Legalize Abortion?

[mannyamador]

---

You are still accusing someone of being gay without any proof?
...
BongGAYshoos ka day! [/SIZE]

Giddygay has been PWNED!!!!

Bro, you are making things up. As was already posted, an EYEWITNESS and PARTICIPANT (Commisisoner Fr. Bertnas) already explained what the Con-Com intended, and it was not what you are saying.

That is a VERY GOOD POINT! Giddygay's interpretation (and that of his geocities source which he so far is afraid to reveal) of the events DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THE CLAIM OF A PARTICIPANT IN THE EVENTS IN QUESTION!

Fr. Bernas was a Commissioner in the Constitutional Commission. Again, I will quote his clear and explicit statement:

"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." (p.78 Bernas, J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Manila: 1996 ed.)

What part of "conception takes place at fertilization" can't you understand, Giddygay?

This is an explicit, unequivocal, and very clear statement from a participant and an eyewitness to the events in question. Giddygay's mangled interpretation of the same events, however, directly contradicts the statement of Fr. Bernas, who explicitly stated that the intent of the Constitutional Commission was to protect life from conception and that the assumption is that conception takes place at fertilization.

Now, who is more credible? The participant who was there, or a partisan interpreter who was NOT there?

By the way, before you demonize Fr. Bernas with yet another smear campaign, remember that Nolledo writes that it was someone else who took the lead in making our Constitution very pro-life. Fr. Bernas, even though he is a priest, wasn't the one who did it. But Fr. Bernas is honest enough to admit the facts: that the Commission's intent was to protect life from fertilization. Fr. Bernas explicitly said so (see quote earlier).

the fact that a partylist group even drafted a bill "defining the beginning of human life", is one proof that your supposed assumption doesn't hold water. coz if it does, why even bother making a bill like that?

Because the Constitution ASSUMES that conception takes place at fertilization. The proposed bill DEFINES that conception takes place at fertilization. The two are similar, but different. Is it beyond your comprehension to see the difference between the two? Maybe you need to take English lessons.



“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]

Manny has a point, The RH bill is full of flaws. I'm starting to think twice about the bill.

I'm glad you have an open mind, sir. God bless!

[giddyboy]

Bro, you are making things up. As was already posted, an EYEWITNESS and PARTICIPANT (Commisisoner Fr. Bertnas) already explained what the Con-Com intended, and it was not what you are saying. The Fr. Bernas statement has been quoted so many times and it clearly says they wanted to protect life from the beginning. Do you know what beginnign means? It is not like the US where they wanted to protect from the 6th month or whatever other time. They intnended to protect HUMAN LIFE FROM THE BEGINNING!!!!

OMG! yes, i am not denying that Fr Bernas is an eyewitness and participant of the Con Com but we have to consider the other things that he said to get a proper context and also what the other Con Com members have deliberated too that arrived at their final say. besides, cya ba diay presidente or chairman sa Con Com? was there ever a vote printed in black and white on that "assumption"? how many did vote on that? I don't think there ever was.

niingon lagi atong Consti to protect life from the beginning. and what is the beginning mentioned in the Consti is "protection of unborn from conception" not "fertilization". and the term "conception" they leave it like that IN ORDER NOT TO FIX WHEN LIFE REALLY BEGINS! they don't want to fix it coz they want to leave it for science to determine!

and even if Fr Bernas said, "the assumption is that contraception is fertilization...we have to take the safer approach" is just an assumption, an opinion, or a suggestion. otherwise, the Con Com should have already replaced the word "conception" w/ "fertilization" na unta. u have to accept the fact that not even all people believe life begins at conception. some even believe life begins even before conception. so if we all follow that other assumption, even the use of condoms would make it unconstitutional!

now with regards to contraceptives whether they can cause abortion or not, it is up to science. it is up to couples being given w/ informed choice!

kanang imong gi imagine nga Philippines w/o contraceptives, that is next to impossible. even though the church is against all forms of contraceptives including the condom, some people would still like to have it whether u like it or not. that is their right as provided in our Constitution.

like i said, the RH Bill is a matter of national policy, and not of faith!

Like I just said, the Con-Com was even trying to do more than protect forem the US doctrine. They wanted (or intended) to protect life from the beginning. Commisioner Fr. Bernas said so and he was there. Were you there? Was your article source trhere?

i wasn't there. were u? at least i got copies of the original transcript of the Con Com deliberations. u don't.

What?!!! The studies posted here alreayd show that this kind of teaching does not work. You are going against the scientific evidences. This is stupid already!!!

what!!! in case u didn't know, birth control means all kind of methods whether NFP or MFP my friend. that also includes spacing of birth. so if u say it is stupid kind of teaching, then myt as well say NFP is also stupid kind of thinking diay!

Same thing bro. You are playing with words. That is almost like lying since you fool people with that. When you uise the birth control and make family size smaller, you are "manipulating" the size, gets? Sige, use another word if you like, but it is still the same. If making smaller the family size will not cause poverty to lessen, why bother doing it?

who si manipulating what? ang RH Bill diay ang mka manipulate sa family size sa usa ka magti-ayon? pag chure oi! ang magti-ayon ra ang mka manipulate or plan to what family size they want!

the RH Bill only encourages and promotes natural and modern family planning, just like what the church and pro-life groups are promoting natural family planning only! there is no imposition of how many kids a couple should have! it only said it encourages! and the basis why they encourage it is coz the stats show that a family size of 2 is the ideal size. it is even the basis for people who promote NFP! what part of that do u not understand?

if u say family size and poverty has no correlation, then why the hell are u even discussing and promoting NFP in the first place?

and sa kadugay na nato diri, wa gihapon ka ka gets between the difference between causal relationship and correlation?

If you say population control is needed to lessen poverty gap, poverty incidence, eck eck, then you are saying overpopualtion is not a myth anymore. Then you are contradicting yourself bro.what part of that do u not understand?

wala lagi ko gaingon nga pop control is needed to lessen poverty coz we do not know which is the cause and which is the effect but due to their strong correlation, the gov't has to acknowledge that correlation. mao mao rana sa pag correlate gud between corruption and poverty. we don't know which is the cause and which is the effect, but nevertheless, we have to acknowledge the relationship.

You are still accusing someone of being gay without any proof? So my uncle is also gay because he is over 50 and not married? That is really stupid! You must be the one gay. Naa crush ka kay @mannyamador, no? BongGAYshoos ka day!

OT:
well, yes manny is gay. that remains a fact unless she err he himself denies it. one friend of mine found him on facebook and showed it to me. remember the saying that goes, "a picture paints a thousand words"? do u want the url for that perhaps?

and mind u, babaye akoang gusto, dili lalake...that is a fact.

by the way, i was wrong on the source of Fr Bernas statement. it was actually taken from inquirer.net. the rest came from other sources.

and by the way also, here’s an interesting development: The Iglesia Ni Cristo has voiced support for the RH bill.

The catholic schools also teach about that *** and values, but they do the right kind of teaching.

so u mean to say the Catholic schools are the only ones who do the right kind of teaching? wow grabe!
what is the term "age-appropriate" s3x education do u not understand?

c'mon. don't get self-righteous here. do u have a kid @wakkanaka? does @manny have a kid? i don't think so. But i do. and do u think all those 130 legislators who support the RH Bill doesn't have kids? do u think they would just pass a s3x education policy without thinking about the welfare of their constituents' children and even the welfare of their own children too? pasabta kno ko why they have to worry on an education policy that they just supported...

---000---

In Fr. Bernas' inquirer article titled: "The many faces of the RH bill"

he even said, "It is difficult for many, myself included, to be totally for or totally against the RH bill because it has many faces."

then he further said "The RH bill is by no means a perfect document...Neither, however, is the bill totally bad. There are provisions in the bill which seek to answer the crying needs of women and important needs of young people, especially among the poor.

full article:
The many faces of the RH bill - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

[giddyboy]

All local opinion polls support the RH bill
By Mahar Mangahas
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:03:00 06/27/2009

THE TRULY reliable way for legislators to know how their constituents feel about an issue is to consult scientific opinion polls about it in their areas. This is increasingly possible in the case of the Reproductive Health bill, on which Social Weather Stations did a national survey of adults in September 2008, followed by surveys of persons of reproductive age in Manila, Parañaque and Cebu, from December 2008 to March 2009. The national survey and all three local polls showed great support for the bill.

Now, new local survey data on reproductive health is available from the Bohol Poll, run by Holy Name University (HNU). The new Bohol Poll was done over April 7 to May 9, 2009, using face-to-face interviews of 400 adults, for an error margin of plus or minus 5 percent. It was the poll’s 16th round since it started in 1997, following training by SWS of researchers at HNU’s predecessor, the Divine Word College of Tagbilaran.

The new Bohol Poll took up the issue of reproductive health on its own initiative and with its own resources. It used the exact phrasing of a number of SWS survey questions on the topic, to enhance comparison of the results to those of the earlier surveys. (Asked for permission, SWS said it is pleased to be copied and that permission is unnecessary.) The results cited here are from the Bohol Poll’s press kit.

Most Boholanos (46 percent, the plurality since there are many fence sitters, who neither agree nor disagree) say that “there is a problem of population growth in the province.” This is less dominant than the 69 percent in Manila, 60 percent in Parañaque, and 62 percent in Cebu who agree that population growth is a problem in their areas.

There are 54 percent in Bohol who agree that “population growth increases poverty incidence.” This is strong, yet not as strong as the percentages in Manila (74) Parañaque (71), and Cebu (69).

Those who agree that “population growth worsens environmental degradation” are a plurality of 43 percent in Bohol, and are majorities of 69 percent in Manila, 65 percent in Parañaque, and 62 percent in Cebu.

The percentages who agree that students aged 15-24 should be given adolescent health education in school are very large in Bohol (84), Manila (92), Parañaque (87), and Cebu (8. So are the percentages who agree that young people aged 15-24 should be given family planning information and services – 75 in Bohol, 89 in Manila, 86 in Parañaque, and 86 in Cebu.

All areas have majority percentages who disagree that an unmarried pregnant woman should stop going to school – 62 in Bohol, also 62 in Manila, 56 in Parañaque, and 54 in Cebu.

Most Boholanos disagree that condoms (57 percent), IUDs (55 percent) and pills (54 percent) are means of abortion. Cebuanos who disagree that they amount to abortion are 53, 52 and 50 percent for each method respectively. The results in Bohol and Cebu are similar to the disagreement of 56 percent in Manila, 53 percent in Parañaque, and 50 percent in the Philippines, from an earlier single question grouping condoms, IUDs and pills together instead of asking about each separately. Thus it is clear that condoms, IUDs and pills equally pass the “abortion objection” in the eyes of the public.

Those who feel that the Church interferes in the government program on reproductive health are only a plurality in Bohol (48 percent), compared to outright majorities in Manila (62 percent), Parañaque (66 percent), and Cebu (62 percent).

full article:
All local opinion polls support the RH bill - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

NO TO ABORTION!
YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!

[giddyboy]

By the way, before you demonize Fr. Bernas with yet another smear campaign,

don't get me wrong here mannygirl. i have no intention to "demonize" Fr. Bernas. criticizing some of his opinion is different from demonizing. but here u r again playing w/ propagandistic words by stereotyping tactic.

I even said, "While we should respect the opinion of the church, the RH Bill is a matter of national policy and not of faith". is that demonizing? I don't think so.

for all i know, perhaps u r just imagining angels and demons in ur own little world my friend. gawas pud panagsa.

you want criticisms against Fr. Bernas? here's a few from posters (hey i think one even got a comment from you). and they're not even close to "demonizing" as what u wanted to portray:

CRITICISMS

(1) "The media savvy lawyer and priest, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., who wrote his opinion on the RH Bill does not augment Fr. Nebres’ kind of spirituality at all. He chose to skin the cat in many ways, replete with ifs and buts, hence the good father was disabled from making a truly Catholic stand on morality. Me thinks Fr. Bernas is too fascinated with life in a pluralistic society. He chose to be a politically correct constitutionalist first, an ordained Catholic priest second." ~ Minyong Ordoñez, retired chair of Publicis Group of Companies, and an Ateneo alumnus, High School 1955 and Bachelor of Science in Journalism 1961.

(2) To Light a Fire
Many of us Catholics, particularly those opposed to RH Bill No. 5043 and who have read the most recent Sounding Board columns of Jesuit priest and lawyer-constitutional law specialist Joaquin G. Bernas in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, must be extremely puzzled - - to say the least.

His latest column yesterday, November 3, 2008 initially seemed to be an evenhanded commentary centering on “what more deeply divides us is how the relationship between religion (in general) and government should be structured”. He started off by saying that religion has “provided many of the values which guide government policy about the human person”.

But in the next paragraph Jesuit Bernas showed his obvious unevenhandedness by sarcastically ALLEGING that: “But there are also those who seek to persuade government to adopt values not commonly held and to impose them on others. In a sense they seek to promote an evangelical (fundamentalist?) government. In the current controversy, the evangelizing Catholics among them, for instance, would favor legislating Humanae Vitae”. (emphasis added)

I will try to tackle those sarcastic Bernas ALLEGATIONS, because such are even more patently and demonstrably FALSE....

...Contrary to what Joaquin Bernas alleges therefore, it is NOT us Catholics opposed to the Bill who “seek to persuade government to adopt (our) values…. (in order) to impose them on others”, BUT it is in fact the RH Bill authors and sponsors who have filed the Bill who wish to impose by a new LAW even if unconstitutional, their contrary values on us the so-called evangelizing Catholics.

...Furthermore, Joaquin Bernas the lawyer is perhaps wittingly or unwittingly making such so-called “evangelizing Catholics” look like *****s from his legal profession’s point of view, because of his claim that such Catholics “would favor legislating Humanae Vitae”.

...In short, this supposedly Catholic priest’s extremely puzzling legal advice to us Catholics is similar to that given by cynics to potential rape victims…. “Relax and cooperate!” or else “convince the rapist that you do not deserve such a fate!” Reductio ad absurdum…

There is however one Bernas statement I fully agree with: that it would be “interesting to see what the result would be if all members of the (local Catholic) hierarchy were to be polled about the (RH Bill) subject.”

source:
To Light a Fire !: Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. and RH Bill No. 5043

YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!!!

[slyder10]

NO TO ABORTION AND YES TO RHB. Population control is better than abortion.

I hope the lawmakers can create a specific law on real population control, like creating a no marriage no child policy for those who can't afford to support such.

[giddyboy]

I hope the lawmakers can create a specific law on real population control, like creating a no marriage no child policy for those who can't afford to support such.

don't hope on that. it is against democracy. what we can only do is promote and encourage family planning, inform about reproductive health, and provide welfare and care for the poor children from parents who can't afford to take care of them.

i say we strengthen instead the law against child abuse and human trafficking.

AND YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!

[giddyboy]

i find the poll highly misleading. obviously the votes is "NO to abortion". however, the implication that the RH Bill has something to do with abortion is deceitful and, IMHO, replete with paranoia.

korek! daghan nata nakakita ana pre but saunz in denial man ang author.

that's another minus point against the poll maker....

[real_matrix24]

abortion - kill - ten commandments

[mannyamador]

Alleged support for RH bill called 'wishful and fanciful'
(philstar.com) Updated July 15, 2009 12:00 AM
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx...CategoryId=135

MANILA, Philippines - The executive director of the Bishops Legislators Caucus of the Philippines (BLCP) has described as “completely wishful and fanciful” a claim attributed to Congressman Edcel Lagman saying that 130 congressmen now support the “patently unconstitutional” House Bill 5043, otherwise known as the Reproductive Health bill.

Fenny C. Tatad said the promoters of the bill “are obviously trying to create some kind of bandwagon effect with their false claim. The truth, however, is that more and more lawmakers have come to realize the moral and constitutional defects of the bill and are not ready to face the electorate next year with a record of having supported a bill that is immoral, unconstitutional and harmful to women.”

A big number of those who had originally supported the RH bill have since withdrawn their support after having been briefed about the moral, constitutional and scientific infirmities of the bill, Tatad said.

Contrary to the claims of RH advocates that the bill promotes women’s health, Tatad said artificial contraceptives have been shown to be harmful to women. They could even prove lethal. The World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer has cited scientific studies that classify certain oral contraceptives as highly carcinogenic.

The studies have shown increased risks to contraceptive users of breast, liver and cervical cancer. Intra-uterine devices which the bill promotes are clearly abortifacient and could create serious health complications for women.

Beyond health risks, the bill compels Catholic taxpayers to fund a birth control program that is opposed to the teachings of their faith. This violates the right to religious freedom, which is guaranteed by the Constitution.

The bill compels schools, private and public, to include family planning education programs in the grade school curriculum starting from Grade 5 to prepare schoolchildren for contraceptive use when they reach reproductive age. This violates the right of parents as the primary educators of their children to educate them according to their moral and religious beliefs. Under this bill, the State will now provide sexual education for minors outside of and contrary to their moral and religious beliefs.

The bill requires conscientious moral objectors to refer cases they reject on moral grounds to other professionals who have no such objections. This violates not only the Constitution but also international standards on conscience protection.

The bill also violates the citizen’s freedom of speech as criticisms against this bill, if it becomes law, could result in the critic’s imprisonment and fines. This usually happens in totalitarian regimes, Tatad pointed out.