Legalize Abortion?

[Dorothea]

---

Josh, nanga confuse na ni sila?

[cebulifer]

joshua... there's another thread about the RH Bill... napiksan lang ni diri! kay morag pareho man dah ang tumong! hay naku!

[gt_mugen]

discontinue such bill and to neglect this Bill....

[gt_mugen]

such bill would be discontinued and discarded...... unhumane.........

[joshua259]

joshua... there's another thread about the RH Bill... napiksan lang ni diri! kay morag pareho man dah ang tumong! hay naku!

uhmm... according to the thread title "Legalize Abortion". the poll says Should abortion and abortifacients be legalized through the RH bill?.

and according to the TS.

contraceptives = Abortifacients or abortion...

giddyboy and mannyamador has a very very very lengthy arguments about the RH Bill.

Josh, nanga confuse na ni sila?

yup... so many people have come and go in this thread and not knowing what the TS is really pointing out. because of the thread title "Legalize Abortion" people tend to assume that this thread is all about abortion when in fact this is not just an anti-abortion campaign this is about the RH Bill.

i never cast my vote on the poll cause i really smell something fishy about the poll. maybe 4 or 5 of us here already said that the poll is BIAS.

[mannyamador]

c'mon. i think everybody here agrees w/ me that u r juggling the terms fertilized egg, fetus, and embryo. While u can somehow get away w/ "embryo", you can't get away w/ "fetus".

Everybody? What garbage.

I don't have to "get away" with anything.. I never said the fertllized egg was a fetus. Kindly shown me an unequivocal statement where I did. Well? You CAN'T, can you?

I did say the the fertilized egg is an EMBRYO and that is also what is destroyed during an abortion. it is YOU who are trying to "get away" with pretending the two must be taken together to mean the same thing. But they do not. And that is deceptive.

again, a newly fertilized egg is not yet a fetus. the correct description for a fertilized egg is a zygote.

It is an EMBRYO. That is what I sad and it is accurate.

(NOWHERE A FETUS FITS THE DESCRIPTION OF A FERTILIZED EGG)

I NEVER said it did. The fertilized egg fits the description of an EMBRYO.

now to your description of a human embryo, let's get back to it:

As can be seen from the article, YOUR definition of when human life begins is ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT SCIENTIFIC BASIS. it is NOT based on a scientific issue but rather a political one.

As YOUR own source article noted, the method which is STILL IN WIDE USE measures pregnancy from the last menstruation, which is even before ovulation (and of course before fertilization):

Finally the standard historical method of counting the duration of pregnancy begins from the last menstruation and this remains common with doctors, hospitals, and medical companies. This system is convenient because it is easy to determine when the last menstrual period was, while both fertilization and implantation occur out of sight. An interesting consequence is that the dating of pregnancy measured this way begins two weeks before ovulation.

Foot shot off again.

Birth control methods usually prevent fertilization. This cannot be seen as abortifacient because, by any of the above definitions, pregnancy has not started (that's again my belief).However, some methods might have a secondary effect of preventing implantation, thus allowing the zygote to die. Those who define pregnancy from fertilization subsequently may conclude that the agents should be considered abortifacients. (and i respect that belief)

Totally disregarding such a belief and forcing persons to disregard the same through HB 5043 is NOT respect!

If you want to respect that belief then you should not support HB 5043 because it forces people to dispense what they would consider abortifacient contraceptives. Neither should you expect them to pay for such abortifacients either.

discontinue such bill and to neglect this Bill....

Amen to that sir!

[mannyamador]

While you need not promote condoms, but you should not ban them.

Telling us to keep silent would violate the beliefs and rights of those who speak out against dangerous and immoral condom programs. Even worse, condom programs would promote even more unwanted pregnancies and demand for abortion. And THAT would certainly violate the beliefs and rights of very, very many people (including the unborn).

The only common ground we have to work together is to promote NFP. If you won't agree to that, then there's no common ground at all. We will only be at odds.

While not 100%-effective, condoms reduce risk of HIV-transmission. Contraceptives protect married women from HIV-infected husbands.

FACT: As numerous studies have shown. condom programs are INEFFECTIVE in reducing AIDS infections. In fact, syuch programs encourage risky behavior which ;eads to INCREASES in infections.

• A Framework of Sexual Partnerships: Risks and Implications for HIV Prevention in Africa
  Edward C. Green 1 , Timothy L. Mah 2 , Allison Ruark 3 , and Norman Hearst 4
  http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0
  
  
  The global diversity of HIV epidemics can be explained in part by types and patterns of sexual partnerships. We offer a typology of sexual partnerships that corresponds to varying levels of HIV-transmission risk to help guide thinking about appropriate behavioral interventions, particularly in the epidemics of sub-Saharan Africa. Declines in HIV prevalence have been associated with reductions in numbers of s** partners, whereas many other prevention strategies have not been demonstrated to reduce HIV transmission at a population level. We suggest a reorientation of current prevention efforts, based on the epidemiology of sexually transmitted HIV epidemics and trends in sexual behavior change. Concurrent sexual partnerships are likely to play a large role in transmission dynamics in the generalized epidemics of East and Southern Africa, and should be addressed through improved behavior-change interventions.
  
  
• Increasing Condom Use Without Reducing HIV Risk: Results of a Controlled Community Trial in Uganda
  http://journals.lww.com/jaids/pages/...&type=abstract
  
  
  Background: Although consistent condom use is effective in reducing individual risk for HIV infection, the public health impact of condom promotion in a generalized epidemic is less clear. We assess the change in condom uptake and number of *** partners after a condom promotion trial in Kampala, Uganda.
  
  ...
  
  Other measures did not support a net reduction in sexual risk in the intervention community compared with the control community and, in fact, showed trends in the opposite direction.
  
  Conclusions: In this study, gains in condom use seem to have been offset by increases in the number of *** partners. Prevention interventions in generalized epidemics need to promote all aspects of sexual risk reduction to slow HIV transmission.

FACT: Increased contraceptive usage leads to an increase in unwanted pregnancies and an increase in 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

There is simply no good reason for the government to promote artificial and abortifacient contraceptives. Not passing the RH bill will NOT ban these contraceptives either. They are ALREADY available all overt he place.

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

[mannyamador]

CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST
By Dr. Bernard Nathanson
http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimises my credentials
to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the
National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968.
A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against
permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court
to issue the decision which legalised abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced
virtual abortion on demand up to birth. How did we do this? It is important to understand
the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world
with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law.

THE FIRST KEY TACTIC WAS TO CAPTURE THE MEDIA

We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened,
sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated,
we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we
had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is
the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused
enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of
illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but
the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often
enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around
200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false
figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to
crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that
legalising abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then
be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of
birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since
legalisation.

THE SECOND KEY TACTIC WAS TO PLAY THE CATHOLIC CARD

We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its "socially backward ideas" and
picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was
played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as "we all know that opposition to abortion
comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics" and "Polls prove time and again
that most Catholics want abortion law reform". And the media drum-fired all this into the
American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under
the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favour of abortion are
enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non-
Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian
religions were {and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly
suppressed, along with pro-life atheists' opinions.

THE THIRD KEY TACTIC WAS THE DENIGRATION AND SUPPRESSION OF ALL
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION

I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist
to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New
York City and had to set up a prenatal research unit, just at the start of a great new
technology which we now use every day to study the foetus in the womb. A favourite pro-
abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that
the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific
one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires
all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. Why, you may well ask, do some
American doctors who are privy to the findings of foetology, discredit themselves by
carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic at $300 a time, 1.55 million abortions means an
industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the
physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful
destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly
violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma,
but to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast
resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic
utilitarian answer to social problems.

AS A SCIENTIST I KNOW, NOT BELIEVE, KNOW THAT HUMAN LIFE BEGINS
AT CONCEPTION

Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a
divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this
infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity.

[Dr. Nathanson has since converted to Catholicism, being baptised in 1996.]

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

[mannyamador]

Documentary Demographic Bomb Follows Demographic Winter Population Expose'
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
June 29, 2009
http://www.lifenews.com/int1248.html


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The makers of the popular population documentary Demographic Winter have followed up their successful film with a new production named Demographic Bomb. The second in the series includes interviews with top experts in the field who show how the world has too few people, not too many.

SRB Documentaries has released "Demographic Bomb: Demography is Destiny," which is also produced by Barry McLerran.

Like the first film, McLerran tells LifeNews.com that the new documentary "deals with rapidly falling birth rates and their consequences for humanity in the 21st century."

The new movie "explores the history of the modern population-control movement -- how it persuaded the public that there are too many people in the world, and how these fallacies became institutionalized."

Viewers of "Demographic Winter" heard from demographers, sociologists, economists and historians on the demographic crisis confronting the world.

Demographic Bomb follows that with an interview with Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, author of 1968's The Population Bomb, which popularized the myth of overpopulation.

Mathew Connelly of Columbia University and the author of Fatal Misconception: The Struggle To Control World Population, reveals how organizations, institutions, governments and the United Nations manipulated and coerced families, evaded political accountability and violated basic human rights to achieve their population-reduction agenda.

Former Yale economics professor Jennifer Roback Morse, USC professor Dowell Myers, Harvard Ph.D Nick Eberstadt, Harry Dent, the author of The Great Depression Ahead, and Prize winning economist Gary Becker are also interviewed.

McLerran says they "uncover the roots of the crisis that has shaken the world's economies."

"[The first move] predicted the financial crash of 2008 to within 12 months. Demographic Bomb reveals how this is just the beginning," he explains. "[The second] shows what happens when countries comprising 80% of the world's economy have plummeting numbers of workers, consumers and innovators - leading to falling consumer spending, and too few workers to support the elderly."

"Worldwide, birthrates have declined by 50% in the past half-century," the first film noted. "There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world's population, with below replacement birthrates."

A birthrate of 2.1 is needed to replace current population, but the European Union has a birthrate of just 1.3. By 2030, the group's estimate, Europe is expected to have a shortfall of 20 million workers.

Meanwhile, in Russia, where abortion has been used for decades as a method of birth control, the nation is expected to lose one- third of its current population by 2050.

Related web sites:
Demographic Winter - http://www.demographicwinter.org

[giddyboy]

Can we make another poll here? KANANG DILI MISLEADING UG BIASED kompara sa gipost dha? how about these:

DO U AGREE THAT WE BAN CONDOMS IN THE PHILIPPINES?

DO U AGREE THAT ANTI-OVULATION BIRTH CONTROL PILLS AND IUD's ARE ABORTIFACIENTS?

If you say YES or NO to these questions, cite your reasons.

If you say YES, is our DOH and BFAD can be called abortionists then? Are doctors prescribing contraceptives to couples be called abortionists then? Are those couples using the condom, IUD, and pills be called abortionists then? are those pharmacies selling condoms, IUD, and pills called abortionists then? are those that promote (i.e. Pres. Ramos, Flavier, Lagman, etc.) contraceptive use abortionists then? is the proposed Reproductive Health Bill promoting both artificial and natural family planning can be called an abortionist law then?