Legalize Abortion?

[giddyboy]

---

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

Growing debate over abortifacients:
abortifacients, drugs or agents that cause an abortion, are commonly sold to women who think they are getting substances that prevent conception altogether.
Growing debate over abortifacients: abortifacients, drugs or agents that cause an abortion, are commonly sold to women who think they are getting substances that prevent conception altogether. - Free Online Library

ngano mamasangil naman ka sa mga pro-RH people? did that article even mentioned about the RH Bill in the phils?

you are instead guilty of playing w/ words. you call pro-choice people as pro-abortion in order to confuse and demonify those who wants informed choice. you call contraceptives as abortifacients when not all physicians believe it is so. you call the RH bill as pro-abortion when not all congressmen and senators believe it is so, that's why they support it. you even call yourself pro-life and imply that all of you agree on what u r saying when in fact not.

and to cite part of your supposed pro-life article:

"BCPs today work in one of three ways: by suppressing or inhibiting ovulation so that fertilization is impeded: altering cervical mucus to reduce sperm migration: or via a backup mechanism that prevents implantation of the newly conceived human life in the lining of the womb by creating a chemically hostile environment, sometimes called a post-fertilization effect. In 1994, Dr. Thomas Hilgers, a respected fertility specialist and clinical professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology obstetrics and gynecology."

there actually is a counter fact from pro-life physicians on that. and here it is:

"the third proposed method of action, the so-called “hostile endometrium theory”, has little direct evidence to support the position that oral contraceptives cause abortion.

The proponents of the “hostile endometrium theory” argue that OCs are abortifacient based upon the third mechanism of action. The medical literature clearly supports the claim that the uterus becomes thinner and less glandular as a result of the OCs, however, the medical literature comes to this conclusion from non-ovulatory pill cycles. It is assumed that this finding in non-ovulatory pill cycles would prevent implantation of the embryo conceived in an ovulatory pill cycle, but this presumption is false.

here's part of a statement from pro-life Ob/Gyns, wherein they strongly disagree with those who purport that oral contraceptives cause abortions:

In Summary:
l. We know of no existing scientific studies that validate the "hostile endometrium is abortifacient" theory.
2. There is regular successful implantation of the invasive blastocyst on surfaces a great deal more "hostile" than "hostile endometrium" (e.g., fallopian tube lining). "Hostile endometrium" is not a demonstrated clinical reality.
3. The almost total absence of reporting of ectopic pregnancies associated with hormonal contraception would indicate the rarity of actual conception by patients using these modalities. (Minipill and norplant apparently are less effective in preventing pregnancies and ectopics).
4. Many factors play a part in how a family plans and spaces their children. It is not the purpose of this paper to promote, nor to oppose hormonal contraception. However, if a family, weighing all the factors affecting their own circumstances, decides to use this modality, we are confident that they are not using an abortifacient."

(source: Pro-Life Physicians’ Statement to Randy Alcorn)

[giddyboy]

Ok...Here are my two points about the RH bill.
Point 1. What will it solve?

i dunno if this is the answer you want. but here is the main problem:

THE PRESENT SETUP is the problem, in which the provision for reproductive health services is devolved to LGU's, and consequently, subjected to the varying strategies of local gov't executives and suffers from a dearth of funding.

Now, in order to solve this, we have to depart from the present setup. the proposed RH Bill is a departure from the present setup. THE BILL IS NATIONAL IN SCOPE, COMPREHENSIVE, rights-based and provides adequate funding to the RH programs of each and every LGU in the Phils.

Coverage of RH:
(1) Information and access to both natural and modern family planning, which are medically safe and legally permissible
(2) Maternal, infant and child health and nutrition
(3) Promotion of breast feeding
(4) Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications
(5) Adolescent and youth health
(6) Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, HIV/AIDS and STDs
(7) Elimination of violence against women
(8.) Counseling on sexuality and sexual and reproductive health
(9) Treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers
(10) Male involvement and participation in RH
(11) Prevention and treatment of infertility
(12) RH education for the youth
(13) Capability building of community-based volunteer workers
(14) Midwives for skilled birth attendance
(15) Emergency obstetrics care
(16) Hospital-based family planning

Point 2. At what prize?

you can ask the Congressmen. sorry I don't have the national budget data. The dismal present setup that we currently have now already involves funding. ang apan lang is that some LGU's have adequate funds, some not. ang nahitabo, nag kanya kanya nlng ug gimik kada LGU in implementing their RH program. some even have none. meaning, gubot pas lukot. to each his own.

The departure from the present setup via the proposed Bill (if im not mistaken) only wants to realign all the LGU's programs by making the RH program national and comprehensive in scope. It also realigns the needed funds (and possibly add more),thus avoiding each LGU's experimenting w/ their own RH program, and at the same time don't suffer from lack of funding.

[mannyamador]

You might as well call all those who support the RH Bill as liars mannyboy!

One lie may be excusable, but you are a CONSISTENT LIAR. Just like Lagman. So both of you are liars. Happy now?

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.

In your case you ARE ignoring the facts. We've seen you do that over and over. In fact, the pro-RH fanatics have been falsifying scientific data and relying on flawed and biased surveys to deceive people in their drive to impose the RH bill. we have seen that here too.

THEY ARE NOT CONVINCED. It's as simple as that.

Like I said before, even if we grant that the issue is undecided, you are then morally obligated to ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.

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.

Sadly, it is a standard that you are just too selfish to accept.

you can ask the Congressmen. sorry I don't have the national budget data.

But you miss an important point:
Why should we waste billions on funding free contraceptives that do NOT cure any disease whatosever, and take away resources that could be used to fund medicines that cure real killer diseases?

I noticed that you have consistently and deceptively dodged this question over and over. Of course we do know why you do that: you don't have an answer! You are just covering up the fact that the RH bill is wasting money and sending money into the pockets of pharmaceutical companies and radical, pro-RH NGOs.



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

[mannyamador]

here's part of a statement from pro-life Ob/Gyns, wherein they strongly disagree with those who purport that oral contraceptives cause abortions:

That statement was already been refuted a long time ago. One refutation that totally demolishes the claims of those so-called "pro-life" on-gyns is at:



Abortion Facts
Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform
http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/abortifacients2.html

Appendix

Response to the arguments put forth in the brochure titled: Hormonal Contraceptives: Are they Abortifacients?

In January 1998, a group of twenty-two physicians (almost all are Ob/Gyns) wrote a collaborative report questioning the abortifacient nature of the pill.[2] Their four main arguments (taken from page 7 in their booklet) and a corresponding rebuttal to each are presented here

1. : They write: "We know of no existing scientific studies that validate the 'hormonal contraception is partly abortifacient' theory. 'On-pill' pregnancy rates roughly parallel 'on-pill' ovulation rates (about 3-5 percent on the 35 mcg pill). Increased spontaneous abortion of on-pill pregnancies is not noted."
   
   Here the term "pregnancy rate" refers to the rate of pregnancy as determined by a positive pregnancy test. We must acknowledge that a woman is actually pregnant directly after conception, before one can diagnose it by a simple pregnancy test. The claim that "on-pill" pregnancy rates roughly parallel "on-pill" ovulation rates may appear to be a satisfying argument, but on closer examination this contention actually bolsters the argument in favor of the pill acting as an abortifacient. Why? If a woman is taking the pill, she will experience an artificially regulated cycle that lasts 28 days so she will have about 13 cycles per year (365 days divided by 28). Thus a group of 100 women would be expected to have a total of 1300 cycles per year. If women taking the pill experience a breakthrough ovulation rate (on-pill ovulation rate) of between 3% and 5%, a group of 100 women would be expected to have between 39 and 65 breakthrough ovulation cycles in one year (1300 x 3% - 5%). William's Obstetrics notes that the average woman has a "natural fecundibility rate" of 28 percent.[47] "Natural Fecundiblity rate," perhaps more accurately called the fertility rate, is defined in this section of William's Obstetrics as liveborn infants per ovarian cycle.
   
   But William's Obstetrics also notes that for every 600 liveborn children, 279 embryos or fetuses are miscarried, 176 of them after a positive pregnancy test and 103 of them prior to being able to detect that a woman is pregnant. This means that the average couple will actually have a detectable pregnancy rate of {28%+ (176/600 x 28%)}= 36.2%. So a group of 100 women who are sexually active and using the birth control pill might expect between 14 and 24 detectable pregnancies per year: [{39 - 65} x 36.2%]. But the PDR (Physician's Desk Reference) notes that a group of 100 women who are using the pill in a consistent manner will have about 3 pregnancies per year[7] and a recent study by Potter yields an updated statistic of 7 pregnancies per year.8 If it is true that "on-pill pregnancy rates roughly parallel on-pill ovulation rates," then the conclusion that the pill is not an abortifacient is highly suspect. This is because if the ovulation rate is 3% to 5%, we might expect the pregnancy rate to be 14% to 24% __ that is, far higher than the ovulation rate. Since we do not see this clinically, we must ask: Why is the clinically measurable pregnancy rate far lower than the theoretical rate based on the rate of breakthrough ovulation?
   
   A number of explanations exist including the failure of sperm to reach the egg due to thicker cervical mucus or a change in motility within the fallopian tubes which the pill may cause. But one must also recognize that the difference in rates may be due to a failure of the zygote/embryo to implant due to the pill's effects on the endometrial lining. In short, the observation that "on-pill pregnancy rates roughly parallel on-pill ovulation rates" serves, if anything, to support the argument that the pill is an abortifacient.
   
   
2. : They write: "There is regular successful implantation of the invasive blastocyst on surfaces a great deal more 'hostile' than 'hostile endometrium' (eg, fallopian tube lining). 'Hostile endometrium' is not a demonstrated clinical reality."
   
   This argument is specious. It has already been stated in the answers to questions 3-13 that the sum of the evidence, both recent and old, supports the argument that the pill changes the lining of the endometrium in a fashion unfavorable for implantation. The fact that the preborn child may attach him or herself to a structure such as the fallopian tube lining has little to do with the previous arguments. Although one can make the argument that a rare occurrence or an exception disproves a theory, one cannot deduce the converse, namely, that the exception proves the theory. That is, noting that some preborn children do implant in the fallopian tube, or for that matter in the peritoneal cavity, merely proves that it is possible for this event to occur. But it offers no evidence that justifies the claim that a favorable implantation site is just as good as an unfavorable one.
   
   
3. : They write: "The extremely rare reporting of ectopic pregnancies associated with hormonal contraception would indicate the rarity of actual conception by patients using these modalities."
   
   Once again the noted physicians apparently were unaware that their statement serves the purpose of supporting the pill's action as an abortifacient. It should be stated that both women who take the pill, and those who do not, can and do become pregnant. The pregnancy can be an extrauterine pregnancy (EUP) {usually a tubal pregnancy} or an intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) {the normal type of pregnancy}. One can measure the ratio of EUP to IUP in either group. What should happen to this EUP/IUP ratio if one compares women who are not taking the pill to those who are?
   
   The Ob/Gyns would argue that this ratio should remain constant and if the reporting of ectopic pregnancy were "practically unreported," as the Ob/Gyns write, one might even expect the ratio to decrease, since the numerator would become smaller. On the contrary, if the pill caused more early abortions (less intrauterine pregnancies), one would expect the number of intrauterine pregnancies (IUPs) to decrease in comparison to the number of extrauterine pregnancies (EUPs) and thus the ratio should increase. What does the literature say?
   
   The studies to date show that women who take the pill have an increased ratio of EUP to IUP. They note that women who take the pill are far more likely to experience more EUPs per IUP than women who do not take the pill, which supports the argument that the pill is an abortifacient. The reported odds ratios ( an odds ratio of 2.0 is the same as saying a two-fold risk) of the increased risk of EUP/IUP in women taking the pill compared to women who were not taking the pill were as follows: 1) WHO48 found an odds ratio of 1.7 (1.1-2.5); 2) Mol et al[49] found an odds ratio of 1.8 (0.9-3.4); 3) Job-Spira et al[50] found an odds ratio of 4.3 (1.5-12.6); 4) Thorburn et al[51] found an odds ratio of 4.5 (2.1-9.6); and 5) Coste et al[52] found an odds ratio of 13.9 (1.8-108.3). These clinical studies once again provide evidence that suggests that the pill acts as an abortifacient.
   
   
4. : They write: "Many factors play a part in how a family plans and spaces their children. It is not the purpose of this paper to promote nor to oppose hormonal contraception."
   
   As a physician I know that it is common to use a medicine or a type of procedure because previous physicians have done so. It is simply impossible for each physician to "re-invent the wheel" when trying to decide if a particular drug or procedure is the optimal one. Unfortunately, once one becomes accustomed to particular ways of doing things, one tends to continue to do them in a particular fashion because "they have always been done that way," and "new thoughts" on a "standard procedure" are not always appreciated.
   
   How do these statements pertain to the current argument? It has been stated that almost every physician who signed or helped write the booklet Hormonal Contraceptives: Are they Abortifacients? is or was an obstetrician/gynecologist. It is common knowledge that virtually all Ob/Gyns prescribe the pill to their patients for contraception, in addition to other indications. Therefore, I assume (and would certainly issue a retraction were I proven wrong) that nearly every Ob/Gyn who signed or helped write the paper currently prescribes or has prescribed birth control pills for contraception.
   
   The problem here is that self-proclaimed pro-life Ob/Gyns would have difficulty being unbiased in any argument about whether the pill causes early abortions, since each of these physicians most likely has written thousands of oral contraceptive prescriptions in their careers. If they were to admit that the pill is an abortifacient, they would be admitting that they had likely aborted hundreds of tiny preborn children. Surely it would be difficult for a pro-life obstetrician to fairly evaluate the abortifacient action of the pill given these circumstances.
   
   
5. Recently Decook et al[53] have argued that if a breakthrough cycle does occur while a woman is taking the pill, her endometrial lining would become similar to that of the non- BCP user for that cycle. Is this an accurate statement?
   
   To the best of this author's knowledge, that statement has no support in the medical literature. If the above statement were true, it would mean that each time a woman had a breakthrough cycle while taking the BCP (if she does not become pregnant), she should experience as heavy a cycle as if she were not taking the pill. This phenomenon has not been described in the medical literature either.

Conclusion: The arguments presented by the twenty-two physicians in the booklet entitled Hormonal Contraceptives: Are they Abortifacients? lack substance and actually serve to bolster the evidence that the birth control pill causes early abortions.



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

[bcasabee]

Sipyat bro or tinoyoan ang pagkamabdos? Kung sipyat, aw mao nay example sa pagka walay gamit aning RH bill.

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.

[bcasabee]

I see, because from the past threads, the problem presented was "overpopulation and poverty" and the RH bill is the solution. So it is safe to say that this RH bill is not really meant to solve poverty and the much abused concept of overpopulation. Anyway, I don't believe that the RH bill will help cutting poverty or "overpopulation" in anyway.

So again for Point 1. what will this bill solve? - for pro RH supporter, it is just to stream line the existing reproductive health care program and is not meant to solve poverty or "overpopulation" (you can correct me if I'm wrong here). Great, no problem with that.

And for Point 2. At what prize? - No answer from the pro RH supporter.

Ok let me just point out one issue.
(4) Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications
Abortion is a crime in our country. What is this management of post-abortion complications? Does this include persecuting the abortionist? Or this already mean consenting to abortion undermining our constitution?

i dunno if this is the answer you want. but here is the main problem:

THE PRESENT SETUP is the problem, in which the provision for reproductive health services is devolved to LGU's, and consequently, subjected to the varying strategies of local gov't executives and suffers from a dearth of funding.

Now, in order to solve this, we have to depart from the present setup. the proposed RH Bill is a departure from the present setup. THE BILL IS NATIONAL IN SCOPE, COMPREHENSIVE, rights-based and provides adequate funding to the RH programs of each and every LGU in the Phils.

Coverage of RH:
(1) Information and access to both natural and modern family planning, which are medically safe and legally permissible
(2) Maternal, infant and child health and nutrition
(3) Promotion of breast feeding
(5) Adolescent and youth health
(6) Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections, HIV/AIDS and STDs
(7) Elimination of violence against women
(8.) Counseling on sexuality and sexual and reproductive health
(9) Treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers
(10) Male involvement and participation in RH
(11) Prevention and treatment of infertility
(12) RH education for the youth
(13) Capability building of community-based volunteer workers
(14) Midwives for skilled birth attendance
(15) Emergency obstetrics care
(16) Hospital-based family planning



you can ask the Congressmen. sorry I don't have the national budget data. The dismal present setup that we currently have now already involves funding. ang apan lang is that some LGU's have adequate funds, some not. ang nahitabo, nag kanya kanya nlng ug gimik kada LGU in implementing their RH program. some even have none. meaning, gubot pas lukot. to each his own.

The departure from the present setup via the proposed Bill (if im not mistaken) only wants to realign all the LGU's programs by making the RH program national and comprehensive in scope. It also realigns the needed funds (and possibly add more),thus avoiding each LGU's experimenting w/ their own RH program, and at the same time don't suffer from lack of funding.

[mannyamador]

ows, just like what the church believed long time ago isn't it? that the world is flat.

Bwahaha! Get back to your history. The Catholic Church NEVER had a dogma that the world was flat. Where in the world do you get your absurd and inaccurate ideas?

You are also invoking Christian morality into the issue by saying "play it safe" based on your beliefs. But how safe is safe? in your own terms?

That is plain logic. It's not even necessarily Christian. It is simply placing value on human life. Even atheists agree to it.

Using contraceptives can NEVER be considered "playing it safe" because that is precisely the thing in question. There is evidence that these contraceptivces are abortifacient. Some may not be convinced but they CANNOT prove otherwise (there is no proof whatsoever that conclusively rules out the abortifacient mechanism).

So at worst the issue is UNRESOLVED.

When it is unresolved, you must take care to preserve innocent human life by avoiding the controversial action. So using abortifacient contraceptives -- even if you are not sure if they are abortifacient -- is never "p,laying it safe".

Try using some logic. It helps.

[mannyamador]

Ok let me just point out one issue.
(4) Prevention of abortion and management of post-abortion complications
Abortion is a crime in our country. What is this management of post-abortion complications? Does this include persecuting the abortionist? Or this already mean consenting to abortion undermining our constitution?

We have to remember that the RH bill is being used as a vehicle to sneak in abortion to the Philippines. The foreign backers of this bill believe abortion is a "right". Therefore, it is not surprising that they try to slowly undermine our nation's legal and social defenses against abortion.

The abortion lobby in other countries openly admit that abortifacient contraceptives exist. They justify the killing because they think it is a "right" of the woman. So they try to introduce abortifacient contraceptives first. Then they break down legal protection of conscientious objectors (like in Section 21 of the RH bill). Then when there is widespread use and acceptance of abortifacient contraceptives, they will introduce RU-486 and "emergency contraception". These are open abortifacients. The enxt step, of course, is surgical abortion.

That is another reason why the RH bill is so dangerous. And the pro-RH fanatics here are part of this effort, whether they realize it or not.



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

[cypher86]

In your case you ARE ignoring the facts. We've seen you do that over and over. In fact, the pro-RH fanatics have been falsifying scientific data and relying on flawed and biased surveys to deceive people in their drive to impose the RH bill. we have seen that here too.


Like I said before, even if we grant that the issue is undecided, you are then morally obligated to ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.

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.

Sadly, it is a standard that you are just too selfish to accept.

But you miss an important point:
Why should we waste billions on funding free contraceptives that do NOT cure any disease whatosever, and take away resources that could be used to fund medicines that cure real killer diseases?

I noticed that you have consistently and deceptively dodged this question over and over. Of course we do know why you do that: you don't have an answer! You are just covering up the fact that the RH bill is wasting money and sending money into the pockets of pharmaceutical companies and radical, pro-RH NGOs.

Why spend billions on funding free contraceptives? because prevention is better than cure

I AM however VERY curious as to why mannyamador is very passionate in his crusade to convince us/the readers that the RH-Bill is nothing but trash.

I dont really care much for the RH-Bill, whether it gets passed or not does not interest me one bit(Apathy/indifference, a common disease that plague today's youth, me included). What piqued my interest is that I want to understand the reason for the cause. and dont give me a bullshit answer. I'm looking for answers somewhere along the lines of "I'm one of those who had an abortion, or lost a child to abortion and I regretted.. blah2x"

The human mind is so fascinating. If only psychology and (that other thing that studies human behavior and social interaction) puts food on the table.

[giddyboy]

One lie may be excusable, but you are a CONSISTENT LIAR. Just like Lagman. So both of you are liars. Happy now?

so if somebody here is not agreeable to your opinion, liar na diay? pgka arogante nlng gyud nimo Mr. Emmanuel Roxas Amador! walay tambal rba ana!

oh by the way, u also forgot to call Sen Manny Villar and Chiz Escudero as liars too!

In your case you ARE ignoring the facts. We've seen you do that over and over. In fact, the pro-RH fanatics have been falsifying scientific data and relying on flawed and biased surveys to deceive people in their drive to impose the RH bill. we have seen that here too.

kung ang tawo diay mo suportar sa RH Bill, fanatic na diay na? that's arrogance part 2!

Like I said before, even if we grant that the issue is undecided, you are then morally obligated to ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.

the issue is not undecided. the issue is decided two ways: there are those who claim that contraceptives are abortifacient, but there are those that claim they are not.

if you say err on the side of caution, meaning we should not use contraceptives, even a condom, it also means you are also prejudging and accusing the pharma companies of dispensing contraceptives nga mkapa abort diay.

it also simply means you cannot force people to err on side of caution your way coz some people also think that to err on the side of caution is to use contraceptives like the condom and the pill. you cannot force people to use only NFP mannyboy! wake up from your little world!