Legalize Abortion?

**mannyamador** · 08-07-2009, 05:19 PM

Corazon Aquino's Proclamation 214: More Relevant than Ever Before
http://fightrhbill.blogspot.com/2009...-214-more.html

PROCLAMATION 214, 3 February 1988

Whereas, the UN Declaration on Rights of the Child provides that 'the Child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth';

Whereas, Section 12, Article 2 of the Constitution provides that it is the policy of the State to 'protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception';

Whereas, available statistics detail the frightening losses of innocent human lives by abortion; and

Whereas, in pursuance of the above constitutional mandate and in support of the UN universal declaration and in order to instill the same, as well as the value and sacredness of human life, in the minds and hearts of the Filipino people and thereby help reverse the above statistical trend, it becomes imperative to set aside a period of time for them to ponder and focus attention on their moral and constitutional obligations to protect human life or one's inherent right to life;

Now, Therefore, I, Corazon C. Aquino, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby declare the second week of February 1988 and every year thereafter as "Respect and Care for Life Week" under the auspices of the Department of Social Welfare and Development and Pro-Life Philippines, and other involved entities or organizations."

Text is also at:
http://www.popline.org/docs/1093/085757.html

NO TO ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL!

**mannyamador** · 08-07-2009, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by giddyboy

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.

That is NOT what is documented. Fr. Bernas stated an unequivocal FACT, not some mere suggestion. The Commission's intent was to protect life from fertilization. It assumed such because it wanted to take the safer approach. These are NOT mere suggestions; he has stated these as FACTS. It's all there in black and white, which I will quote AGAIN so everyone can see:

"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 the above statement can't you understand?

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!

The Constitution does NOT follow that "other" assumption, so ther eis no problem. It does not say "before conception." The Constitution follows the assumption stated above by Fr. Bernas. It assumes that life begins at fertilization so as to take the safer approach. It says "from conception".

You are making a nonsensical argument, You are clearly getting desperate now.

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

Having the transcript does NOT make you more credible than Fr. Bernas. That is the issue. The issue is NOT your opinion against Wakkanakka's; it is your opinion against the clear statement of fact from Fr,. Bernas.

And in that contest, YOU LOSE!

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?

We do NOT promote NFP for population control. YOU and the pro-RH fanatics are the ones who want population control. So, as a compromise, NFP is proposed. It does not mean we believe that there is a need for population control, but since YOU and your pro-RH fanatic cohorts want population control, this is the only morally acceptable means to accommodate your side.

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

We are not all philosophers here. As far as practical life is concerned, there is no real difference between a strong, regular correlation and a cause. See the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I posted the link earlier.

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.

If all you want is acknowledgment of a meaningless strong correlation, you don't need the RH bill at all. What the bill actually assumes is a specific kind of strong correlation wherein large family size (or population or whatever) has the effect of raising poverty (or poverty gap, etc.). But it precisely this kind of correlation that is NOT established.

You have just admitted you don't know which is the cause and which is the effect. Therefore, why should the government attempt to lower family size through contraceptives? if there is no need to lower family size, then why the nationwide contraceptive promotion in the RH bill? Why waste billions on promoting contraceptives? You are not making sense

well, yes manny is gay. that remains a fact unless she err he himself denies it.

Oh, all I need is to deny it? Well, ok. I am NOT gay. So by your logic, you have been proven wrong. You now owe me an apology for making an unfounded accusation. But perhaps you'll be too gay to make that apology. It takes a real man to do so.

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

That's just what you say. The truth could be very different. And you haven't answered my question: Does your wife know you want to make her into a porn star? Oh, and since you have this inexplicable compulsion to show of your "ehem", are you a gay exhibitionist as well?

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.

You still have not given us your geocities source. Why are you AFRAID to do so?

so u mean to say the Catholic schools are the only ones who do the right kind of teaching?

You're now putting words into another person's mouth. He said that the Church had the right kind of teaching fopr children. He did not say it was the ONLY good teaching. The point is that abstinence education works while contraceptive-promoting s3x education does NOT work (and it even is counterproductive).

Another very important point is that the RH bill seeks to impose its program of contraceptive-promoting s2x education on ALL schools. This was pointed out in a primer distributed to legislators, which I quote:

The RH Bill: An Act of Religious Persecution
http://fightrhbill.blogspot.com/2009...rsecution.html

In Section 12 of the RH Bill, we find that the POPCOM is mandated to enforce a common “reproductive health” curriculum in ALL schools (public and private), for Grade 5 to 4th Year High School. This curriculum, among others, will cover “Reproductive health and sexual rights” and “attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual health”.

Since when has it been the government’s task to impose a common curriculum on ALL schools (and, therefore, on all students) and to dictate what our young and impressionable children should THINK and BELIEVE regarding ***?

Not even in the most liberated Western countries do we see anything like this!

What is more frightening is that the curriculum will be imposed on ALL schools, without respect for the religion or philosophy of that school. Therefore, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim and Buddhist schools will all be FORCED to teach the SAME BELIEFS about *** and “reproductive health”. Furthermore, this curriculum and the beliefs contained in it will be dictated by POPCOM – an institution known for its public and systematic criticism of the Catholic Church, affiliated with ideologues from UP Diliman (who are not known for their friendliness to religions of any and all stripes).

c'mon. don't get self-righteous here. do u have a kid @wakkanaka? does @manny have a kid?

That is an Idiotic argument. Many of the pro-lifers who oppose this bill have kids too. That alone totally sinks your *****ic argument!

then he further said "The RH bill is by no means a perfect document...Neither, however, is the bill totally bad..."

We don't say it is TOTALLY bad either. If it were, it would never have even gotten past the committees. Hardly any bill is totally bad unless it contains only one provision (and that provision is bad). The problem is that the most important provisions of HB 5043 are bad. And Lagman and his pro-RH fanatics aren't willing to delete those provisions except maybe for some minor ones. The coercive and immoral provisions include Sections 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 21, 22, and 23 of the bill as written here.

So, when will you give us that geocities source? And when will you answer my questions about your deviant sexual proclivities?

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

**mannyamador** · 08-07-2009, 07:44 PM

THE GOSPEL, ACCORDING TO SWS
Friday, October 24, 2008
First Things First: THE GOSPEL, ACCORDING TO SWS

Now come the latest SWS surveys.

These are a fitting climax to the high-octane propaganda campaign on reproductive health (RH). In numerous forums, RH propagandists had repeatedly bragged about alleged surveys showing popular support for HB 5043, and warning politicians against the wrath of the voters should they fail to support it. They will never get reelected, according to the propagandists.

It is an old con game. In 1992, before the seat of my pants ever touched my chair in the Senate, I attended a workshop for newly elected senators. Out of the blue appeared SWS’s Mahar Mangahas with an alleged survey claiming that if a senator did not support the government;s family planning, he would never get reelected.

Then Mangahas said, “You see, Senator Tatad, there’s no such thing as a Catholic vote.”

To which I replied, “In a Catholic country where most candidates are Catholic, there is no such thing as a Catholic vote. But try running a candidate whose program is to destroy the Catholic faith, and you’ll have a Catholic vote against that candidate.”

That was 16 years ago, but very little has changed. The population control lobby is poorer now, with the collapse of the global financial system. But it can still fund surveys, and remains as determined as ever to change our concept of human life, marriage and the family, and prevent us from becoming a threat to the security and economic interests of our richest friends. And the local conscripts proliferate.

Their claim of popular support has no factual basis at all. In 2007. the biggest voter-getter among the party-list parties was “Buhay” which won the most number of seats in the House of Representatives on its pro-life, pro-family program. No other party won a single seat on the basis of an anti-life, anti-family program.

HB 5043 is losing ground, and SWS had to shore up its sagging fortunes. But the survey questions were so skewed that one wonders why they were made public at all. All you have to do is read those questions, and wonder why SWS failed to report a 100% support for the bill.

The question SWS asked about the HB 5043, according to SWS Media Release, is as follows:

Ang “Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2007” ay isang panukalang batas sa mababang kapulungan ng kongreso na magbibigay ng katungkulan sa gobyerno na magtaguyod ng programa ukol sa responsableng pagpapamilya o responsible parenthood sa pamamagitan ng sapat na impormasyon sa publiko at pagkakaroon ng mga ligtas, legal, mura at de-kalidad na serbisyong pang-reproductive health sa mga taong may gusto nito. Kayo ba ay PABOR o HINDI PABOR sa panukalang batas na ito?

It is devious. It neither mentions the basic provisions of the bill nor does it define the basic terms used. People expect “reproductive health” to promote reproduction, but in the bill it is meant to promote contraception instead. The intention to deceive is patent. SWS must have been disappointed it did not get a 100-% endorsement.

In the survey reportedly commissioned by Forum for Family Planning and Development, SWS asked the following questions (OpenDNS

1) “The usage of legal contraceptives like condoms, IUDs and pills can also be considered as abortion. Agree or disagree?”

It is also a devious one. While HB 5043 describes “artificial contraceptives” as “modern”, SWS describes them as “legal.” This subtly endorses the contraceptives as unobjectionable. Now, IUD is an abortifacient, some pills (not all) are also abortifacient, condoms are (barrier) contraceptives with a high rate of failure. No one is saying the use of condoms, IUD or pills is abortion; but by asking that question, SWS is suggesting it is one of the points of contention. Thus, SWS is able to claim points for contraceptives, etc. simply by creating a strawman for everyone to shoot down.

2) “There should be a law that requires gov’t to distribute legal contraceptives like condoms, IUDs, and pills to people who want to avail of them. Agree or Disagree?”

Again, “legal.” The respondent’s normal inclination is to think that if the contraceptives are legal, then the government should be able to distribute them. It is a clever way of skirting the moral and constitutional issues altogether. Again, the intention to deceive is patent.

3) “If family planning would be included in their curriculum the youth would be sexually promiscuous. Agree or disagree?”

Once more, it is an exercise in deception. No one is objecting to “family planning,” properly understood. What is objected to in this instance is the proposed“mandatory *** education” for children from Grade V until high school, without parental consent.” What is at issue is not just the kind of *** “education” to be imposed, but above all the right of parents as the primary educators of their children to decide what kind of *** education their children will get, where, and from whom?

The core issue is not about family planning at all. It is whether or not we shall allow the State to stamp its boot on our most basic human rights in the name of population control. This involves moral and constitutional issues which cannot be decided by any opinion survey, especially one conducted by pollsters who are themselves advocates of population control.

--
PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS! NO TO THE COERCIVE, ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043)!
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

**giddyboy** · 08-08-2009, 10:16 AM