Legalize Abortion?

[giddyboy]

---

That's the same BS. Why is there an "ideal" family size if the family size cannot be shown to cause a change in poverty gap (or whatever other factor)? You are not making sense.

what doesn't make sense is actually your question.

"data from the 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey conducted by the NSO show that the mean ideal number of children is largest for women belonging to the lowest economic status, ranging from 3.5 for the lowest quintile to 2.7 for the highest quintile. (Table 5). Not surprisingly, the mean ideal number of children is also largest for women with the least education: from 4.6 for women with no education to 2.8 for women with at least college education."

AND THAT'S NO BS!

source:
NSCB - Statistically Speaking... The Poor Have Bigger Families: A Matter of Choice or Circumstance? by Dr. Romulo A. Virola

i guess you can't distinguish between a correlation and a mean & quintile data, do you? abi ba nko statistician ka mannygirl. murag statistician raman diay...

NO to abortion!
Take Action!
YES to the Reproductive Health Bill!!!

[mannyamador]

NO to this Bill!
they should be focusing on improving the lives of the Filipino people!

Right you are!!!

This so-called RH bill WASTES scarce funds on providing free contraceptives which do not cure any disease.

Doing so, of course, takes away funds that could be used to provide medicines to treat real killer diseases. That says a lot about the skewed priorities of the pro-RH fanatics. They would rather let people die just so they can continue to engage in their selfish and irresponsible desires (while forcing others to foot the bill).



--
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)

[drezzel86]

ok ra.........

[mannyamador]

what doesn't make sense is actually your question.

Wrong again. It is your conclusions (about the need for the RH bill) that are senseless.

All your BS about family size points nowhere unless you can show it causes something. But your own source (Virola) blew you away by openly admitting this could not be determined.

As YOUR OWN SOURCE pointed out, family size has NOT been determined to cause poverty gap (or poverty incidence). So what is the point in attempting to change it?

It seems you are totally incapable of grasping the significance (or lack thereof) of a statistical correlation. That is why you contradict yourself by admitting increased family size cannot cause increased poverty gap, and then stupidly claim we we need to engage in birth control to somehow help alleviate poverty. That is nonsensical.

All your frantic data-twisting will only mean something if you can show some form of causal relationship between large family size, high population growth, etc. on one hand, and high poverty, slow economic development, etc. on the other. You have FAILED to do so. MISERABLY.

By the way, NFP is also used to INCREASE the likelihood of pregnancy, and to increase the number of children (through more births, obviously).

And where is that "source" of yours? The one who made the ridiculous interpretation of the Records of the Constitutional Commission? You know, the one who haven't been man enough to even provide a link to (you first your post it was in geocities and now you claim it was from the Inquirer). Either way, where is it? Why are you so chicken? Could it be that this "source" is your only reference to the transcript (it's the only part you've ever quoted)? Have some honesty and be a real man by providing the link to the source, or admit you're a LIAR. You've already been proven to be one anyway. Several times!



--
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]

Will the Proposed Reproductive Health Bill do us Good or Not?
September 18th, 2008
http://grannymaria.blog.friendster.c...s-good-or-not/

A Position Paper AGAINST H.B. 5043 (Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood and Population Development Act of 200 As introduced by Honorable Edcel C. Lagman

To our Honorable Legislators,

We are one with you in our pursuit to alleviate poverty and to seek solution to move the country towards economic progress. We are respectfully submitting to you the findings of our study. These affirmed and substantiate our stand that H.B. 5043 does not give us the right solutions to our real problems.

Respecfully,

Faith Buenaventura M.D.
Lili Rose Embuscado, MS Pharmacology, UP Manila
Dess Narvaez, BS Economics, UP Diliman
Mihlgrace Samonteza, BS Architecture, University of Santo Tomas
Sherla Najera, UP Diliman Faculty
Cherry Cristobal, UP Diliman School of Statistics Faculty
Paulyn Duman, UP Diliman College of Law
Sopfia Guira, UP Diliman College of Law
Celine Socrates, BS Political Science, UP Diliman
Isabel Diaz, BS Education, UP Diliman
Ingrid Silapan, BS Computer Science, UP Diliman
Pia Lorenzo, BS Home Economics, UP Diliman
Camille Diola, BA Journalism, UP Diliman
Sofie Im, BS Biology, UP Diliman
Noreen Bautista, BS Computer Technology Management, Ateneo
Berna Angangco, BS Political Science, Ateneo
Kathy Navarrete, BS Management Engineering, Ateneo
Yna Shalimar Sta.Maria, BA Humanities, Ateneo

15 September 2008


The proposed Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008 promotes the universal access to reproductive health care services to reduce the growth of our increasing population and thereby reducing poverty.

1. The first question is, is the population significantly increasing?

The proposed bill assumes that our population growth rate is increasing. However, statistics show otherwise. According to data from the National Statistics Office (NSO), the average population growth rate in the period 2000 to 2007 in 2.04 and the lowest since the 1960s. Furthermore, it is decreasing over the years and the projected average annual population growth rate for the period 2005 to 2010 is 1.95 percent. Based on these facts, it is evident that there is no need for this measure to reduce the claimed increasing population.

(National Statistics Office Manila page last updated April 21, 2008. POPULATION CENSUS 2007 PRESS RELEASE)


2. If there is a decrease in the average population growth rate, why is it so crowded in Manila?

There are more people in the National Capital Region and other highly urbanized cities located in Metro Manila. NSO declared that “Calabarzon, NCR, and Central Luzon comprised more than one-third of total population”. As opposed to this, twelve other regions have population growth rates below the national figure, 2.04%. One cannot conclude the problem of overpopulation with only the basis of a few urbanized cities which are indeed populous.


3. Do we really become poor with more people?

The Filipinos are not fairly distributed in all parts of the country, leaving some places congested, and others with few inhabitants. Just take a look at how congested Manila is, with 14 million people as of 2000, and how the province of Southern Leyte only has 360,160 Filipinos (NSO, 2000 Census of Population and Housing), considering a land area of 1,734 km2, a lot bigger than Manila’s (38.3 km2 ) We say that the appropriate indicator to use in order to make valid comparisons is population density (i.e. population per unit of land area).

Still, even with this appropriate gauge, one still cannot use a country’s population density as the scapegoat for poverty. Using this indicator one would find, for example, that Belgium has a very high population density, Pakistan is in the middle, and Somalia ranks very low. Of these countries, Belgium is not the one with the most difficulties. Nor does Somalia have the fewest. Clearly, just looking at population or even population density, tells us very little about a society’s problem, all the more how it causes poverty in the country.

The problem here is not overpopulation, but defective resource allocation and unequal wealth distribution. It is not scarcity that we’re facing, because it is not experienced by the entire population. 1% of the country’s population owns more than 50% of the country’s wealth, while the majority who are below poverty line are the once facing scarcity.

As Mahatma Gandhi says, “there are enough resources in the world to satisfy everyone’s need but not enough resources to satisfy one man’s greed.”


4. Are the artificial contraceptive methods safe?

There are three types of contraceptives as presented to the medical students of the University of the Philippines Manila-PGH in 2005 by Dra. Leah Zamora of the Philippine Obstetrical and Gynecological Society:

• Type: hormonal
  
  
  Examples: oral, injectables, implants, and patch
  
  Effects:
  
  Oral (pill)- Weight gain, Nausea, vomiting, Headache, Menstrual changes, Increased cervical mucus, Vulvovaginitis/vaginal discharge, UTI, Decreased breast milk, Breast changes / tenderness, Change in sexual desire, Depression, Skin problems, Hyperpigmentation, Acne, Gum inflammation, Cramps, Risk of cancer after 5 years of use, risk for birth defects
  
  Oral (Mini-pill) - Ectopic pregnancy, Functional ovarian cysts
  
  Injectable (Depo-Provera) Prolonged amenorrhea, Abnormal uterine bleeding, Delayed return of fertility after discontinuation of use, Loss of bone density in long-time users
  
  Implant (Norplant) - Same as oral contraceptives, Blood clots formation
  
  
• Type: mechanical methods
  
  
  Examples: IUD, Condom, Diaphragm, and Spermicides
  
  Effects:
  
  IUD - Uterine perforation during insertion, Uterine cramping / bleeding upon insertion, Heavy or prolonged menstruation, Higher incidence of anemia, ectopic pregnancy, Pelvic infections, Pelvic abscess / septic abortions, infertility, sterility, and DEATH, sterilizing infection, risk of HIV infection, IUD displacement / expulsion,
  
  Condom - Latex sensitivity,
  Contraceptive failure due to Slippage and displacement rate: 8%
  Breakage rate (latex): 1.1%
  Breakage rate (polyurethane): 7.2%
  
  Diaphragm - UTI,
  Toxic Shock Syndrome, Ulceration of the vagina, Latex sensitivity
  
  Spermicides - Burning sensation, Irritation of the vagina,
  
  
• Type: permanent sterilization
  
  
  Examples: tubal ligation, hysterectomy, vasectomy
  
  Effects:
  
  Tubal ligation - Anesthetic complications, Injury to the uterus or, around the fallopian tubes, Hemorrhage / hematoma, Sepsis (infection), Pulmonary embolism (rare), Death
  
  Hysterectomy - Anesthetic complications, Injury to structures near the uterus, Urinary tract injury, Greater intra-operative blood loss, Infection, Psychological effects, Loss of libido, Death, Hemorrhage / hematoma
  
  Vasectomy - Sterility is not immediate, Sterilization failure (<1%), Unprotected intercourse soon after the procedure, Incomplete occlusion of the vas Recanalization, Hematoma (5%), Infection, Congestive epididymitis, Sperm granuloma

5. Does s3x education really help?

“Despite increasing provision of school *** education, teenage sexual health in the United Kingdom is in overall decline, with increasing rates of abortions and sexually transmitted infections in under 18s outweighing recent modest reductions in conception rates in this age group. Counter intuitively, rather than improving sexual health, *** behavior interventions can make it worse. ..Evidence shows that increased knowledge is a necessary but insufficient cause of change in sexual behaviour.It is also clear that strategies such as promoting availability and correct use of condoms and increasing use of the emergency pill do not necessarily lead to a reduction in sexually transmitted disease rates,pregnancies, or terminations. (Stammers, Trevor. “Sexual Health in Adolescents”BMJ (British Medical Journal) 2007;334:103-104 (20 January)) Likewise, *** education in American schools has not helped decrease the teenager incidence of venereal diseases nor teenage pregnancy. This is because it has not changed their *** habits. According to Marion Wright Elderman, President of the Children’ Defense Fund, in a recent report, out of every twenty teens, ten are sexually active but only four use conceptions, two get pregnant and one gives birth. In 1982, a John Hopkins study found one out of every five 15 year olds, and one in three 16 year olds are sexually active. The incidence increased to 43% in 17 year olds. The Louis Harris poll in 1986 found that 57% of the nations 17 year olds, 46% of 16 year olds, 29% 15 year old were sexually active.

6. What is the correlation between poverty and corruption?

Widespread corruption enabled by weaknesses in the political framework and mismanagement in different branches of government adversely affects country’s economic progress. “Where corruption pervades the economy, as it does in the Philippines, it distorts the whole economy. Rent seeking is more predominant than profit making. People believe that the best way to generate wealth is to take from someone else or from the government instead of producing it themselves. Business people who prefer to operate outside the circuits of corruption suffer because corruption creates uncertainties in the business environment.”

(Shiela Coronel, ed. Pork and other Perks: Corruption and Governance in the Philippines, (Quezon City: PCIJ ,The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, c199, p.15-16) .


7. Do we have existing laws to alleviate poverty?

The legislation of this bill is unnecessary in achieving its goal of alleviating poverty, mainly because there are already current law provisions and government/non-government organizations that address this problem. As an example, the “Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act” is a policy that aims to alleviate poverty through a “multi-dimensional and cross-sectoral approach which recognizes core values, cultural integrity and spiritual diversity of target sectors and communities.” A better solution is to strengthen these existing policies and organizations that fight poverty.


CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This primer has tackled five areas namely, demographic, medical, economic, education and governance, to affirm our stand against H.B .5043.

We conclude that :

• The Reproductive Bill is not the solution to poverty.
  
  
• There is no overpopulation in the country.
  
  
• There is no causal link between poverty and population increase; but there is an evident correlation between poverty and corruption.
  
  
• Contraceptives are not only harmful, they could lead to deaths.
  
  
• S3x education does not reduce teenage pregnancies and prevent the spread of STD’s

We strongly recommend that the government:

• Redirect the 33.3Billion peso-RH budget to strengthening existing laws, institutions, NGO’s for poverty alleviation (i.e. Gawad Kalinga House and Community Education Programs, Groups and initiatives on Microfinance, Republic Act 8425 “Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act”, approved on December 11,1997)
  
  
• Decentralize urbanization; Develop rural areas to reduce dense population in urbanized cities in NCR
  
  
• Promote Natural Family Planning and Responsible Parenthood Programs
  
  
• Encourage Parental Intervention in s3x education

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)

[Jerry Michael]

I am against abortion. The over population theory is a myth that is designed to pinned the blame of our nation's abject poverty to the Filipino masses. A red herring.

I like this quote from Manny Amador's post...that pretty much sums it up.

As Mahatma Gandhi says, “there are enough resources in the world to satisfy everyone’s need but not enough resources to satisfy one man’s greed.”

[I-lab-Iero]

For me NO.....

[mannyamador]

of course it can't. but the RH Bill can. The RH Bill is not all about "birth control" u know. and this was confirmed by Likhaan saying the Reproductive health bill could reduce maternal mortality in Philippines.

That's just propaganda. The RH bill is practically all about POPULATION CONTROL through artificial and coercive means -- and little else!

For example, it was pointed out in An International Open Letter in Response to the 14 Signatories of the Ateneo Statement that the bill's fancy words on Maternal and ObGyn health were just lip service:

“Finally, it must be emphasized that there are two sections in the bill that should be applauded and expanded. Both Section 6 and Section 7 call for the expansion of midwives and birth attendants, as well as greater access to obstetric care. Such measures are critical to reducing maternal mortality and making progress toward the Millennium Development Goals, particularly MDG 5 (maternal health) and MDG 4 (infant health). Healthy mothers are the critical factor in assuring infant and child health.[11]

”Unfortunately, these two sections are the weakest in the bill. Most of the reproductive health proposals of the bill are mandatory and supported through financial means, as well as through the creation of new government agencies to assure implementation. Sections 6 and 7 of the Bill, which provide the only concrete health care and services to prevent or eliminate maternal mortality, are not mandatory, and the bill earmarks neither institutional support systems nor finances for their implementation. The POPCOM, which is established in Section 5 to implement and oversee the commitments outlined in the bill, has nine specific areas related to reproductive health and reproductive health services, yet no explicit mention of any responsibility in the area of maternal and ObGyn care. This most important section of the bill – and the only section actually consistent with Catholic social teaching – has been entirely neglected in the allocation of responsibilities to the agency established to oversee its implementation.

and labeling the RH Bill as a "birth control" measure is a misnomer. The bill is principally about rights, health and sustainable human development. and if u call this BS,

That's because it IS all BS. This was even recognized as such by a consensus of medical experts:

Med experts slam birth-control bill
http://www.varsitarian.net/news/med_...h_control_bill

BIOETHICS experts, doctors, and other health professionals criticized Reproductive Health Bill 5043 for reducing maternal health into a matter of “pregnancy prevention” or fertility control and for styling itself as anti-abortion while promoting birth-control methods that are “potentially abortifacient agents.”

Their Consensus statement on Reproductive Bill 5043 states:

2. There is a need to address the present problems in reproductive health. We are all of the same intention in protecting the mother during her reproductive years. This bill, however does not address/answer these problems in a holistic manner. It focuses mainly on pregnancy prevention. It must consider the rights of others involved specifically the unborn and those tasked with their care.

well, u just answered it yourself! well, only partially though. but not only that. it's also the lack of family planning and knowledge thereof.

Wrong again. Those are NOT the primary causes of high maternal mortality. The bill focuses on the MOST INEFFECTIVE means of addressing the problem (if it addresses them at all) while almost ignoring the most effective ones. Again, the medical experts spoke out on this:

Med experts slam birth-control bill
http://www.varsitarian.net/news/med_...h_control_bill

The experts added the bill paints an exaggeratedly bleak picture of maternal mortality to press the need for birth control.

Dr. Victoria Edna Monzon, chairwoman of Medicine’s Department of Bioethics, said that based on Department of Health figures in 2007, “nowhere could you find maternity problems as part of the top seven diseases that kill mothers.”

While not addressing the top maternal diseases, the bill would rather focus on fertility control, Monzon said.

“The bill is anti-poor, anti-family, anti-couple, anti-parent, anti-nature, and above all, anti-life,” she said.

Citing World Bank data, Monzon said that the most common causes of maternal mortality are malnutrition and the absence of pre-natal and post-natal check-ups.

“These causes are the things that (lawmakers) have to look into instead of legislating a birth-control bill,” she said.

Fr. Fausto Gomez, O.P., president of the Southeast Asian Center for Bioethics and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life of the Holy See, said maternal health problems should be solved not by an “anti-birth policy” but by “means that are socially and economically based.”

So, the RH will NOT effectively address high maternal mortality at all!

What are the primary causes of maternal deaths?

Look at your own list. NOWHERE does it cite pregnancy as a disease or main cause of maternal mortality.

You just SHOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT AGAIN!

The RH Bill is a health measure...and by improving that rights and health, you are also improving the lives of the Filipino people!

If the RH bill were a REAL health measure, that would be great. But as the doctors have pointed out, HB 5043 is really a POPULATION CONTROL measure disguised as a health measure.

HB5043 is an anti-health measure that sucks up billions of pesos that could have been spent fighting real killer diseases, and instead WASTES them on purely ELECTIVE (not medically necessary) devices and concoctions things that do NOT cure any disease.

The RH Bill is a matter of national policy and not of faith.

Public policy must be moral policy that truly benefits the people, not just a few greedy trapos and foreign-backed NGOs.

The RH bill is idiotic, greedy, and deadly policy. It is a rotten deception to get public money into the pockets of population control NGOs and their lapdog trapo politicians. It is up to people of faith to point out the bill's immoral and unconstitutional provisions, its coercive means, and to say NO!

TAKE ACTION PEOPLE! DUMP THE TRAPOS BACKING THE RH BILL. TELL THEM YOU SUPPORT OUR PRO-LIFE CONSTITUTION AND REJECT THEIR STUPID, ANTI-LIFE RH BILL.

I don't mean like a fistfight, a gun duel or something like that but just like an EB, perhaps over coffee.

Well, that's not a problem as I am very easy to find. I wonder, however, how will it disprove the mutual accusations? But sure, let's see how it works out.



--
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)

[jennilexshop]

no dili jud yatap jud kung in ana

[giddyboy]

here is another article that belies the claims of pro-life fanatics that abstinence-only education works better than comprehensive *** education (providing both abstinence and contraceptive information).

Birth control education

Many teenagers, most commonly in developed countries, receive some form of *** education in school. What information should be provided in such programs is hotly contested, especially in the United States and United Kingdom. Possible topics include reproductive anatomy, human sexual behavior, information on sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), social aspects of sexual interaction, negotiating skills intended to help teens follow through with a decision to remain abstinent or to use birth control during ***, and information on birth control methods.

One type of *** education program used mainly in the United States is called abstinence-only education, and it promotes complete sexual abstinence until marriage. The programs do not encourage birth control, often provide inaccurate information about contraceptives and sexuality[54], stress failure rates of condoms and other contraceptives, and teach strategies for avoiding sexually intimate situations. Advocates of abstinence-only education believe that the programs will result in decreased rates of teenage pregnancy and STD infection. In a non-random, Internet survey of 1,400 women who found and completed a 10-minute multiple-choice online questionnaire listed in one of several popular search engines, women who received *** education from schools providing primarily abstinence information, or contraception and abstinence information equally, reported fewer unplanned pregnancies than those who received primarily contraceptive information, who in turn reported fewer unplanned pregnancies than those who received no information.[55] However, randomized controlled trials demonstrate that abstinence-only *** education programs increase the rates of pregnancy and STDs in the teenage population.[56][57] Professional medical organizations, including the AMA, AAP, ACOG, APHA, APA, and Society for Adolescent Medicine, support comprehensive *** education (providing abstinence and contraceptive information) and oppose the sole use of abstinence-only *** education.[58][59]

footnotes:
54. ^ Connolly, Ceci (2004-12-02). "Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says". The Washington Post: p. A01. Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says (washingtonpost.com). Retrieved on 2008-05-23.

55. ^ Williams MT, Bonner L (2006). "*** Education Attitudes and Outcomes Among North American Women". Adolescence 41 (161): 1–14. PMID 16689438. http://www.brainphysics.com/research...lliams2006.pdf.

56. ^ DiCenso A, Guyatt G, Willan A, Griffith L (2002). "Interventions to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents: systematic review of randomised controlled trials". BMJ 324 (7351): 1426. doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7351.1426. PMID 12065267.

57. ^ American Psychological Association (February 23, 2005). "Based on the research, comprehensive *** education is more effective at stopping the spread of HIV infection, says APA committee". Press release. Comprehensive *** Education is More Effective at Stopping the Spread of HIV Infection. Retrieved on 2006-08-11.

58. ^ Kaplan, David W. (2002). "Prepared Statement. Hearing on Welfare Reform: A Review of Abstinence Education and Transitional Medical Assistance". U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Health. Prepared Witness Testimony: Kaplan, David W.. Retrieved on 2007-06-22.

59. ^ Santelli J, Ott MA, Lyon M, Rogers J, Summers D (2006). "Abstinence-only education policies and programs: a position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine" (PDF). J Adolesc Health 38 (1): 83–7. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.06.002. PMID 16387257. http://www.adolescenthealth.org/Posi...d_programs.pdf.

source: wikipedia

NO to Abortion!
YES to the Reproductive Health Bill!