed by the thousand people. One highly skilled worker on the other hand, can produce just as much while consuming much less. It's like investing 100 pesos to get you P120 vs. investing 20 pesos to get you the same amount. The second get's you a net profit of 100 pesos, while the first only P20.

Now, should you ask, why aren't they all highly skilled workers? That should bring in the big bucks! Because we don't have the resources to train them all. The government is obligated to provide every citizen with proper learning, education and the opportunities to use them. And in attempting to give these services to everyone, the government in effect spends less in each one - Which get's you poor quality services in schools and colleges which should have been making highly skilled workers. So you get an educated population that is nonetheless not highly skilled, producing, true. But not producing enough to make real profits.

There's the error right there. You can't even prove that we have a bloated population. You haven't been able to prove that in ANY national economy so far, let alone in the Philippines. Your claim is based on an unproven assumption. Argument sunk.

And here's the thing about debates: you can't just whisk away your opponent's points by saying "You can't prove it! You can't prove it!" over and over again. You engage their points and show them where they are wrong. You don't just set them aside, you destroy them - because an unproven claim can be real just as well as it can be false. You just don't know. Disprove my claims if you can so you can win.

You should also try to analyze the data and correlate it with history. The nations with declining TFRs are now faced with depopulation. It takes decades for the effects to be felt, but it also take decades to reverse them. The Philippines has had a rapidly declining TFR for 40 years and is now at the brink of going below replacement level. Do you thionk usch a trend can be reversed overnight? It would take a generation to do so if we started RIGHT NOW. But with idiotic laws like HB3773 and mindless ninnies thinking we're overpopulated, that's not likely to happen. Then we WILL feel the effects of stagnation and even depopulation.

An effect which contradicts an Official Government Census. In forty years we will still be within a working population age. And TFR? As I previously adressed, TFR loses relevance after your population becomes HUGE.

More excuses, eh? Look, ff you have proof, state it. Making all these lame excuses really does wonders for your credibility.

Riiight.

[mannyamador]

Like I said, you equating pure production=growth is now an obsolete system. You now have to take into consideration what type of product you create and what is it's value in relation to the resources it consumes.

But that still does NOT prove the existence of overpopulation! Which is what I've bee waiting for you to do for quite a while!

And here's the thing about debates: you can't just whisk away your opponent's points by saying "You can't prove it! You can't prove it!" over and over again.

No, but you can ask them to prove their claims. And you have failed to do so. Even worse, you keep on coming up with every excuse NOT to prove your claim. That really makes you look like you DON'T have any proof, you know.

One cannot disprove anything if no proof has been offered.

An effect which contradicts an Official Government Census.

Hahahah!!! The government census does not disprove the FACT of a falling TFR. Neither does it disprove the possible effects of such. Non sequitur. But even more important, the experience of other countries shows what a falling TFR may produce: population ageing, depopulation, stagant economies. The US Census Bureau has sounded the alarm over the falling population growth in the US, and the US has a population 300 million people! Population size does not necessarily stop the possible effects of a falling TFR.

>> More excuses, eh? Look, ff you have proof, state it.
>> Making all these lame excuses really does wonders for
>> your credibility.

Riiight.

As I figured. NO PROOF FORTHCOMING FROM YOU.

I've given you enough time to prove your points. It is a logical error to claim something is proven just because it has not been disproven. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. You have failed to do so. Your lame excuses to avoid providing proof make you look even sillier.

[Deus]

So you reject Argumentum ad ignorantiam? You know, as a religous person, you know someday that's gonna bite you in the ass.

As I figured. NO PROOF FORTHCOMING FROM YOU.

I've given you enough time to prove your points. It is a logical error to claim something is proven just because it has not been disproven. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. You have failed to do so. Your lame excuses to avoid providing proof make you look even sillier.

Ahh, so, you prefer NOT to tackle the posts then? Oooh boy. Lame excuses? Like yelling "You can't prove it! You can't prove it!" (which is what you've been reduced to) over and over again? I seem to be not the one doing "lame excuses". Now, let me enlighten you on the nature of proof: you have to tackle them to see if they are true. So "proof" only becomes so when it is acknowleged. You yelling "You can't prove it! You can't prove it!" over and over again speaks volumes of your cowardice.

[mannyamador]

Ahh, so, you prefer NOT to tackle the posts then?

As I expected, more EXCUSES from you NOT to give proof!

1. You claim the Philippines is "overpopulated" but refuse to prove that it is.
2. You even tried to change the definition of "overpopulation" until I buried you with an authoritative definition.
3. Then you make irrelvant statements about the productivity of certain persons (which doesn't prove overpopulation but only relative differences in productivity).
3. Then you make the flimsy excuse that population density is a "contributing factor", which I showed to be non-probative because there are other "contributing factors" have even greater effects (such as corruption) or are absurd to consider as factors to be hindered (such as production; decline in infant mortality; increased life expectancy).

And now you ask me to refute proofs that have NOT been stated. You can't "tackle" or disprove a proof until it is stated. It's not only that you CAN'T prove it (because in theory, you can at least try to prove any point), you simply, HAVEN'T. Got that now?

All your posts don't prove the existence of "overpopulation" as defined in MW. As I said, you have to show it CAUSES poverty, degraded way of life, etc. And you haven't been able to do so. In fact, you REFUSE to do so. Furthermore, if there are other major causes of poverty (and I have proven that they do exist, such as massive corruption, misplaced national priorities such as debt servicing, greed, etc.), then it's not "overpopulation". It's something else. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

But what the heck, if you think this will advance your cause, then go ahead. DON'T provide any proof. Less time wasted for both of us.

[mannyamador]

Human chain for Life, Decency & Morality on Feb. 15

Pro-Life Philippines will lead grassroots communities, family and life ministry groups, schools and
civic organizations in a show of support for life-affirming measures being formulated by some of
the country’s legislators. In the same way, the Human Chain for Life, Decency & Morality –
which happens on February 15 at 4 pm -- protests against proposed bills such as House Bill
3773 or the “The Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Act of 2005,” which
pushes for a two-child policy and increased budget allocation for intensive promotion of
abortifacient drugs and methods of birth control.

Immediately after a 3:00 prayer rally at St. Peter Parish in Quezon City, people will be lined up
one meter apart on the sidewalk of Commonwealth Avenue. Pro-Life’s executive director Jimmy
Leornas says the starting point will be the parish façade, with the expected thousand participants
forming the chain all the way to Batasang Pambansa.

The Human Chain for Life, Decency & Morality is part of the Pro-Life Month celebration, which
has American and Canadian pro-lifers flying in to hold training seminars, speaking engagements and
discussions with pro-life legislators. Molly White, Denise Mountenay, Karen Bodle and Luana
Stoltenberg represent the groups Living the Redeemed Life-USA, Canada Silent No More, and
Operation Outcry and are all post-abortive women who are now involved in the healing ministry
and advocacy work for women.

Caribbean pro-life activist priest Rev. Fr. Linus Clovis is also in the country to speak before various
groups on life issues. Fr. Linus, co-founder of Family Life International, led the resistance to the
legalization of abortion on the island of St. Lucia in 2003.

For details, call 421-7147 or 911-2911.

[mannyamador]

Another Petition against HB 3773 and other anti-life bills
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/Prolife

STOP ANTI-FAMILY BILLS
Created by Ochie Bumanglag on January 25th, 2005 at 9:15 pm AST

STOP ANTI-FAMILY BILLS and AGENDA on COMMITTEE on WOMEN

HB16:REPRO HEALTH ACT by Lagman
HB2029:REPRO HEALTH CARE by Joson
HB2042:POP MANAGEMENT ACT 2004 by BIRON
HB2550:POP MANAGEMENT ACT by Roquero

Please fax your opposition to:
HON. JOSEFINA JOSON, CHAIRMAN
Fax nos. 9310265, 9315001 loc. 7148, 9315520.
LETTERS are COUNTED! Act NOW!

This update was added to the petition statement on January 26th, 2005 at 2:36 am

[iloveyou4ever]

There's no end in debating this topic. But we should consider that based on our experiences that over-population, also, plays a vital rule in our philippine economic. Though I must say that corruption is number 1 reason why Philippines is still one of the poorest in Asia, the over population issue is second to this. :mrgreen:

[iloveyou4ever]

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=25068