Legalize Abortion?

[giddyboy]

---

Since you are the one claiming there is a correlation, YOU must provide the evidence.

Ok, i can take the challenge...and to make it worth your while, i came up w/ a graph to show you (and to all istoryans).



Source: Basic data come from the 1997, 2000 and 2003 FIES of the NSO.
Note: The values were computed using a Stata do-file for computing FGT measures. Except for the weights, the sampling design was not used to generate the values, in an attempt to facilitate comparability of the figures.

AND I HAVE NOT EVEN STARTED W/ THE COEFFICIENTS YET! But by just looking visually at the graphs, X and Y seems to show a linear trend. it shows that poverty incidence and poverty gap tends to increase as family size increases.

and to show the coefficients are not zero, here is an illustration from wiki:



The trend in my graph is also similar w/ family size against poverty vulnerability and inversely against per capita expenditures on education and medical needs.

Even as it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt which between poverty and family size is the cause and which is the effect, the strong correlation between the two variables is unmistakably clear. Statistics also very convincingly point to the importance of education in addressing poverty reduction.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum!!!

WHO IS LYING NOW MANNYBOY!!! Your claim that there is zero correlation? or mine that says otherwise?

[giddyboy]

and here's another BIG LIE (AND DECEPTION TO STUDENTS) that mannyboy has been hiding for years:

Opposition to reproductive health legislation

The development of a national reproductive health policy in the Philippines would have gone a long way, according to experts. But efforts in 2003 to enact a comprehensive reproductive health bill, were successfully blocked by the Catholic church. In May 2003, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) issued a pastoral letter opposing the enactment of reproductive health legislation, to be read at every Sunday mass in the country. Although survey data suggest that most Filipino Catholics support candidates who promote family planning, the letter was intended to create the impression of popular support against reproductive health.

The issuance of a pastoral letter formed part of the church’s larger strategy of using its institutional influence to block reproductive health legislation. In August 2002, CBCP president Archbishop Orlando Quevedo warned politicians over church radio that “we will remember you in the next elections” if they supported the bill. Representative Neric Acosta, one of the co-authors of the reproductive health bill, told Human Rights Watch that in 2003, the bishop of his district organized two demonstrations against him for supporting the legislation, putting his name and face on billboards and “branding me as the devil incarnate.”

I was vilified in two really big church-sponsored events where Catholic schools sent their children. . . . They handed out so-called petitions, petitioning us to withdraw our support for the bill. And they had all of these schoolchildren, who had nary an idea of what it was, signing these petitions, denouncing us, denouncing the bills in Congress on reproductive health and population, saying that’s just the work of the devil. And then the bishop went on the media saying there were twenty-some thousand signatories, and so Congressman Acosta should heed this, as this is the voice of the people. . . . For a whole week, I almost couldn’t eat.

Acosta said that the first demonstration, in April 2003, was advertised as peace rally against the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, an issue on which he saw eye to eye with the church. “And then the peace rally became a family rally and a pro-life rally,” he said, “and then before you knew it, I was the subject of their wrath and indignation.”

Acosta also learned that students of Catholic schools had been required by their teachers to attend the rallies, and that some had signed the petitions under pressure. “I talked to a number of high school students who went to these rallies,” he said. “I talked to some of their parents, and I said, ‘Did they know why they were there, did they know why they were asked to go there?’ They said, ‘No, we were on a field trip of sorts, we were required, we were going to get extra credit for religion class or something’.”

--000---

and for you to read @manny:

Men who have *** with men

Filipino men who have *** with other men, some of whom assume feminine traits and identify as bakla or “queer men,” face a disproportionate vulnerability to HIV/AIDS. Deep stigma, often manifested by outright violence and discrimination, can drive men who have *** with men away from mainstream health services and toward anonymous, casual, and unsafe sexual encounters. As of 2002, 83 percent of reported AIDS cases in the Philippines were attributed to sexual transmission, of which 21 percent involved male-to-male ***.

Men who have *** with men interviewed by Human Rights Watch subscribed to a number of dangerous myths about condoms and AIDS. “I don’t ask men to use condoms, because I know them,” said Syper T., eighteen, who sometimes accepted money from men to have ***. Syper T. said he also had *** with girls, but men often approached him to buy *** in a pool hall in Pasay City. “When I have *** with girls, they’re not sick,” he said, asked whether he used condoms. “They’re not like women who sell themselves.”

Men who have *** with men also said that condoms reduced sexual pleasure. “There’s no thrill if you use it,” said Syper T. Aramina F., twenty-one, who said he exchanged *** for money with taxi drivers in Pasay City, said, “I hardly ever use them [condoms]. The customers usually don’t want condoms. They say it’s a bother, that it disturbs them.”

Unpublished research provided to Human Rights Watch by the NGO Progay Philippines focused on a number of health issues, including access to condoms, faced by eighty Filipino bakla in Manila and Baguio City. The research concluded that “[d]espite many attempts to share information for safer *** in gay communities, the bakla in many poorer communities do not seem to have heard that condoms are also for gay ***.” This may have been because, as one bakla pointed out, condoms were perceived solely as a method of contraception. Of eighty bakla interviewed, only one reported consistent condom use for anal ***.

Even for men who had *** with men and used condoms consistently, Human Rights Watch found that harassment by police could increase HIV risk. “Trina F.”, twenty-one, told Human Rights Watch he had learned from an NGO that condoms could prevent HIV and other STDs, but “some police just take the condoms.” On one occasion in November 2003, Trina F. was apprehended by police after a friend of his offered *** to an undercover officer. “They found a condom on one of my friends because it was hanging out of his pocket,” he said. “It seemed like they got harsher with him because they had evidence.”

---000---

here's more:

False scientific claims about condoms

Condom opponents in the Philippines have a long history of making false scientific claims about condoms in order to buttress their moral arguments. On August 14, 1994, Jaime Cardinal Sin reportedly told an estimated crowd of 1 million Filipinos that “the tiny AIDS virus . . . can pass right through the pores of the condom.” A similar claim appeared in a pamphlet published by the NGO Pro-life Philippines, which reproduced a diagram of various sperm sizes prepared by researchers at Johns Hopkins University and concluded that “[t]hese manage to escape through flaws or minute fissures with sufficient regularity to cause pregnancy and render the condom quite an ineffective method of preventing pregnancy.” As of this writing, the website of Pro-life Philippines states, under the heading “What is AIDS:”

Do condoms prevent the spread of AIDS?

NO. And there are other harmful things that condoms do:

1. Condoms tell people that promiscuity is all right.

2. Condoms offer false assurances from HIV infection.

3. Condoms trivialize *** and reduce it to a plaything.

In 2002, when the NGO Catholics for a Free Choice posted a billboard in Manila opposing the Vatican’s stand on condoms, some conservative Catholics responded by citing evidence of condom ineffectiveness.

Volunteers for the Women’s Health Care Foundation in Manila City told Human Rights Watch they had witnessed family planning seminars in gov't health clinics in which nurses taught that condoms contained holes. This testimony was corroborated by WHCF director, Gladys Malayang.

There is no information given in any government health center about condoms—no posters, no leaflets, no flyers. Only natural family planning. City health workers say condoms are bad for your health, banned by Manila City, and banned by the Catholic church. They say they have holes in them. That’s what they’re saying, and a lot of people are beginning to believe it.

Some members of influential Catholic organizations in the Philippines expressed more moderate views on condom effectiveness. The director of HIV prevention programs at Catholic Relief Services described the approach of her organization as follows:

We do not promote the use of condoms, although we give the information. You can’t help but give information. . . . I’m not the one doing the teaching, but our teachers give the truth—that it’s not 100 percent effective, that there are still risks.

Sr. Oneng Mendoza, a representative of Caritas Manila, told the 2001 media forum sponsored by the AIDS Society of the Philippines that “I am not condemning the condom but I think it is a good springboard to talk about *** and sexuality . . . [I]f only we could depart from talking about the condom and its supposed lack of efficiency or its connection with promiscuity.” The director of a network of homes and drop-in centers for women and children affected by HIV/AIDS, Sister Mary Soledad (Sol) Perpinan, told Human Rights Watch, “The church may take a stand against condoms as contraception, but when used to prevent a deadly illness, the right to life is higher.”

The impact of disparaging condoms on actual HIV risk behavior is “debatable,” according to a 2003 report of the Health Action Information Network (HAIN). In 2001, anthropologist Michael Tan argued that a significant number of Filipinos shunned the use of condoms and that their reported reasons for doing so closely reflected church orthodoxy. “The second leading negative attitude toward condoms consisted of feelings of embarrassment at having to buy a condom at a store,” Tan wrote, referring to a survey of young adults. “Certainly, those feelings come from the way religious conservatives have depicted condoms, associating them with illicit *** and claiming that condom distribution promotes promiscuity.”

Human Rights Watch asked the Philippines Secretary of Health, Dr. Manuel Dayrit, how his department responded to false scientific claims about condoms, particularly claims of condom porosity. “We take that as part of the pot of information that goes around,” he said. “So in that instance we would get a second opinion and find out from the manufacturer or whoever if that is an accurate statement. . . . We wouldn’t just accept it at face value unless the evidence was shown.”As of this writing, the website of the Philippines Department of Health states that “safe ***” is “not strongly recommended as an HIV prevention strategy, but mentions “correct and consistent use of condoms” as an option “for people who cannot abstain from sexual contact or who cannot maintain a mutually faithful relationship.”

Some experts felt that the admonition to “be faithful” to one’s partner exposed people to HIV risk just as lying about condoms did, especially people who could not guarantee their spouse’s fidelity. “Women will say, ‘but God will protect me, my husband would never do that’,” said AIDS educator Anna Leah Sarabia. “The realization that their husband is not faithful is more shocking to them than testing positive for HIV.”

SOURCE: www.hrw.org/reports/2004/philippines

[giddyboy]

But is not the definition usind in the Phil. Consti. We define life as beginning at fertilization. Or as @mannyamador shpowed, they assumed that. So that is the assumption of the Phil. Consti. And that is what we should follow. If we follow the Consti, then your authorites are wrong and those contraceptives are capable of causing abortion.

well, that only proves to show that mannyboy's deceptive influence has seeped already into your brain.

Actually, The Constitutional Commission (Con Com) never categorically defined “conception” as “fertilization.”

here's why? let's read thru the ConCom transcript: (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!)

the 1987 Con Com records reveals that despite the presence of a strong Catholic Lobby in the Con Com, the same Catholic lobby was unable to unite amongst themselves, let alone unify the Constitutional Commission along a single Catholic Position adopting the concept of “conception” as beginning from “fertilization.”

The (@manny's) assertion that conception was fixed at fertilization by the Con Com is misleading when he quoted the following authority on the subject. It reads:

“According to noted Constitutional authority, FR. JOAQUIN BERNAS, S.J. who was part of the 1986 Constitutional Convention:

“The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception, that conception takes place at fertilization. There is however no attempt to pinpoint the exact moment when conception takes place. But while the provision does not assert with certainty when precisely human life begins, it reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.” (p.78 Bernas, J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Manila: 1996 ed.)

Indeed, the same authority’s opinion expressly recognizes that even the idea or concept of when “conception takes place” could not be defined or pinpointed by the Con Com.

In the same manner, the opinion of the Constitutionalist Bernas should also be read together with his other commentaries on the subject matter.

In the 1997 edition of his book, Constitutional Structure and Power of Government, he states:

“Moreover, the overriding purpose in asserting that the protection begins from the time of conception is to prevent the State from adopting the doctrine in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe vs. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973) which liberalized abortion laws up to the sixth month of pregnancy by allowing abortion any time during the first six months of pregnancy provided it can be done without danger to the mother. The understanding is that life begins at conception, although the definition of conception can be a matter for science to specify.”

Obviously, the statements made by Father Bernas, as quoted have to be analyzed in the proper context in which they were said.

Furthermore, Constitutional intent (or the lack of it) can best be gleaned from a reading of the actual statement of positions stated by the Con Com members.

It is a primary rule of statutory construction that if the text is vague or lends itself to varied interpretations regarding the definition of a word, the record of the deliberations, in this case of the Con Com, is the proper source for clarification.

The adoption of the word conception was a compromise position precisely because of the unacceptability of one very controversial Catholic position to extend the right to life to the “fertilized ovum”

The original provision being supported by Father Joaquin Bernas made use of the term “fertilized ovum” in the following context and formulation: “The right to life extends to the fertilized ovum. ”

Commissioner Suarez asked Commissioner Bernas if the fertilized ovum was going to be elevated to the category of a person as to enjoy a constitutional right.

To this, Father Bernas replied:

“My own thinking would be that it is not a person yet. That is my own thinking, so that perhaps this whole sentence must be modified to express it in such a way that it is not an assertion that this begins to become a person from the very first moment or nine months before birth. As I said, I am in search of a proper way of expressing this. Perhaps you should say, “protection of life should extend to the fertilized ovum.” (17 July 1986 RECORD OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, VOL.1, p.690)

At this point, a lengthy discussion and expression of differences ensued on whether to actually use and adopt the term “fertilized ovum” and in so saying, extend to it, the constitutional right to life or not.

The Con Com voted on the proposed amendment with 30 members voting, without opposition, in approval of the Romulo amendment.

Yet, even this unanimously approved amendment was later further revised. The exact wording of the Constitutional provision eventually abandoned the term “moment of conception,” and instead merely referred to the life of the unborn from conception.

Again, at this particular juncture, the Con Com had another lengthy discussion about the determination of pregnancy, the beginning of life, and exceptions to the ban on abortion to save the mother’s life.”

These discussions clearly reflected the lack of a consensus among the Constitutional Commissioners to categorically settle the discussion of when human life begins and when the Constitutional provision on the right to life may be invoked.

Eventually, the Con Com had to vote on the amendment proposed by both Commissioner Rigos and Padilla to drop the phrase "moment of conception."

While Reverend Rigos proposed an amendment to use "unborn child from conception," Padilla proposed "unborn from conception," in effect to avoid the result of having the Con Com to have to fix the precise moment of conception (whether days before or after conception, since some members expressed the belief that life begins even before conception).

Needless to say the Padilla amendment was approved with 33 voting in favor of the same.

This clearly establishes the lack of any constitutional intent to establish conception as fertilization let alone categorize a precise moment when "conception" takes place.

Again it is worth noting that this reading is consistent with the self same Constitutional authority cited, which is Father Joaquin Bernas, S.J., when read in the proper and complete context of his commentaries on the matter.

(source: geocities.com)

WHO IS LYING THRU OMISSION NOW? me? i don't think so...

[mannyamador]

im using condoms and thats that. wife using the pills too because of her condition.

Sir, your wife is using pills to remedy a medical condition, NOT for birth control. In itself, that is a very LEGITIMATE use of hormonal substances. In cases where it is not used during ***, the pill is not being used as a contraceptive.

It is when other factors come into play that there are problems. For example, when the pill is used for birth control there is a significant risk of inducing early-term chemical abortions.

You will always have a choice to use condoms because they are not abortifacient. They cannot be legally banned as far as I know, even though their use may be considered immoral. It seems that condoms will always be available all over the place despite some RH fanatics' hints that they are only lately found in pharmacies. You can still find them displayed near kid's items and magazines!

The anti-life RH bill, however, REMOVES freedom of choice for those doctors and health workers who do NOT wish to dispense abortifacient contraceptives. The bill FORCES them to do so (or to refer requestors to another who will do the same) under pain of imprisonment and fines. Where's the freedom in that?

and for you to read @manny:
Men who have *** with men

I guess Wakkanakka was right about you being gay. Does your wife know? Well, you may wish to engage in that sort of thing, but please do not project your insecurities onto others.

Now how about you try to be intellectually honest for once? You were caught LYING several times and I have posted the evidence in this thread. You owe me an apology, or at the very least an admission that you were lying.

Well?


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

[mannyamador]

The (@manny's) assertion that conception was fixed at fertilization by the Con Com is misleading when he quoted the following authority on the subject.

This a FOURTH LIE from you. Well, at least you're consistently dishonest.

I never said that the Constitutional Commission FIXED the moment of conception at fertilization. I said that it ASSUMED such. I think this was wise so the Commission (and later authorities) could avoid being embroiled in scientific debates and having the Constitution held hostage to changing tides of that debate. The Constitution should be stable, and that si what the Constitutional Commission achieved by TAKING THE SAFER APPROACH and ASSUMING that protection should be extended to the unborn from fertilization.

The author you are quoting (and I noticed you have conveniently NOT put the full URL since it is a website of his mere personal, non-authoritative opinions) is clearly distorting the taking the transcript out of context, adding his own meaning to it. Looking at the records we can see the following:

• The Constitutional Commission intended to protect life at its beginning.
  
  
• The Constitutional Commission avoided having to fix the moment of conception at any specific point.
  
  
• The Constitutional Commission resolved the issue by ASSUMING that conception begins at fertilization.
  
  
• The Constitutional Commission by making the above assumption, chose to err on the aside of caution; they decided to "TAKE THE SAFER APPROACH", as Commisioner Fr. Bernas noted.

Again, let me quote Fr, Bernas:

“The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception, that conception takes place at fertilization. There is however no attempt to pinpoint the exact moment when conception takes place. But while the provision does not assert with certainty when precisely human life begins, it reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.” (p.78 Bernas, J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Manila: 1996 ed.)

Indeed, the same authority’s opinion expressly recognizes that even the idea or concept of when “conception takes place” could not be defined or pinpointed by the Con Com.

As Bernas said, the desire was precisely NOT to pinpoint the exact moment of conception. The decision was to ASSUME that it began at fertilization since that was the safer approach.

What part of that can't you (and your quoted author) understand?

WHO IS LYING THRU OMISSION NOW? me? i don't think so...

YOU, of course. You are a PROVEN and CONSISTENT LIAR. And apparently you don't do very much thinking either.

you just cannot ban the use of condoms just because you believe it is against nature. You need not promote it, but should not ban it.

Trashing the RH bill will not ban condoms. There is no intent to ban condoms. The condom is not abortifacient. so there IS NOT any legal basis for banning it. You are just engaging in another strawman argument. A red herring.

you just cannot ban the use of oral contraceptives just because you believe it is abortifacient. You need not promote it, but should not ban it.

Wrong. Abortifacients are contrary tot eh Philippine Constitution. There IS therefore a legal basis for trashing the RH bill (which promotes abortifacient contraceptives).

But the RH bill will FORCE doctors to dispense abortifacient contraceptives, violating CIVIL RIGHTS and FREEDOM CONSCIENCE. You can use your selfish methods if you wish, but don't force others to help you do it.

The RH bill will also waste public money on providing free contraceptives that do NOT cure any disease. This takes scarce funds away from REAL medici9nes that cure REAL killer diseases.

our BFAD has been approving the use of contraceptives since time immemorial!

But the BFAD has NOT decided whether these contraceptives are abortifacient. That issue has not really been challenged at the BFAD level yet. Stopping the RH bill is a bigger priority since the bill will has more dangerous consequences than administrative decisions at the BFAD. You seem to forget that. Deceptively so. Truly you are a consistent liar.

btw, i have been profusely asking you about your "anti-abortifacient bill". you said you guys somehow have already submitted it in Congress. would you care then to show us some proof that you did?

HB 4643
http://buhaypartylist.com/house_bills.html#43

AN ACT BANNING THE USE, PRODUCTION, SALE, DISTRIBUTION OR DISPENSATION OF ABORTIVE DRUGS AND DEVICES, DEFINING THE SAME, PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFOR AND AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARTICLES 256 AND 259 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

You've shot yourself in the foot again!

This is just too easy...



“Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.” Proverbs 24:11
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute." Proverbs 31:8

[mannyamador]

Acton Commentary: Population and Poverty
May 30, 2007
by Michael Miller
http://www.acton.org/commentary/commentary385.php

Amid the hoopla surrounding the resignation of World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, few noticed another battle going on within the World Bank on the question of population. According to press reports Bank Managing Director and former Finance Minister for El Salvador, Juan Jose Daboub, came under fire for a memo he sent allegedly directing that reproductive health measures be removed from a World Bank package to Madagascar. He was accused of imposing his religious beliefs on long standing policies of the bank involving reproductive health and family planning.

European delegates from Belgium, Norway, Germany, and France along with various non-governmental organizations including Planned Parenthood, CARE International UK, and Global Population Education also opposed U.S. attempts to limit abortion as part of health care. With the Wolfowitz affair absorbing most of its energy, the United States yielded to European pressure and reversed its opposition to World Bank funding of sexual and reproductive health programs that include abortion.

The real issue is: Why is the World Bank funding abortions in the first place? Supported by 185 member countries — the United States is its largest donor — the World Bank has supplied funds to developing countries for 60 years. According to a World Bank memo this includes over $2 billion within the last 10 years for “reproductive health” which includes abortion. What does this agenda have to do with its mission to “Create a World Free from Poverty”?

Of course the common perception is that population growth causes poverty, so reducing population should also reduce poverty. But the facts do not bear this out. Neither do basic economics.

The idea that population growth causes poverty comes from the ubiquitous zero-sum-game fallacy: the idea that the economy is a pie with only so much to go around. But the economy is not a pie — economies can grow, and population growth can actually help development. A growing population means more labor, which along with land and capital are the main factors of production.

Behind much of the zero-sum thinking concerning population is the theory of Thomas Malthus, who in 1798 predicted the earth was heading for an impending food shortage because population was growing geometrically while the food supply was only increasing arithmetically. Thus, he predicted that the number of people would soon outstrip the food supply and lead to mass starvation by about 1850. Among his mistakes was the failure to account for technology — a product of human creativity.

Not only did Malthus’ prediction not come true; today there exist food surpluses despite the fact that the earth’s current population is six times what it was in 1850. Famines today are not caused by lack of food, but by corruption, war, and bad economic policies. Despite evidence to the contrary, anti-population forces still hold fast to Malthusian predictions and continue to see people solely as consumers inhibiting economic growth. But people do more than consume; they also produce. They innovate and create wealth.

Statistics show no real correlation between population and poverty. If population were a determinant of poverty, it would be hard to explain places such as Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and the Netherlands. All have high population densities and yet are wealthy. The United Kingdom has about three times the population density of Ghana, and eighty-one times the per capita GDP. There are many causes of poverty, but population is not one of them.

Despite the evidence, the World Bank continues lavishing American tax dollars on population control when that money could be put to better use on such things as infrastructure, telecommunications, and fighting corruption. Perhaps the World Bank has become captive to ideologues more concerned with the eugenic visions of Planned Parenthood than with actually helping families climb out of poverty.

Literally billions of dollars have been spent to reduce populations in developing countries, but have yielded no real economic progress. We know the factors that create economic growth and development: consistent rule of law for all citizens, property rights, sensible regulation, and a culture that encourages and rewards entrepreneurial behavior. These traits have never existed perfectly anywhere on earth, but the degree to which they have been present reflects the degree to which prosperity has been achieved. Conversely, where they remain absent — as in much of the developing world today — poverty and misery are found in their stead.

Many of the same people who protest the “cultural imperialism” of multi-national corporations like McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Wal-Mart vigorously support forcing the Western, secular sexual morality of contraception and abortion on women in Latin America, Africa and Asia — many of whom view them as moral evils and a violation of their dignity.

People can choose whether to eat a Big Mac or shop at Wal-Mart, but when foreign aid is made contingent on reproductive health policies that include abortion — and there is no choice — that is real cultural imperialism. It is ironic that Europe, the very continent facing an economic crisis because of population decline, is busily promoting its own disease as a panacea for what ails the developing world.



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

[mannyamador]

Ok, i can take the challenge...and to make it worth your while, i came up w/ a graph to show you (and to all istoryans).

This is HILARIOUS!

• Where is the data? What are the specific sources of your data so we can examine it? You gave three general sources, but no actual documents, so how do we know you aren't comparing apples to oranges? You could be hiding any number of errors by NOT providing the data and sources. This alone totally negates any value of your graphs,
  
  
• Did you make these graphs? What software did you use to create the graphs? Or did you ask someone to do it for you? or did you just pluck it off some other website without the data?
  
  
• How do you define poverty gap (which is the Y axis of your graph)?
  
  
• More importantly, what is your definition of a significant correlation? Zero, of course, means absolutely no correlation, which is a theoretical value.and doesn't happen often int he real world. So how do you define the threshold for a SIGNIFICANT correlation?
  
  Even your favorite source, Wikipedia, says this:
  
  
  Interpretation of the size of a correlation
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla..._a_correlation
  
  

  Correlation  Negative 	     Positive
  Small        −0.3 to −0.1   0.1 to 0.3
  Medium       −0.5 to −0.3   0.3 to 0.5
  Large        −1.0 to −0.5   0.5 to 1.0

  Several authors have offered guidelines for the interpretation of a correlation coefficient. Cohen (1988),[5] has observed, however, that all such criteria are in some ways arbitrary and should not be observed too strictly. This is because the interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and purposes. A correlation of 0.9 may be very low if one is verifying a physical law using high-quality instruments, but may be regarded as very high in the social sciences where there may be a greater contribution from complicating factors.
  
  Along this vein, it is important to remember that "large" and "small" should not be taken as synonyms for "good" and "bad" in terms of determining that a correlation is of a certain size. For example, a correlation of 1.0 or −1.0 indicates that the two variables analyzed are equivalent modulo scaling. Scientifically, this more frequently indicates a trivial result than a profound one. For example, consider discovering a correlation of 1.0 between how many feet tall a group of people are and the number of inches from the bottom of their feet to the top of their heads.

Your post is some of the most unbelievably SLOPPIEST RESEARCH I have ever encountered. Unless you can provide what's missing it proves NOTHING.

Except, perhaps that you don't know what you're talking about! You're probably scrambling now to find what you should have had from the beginning. That's hardly honest. But then since when could we expect any honesty from you?


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

[mannyamador]

Philippines population bill a waste of resources: think tank
(AFP) – Oct 2, 2008
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5..._e-MbpUl1p-N6Q


MANILA (AFP) — A bill seeking to impose population control in the Philippines is a waste of valuable resources that would be better ploughed into education and infrastructure, a conservative think-tank said Thursday.

The proposed law comes at a time when countries that adopted similar policies in the 1970s are reversing them as they start to worry about supporting their ageing populations, said the economists at Manila-based University of Asia and the Pacific.

Its chief economist Bernardo Villegas said controlling the population would be "demographic suicide," and would put the blame for widespread Philippine poverty with "people who are not yet even born".

The bill is about 12 votes shy of passing the House of Representatives, according to its principal author and House member Edcel Lagman.

However, it lacks the support of President Gloria Arroyo, a devout Roman Catholic who could theoretically veto it even if passed by the House and the Senate. Lagman said a dozen previous population bills over the past generation had been defeated.

The dominant Catholic church has threatened to excommunicate legislators who vote for the bill.

Under the proposed law the state would have to fund a population programme, teach it at schools and to couples intending to marry and have government hospitals offer contraceptives, vasectomies and tubal ligations, an operation that blocks the fallopian tubes.

It would require the state to "encourage two children as the ideal family size".

The Philippines has among the highest birth rates in Asia, with the population growing at around two percent annually and expected to top 100 million in five years.

Villegas told reporters solving poverty that binds a third of the population required improving the quality of basic education, curbing corruption and devoting state resources to developing the countryside, where the largest concentrations of poor live.

"The greatest impact of your peso is in educating women," said Roberto de Vera, another economist at the same school.

Villegas said international studies showed the growth of per capita income was related to school enrolment rates rather than population control.

"Countries with higher human capital also have lower fertility rates," he added.

Contrary to popular convention, he said the fertility rate of Filipino women had fallen from six children in 1975 to fewer than three.

Even without state intervention, the Philippine population would peak at 111 million in 2025, with a maximum population density of just 370 people per square kilometre (0.39 square miles), he added.

Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved.


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

[wakkanakka]

well, that only proves to show that mannyboy's deceptive influence has seeped already into your brain.

Maybe if you give better proofs and arguments, i would have been influenced by you. But no. People here keep showing you are lying. They keep disproving your proofs. In your last post you did not even give any data and itssources! Howcan anyone make ansalysis of your "proof"? So why should I lsiten to you?

The (@manny's) assertion that conception was fixed at fertilization by the Con Com is misleading when he quoted the following authority on the subject. It reads:

I dont think he said that. He showed the quote of Fr. Bernas. Were you at the Con Com? Was your other auhtor there? Bernas was there. So Bernas knows what they assumed asnd what they didnot.

This is from YOUR post:

“The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception, that conception takes place at fertilization. There is however no attempt to pinpoint the exact moment when conception takes place. But while the provision does not assert with certainty when precisely human life begins, it reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.” (p.78 Bernas, J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Manila: 1996 ed.)

Look at the first and second sentence! That is what @mannyamador is saying. And looking at the rest of your transcript, he is correct and oyu are wrong! And by the way, what is the url of your source? Why are oyu scared to give it?

WHO IS LYING THRU OMISSION NOW? me? i don't think so...

Bro, i think it has been shown that you were caught lying several so many times. Why should I believe you now?

[giddyboy]

I guess Wakkanakka was right about you being gay. Does your wife know? Well, you may wish to engage in that sort of thing, but please do not project your insecurities onto others.

OT:
hahaha. wakkanaka and u being her spokesperson r just guessing. if u want proof that i am not gay, you can come here to Cebu and watch me and my wife make love...that way, I can also prove I'm not insecure about my being a male. I am not even sure what "insecure" u r talking about. is it the size of my ehem? well, u r always welcome to take a delightful peek anytime....

and hey, if u come across any gigolo gwapos here in Cebu and take him for drinks and later in some private place offering "half chicken", i suggest don't forget to bring a condom just in case. but oh well, u r against the use of condoms ryt?...and take note: bringing w/ u a perfume canister is strongly not recommended. lisod raba kau na ipa abort...hahaha