Legalize Abortion?

[JJstyles]

---

What good does abortion do?

[semahj]

dili ku musugot wui....

[mannyamador]

Surgical abortion and abortifacient contraceptives murder innocent, defenseless unborn children. Such horrors never do any good.

[giddyboy]

Sez the Constitution itself and the Constitutional Commission that drafted our Constitution

You keep conveniently omitting that the primary consideration that the Supreme Court will follow is the intent of the Constitutional Commission. And the Commission clearly voted to ASSUME that life begins at fertilization.

That is what the Commission intended the Constitution to do: protect life from fertilization.

In any case, if we follow your logic, then no one can discuss whether anything is constitutional or not unless the Supreme Court has already decided. That is an underhanded tactic to keep people from discussing the issues. .

But people already know the bill proposed bill is unconstitutional and they will continue to discuss and point out this fact. Your deception has again been exposed.

i don't believe that garbage. if we take your logic, then RA 4729 and RA 5291 would have been thrown out by the SC long ago due to persistent lobbying against them as unconstitutional. asa naman na? i didn't even imply that no one can discuss unless the SC has already decided. im saying why no one was discussing them, the fact that these laws are still there. gets?

why is it that you and ur kind are not questioning other existing laws (that dispenses contraceptives) with the Supreme Court if indeed u r saying these are unconstitutional coz u say life begins at fertilization and these contraceptives are abortifacients? why single out the RH Bill over the existing ones having the same provisos pertaining to contraceptives? that's selective objection. that's outright lying thru omission.

im seeing the actual flaw of ur arguments here that's why u resort to downplaying. it's pretty obvious u know.

mind u, im not stopping u to discuss the issue. im even asking u why u r not discussing the issues pertaining to the other existing laws i mentioned. and ur reasoning that they are irrelevant is just inexcusable and utterly ridiculous.

Reality check about dispensing contraceptives in the phils: here we have 2 existing laws dispensing contraceptives and u do nothing about it while here is the proposed RH Bill having just echoed the same provisos in dispensing contraceptives and u do a lot of ado about it. and don't even start to say these existing laws "may be" declared unconstitutional. im asking a legit question here and u r giving me that crap?...u r not refuting anything there at all...

and your saying that "the people" already know the proposed bill is unconstitutional: which people? can u specify? u mean all people? by that statement alone, that is utterly misleading, thereby a deception. look again who is deceiving here. it's you.

AFAIK, the church hierarchy and pro-life groups are the ones mostly saying the bill is unconstitutional. but does that represent the sentiments of the majority Pinoy population at all? i don't think so.

Your deception has been exposed.

Why are you so afraid of letting people discuss the issue?
Apparently you don't want people to really see how this bill will violate the Constitution and our civil rights

me afraid of letting people to discuss the issue? are u blind? for pete's sake didn't u see we are already 37 pages in this thread?!? pag chure ui...

worried is the correct term here. but not afraid. Worried that peeps like u continue to mislead people here w/ ur misleading polls...

the thread topic is about "Legalizing abortion". and it is assumed that is about legalizing surgical and non-surgical methods to end a pregnancy by removing an embryo or fetus from the womb after it has implanted on the uterus. but you cleverly hatched up a plan to include another topic here about your supposed abortifacient contraceptives in order toequate it to the topic at hand, holding them as the absolute truth when in fact this is still under debate even in the international arena.

u (or ur cohorts) then conjured up a poll that looks harmless at first glance but actually a "damned if u do, damned if u don't" question. it looks like a closed question only needing a Yes or No answer but actually needs more than that.

and a number of us agree here that by ur inserting a misleading poll probably to equate abortion = contraceptives = RH Bill via a double bind is an act of malice and disinformation.

and im not stopping u from doing that ky basin pasanginlan napud ko nimo nga namugong...wala gyud intawn. kung naa man gani, request rana...

---000---

THE RH BILL IS NOT PRO-ABORTION. IT IS AGAINST ABORTION. IT EXPLICITLY TREATS ABORTION AS A CRIME UNDER OUR LAWS. THE RH BILL IS FOR PRO-QUALITY OF LIFE. AND JUST BECAUSE THE BILL DISPENSES CONTRACEPTIVES just like all other existing laws that permitted the same, promoting abortion na diay tawag ana?

CONTRACEPTIVES ARE NOT ABORTIFACIENTS. One proof of that is that they are BFAD-approved. Contraceptives which are medically safe and legally permissible are not meant to end pregnancy and cannot cause abortion. Contraceptives are meant to prevent pregnancy from happening. The argument that contraceptives can cause abortion is tantamount to disinformation campaigning. otherwise we can start arresting pharmacies who sell including doctors who prescribe them don't we?

[wificracker]

uu e legalize para alai magpataka ug pa abort dira.
ngano nag pa I*y*+ man mo kahuman e pa abort ra?

[mannyamador]

if we take your logic, then RA 4729 and RA 5291 would have been thrown out by the SC long ago due to persistent lobbying against them as unconstitutional. asa naman na?

That's pure garbage. Your claim fails on three points.

First of all, one has to file a case at the SC. No case has been filed because of costs and legal grounds. That does not mean no case will ever be filed. And we don't need to. An anti-abortitfacients has already been filed.

Second, at the time these laws were passed, not many people here understood the abortifacient function of many contraceptives. So if they are unconstitutional, they will quite likely eventually be addressed. The fact that they have not yet been addressed does not mean they will never be unconstitutional. Your claim is therefore irrelevant.

Third, you also assumes that these laws you keep citing actually and explicitly push abortifacients. But do they? These laws give a government body the authority to determine whether certain drugs can be dispensed and under what rules. That may not be unconstitutional. So this claim of yours is still irrelevant.

The RH bill, on the other hand, specifically names and funds known abortrifacients. It also violates freedom of conscience by forcing doctors to dispense abortifacient contraceptives which are NOT essential curing any disease, are not emergency drugs, and are purely ELECTIVE in nature. The RH bill also violates freedom of speech by punishing criticism of an idea.

why is it that you and ur kind are not questioning other existing laws (that dispenses contraceptives)

We don't need to. Your "advice" is a far more difficult course of action. No. We only have to get the RH bill thrown out and people to recognize that it is unconstitutional. Once that happens, existing laws can be aligned if necessary. That is a far simpler course of action. Besides, why in the world should the pro-life movement follow the advice of a pro-RH fanatic like you?

worried is the correct term here. but not afraid.

Actually you are worried that people will discover that the RH bill is unconstitutional and a huge FRAUD.

the thread topic is about "Legalizing abortion". and it is assumed that is about legalizing surgical and non-surgical methods to end a pregnancy by removing an embryo or fetus from the womb after it has implanted on the uterus.

I do not recognize your false definition of abortion and when human life begins. Your definition of when life begins has zero scientific or logical basis. It is an arbitrary, politically-motivated definition. I say that anything that destroys the fertilized egg -- even before it implants -- is an abortion.

My definition is backed up by science, logic, the Philippine Constitution (Section II Article 12) and the vote of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the Constitution. That's a lot more than what you've got!!!


Lets stick to the facts.

SOME CONTRACEPTIVES LIKE THE PILL, IUD, INJECTABLES, AND IMPLANTABLES, ARE ABORTIFACIENT CONTRACEPTIVES.

The abortifacient mechanism of certain contraceptives is admitted by the manufacturers themselves and by independent medicals studies.

The evidence for this has been posted before, but as usual you just ignore it. That is dishonest and deceptive. You are truly a liar.

• Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent
  (http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126)
  
  
• The Physicians' Prescribing information for Yaz and Yasmin, two oral contraceptives
  http://berlex.bayerhealthcare.com/ht.../Yasmin_PI.pdf
  http://www.berlex.com/html/products/pi/fhc/YAZ_PI.pdf
  
  
  Combination oral contraceptives (COCs) act by suppression of gonadotropins.
  Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation,
  other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increases the
  difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduces
  the likelihood of implantation).
  
  
• https://www.istorya.net/forums/politi...ml#post4877015
  
  
• https://www.istorya.net/forums/politi...ml#post4882951
  
  
• https://www.istorya.net/forums/politi...ml#post4833085

Studies also confirm that increased contraceptive usage only increases demand for abortion.

• Increased access to contraception not linked to decrease in numbers of unplanned pregnancies, abortions
  http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20761
  
  
• Habit Persistence and Teen ***: Could Increased Access to Contraception have Unintended Consequences for Teen Pregnancies?
  http://www.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/teensex.pdf
  
  
• The Role of Contraception in Increasing Abortion
  By Ruben Obregon
  http://www.noroomforcontraception.co...d-Abortion.htm

You keep pointing to the fact that the bill doesn't legalize SURGICAL abortion. but you hide the fact that THE RH BILL EFFECTIVELY LEGALIZES CHEMICAL ABORTION THROUGH ABORTIFACIENT CONTRACEPTIVES.

This is found in:

• Section 10, which makes artificial and abortifacient contraceptives "essential medicines" even despite the fact that they don't cure any disease;
• Section 9 which forces hospitials to insert IUDs (which is abortifacient);
• Section 17 which forces employers to dispense artificial and abortifacient contraceptives against their conscience; and...
• Section 21 which forces doctors to also dispense artificial and abortifacient contraceptives against their conscience.

The RH bill is an abortion-promoting, population control bill. It is deadly and violates our civil rights. it should be junked along with the trapo tongressmen that filed it.

Your lies have been exposed again.

--
NO TO ABORTION. NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043)
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[giddyboy]

That's pure garbage. Your claim fails on three points.

First of all, one has to file a case at the SC. No case has been filed because of costs and legal grounds. That does not mean no case will ever be filed. And we don't need to. An anti-abortitfacients has already been filed.

Second, at the time these laws were passed, not many people here understood the abortifacient function of many contraceptives. So if they are unconstitutional, they will quite likely eventually be addressed. The fact that they have not yet been addressed does not mean they will never be unconstitutional. Your claim is therefore irrelevant.

Third, you also assumes that these laws you keep citing actually and explicitly push abortifacients. But do they? These laws give a government body the authority to determine whether certain drugs can be dispensed and under what rules. That may not be unconstitutional. So this claim of yours is still irrelevant.

your first reason is inexcusable. no case filed due to cost and legal grounds? c'mon. u r lobbyists for cryin out loud. lobbyists surely have funds. and tons of lawyers too! mgpa goryo goryo pa gyud wui!

your second reason is also inexcusable. not many people here understood the abortifacient function of many contraceptives? or they just don't buy ur crap at all? again harping on assumptions that contraceptives are abortifacients won't do good.

your third reason saying "maybe unconstitutional" won't hold water either. the fact that these contraceptives are BFAD-approved under those laws to which these laws, no unconstitutionality was contested is enough proof as u said otherwise. again harping the assumption that contraceptives are abortifacients.

The RH bill, on the other hand, specifically names and funds known abortrifacients. It also violates freedom of conscience by forcing doctors to dispense abortifacient contraceptives which are NOT essential curing any disease, are not emergency drugs, and are purely ELECTIVE in nature. The RH bill also violates freedom of speech by punishing criticism of an idea.

oh i see. so u r against WHO now. u r against on this particular part:

"Hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other allied reproductive health products and supplies shall be considered under the category of essential medicines and supplies which shall form part of the National Drug Formulary and the same shall be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national and lord hospitals and other government health units."

which is the international health authority here by the way? Pro-life groups or W.H.O.?

and even if u keep on saying contraceptives are not essential medicines while WHO is acknowledging it as it is, means we have to take WHO's word, and not yours.

[joshua259]

wow... na abot naman mo sa WHO. believe gud ko sa mga Pro-Life people... instead mag sige mo og campaign why not file a case in the SC... the church has funds, the church may even be richer than the city, why not use the funds for your campaign of current laws governing contraceptives. and don't tell me the church has no funds, the city won't even implement taxes on churches...

I'm really surprised that WHO is included in the arguments...

[giddyboy]

We don't need to. Your "advice" is a far more difficult course of action. No. We only have to get the RH bill thrown out and people to recognize that it is unconstitutional. Once that happens, existing laws can be aligned if necessary. That is a far simpler course of action. Besides, why in the world should the pro-life movement follow the advice of a pro-RH fanatic like you?

oh i see. u want the easier way. u don't want to touch the old boring laws but the new proposed laws instead. i can understand the media mileage u r needing here. sorry overshadowed nana sa Katrina Halili scandal pre.

and don't get me wrong. i am not giving advise. i am just asking why.

[giddyboy]

I'm really surprised that WHO is included in the arguments...

it's because the RH Bill considers contraceptives as "essential medicines" per WHO guidelines. that's why WHO is dragged into the topic.