Legalize Abortion?

[mannyamador]

---

Here is an article from a reliable source, which cannot be edited by just anyone (unlike Wikipedia, a pro-RH fanatic's favorite resource. How sloppy can his research get?! Good grief!!!)


“Comprehensive” S3x Education is Ineffective: Abstinence Works, Major National Study Shows
By Elizabeth O’Brien
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jun/07061304.html

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, June 13, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A major report on teen *** education, released by Dr. Stan Weed of the Institute for Research and Evaluation in Salt Lake City, shows why abstinence is the most successful method of preventing physical and emotional complications resulting from pre-marital sexual activity. His research is based on the results of many studies that have followed the education and behavior of over 400,000 adolescents in 30 different states for 15 years (see http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007_docs/CompSexEd.pdf).

The final report, entitled “Abstinence” or “Comprehensive” *** Education? begins by pointing out the flaws in a national study on abstinence released by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Conducted in April 2007, this previous study examined the progress of teens who participated in four different abstinence education programs. The final report indicated that abstinence education was ineffective and that young adolescents should receive “comprehensive” *** education, that is, ***-education that teaches about various sexual behaviors and “safe-***” methods.

After examining the Mathematica study’s methods, the Institute found several major errors that made the study non-representative of American *** education. First, says the more recent study, it took sample teens from “high-risk” sectors of the population, such as poor African or American single-parent households. During the study, young people received abstinence education in pre-adolescence, but then received no follow-up training during adolescence. They were also examined about their sexual activity several years after any learning might have taken effect.

Dr. Stan Weed told LifeSiteNews.com: “Within the United States, sexual activity rates have been going down among teenagers for about the last 12 or 13 years, and that coincides with when the abstinence education started. Abortion, pregnancies and out of wedlock births rates have also been going down among teens during that same time period. However, pregnancy, abortion and out of wedlock births have been rising for the older age group, between 19-25, a group that has not been targeted by abstinence programs.”

Outlining these limitations and the report’s inaccuracies, Dr. Weed highlighted the problems that sexually active teens encounter and the failure of “comprehensive” *** education to remedy such issues. These include teen pregnancy, STD’s and poor emotional health. Sexually active young people are also more often physically assaulted or raped.

“Comprehensive” *** education also fails to explain the limitation of condoms, said the recent study, pointing out that “many consequences of teen sexual activity are not prevented by condom use.” Condoms are never a total guarantee against STD’s, and so there is no kind of truly “safe” *** outside of marriage. Secondly, despite 20 years of *** education, young people even fail to use condoms consistently. Most importantly, however, condoms do nothing to prevent the heartbreak, depression and low self-esteem caused by sexual activity.

The Utah Institute researchers also investigated previous major studies on “comprehensive” *** education and found that these programs had little impact on the behavior of teens during their education and no long-term effects whatsoever. In fact, “of 50 rigorous studies spanning the past 15 years, only one of them reports an improvement in consistent condom use after a period of at least one year.”

When evaluating abstinence programs, the Institute investigated both high-risk and moderate-risk students in programs such as Reasons of the Heart, Heritage Keepers, *** Respect and Teen Aid. Students in these programs were far less likely to be sexually active and those who were reduced their sexual activity by a large percentage. In the Reasons of the Heart study, for example, researchers found that “adolescent program participants were approximately one half as likely as the matched comparison group to initiate sexual activity after one year. The program’s effect was as strong for the African American subgroup in the sample as it was overall.”

The most successful abstinence programs were those that emphasized the risk of pre-marital sexual activity. They showed how abstinence fully protects a young person from STD’s, teen pregnancy and emotional trauma. They underlined the importance of self-control and responsibility and gave students the positive goal of a stable and committed marriage towards which to work in future. At the same time, however, researchers also found that it was crucial to re-educate adolescents about abstinence each successive year.

Dr. Weed concludes, “Well-designed and well-implemented abstinence education programs can reduce teen sexual activity by as much as one half for periods of one to two years, substantially increasing the number of adolescents who avoid the full range of problems related to teen sexual activity. Abandoning this strategy…would appear to be a policy driven by politics rather than by a desire to protect American teens.”

These results are consistent with many other findings, including a 2005 study by Medical Issues Analyst Reginald Finger of Focus on the Family. He investigated over 7,000 people in the United States that indicated the many social and emotional benefits to remaining abstinent. (see New Study Finds Abstinence Pays Off in the Long Run).

READ THE ORIGINAL STUDY:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007_docs/CompSexEd.pdf



More info on abstinence and purity at
True Love Waits Philippines

NO TO THE ABORTION-PROMOTING RH BILL!

[mannyamador]

Abstinence Education Works - New Report Offers More Evidence
Contraception educators have been lying to kids for decades says leader

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/dec/04121004.html

SIOUX FALLS, SD, December 10, 2004 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Amidst cries for scientific proof and medical accuracy the National Center for Health Statistics (CDC) released two reports today offering more evidence that abstinence education works.

According to one of the reports, "Teenagers in the United States: Sexual Activity, Contraceptive Use, and Childbearing, 2002", fewer teens are having s**. Declines were particularly large among males age 15-19. That correlates with the finding that the majority of teens reported receiving formal instruction on how to refuse sexual advances. The report also found that adolescents who chose to engage in sexual activity did so at older ages compared with a similar 1995 review.

The findings of this report reveal the total number of teens abstaining from *** before marriage nearly achieves the Healthy People 2010 targets, six years early. Abstinence target rates of 90 percent for teens under age 15 and 75 percent for teens among 15-17 were set as a first wave goal.

"It's hard to argue with numbers. Abstinence education is reaching kids where they're at and helping them to make healthy choices for their futures," said Leslee J. Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse. "Kids want the truth. Contraception educators have been lying to them for decades, saying that *** outside of marriage can be casual and safe. That's just not true and kids have learned it the hard way, by watching their friends get pregnant or contract an STD. They want something better. That's why they're choosing abstinence."

The report did contain some bad news. An estimated 9 percent of sexually active females age 18-24 reported that their first intercourse was non-voluntary. "This number is, by anyone's standard, simply unacceptable and underscores the need for age-appropriate discussion about good touch/bad touch and the need for teaching refusal skills to young girls," said Christina Espenscheid, Educational Programs Director for the Abstinence Clearinghouse.

A second report released today, "Use of Contraception and the Use of Family Planning Services in the United States: 1982 - 2002", also revealed bad news for contraception education proponents. More women are relying on family planning services than ever before and yet the outcomes of the studies released today reveal a declining situation related to birth spacing and pregnancy prevention education.

"Contraception pushers wanted studies and in-depth analysis of *** education programs," said Unruh. "Well, they got them. I hope they're ready. They've got some explaining to do."

See the study online:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_024.pdf


More info on abstinence and purity at
True Love Waits Philippines

NO TO THE ABORTION-PROMOTING RH BILL!

[mannyamador]

The following website contains links to many more studies on abstinence.

Abstinence Research and Studies
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/con...gory/6/149/27/



More info on abstinence and purity at
True Love Waits Philippines

NO TO THE ABORTION-PROMOTING RH BILL!

[raski]

Is abortifacients even a real word?

Regarding abortion there is no globally accepted norm yet as to when something can be considered "abortion". Some churchmen would have you believe that killing of sperm through condoms is abortion.. Some pro-abortion people consider termination of fetus up to 4 months is not abortion. The important thing to remember is that we live in a plural society with many ideas and we should just all learn to refrain from imposing our way of thinking upon others through force. That is never acceptable in a civilized society.

Anyway gonna log off now, I'm gonna go eat some baked fetus lasagna..

[mannyamador]

Is abortifacients even a real word?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortifacient

Main Entry: abor·ti·fa·cient
Pronunciation: \ə-ˌbȯr-tə-ˈfā-shənt\
Function: noun
Date: 1873

: an agent (as a drug) that induces abortion

Regarding abortion there is no globally accepted norm yet as to when something can be considered "abortion".

We live in the Philippines, and the RH bill is being pushed in this country. Therefore, the norm in our Constitution is what rules, not other notions of what abortion is. Article II, Section 12 states:

Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

That should settle what is permissible or not. Buit some have gone so far as to dispute what is meant by "conception", claiming that it does not begin at fertilization but at some later point, such as implantation of the fertilized ovum. The clear and explicit intent of the Constitutional Commission then is what shoulod take precedence.

Fr. Bernas, himself a member of the Constitutional Commissions states:

"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.)

Atty. Jo Imbong, says the same and notes how Cong. Lagman inadvertently admits that his RH bill does not comply:

Reckless and irresponsible
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquirer...acts-fallacies

To value human life is to respect and protect life in all its seasons. “Human life begins at fertilization.” (Records of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. IV, Sept. 18, 1986, pp. 761, 801) hence, “the State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” (Constitution, Article II, Section 12). Lagman said in a House hearing that the bill would protect human life “from implantation.”

So whatever one's individual concept of "abortion" may be, the fact is that the Philippine Constitution:

• Mandates that human life must be protected from conception, and;
  
  
• It assumes that conception begins at fertilization.

Therefore, any law, drug, device, or deliberate act that somehow destroys the fertilized ovum is contrary to the Philippine Constitution.

we should just all learn to refrain from imposing our way of thinking upon others through force.

Sure. But the RH bill is the means of the pro-RH side to FORCE their way of thinking upon the entire country!

• Section 21, number 5 of the RH bill FORCES doctors to dispense artificial and abortifacient contraceptives, whether they agree or not, under pain of fines and jail temrs. If the doctor refuses, he must still refer the requestor to another doctor who will do the dirty deed. This is like allowing a man to refuse to be an assassin, but then he is still forced to refer the hit contract to another assassin. That, of course, amounts to forced formal cooperation in an objectionable act.
  
  
• Section 17 FORCES employers to provide the same objectionable contraceptives to employees (in collective bargaining agreements).
  
  
• Section 21, part e, SILENCES critics of the bill by punishing what it calls "malicious disonformation" about the bill. Of course, such a term is legally ambiguous and could mean anything thej Bill's proponents want it to mean. The threat of jail terms and heavy fines will definitely have a very chilling effect, forcing many people to keep silent.

I agree with you. The authors of the RH bill DON'T.

--


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)

[raski]

abortifacient - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Main Entry: abor·ti·fa·cient
Pronunciation: \ə-ˌbȯr-tə-ˈfā-shənt\
Function: noun
Date: 1873

: an agent (as a drug) that induces abortion

We live in the Philippines, and the RH bill is being pushed in this country. Therefore, the norm in our Constitution is what rules, not other notions of what abortion is. Article II, Section 12 states:

Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

That should settle what is permissible or not. Buit some have gone so far as to dispute what is meant by "conception", claiming that it does not begin at fertilization but at some later point, such as implantation of the fertilized ovum. The clear and explicit intent of the Constitutional Commission then is what shoulod take precedence.

Fr. Bernas, himself a member of the Constitutional Commissions states:

"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.)

Atty. Jo Imbong, says the same and notes how Cong. Lagman inadvertently admits that his RH bill does not comply:

Reckless and irresponsible
Church reply to reproductive health bill: facts, fallacies - INQUIRER.net, Philippine News for Filipinos

To value human life is to respect and protect life in all its seasons. “Human life begins at fertilization.” (Records of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. IV, Sept. 18, 1986, pp. 761, 801) hence, “the State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception.” (Constitution, Article II, Section 12). Lagman said in a House hearing that the bill would protect human life “from implantation.”

So whatever one's individual concept of "abortion" may be, the fact is that the Philippine Constitution:

• Mandates that human life must be protected from conception, and;
  
  
• It assumes that conception begins at fertilization.

Therefore, any law, drug, device, or deliberate act that somehow destroys the fertilized ovum is contrary to the Philippine Constitution.

--


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)

Big problem though.. if the egg is never fertilized because the "abortificient" birth control pill has flushed it out then conception has never occurred and the action has not yet fallen within the ambit of Constitutional protection.

The Constitution also states there must be separation of Church and State. You should know that the most obscure interpretation is sometimes the position taken by the Supreme Court and there is nothing the Church, you or I can do about it. Everything in the Constitution, even clearly worded provisions, is subject to interpretation. Never forget that or you might make the mistake of anchoring all your arguments on something that can just be interpreted away by some judge.

[mannyamador]

Big problem though.. if the egg is never fertilized because the "abortificient" birth control pill has flushed it out then conception has never occurred and the action has not yet fallen within the ambit of Constitutional protection.

Correct. But the fact is that certain contraceptives do MORE than prevent contraception. man of them are also ABORTIFACIENT. And the number of times they act in an abortifacient manner is NOT insignificant.

Evidence for such is in a previous post:

https://www.istorya.net/forums/politi...ml#post5227827

See also:

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

Never forget that or you might make the mistake of anchoring all your arguments on something that can just be interpreted away by some judge.

Don't worry, I'm not putting all the eggs in one basket. There are many arguments against the RH bill. You can look at the previous posts for those. The Constitutional argument is just one of them, but it is also a very strong one.


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

[raski]

Correct. But the fact is that certain contraceptives do MORE than prevent contraception. man of them are also ABORTIFACIENT. And the number of times they act in an abortifacient manner is NOT insignificant.

Evidence for such is in a previous post:

https://www.istorya.net/forums/politi...ml#post5227827

See also:

Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform | Abortifacient Facts

Don't worry, I'm not putting all the eggs in one basket. There are many arguments against the RH bill. You can look at the previous posts for those. The Constitutional argument is just one of them, but it is also a very strong one.


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

Obviously if the woman knows she is pregnant and uses the pill to abort the child then that is illegal. I am certain that many anti-cancer medications cause abortions too, but that does not stop us from letting women take them. I think the issue here is that she may be pregnant, and not knowing it, may take a birth control pill causing an unintentional "abortion." There is nothing stopping them from inserting a provision that mandates screening prior to issuance of prescription for these medications. They already do this for therapeutic medications that may potentially result in fetal death or abnormalities so there is no reason to stop the use of medication just because it may potentially cause an abortion. That is way too severe a restriction...

[mannyamador]

Obviously if the woman knows she is pregnant and uses the pill to abort the child then that is illegal.

Actually I was thinking more about the use of certain (not all) contraceptives that have an abortifacient mechanism for birth control. In such cases, a woman does not previously know she is pregnant. She is taking the drug to prevent conception, but what happens is that she conceives and then the device or drug acts as an abortifacient.

In the evidence I posted, you will see that there is a high incidence of breakthrough ovulation associated with certain contraceptives. This means that they fail to prevent ovulation and if a woman has *** in these periods, she can conceive. When she does conceive, that is when the abortifacient mechanism comes into play (sometimes referred to as a "postfertilization" action).

Obviously not all contraceptives are abortifacient. Pure barriers methods (such as condoms) are NOT abortifacient. But hormonal contraceptives and IUDs are abortifacient. There are different objections to different methods.

I think there is therefore a very strong reason for NOT funding these abortifacient contraceptives, as is proposed in the RH bill. Such a provision in the bill would be unconstitutional. The problem, of course, is that the RH Bill DOES have such provisions (such as Sections 9, 10, 23).

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

[raski]

Actually I was thinking more about the use of certain (not all) contraceptives that have an abortifacient mechanism for birth control. In such cases, a woman does not previously know she is pregnant. She is taking the drug to prevent conception, but what happens is that she conceives and then the device or drug acts as an abortifacient.

In the evidence I posted, you will see that there is a high incidence of breakthrough ovulation associated with certain contraceptives. This means that they fail to prevent ovulation and if a woman has *** in these periods, she can conceive. When she does conceive, that is when the abortifacient mechanism comes into play (sometimes referred to as a "postfertilization" action).

Obviously not all contraceptives are abortifacient. Pure barriers methods (such as condoms) are NOT abortifacient. But hormonal contraceptives and IUDs are abortifacient. There are different objections to different methods.

I think there is therefore a very strong reason for NOT funding these abortifacient contraceptives, as is proposed in the RH bill. Such a provision in the bill would be unconstitutional. The problem, of course, is that the RH Bill DOES have such provisions (such as Sections 9, 10, 23).

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

But as far as I know, nobody has been prosecuted for taking prescribed birth control pills nor has the same been ruled illegal. The study has clearly not gained widespread acceptance nor is it conclusive. The WHO has not signed off on its veracity yet has it? It does not classify contraceptives as abortion pills. The purpose for contraceptive pills is to prevent conception, not abort. I am quite certain that even the normal menstrual cycles of a woman sometimes causes this unintended "aborting" of an ovulating egg.

That is why I say the Constitution is subject not to strict interpretation but to pragmatic interpretation, as that is often how the Supreme Court rules on it. It is not like the Penal Code which has to always be strictly construed. You are now arguing that the egg may have just been released by the ovaries and thus then accidentally fertilized in between doses. That is just splitting hairs and it can easily be argued that this is not what the Constitutional provisions protecting from conception means as it is a ridiculous assertion to even argue that this was within the purview of the drafters as they would not have been aware of such an eventuality. It is also not criminal, because criminality requires the element of intent which is clearly not present here.