Legalize Abortion?

[mannyamador]

---

oh c'mon. when u said "all of them talk about destroying a fetus or embryo", yes u refer to the definition of abortion. but when u said "well, a fertilized egg fits that description", in grammar pre, u are actually referring to both!!!

Still putting words in my mouth? We can all see through that garbage. The bottom line is your lame attempt to pretend that I don't know the difference between an embryo and a fetus just SANK!

again, nowhere did those definitions include contraceptives as abortive drugs. but because u wanted to misleadingly equate abortion w/ contraceptives

Those definitions DO NOT rule out the existence of abortifacient contraceptives either. But that really isn't relevant since I have already shown evidence that such abortifacient contraceptives do exist.

your desperate attempt to mislead people is pretty obvious in how u even made the poll. you asked the question, "Should abortion and abortifacients be legalized through the RH bill?"

Your just sour-graping because the question exposes your lies. It is a proven fact that abortifacient contraceptives exist. it is also a proven fact that the RH bill funds and forces persons to dispense such abortifacient contraceptives. So this truth is one of the assumptions of the question.

But, as usual, you are trying to HIDE these truths, just like the abortion lobby in the US tried to suppress the scientific, medical, and demographic data. Looks like you're following their liar's playbook step by step!

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

[hunt99]

bahala na mas nindot gyud na dili gyud ni

[nvv21]

Please refer to this Exodus 20:13 is just as simple as that

[giddyboy]

Still putting words in my mouth? We can all see through that garbage. The bottom line is your lame attempt to pretend that I don't know the difference between an embryo and a fetus just SANK!

no, i'm not putting words into your mouth. i am just criticizing your statement here that could mislead people. but it seems u still don't want to admit your wrong sentence structuring.

mind u, that statement of yours would always mean immediately to indicate that you don't know the difference between an embryo and a fetus. You could've just said that it was a typo but you vehemently denied it isn't by downplaying and saying it's garbage. but since this is not a grammar class, i was amenable that you know the difference after you explained it lengthily (while still downplaying the grammar issue.)

Those definitions DO NOT rule out the existence of abortifacient contraceptives either. But that really isn't relevant since I have already shown evidence that such abortifacient contraceptives do exist.

the fact that you want to misleadingly equate contraceptives as abortive drugs is very much relevant to the topic at hand. It is very much relevant for readers to distinguish between an artificial contraceptive and an abortive drug; what is contraception as compared to abortion; and what are the types of abortion. And since you said that post-fertilization effects of pills you believe has abortifacient effect, you should have been prudent enough not to blur the lines between all those definitions.

ang mahitabo man gud, mag tuo ang mga tawo nga "hala pang-abort diay nang mo gamit ug IUD or pills?"...to which is not the case. falling for that means falling for your DISINFORMATION.

Your just sour-graping because the question exposes your lies. It is a proven fact that abortifacient contraceptives exist. it is also a proven fact that the RH bill funds and forces persons to dispense such abortifacient contraceptives. So this truth is one of the assumptions of the question.

huh? im sour-graping? what's there to sour-grape when you are not even winning something and i am not even losing something? im just exposing your deception here. if ur intention was clear w/o any deception on your part, why make a deceptive poll question? you could have just made your poll more specific like,

"Should contraceptives be allowed in the proposed RH bill?"

take note that i changed the terms "abortion and abortifacients" into "contraceptives" coz that way you do not assume anything and leave it to the readers to determine if they are or not. but since you gave no choice for them and instead make it look like abortion = contraceptives = RH Bill, there goes your deception.

here's more:

"Do u consider artificial contraceptives (pills & IUD) as abortifacients?" or "Do you agree that using artificial contraceptives is tantamount to abortion?"

mao nay mas sakto.

coz if we take a look at your orig question:

"Should abortion and abortifacients be legalized through the RH bill?", OF COURSE FOR ME I SAY NO. they shouldn't be legalized in any bill!!! Automatically what brings to mind is "induced medical or surgical abortion". And by that you wanted to make a misleading association. But actually, you are implying a different thing. that's the deception!

So u see, you confuse a lot of people here. you also made them answer a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" question. minaru na gyud na inyoha pre...

and im not hiding the fact that post-fertilization effects exist. it is you instead who is hiding the fact that these effects are openly debatable whether abortifacient or not by implying your belief as the absolute truth. you are hiding the fact that these mechanisms are not considered abortifacient by WHO, US FDA, BFAD, and by a lot of medical professionals.

THAT'S THE FACT!

But, as usual, you are trying to HIDE these truths, just like the abortion lobby in the US tried to suppress the scientific, medical, and demographic data. Looks like you're following their liar's playbook step by step!

c'mon. you are better than that. im not even belonging to all those groups u mentioned. im only a simple family man. Im just someone here juggling the use of condoms and abstinence to space my children's birth. Im just someone here with a wife who uses the pill (in some certain times) to prevent unwanted pregnancy. (and by that, u dare to call us abortionists? pag chure oi!)

and Is that a pot calling the kettle black perhaps?

kay dili pud diay mo lobbyists? kay dili pud diay mo mangingilad? kay dili pud diay mo mo tamper ug scientific evidence? toinks!

---000---

CONTRACEPTIVES (condoms, pills, IUD) ARE NOT, CANNOT, AND WILL NOT CAUSE INDUCED MEDICAL ABORTION OR END OF PREGNANCY. IT IS USED FOR PREVENTING PREGNANCY AS A FAMILY PLANNING TOOL. PRO-LIFERS ARE JUST CONFUSING YOUR MINDS.

They want you to think that the Reproductive Health Bill is pro-abortion or legalizing abortion when in fact the bill explicitly treats abortion as a crime under our laws. They want you to think the use of birth control pills and IUD is legalizing induced abortion by clever sleigh of hand. Proof of their deception is the misleading poll question. THEY WANT YOU TO THINK "illegal induced surgical or medical abortion" is allowed in the RH Bill when it is only during life-threatening cases abortion is legally allowed to save the life of the mother. what these pro-lifers also did not clarify is that what they are talking about instead is the post-fertilization mechanisms of pills that they believe is abortifacient. and they placed that belief very high as if it is the absolute truth.

but the fact is, these contraceptives are approved by WHO, US FDA, and BFAD, and are not considered abortifacients.

NO TO ABORTION. YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!!!

[aisha_jor]

i don't go for abortions.... buot buot maghimo.. and then... when responsibilities comes.... mu talaw na jud... why not choco nuT.....

[mannyamador]

no, i'm not putting words into your mouth. i am just criticizing your statement here that could mislead people. but it seems u still don't want to admit your wrong sentence structuring.

Now you're CHANGING YOUR TUNE. Your previous posts show you were FALSELY trying to claim I was saying that the fertilized egg was a fetus or that I couldn't tell the difference. You may not like my sentence structure but that is no reason to deliberately misconstrue it when you know perfectly well what I was trying to say.

but since this is not a grammar class, i was amenable that you know the difference after you explained it lengthily (while still downplaying the grammar issue.)

So why continue beating a dead horse? We all know what was meant by my statement: that the fertilized egg is an embryo and that it is destroyed during an abortion.

And since you said that post-fertilization effects of pills you believe has abortifacient effect, you should have been prudent enough not to blur the lines between all those definitions.

I have always kept the proper distinctions. You may have noticed that I take pains to use the term abortifacient contraceptives (referring to IUDs, pills, injectables and implantables) as distinct from outright abortifacients such as RU-486 (which is designed as an abortifacient rather than a contraceptive). It is YOU who are attempting to hide the fact that some contraceptive have an abortifacient mechanism.

huh? im sour-graping? what's there to sour-grape when you are not even winning something and i am not even losing something?

The bottom line is that you can't stand the fact that the poll question exposes your deception: that you deny that some contraceptives have an abortifacient mechanism. Worse, you support this deception by using an arbitrary re-definition of when human life begins!

70 people took the poll, indicating that they were quite willing to answer the question as is, with its known assumptions. That's even more people than those who answered one of the other polls related to the anti-life RH bill (but I admit it's only second in line; one other had 81 people who voted).

Im just someone here with a wife who uses the pill (in some certain times) to prevent unwanted pregnancy. (and by that, u dare to call us abortionists?

The term "abortionist" usually refers to someone who offers abortion services. You do not offer this service to others, do you?

On the other hand, you and your wife use a method that has an abortifacient mechanism. You deserve to be called on that fact: that you risk inducing early-term chemical abortions. In the same vein, you are unfaithful Catholics and deserve to be called on that too. The truth hurts, but it's the truth.

CONTRACEPTIVES (condoms, pills, IUD) ARE NOT, CANNOT, AND WILL NOT CAUSE INDUCED MEDICAL ABORTION OR END OF PREGNANCY.

You're lying again! You just said you're not hiding the fact that some contraceptives have an abortifacient mechanism, AND THEN YOU TURN AROUND AND DO EXACTLY JUST THAT! You are confusing terms, leading others to falsely believe that there can never be abortifacient contraceptives. Now that is very deceptive!

The facts are clear:

FACT: The RH bill promotes, funds, and forces persons to dispense abortifacient contraceptives. It is false and untrue to claim that contraceptives can never cause an abortion.

Here's the evidence AGAIN (which you deceptively choose to ignore). Contraceptives that prevent the fertilized egg from implanting have an abortifacient mechanism. This is a well-known mechanism of contraceptive pills and IUDs.

• Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent
  http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126)
  
  
  “It seems likely that for perfect use of COCs, postfertilization mechanisms would
  be likely to have a small but not negligible role. For POPs, COCs with lower
  doses of estrogen, and imperfect use of any OCs, postfertilization effects are
  likely to have an increased role. In any case, the medical
  literature does not support the hypothesis that
  postfertilization effects of OCs do not exist.”
• 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/QUOTE]
  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

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
  
  
  The belief that increased access to contraception will “reduce rates of unintended
  pregnancy and abortion” has “intuitive appeal, but the data prove otherwise,”
  Susan Wills, associate director for education for the U.S. Conference of Catholic
  Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, writes in a Washington Post letter to
  the editor in response to a Post opinion piece by William Saletan, science and
  technology reporter for Slate magazine.
  
  
• Habit Persistence and Teen ***: Could Increased Access to Contraception have Unintended Consequences for Teen Pregnancies?
  http://www.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/teensex.pdf
  
  
  The persistence in sexual activity is such that policies that affect access to
  contraception will have very different effects in the short run than the long run.
  Our results suggest that increasing access to contraception may actually increase
  long run pregnancy rates even though short run pregnancy rates fall. On the other
  and, policies that decrease access to contraception, and hence sexual activity,
  are likely to lower pregnancy rates in the long run.
  
  
• 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 easily available throughout the country.

--
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]

Commentary: How the WHO Skewed Maternal Mortality Data to Advance Abortion Agenda
Commentary by Elizabeth Walsh
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09070602.html

WASHINGTON, DC, July 6, 2009 (C-FAM) - In its recently released annual report on the state of global health, the World Health Organization (WHO) presents statistics that misleadingly appear to place maternal mortality on par with other global killers like malaria and HIV/ AIDS. This new approach contradicts other WHO reports where maternal mortality does not even make the top ten of global killers, ranking somewhere lower than car accident fatalities.

The confusion first arises in the second table of the new report, which provides data about mortality due to maternal causes, HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and injuries. All of these causes of death, except maternal mortality, are among the top ten causes of death globally; yet maternal mortality is shown in the same statistics table, as if it were comparable to the others.

Even more confusing to the casual reader is that the statistics in the table for maternal mortality actually appear to be a greater cause of death than the others. The table shows that maternal mortality has a "mortality rate" of 400 while coronary heart disease, considered the number one killer in the world, has a mortality rate of 301. While the WHO itself says maternal mortality kills 536,000 per year and coronary heart disease kills 7.2 million, this seeming parity is achieved by showing maternal mortality numbers as a function of total live births while the others are shown as a function of total population -- a mixing of apples and oranges.

Critics charge that the report is part of the ongoing campaign by United Nations (UN) agencies and the WHO of exaggerating the actual incidence of maternal mortality for the purposes of promoting abortion.

A 2005 WHO Bulletin admitted that relatively very few countries provide reliable and complete data on mortality or cause of death. In fact, of the 46 African countries, which supposedly account for about 50% of maternal deaths, only one country had complete data available. Even so, WHO routinely asserts that about half a million women die every year from "maternal causes" in developing nations, regardless of the fact that the data available from developing nations on this subject is unreliable, with "high uncertainty margins." The UN Population Division, the official UN statistics office, refuses to use the 500,000 number precisely because it is not verifiable.

The United Nations and its agencies consistently propose abortion and contraception, under the euphemism of "family planning," as the best way to solve the overstated problem of maternal mortality. The 1999 joint statement issued by the World Bank, UNFPA, UNICEF, and WHO reiterated the importance of reducing maternal mortality through "three key areas for action:" "empowering women to make choices in their reproductive lives," improvement of "access to and quality of maternal health services," and "ensured access to voluntary family planning information and services."

The UN-sponsored "Women Deliver" conference in 2007 also advocated what Dr. Susan Yoshihara has termed the "abortion first" mentality to improving maternal health. This downplays proven methods of reducing maternal mortality associated child bearing, namely increasing access to skilled birth attendants and emergency obstetric care.

[haroldjizdeortega]

kapoy aning inyong lantugi oi.

daug na ang NO, so wa namuy mahimz kadtong ganahan.

[cebulifer]

use condom. so walay pregnancy. so walay iabort. human ang istorya!

[butitoy]

legalize abortion! and legalize free F*C*!

mang guyod na lang dayon tag mga chick na igat..