Legalize Abortion?

[cypher86]

---

This article shows how the pro-RH fanatics are deceiving people by playing with words.

thats goes the same for anti-RH fanatics as well. two can play that game i always say

A. there are dozens of articles that say contraceptive methods are unsafe for mothers

B. there are dozens of articles that say contraceptive methods are safe for mothers


Notice how a single syllable makes the difference? but how do we know who to believe when theres an equal number of health care experts who attest in behalf of both sides.

catch my drift? no matter how many articles you post supporting your cause. Theres an equal number contradicting it.

you dont suppose we should just take your and your sources' word for it dont you? coz the other side of the fence has their own research too


hmmm..?
should we do an "eeny, meeny, minnieee moo"?

[mannyamador]

thats goes the same for anti-RH fanatics as well. two can play that game i always say

That depends then on the evidence and arguments presented. So far the pro-lifers have been able to refute the garbage of the pro-RH fanstics. The same cannot be said for the other side of the issue.

Notice how a single syllable makes the difference? but how do we know who to believe when theres an equal number of health care experts who attest in behalf of both sides.

catch my drift? no matter how many articles you post supporting your cause. Theres an equal number contradicting it.

OK. But even if we grant that the issue is undecided, you are then morally obligated to ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.

Like I said before, This is a HUMAN LIFE AND DEATH ISSUE. Therefore, if there is any ambiguity as to whether a substance can cause an abortion, one must take such action (or refrain from action) so as not to inadvertently destroy innocent human life. That is a standard moral principle used throughout the world.

You do not, for example, fire a gun out on the street at night at waist level and hope you will not hit someone, despite the fact that you do not know if anyone is out there. No, you make sure it is safe first before you do so. Neither can you morally run down a man-shaped object on the road until you are sure it is not a person. You must slow down or even stop to check. As always, it is reasonable and obligatory to "play it safe" when human life is possibly endangered.

Please note too that artificial contraception is NOT medically necessary. Contraception does not cure any disease and does not save human life. It is an elective procedure. There are also SAFE ALTERNATIVES to artificial contraception such as Natural Family Planning (NFP). Therefore, artificial contraception is medically UNNECESSARY. So why risk destroying human life?

So even if you claim that the issue is unresolved, that is still a reason NOT to use possible abortifacients. And the mounting scientific evidence gives you even more reason NOT to use them.


NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL!
Please sign the petition AGAINST the deadly Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[cypher86]

OK. But even if we grant that the issue is undecided, you are then morally obligated to ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.

Like I said before, This is a HUMAN LIFE AND DEATH ISSUE. Therefore, if there is any ambiguity as to whether a substance can cause an abortion, one must take such action (or refrain from action) so as not to inadvertently destroy innocent human life. That is a standard moral principle used throughout the world.

what can I say?

Touché

[joshua259]

intriga ko sa add ni mr mannyamador nga "The Pill Kills".

wala lagi to namatay akoang anak or naay diformities nga ni miss man og 1 day akoang uyab og take og pills but still finished the rest.

[Arshen]

ang government ra ang naay power...

[giddyboy]

You are LIAR. As has been pointed out over and over, the bill only admits SURGICAL abortion as a crime (as per existing law), but it promotes CHEMICAL abortion through the funding and forcible distribution of abortifacioent contraceptives.

Now i'm a liar. Ngiga gyud nimo noh? You might as well call all those who support the RH Bill as liars mannyboy! you myt as well label all those Pinoys and doctors who don't believe contraceptives cause abortion including more than half of the total Congressmen & including Sen. Manny Villar and Chiz Escudero as liars too! na hala, mas ngilngig paman kha ka ani nla, why not mudagan nlng ka pgka Congressman and work your way up into a Senator? who knows basin ma Presidente pa diay ka...

per your opinion, the bill promotes chemical abortion by distributing contraceptives. but that opinion of yours and all those borrowed articles are not agreed to by all people. Mind u, don't even think that they are ignoring your articles or been misinformed. THEY ARE NOT CONVINCED. It's as simple as that. You should learn to get out from your little world and accept and respect that reality.

dili man sab cguro tonto ning WHO, US FDA, ug atong BFAD nga mo dispense ug legally and medically safe contraceptives pero mkapa abort diay, isn't it?

dili man sab cguro tonto tong mga pro-life physicians who strongly disagree that contraceptives cause abortion noh?

[giddyboy]

Of course you can. That's what is involved in Natural Family Planning (NFP). Permanent abstinence (perpetual celibacy) is different from periodic abstinence (which is what you do in NFP). You are confusing the two.

i know the difference sab oi. what i mean is that you cannot force a married couple to use only NFP. naa nila ang choice to use NFP or MFP or both, not you. what, you are now forcing couples to use NFP only?

but in the case of teens and teenagers, their parents always have the right to tell them no to premarital s3x, no to contraceptives, and yes to abstinence before marriage. and vice versa. Not you.

[giddyboy]

Wrong again. Contraceptive usage was a total failure in Uganda. In fact, it also backfired. Contraceptives caused risdk compensation behavior and to an INCREASE in HIV infections in some areas. What actually worked was abstinence and fidelity. Contraceptives were a hardly-used last resort -- and were INEFFECTIVE. In contrast, countries that emphasized contraceptives over abstinence and fidelity saw HIV infections soar!

No you are wrong. I did not say contraceptive use only would work. in Uganda, contraceptive use cannot work if there is no abstinence and fidelity programs that work hand in hand with it.

The program in Uganda did not only include contraceptive use but also abstinence and fidelity to make it successful. Nowhere did it say that they only used abstinence and fidelity. It only said that they emphasized but it doesn't mean it was the sole method.

You just only want to downplay the role of contraceptive use coz you don't want us to follow Uganda by combining contraceptive use and abstinence. You only want abstinence. mao na dha.

but you see, condoms are needed where abstinence is not an option for women. While not 100%-effective, condoms reduce risk of HIV-transmission. Sexual morality can/should go hand-in-hand with condom-use. The possession of condoms does not, in itself, motivate sexual immorality and irresponsibility; many other cultural factors are involved. Teaching proper sexual morals can easily accompany condom distribution and use.

10% of Uganda's population has HIV/AIDS. One would of course argue that abstinence is the ideal to follow but with such large numbers of infected persons, it is certainly prudent to allow other measures that could stop the spread of the dreaded disease. This, of course, is not how the Catholic Church sees the situation (and you included).

The Catholic church opposes contraception but most Catholics in the world use it, so the Catholic church is stuck and wrong on these questions. But lots and lots of Catholics ignore the Catholic church’s teaching, including lots of good priests and nuns who are in favor of condoms being made available.

Indeed its irrational battle against the use of condoms the Church have even stooped to falsifying scientific data. In 2003, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, speaking on behalf of the Vatican's "Council for the Family" announced that "scientific studies" have shown that the latex of the condom is permeable to the HIV virus. He urged that condom manufacturers should add a warning label to their packets stating this "fact". However when the data cited in his "scientific studies" where checked by the BBC it turned out that our Cardinal had bent the facts quite a bit. The research cited was by Dr. Dave Lyttle who pointed out that in a test of almost 500 different condoms, only 2.6% allowed "one virus at the most" to past through. This statistic was used by Dr. Lyttle to point out the high efficacy of condoms, not to their failure, in preventing HIV infections. He concluded in his report that condoms are "essentially impermeable" to the HIV virus, the exact opposite of the claims made by Cardinal Alfonso. When questioned, Dr. Lyttle agreed that his data has been "misused" by the Vatican.

In the mid-1980s, the Catholic Bishops Conferences of the Philippines and Cardinal Sin in particular conspired to campaign against the parties of the left in order to ensure that the 1987 Constitutional settlement “protects our people against the contraceptive onslaught”. This obligation which anti-contraception bishops felt to involve themselves in politics can be attributed to the central policy of the Church. Regional Churches have also played a role in rallying support against NGOs who distribute contraceptives as part of their missions. Prohibition of contraception commits the Catholic Church to undermining the separation of Church and state which is accepted in the Constitutions of many developed nations and often to actively undermining the policies of governments designed to protect their own people.

The Church’s stance on contraception causes the invasive involvement of the Church in the politics of predominantly Catholic developing nations.

[giddyboy]

Now you're starting to make sense. This is the kind of values education promoted by groups like Pro-Life Philippines PLP). PLP has a Teen Sexuality Training Workshop. It also recently sponsored a seminar on dealing with homosexuality and the Manila "UNASHAMED" Purity Conference held last February. This same Purity Conference will be here in Cebu on September 19, 2009.

Sadly, this effective values education is NOT what is promoted by the RH bill and its authors, like the PLCPD. They and other pro-RH fanatics are still stuck in the antedeluvian "overpopulation" myth and promoting chemical abortion though abortifacient contraceptives. This last one is not surprising since their financial backers in the EU and elsewhere believe abortion is a "right".

of course i do make sense. you should also distinguish between values ed and s3x ed. Our schools already have values ed in their curriculum.

like i said, a major aspect of s3x ed should be its focus on social relationships, emotions, choice-making, & responsibilities to self and others. s3x ed should not be viewed as a collection of facts, but as a problem-solving approach to real life situations. AND PARENTS and the SCHOOL HERE MAKES THE BIGGEST ROLE, not you, not even your pro-life lobbyist org.

Sexuality education will neither spawn “a generation of *** maniacs” nor breed a culture of promiscuity. Age-appropriate RH education promotes correct sexual values. It will not only instill consciousness of freedom of choice but also responsible exercise of one’s rights.

well, that pro-life workshops that you've been promoting is good actually. Wa gyuy blema kung manghambog ka ana diri. I don't even care if that's how you gain membership and influence them to your way of thinking. we are in a democracy and that's your right. (but i am not sure if the mods will allow any kind of promoting here in the Politics and current events forum. I don't care.)

but i will have to disagree again that the RH Bill is stuck in the overpopulation myth and promoting abortifacients. Surely Sen. Manny Villar and Chiz Escudero are no antedeluvians, do you?

[norwindetalla]

simply NO TO ABORTION.