Legalize Abortion?

[ieuseerm]

---

ang google adsense sa prolife kay gitapad jud sa prochoice post ni kcgal90 sa istorya.net:

[mannyamador]

In contrast to the flawed and misleading surveys of the pro-RH fanatics, our little and very limited poll here at least reflects the facts about the RH bill: that the RH bill promotes abortifacient contraceptives and chemical abortion!

Useless surveys
A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away)
By Jose C. Sison
Updated July 06, 2009 12:00 AM
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=484148

Actions of public officials must be based on truth and for the common good. Before making moves they have to gather the facts and be sure that their decisions are fair and beneficial to all concerned. But they should not completely rely on opinion polls. Survey results are not always right; nor are they necessarily rational and sound. Hence using the results of opinion polls as reasons for acting one way or the other is not a good practice under all circumstances. Being right than popular after all is still the better principle to follow.

To be sure, surveys may also be useful in fact-gathering and determining the real needs and sentiments of the people. Sometimes they help candidates decide on their political course of action. But this is not always the case especially in this country because opinions polls are usually commissioned by certain groups or individuals and the questions propounded are either suggestive of the desired answer or based on wrong premises or incomplete information and therefore misleading.

As it is now turning out, too much reliance on surveys has anomalous and harmful consequences. More and more celebrities without the real ability for governance seek public office and win merely because of their popularity and easy name recall as shown by the surveys. Actions are considered right even if it is inherently wrong because survey results show that a higher percentage of the populace says so. Opinion polls are now used to justify the enactment of bad laws.

A concrete example here is the RH bill drafted by foreign funded groups which “convinced” some of our legislators to sponsor it. This is a bill that seeks to “manage” our population growth supposedly because it is the real cause of our poverty. Originally they used the more repugnant words “birth control” but change them to “reproductive health” for women, to make their bill more acceptable. Lately they have commissioned opinion pollsters to convince our legislators that a great majority of the populace supports their bill.

The results of these surveys would certainly be different if the questions ask of the respondents fully disclose that there is really no need to control or manage our population because the growth rate is already on the decline and that we may eventually find ourselves in the same predicament as Singapore and Japan with an aging population due to lack of children to replace the older generation.

The respondents to these surveys numbering only a little over a thousand but supposedly representing the cross section of the entire populace would certainly not favor the RH bill had they been duly informed that poverty in this land is not caused by overpopulation but by many other factors like bad governance and graft and corruption, too much politics which hinders economic growth.

The respondents to these surveys would certainly not favor the passage of the RH bill had they known that in supposedly promoting the women’s reproductive health, the bill would make available an entire range of contraceptives including pills and devices that cause abortion which remains to be outlawed here because it is plain and simple murder of an innocent and entirely defenseless human being.

The surveys would not reflect a favorable response to the RH bill if the respondents knew that the other drugs, pills and devices made available to women at government expense allegedly to prevent conception for proper birth spacing and to promote women's reproductive actually have harmful effects on mothers and their children as experienced by women in other countries where they are made available. Many of these women users of pills and other contraceptives have been afflicted with cancer and other fatal diseases while their children are born with defects or are retarded or suffer other deformities.

The survey results would certainly be different if the respondents know that part of the right to informed choice consisting of providing necessary *** education to women extends even to children in the elementary school which invariably leads to unwanted teen age pregnancies like those happening in other countries particularly the U.S.A. And as shown by the US experience, such pregnancies give rise to abortion mentality among these young people inevitably causing them to resort to abortion.

In fact it is highly doubtful if the constitutionality of certain provisions of the bill have been brought to the attention of the respondents before they are asked whether they are in favor of the bill or not. This issue requires time and effort before it can be fully understood. They cannot be a subject in survey questions only. There are indeed so many detrimental aspects of the bill that could not be fully disclosed or discussed in the conduct of the survey. Obviously the answers to the questions in these surveys do not reflect the real stand of the respondents because they are not aware of the many adverse effects of the bill. Hence even if surveys after surveys show that a big number of the populace favors the passage of the bill our legislators should not be influenced by them. The passage of this bill does not depend on mere popularity. It must be based on truth. It must be for the common good and not for the good of any group especially well-funded foreigners out to promote their business interests or their hidden agenda of controlling population by promoting abortion in disguise.

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

[Tirong-say]

For me vehemently No to abortion.......

[giddyboy]

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

gusto lagi ipa ban ang condom sa mga pro-life ky mao kno giingon sa simbahan.

mao nay problema ron ky only a few Catholics support the church's anti-condom stance, undermining the church legitimacy.

[giddyboy]

In contrast to the flawed and misleading surveys of the pro-RH fanatics, our little and very limited poll here at least reflects the facts about the RH bill: that the RH bill promotes abortifacient contraceptives and chemical abortion!

hahaha. pag chure oi! the poll we have cannot even reflect that most of the voters are against the RH Bill! but misleading as you are, you made it look that way via double bind question.

Most voted NO coz they are against legalizing abortion! and i mean surgical, medical (abortion drugs) and herbal abortion that aborts pregnancy! and that includes me! Voting NO doesn't mean they also voted NO to the passage of the RH Bill.

do u even notice that most peeps are saying "NO to abortion"? what kind of abortion do they mean? your guess is as good as mine!

naunay ramo sa inyohang kaugalingong taga!

[giddyboy]

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.

i am not falsely claiming. i was just basing it on your statement. and it's not that i don't like the sentence structure but i'm pointing out an error in the sentence structure. there's a big difference there.

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.

haha. im already finished beating the dead horse. are you irritated by that somehow? it's because it shows how habitual u r not to admit mistakes. it shows your habitual arrogance. kahit grammar issue is not spared.

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.

oh really? you always kept the proper distinctions? how about that poll question you have? naay proper distinction? how about your saying "No to abortifacient promoting bill"? naay distinction?

mind u, i do not have to hide anything. im not hiding but arguing that contraceptives don't have abortifacient mechanisms. i am even explaining here that due to some beliefs that Conception normally occurs in the fallopian tubes, they consider contraceptives as abortifacients. but i also explained here that due to some other people's beliefs that Conception normally occurs in the uterus via implantation, they believe contraceptives are not abortifacients.

In fact, most Pinoys believe contraceptives are not abortifacient. but u r more than willing to hide this fact.

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!

what? you making a poll and it exposes my alleged deception? how can that be? is it supposed to be the other way around?

what i can't only stand is your misleading ways by making a deceptive poll question. again, im not denying. i am only saying that peeps like you believe contraceptives have abortifacient mechanisms. but that belief of yours is not absolute. You don't have to shove it up our arses and force us to think your way. Other people (and i mean lots) believe otherwise u know.

if u r trying somehow to convert us to your way of thinking and beliefs, ayaw nlng pgpaka hero...

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).

wow! quite willing? how do u know? from another assumption?

for all i know, they are just here to vote NO to abortion, thinking that it is just a simple closed question but actually not. They're most probably oblivious that naa diay apan ang ilang tubag. their NO votes doesn't even mean they are also voting NO to the RH Bill. but by virtue of ur misleading poll, you made it look that way...klaro man.

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

No, i do not offer this service, nor i am looking for this service. I am just against you wanting to ban contraceptives and to replace it w/ NFP. as i said before, im just a simple family man who juggles the use of condoms and NFP to space birth and plan the family. BTW, Are you a family man mannyboy? are you gay or what?

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.

that's only your opinion. believe all u want that contraceptives have abortifacient mechanisms but do not insult those that believe otherwise. I'm not even bothered by u calling me and my wife unfaithful Catholics and abortionists. As you already knew well, only few Catholics support the Church's anti-contraceptive stance. You might as well call all the 90% Catholics as unfaithful Catholics and abortionists too, and you as the holier-than-thou Catholic. They don't mind. Amen.

---000---

The Institute for Social Studies and Action of the Philippines is endeavoring to encourage the public and the Catholic Church to Recognize the differences between contraception (which prevents the union of the sperm and ovum) and abortion (which terminates pregnancy long before the fetus is viable).

Nonetheless, widespread opposition to contraceptives, especially the IUD, persists because they are considered abortifacients. In terms of the IUD, there is accumulating research evidence that the device works primarily by preventing fertilization and, less frequently, by interfering with implantation. The injectable contraceptive, Depo-Provera, which is banned in the Philippines, suppresses ovulation, as does the pill. Despite the evidence that the most widely available contraceptives are not abortifacients, debate over this issue obscures a far more central issue--the right of each woman to plan her family size and the interval between births. Screening and counseling provided by well-trained health personnel can enable women to choose the contraceptive method that best suits their needs and protects their health. A lack of access to contraception (TO WHICH THE CHURCH AND PRO-LIFE GROUPS WANTS TO STAY IT THAT WAY) is in part responsible for the 2000 maternal deaths that occur in the Philippines each year during pregnancy or delivery.

full article:
Are contraceptives abortifacient? NO.

NO TO ABORTION. YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL.

[giddyboy]

Do Oral Contraceptives Cause Abortions?

Let us briefly review what the medical literature claims are the three methods of action of Oral Contraceptives.

1. Primarily, they inhibit ovulation by suppression of the pituitary/ovarian axis.

2. Secondarily, they inhibit transport of sperm through the cervix by thickening the cervical mucus.

3. They cause changes in the endometrium that have historically been assumed to decrease the possibility of implantation, should conception occur.

It is this third mechanism of action that lies at the crux of our debate.

There are a growing number of pro-life voices arguing that OCs cause abortions, and prescribing them is the equivalent of performing an intentional abortion. On the one hand, if oral contraceptives do cause abortions, then the vast majority of the medical community is deceived, their patients are misinformed, and even pro-life physicians are unwittingly prescribing abortifacients and killing innocent human beings. On the other hand, if oral contraceptives do not cause abortions, then the issue is a distraction that divides us and weakens our influence in defense of life.

Those that believe that oral contraceptives may cause abortions have plenty of evidence that concerns and convinces them.

On the other hand, there is much medical literature that contradicts this notion that OCs cause abortions; unfortunately, however, not in terms that the pro-lifer can accept.

In spite of the impressive voices that are speaking out about the abortifacient potential of OCs, there are many physicians who are convinced that life begins at conception and who do not believe that OCs are abortifacient.

A second reason that pro-life physicians may not hold the position that oral contraceptives cause abortions is that they are unconvinced by the evidence.

I include here a statement from pro-life Ob/Gyns, wherein they strongly disagree with those who purport that oral contraceptives cause abortions.

" Pro-Life Physicians’ Statement to Randy Alcorn:

There are l,200,000 medical and surgical abortions of unborn babies that take place every year in the United States. The "hormonal-contraception-is-abortifacient" theory is not established scientific fact. It is speculation, and the discussion presented here suggests it is error."...

We also include a position statement from the Christian Medical and Dental Association on this issue:

"CMDA recognizes that there are differing viewpoints among Christians regarding the broad issue of birth control and the use of contraceptives. The issue at hand, however, is whether or not hormonal birth control methods have post-conceptional effects (i.e., cause abortion). CMDA has consulted many experts in the field of reproduction who have reviewed the scientific literature. While there are data that cause concern, our current scientific knowledge does not establish a definitive causal link between the routine use of hormonal birth control and abortion. However, neither are there data to deny a post-conceptional effect. "...

"We recognize that scientific reasoning is not the only factor that influences opinions about the use of hormonal birth control. But, while additional investigation is needed, current knowledge does not confirm or refute conclusions that routine use of hormonal birth control causes abortion. "

There is a third reason that a pro-life physician who is convinced that life begins at conception may reject the notion that OCs are abortifacient: he is convinced that there are less, not more, unintentional abortions in woman on OCs compared to women who are not. For a drug to be classified as abortifacient, conception must occur, and the loss of these conceptions must exceed the baseline loss for populations not using the drug, or be shown to occur solely as a result of the drug.

In conclusion, even in the pro-life community there is considerable disagreement on whether oral contraceptives cause abortions.

Article by James P. Johnston, D.O., Updated January 7, 2005

AND HERE U R MANNYBOY WANTING US TO AGREE THAT ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES CAUSE ABORTIONS WHEN EVEN THE GROUP WHERE U SUPPOSEDLY BELONG TO DO NOT EVEN TOTALLY AGREE? pag chure oi!

YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!

YES TO CONDOMS! YES TO BIRTH CONTROL PILLS!

[mannyamador]

i am not falsely claiming. i was just basing it on your statement. and it's not that i don't like the sentence structure but i'm pointing out an error in the sentence structure. there's a big difference there.

You are truly a LIAR. Here is what you actually posted:

Oh God, now u don't want to admit u said a fertilized egg is a fetus. now u say u only said embryo.

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".

u never said the fertilized egg fits the description of a fetus? whoa, ako na nuon ang deceptive here

In all three of those posts, you were claiming that I said the fertilized egg was a fetus. YOU WERE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

I CAUGHT YOU LYING AGAIN. YOU ARE A LIAR, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR

In fact, most Pinoys believe contraceptives are not abortifacient. but u r more than willing to hide this fact.

What's your basis for this lie? The SWS survey that actually put condoms into the same category as abortifacient contraceptives like the pill and IUDs? Now that's a triple-bind question now, ain't it? By your own logic, that is a misleading question. YOU JUST SHOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT AGAIN!

i am only saying that peeps like you believe contraceptives have abortifacient mechanisms. but that belief of yours is not absolute. You don't have to shove it up our arses and force us to think your way. Other people (and i mean lots) believe otherwise u know.

There are few absolutes in science, but we have to look at the preponderance of evidence. There is way too much evidence proving that certain contraceptives (like the pill and IUD) are abortifacient to simply ignore. Even if we grant that there is some uncertainty (and there isn't), it is therefore mandatory that you play it safe: you cannot simply assume that there is no abortifacient mechanism.

You cannot simply shoot a gun at waist level into the dark hoping that the bullet won't hit someone; no, you make sure no one is there before shooting. If you cannot be sure, you DON'T shoot. You don't fumigate a building until you are sure no one is inside. if you can';t be sure, you don't fumigate. To do otherwise is to be irresponsible and/or criminally negligent.

In the same way, you cannot simply assume -- given the lack of conclusive evidence that there is no abortifacient mechanism -- that these contraceptives do not ever cause abortions. That too would be irresponsible and/or criminally negligent.

I am just against you wanting to ban contraceptives and to replace it w/ NFP. as i said before, im just a simple family man who juggles the use of condoms and NFP to space birth and plan the family.

Show me where I tried to ban condoms from the free market. YOU CANNOT. Try to get your facts straight. It can't be done and we already know that because the condom is NOT abortifacient. There would be no legal basis for banning it. We can only ban abortifacient contraceptives provided the anti-abortifacients bill is passed.

What I have been doing is fighting the RH bill which forces people to dispense artificial and aboprtifacient contraceptives and wastes public money on the same while taking funds away from more urgent health needs.

You might as well call all the 90% Catholics as unfaithful Catholics and abortionists too

Another imaginary number? Based on what? The flawed SWS surveys? Hilarious!

A lack of access to contraception (TO WHICH THE CHURCH AND PRO-LIFE GROUPS WANTS TO STAY IT THAT WAY) is in part responsible for the 2000 maternal deaths that occur in the Philippines each year during pregnancy or delivery.

That is total BS. The World Health Organization notes that the great majority of maternal deaths in the Philippines could be prevented by simply providing adequate basic and emergency obstetric health services along with trained midwives and health workers. Distributing contraceptives will NOT address this problem. The RH bill does NOT address this either

Pregnancy and childbirth are NOT diseases that need to be prevented. What is needed is better basic health care facilities and trained personnel. Taking away funds from these and wasting them on contraceptives makes matters worse.

[giddyboy]

There are few absolutes in science, but we have to look at the preponderance of evidence. There is way too much evidence proving that certain contraceptives (like the pill and IUD) are abortifacient to simply ignore. Even if we grant that there is some uncertainty (and there isn't), it is therefore mandatory that you play it safe: you cannot simply assume that there is no abortifacient mechanism.

You cannot simply shoot a gun at waist level into the dark hoping that the bullet won't hit someone; no, you make sure no one is there before shooting. If you cannot be sure, you DON'T shoot. You don't fumigate a building until you are sure no one is inside. if you can';t be sure, you don't fumigate. To do otherwise is to be irresponsible and/or criminally negligent.

In the same way, you cannot simply assume -- given the lack of conclusive evidence that there is no abortifacient mechanism -- that these contraceptives do not ever cause abortions. That too would be irresponsible and/or criminally negligent.

no, it's not ignoring. it's a matter of being convinced or not.

taken from the same article:

"Those that believe that oral contraceptives may cause abortions have plenty of evidence that concerns and convinces them.

On the other hand, there is much medical literature that contradicts this notion that OCs cause abortions; unfortunately, however, not in terms that the pro-lifer can accept. (and that includes you)

In spite of the impressive voices that are speaking out about the abortifacient potential of OCs, there are many physicians who are convinced that life begins at conception and who do not believe that OCs are abortifacient.

A second reason that pro-life physicians may not hold the position that oral contraceptives cause abortions is that they are unconvinced by the evidence.

There is a third reason that a pro-life physician who is convinced that life begins at conception may reject the notion that OCs are abortifacient: he is convinced that there are less, not more, unintentional abortions in woman on OCs compared to women who are not. For a drug to be classified as abortifacient, conception must occur, and the loss of these conceptions must exceed the baseline loss for populations not using the drug, or be shown to occur solely as a result of the drug.

In conclusion, even in the pro-life community there is considerable disagreement on whether oral contraceptives cause abortions."

SEE? i am even giving a position from pro-life community, your community!!! but since you want to hide this fact by implying that all of you and ur community has one voice in saying contraceptives are abortifacient, to which it really isn't, then u r just guilty of fraud, deception, and malicious disinformation!!!

it simply means that ur posturing to try to represent Pro-life w/ your position against contraceptives is BS!

AMEN!

[mannyamador]

no, it's not ignoring. it's a matter of being convinced or not.

Wrong. The logic is precisely for those who are NOT convinced.

If you are already convinced that certain contraceptives are abortifacient, you do NOT need to play safe. You already have certainty.

But even if you are NOT convinced you are morally obliged to play it safe because of the high stakes involved: this is a life and death matter. You just act responsibly. As Just as you cannot simply shoot a gun at waist level into the dark hoping that the bullet won't hit someone; you must also make sure that a contraceptive is NOT abortifacient. To do otherwise is to be irresponsible and/or criminally negligent.

Given the volume of evidence on both sides and the high stakes involved, the burden of proof is on those who claim that contraceptives are not abortifacient. And you have NOT been able to submit any proof whatsoever.

On the other hand, there is much medical literature that contradicts this notion that OCs cause abortions; unfortunately, however, not in terms that the pro-lifer can accept.

That is EXACTLY my point! The excuse people use to justify the claim that certain contraceptives are no abortifaicnet is to re-define "pregnancy" or use an ARBITRARY definition of when human life begins. That is why these terms are unacceptable to pro-lifers. Can't you even understand what your quoting?

SEE? i am even giving a position from pro-life community, your community!!!

There are many fake pro-lifers who make claims in order to confuse others. But you usually can tell them apart by looking at their false and arbitrary definitions of when life begins. It's just like the UNFAITHFUL Catholics (like yourself) who are trying to confuse people about Catholic doctrine.

So, just as your beliefs do NOT reflect authentic Catholic doctrine (since you have no authority whatsoever to define Catholic doctrine), in the same way, the claims of some pseudo pro-lifers does NOT represent mainstream pro-life beliefs.

There are always dissenters in any movement. But that is beside the point. What counts are their arguments, and so far the ones you have cited simply fail to refute the logic used at the start of this post: that we must err on the side of caution when human lives are at stake.

But of course that will not stop PROVEN LIARS like yourself from using tactics to deceive people. Right out of the abortion lobby's playbook!

Here's evidence of one of your more recent lies:
https://www.istorya.net/forums/politi...ml#post5015316

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