Legalize Abortion?

[mannyamador]

---

and the RH Bill nor the schools doesn't take away the responsibility of parents to their kids.

Wrong. That is EXACTLY what the RH bill will do.

In Section 12 of the RH Bill, the POPCOM will impose a common RH curriculum in ALL schools (public and private), for Grade 5 to 4th Year High School, covering “Reproductive health and sexual rights” and “attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual health”. It therefore DICTATES ONE way of thinking on these issues, without regard to the widely disparate views on these matters. Communities and groups with different beliefs will not be able to teach their own children according to their own sacred, religious or non-religious beliefs.

As noted in the paper "The RH Bill: An Act of Religious Persecution"(http://fightrhbill.blogspot.com/2009...rsecution.html):

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).

The RH bill's provisions of s3x education are highly COERCIVE and TOTALITARIAN.

let's take cognizance of the US gov't findings...

Yes, lets! As proven beyond doubt, abstinence education works. It is the contraceptive-based s3x education that has failed miserably. That is why Obama's changes are in trouble. People have realized that his program has little scientific basis and that he is just paying off political debts to pro-abortion groups.

• CDC Figures Show Teen Abortions Lower in States Accepting Abstinence Funds
  http://www.lifenews.com/state4347.html
  
  
  Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new report relying on data from the Centers for Disease Control finds the states that accepted abstinence education funding saw greater reductions in teen abortions compared to states that didn't. The information provides another argument in favor of funding abstinence education programs.
  
  
• “Comprehensive” S3x Education is Ineffective: Abstinence Works, Major National Study Shows
  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).
  
  
• 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.

Don't believe in the underhanded attempts to discredit abstinence programs. Abstinence works! Contraceptive-based, "comprehensive" s3x education programs, on the other hand, don't work! In fact, they are counterproductive.


More info on abstinence and purity at
True Love Waits Philippines

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

[mannyamador]

UN Health Data Show Liberal Abortion Laws Lead to Greater Maternal Death
By Aracely Ornelas
http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id...pub_detail.asp

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) The world's largest abortion provider, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), has recently acknowledged an alarming "surge" in maternal deaths in South Africa, challenging the pro-abortion mantra that liberal abortion laws decrease maternal mortality. Maternal deaths increased by twenty per cent in the period 2005-2007 in South Africa, a country that since 1996 has had one of the most permissive abortion laws on the African continent.

While deaths attributable to HIV/AIDS account for the biggest portion of maternal deaths in South Africa, IPPF acknowledges that a portion of deaths are "due to complications of abortion" in a country where the procedure is legal and widely available.

Developing countries have been badgered in recent years by various United Nations agencies and pro-abortion civil society organizations, including IPPF, to decriminalize abortion as a measure to reduce maternal mortality rates. However, the latest IPPF revelation is the latest fact in a growing body of evidence showing the opposite relationship in which legal abortion and high maternal deaths coincide.

To illustrate, the nation with the lowest African maternal mortality rate is Mauritius, according to a 2009 World Health Organization (WHO) report. Mauritius' laws are among the continent's most protective of the unborn. The report further shows how countries that have decriminalized abortion in recent years in response to pressure, such as Ethiopia, have failed to lower dramatic maternal death rates. Ethiopia's maternal death rate is 48 times higher than in Mauritius.

According to WHO, the country with the lowest maternal mortality rate in South America is Chile, which protects unborn life in its constitution. The country with the highest is Guyana, with a maternal mortality rate 30 times higher than in Chile. Guyana has allowed abortion without almost any restriction since in 1995. Ironically, one of two main justifications used in liberalizing Guyana’s law was to enhance the "attainment of safe motherhood" by eliminating deaths and complications associated with unsafe abortion.

Nicaragua has been in the crosshairs of the international pro-abortion lobby since it amended its law three years ago to grant full protection to prenatal life. Sweden, for example, reportedly cut over $20 million in foreign aid as a result. More recently, Amnesty International issued a report claiming maternal death rates increased following Nicaragua's law going into effect. Media critics, however, have contested the veracity of Amnesty's claims , and Nicaraguan government statistics show a decline in maternal deaths since 2006.

Similarly, WHO statistics for the South East Asia region show Nepal, where there is no restriction on the procedure, has the region's highest rate of maternal mortality. The lowest in the region is Sri Lanka, with a rate fourteen times lower than that of Nepal. According to the pro-abortion public interest law firm Center for Reproductive Rights, Sri Lanka has among the most restrictive abortion laws in the world.

Worldwide, the country with the lowest maternal death rate is Ireland, a nation that prohibits abortion and whose constitution explicitly protects the rights of the unborn.



“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]

The RH bill (HB 5043) requires that employers distribute artificial and abortifacient contraceptives. What happens if this is against the beliefs of employers? The proposed bill also imposes a mandatory and uniform *** education program on ALL schools, public and private. What if the schools disagree with some of the content of the program?

The answer: suppression of freedom of religion and conscience.

This is already happening in the U.S., as the story below shows. If the RH Bill is passed, similar cases could occur here too.


Look Who's Discriminating Now
By PATRICK J. REILLY
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...989489154.html

Last week, thanks to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal government took a giant leap toward encroaching on the religious liberty of Catholics. Reuben Daniels Jr., director of the EEOC District Office in Charlotte, N.C, ruled that a small Catholic college discriminated against female employees by refusing to cover prescription contraceptives in its health insurance plan. With health-care reform looming before the country, this ruling is a bad omen for people of faith.

In 2007, eight faculty members filed a complaint against Belmont Abbey College in Belmont, N.C., claiming that the school's decision to exclude prescription contraceptives from its health-care plan was discriminatory against women. "As a Roman Catholic institution, Belmont Abbey College is not able to and will not offer nor subsidize medical services that contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic Church," said the college's president, William Thierfelder, at the time.

In March the commission informed the college that the investigation of its employee health insurance plan had been closed with no finding of wrongdoing. Inexplicably, the case was reopened, and now the college is charged with violating federal law. If Belmont Abbey doesn't back down, the EEOC will recommend court remedies.

The ruling against the college is certainly consistent with the commission's published guidance on "pregnancy discrimination." The EEOC has found that contraceptive coverage is mandated by the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act (even though the law concerns pregnant women and does not, by strict interpretation, consider discrimination against all women of childbearing potential). North Carolina also has made its position clear with a law requiring employers to cover employees' contraceptive expenses if other prescription drugs are insured.

The difference, however, between the EEOC's guidance and the North Carolina law is that the latter exempts religious employers such as a Catholic college, whereas the commission fails to consider that the tenets of a faith may preclude an institution from offering such benefits.

And that's the rub: Increasingly it is clear to Catholics and other religious groups that without very clear exemptions for religious employers—and conscience protections for individual doctors, nurses, pharmacists—federal health-care laws and guidelines could severely restrict religious freedom in the U.S.

Even the existing exemptions are often narrowly defined. The North Carolina statute, for instance, mandates that an institution may be free from the state's nondiscrimination rules only if "the inculcation of religious values is one of the primary purposes of the entity" and "the entity employs primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity." By this standard, of course, no Catholic hospital in the country would qualify. And the faculty members who complained about the contraceptive policy at Belmont Abbey told the Web site InsideHigherEd that they don't think the school qualifies, since most of its employees are not Catholic and, according to the complainants, the inculcation of religious values is not the college's primary mission.

This is an incredible claim. Belmont Abbey is featured in "The Newman Guide to Choosing a Catholic College," to be released in September, for the school's fidelity to Catholic identity and mission. And in January 2008, the North Carolina Department of Insurance ruled that the college is a religious employer under state law, dismissing a faculty member's petition to the agency. But regardless, do we even really want the government (at any level) in the position of determining which entities are religious enough and which ones are not?

Perhaps there are those who would say that this is an issue for only a minority of religious people. Catholics are nearly alone in their objection to contraceptives—and many Catholics regularly violate the church's teaching on the issue. But consider abortion. The EEOC says that pregnancy discrimination does not apply to an employer's refusal to cover abortion expenses, "except where the life of the mother is endangered." When will a federal court argue that if insurance coverage to prevent pregnancy is, by inference, mandated by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, then why not abortion to end a pregnancy?

We can add the threat to religious liberty to the dangers already presented by government-run health care.

Mr. Reilly is president of the Cardinal Newman Society.


More info on abstinence and purity at
True Love Waits Philippines

NO TO THE ABORTION-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043)!

[mannyamador]

More on this case of suppression of freedom of religion. With the RH bill requiring employers to distribute contraceptives, something like this may happen in the Philippines too if the RH bill is passed. Dangerous indeed!


Belmont Abbey Head: Washington Instructed Officials to Pursue Discrimination Charges
Catholic college removed abortion, sterilization, and contraception coverage from employee health plan
By Kathleen Gilbert
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09081406.html

BELMONT, North Carolina, August 14, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) today, Belmont Abbey College president Dr. William Thierfelder said officials at the Charlotte division of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) told him that a decision to close a discrimination complaint against the school for failing to offer contraception coverage was reversed after the matter went to the nation's capital.

Eight BAC faculty members filed a complaint against the college for removing coverage for abortion, sterilization, and contraception from their employee health insurance, supplied by Wellpath. The faculty first complained to the North Carolina Department of Insurance that BAC was required to cover contraception under state law because it did not qualify for the religious employer exemption. Both the state department and Wellpath, however, disagreed with the complainants.

"If you ever came on this campus, the first thing you see is the Basilica of Mary Help of Christians," said Thierfelder. "That basilica is connected to a monastery. That monastery is connected to the main administration building."

The group of complainants, who joined forces with the National Women's Law Center, then made a gender discrimination complaint to the EEOC, which in March informed the Abbey that it had closed the issue. Two months later, the EEOC reversed its decision.

"By denying prescription contraception drugs, Respondent [the college] is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral prescription contraceptives," wrote Reuben Daniels Jr., the EEOC Charlotte District Office Director in the determination. "By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women."

"You can imagine we were very surprised when, after having received the first letter, then later received another letter saying: 'Disregard the first letter. We're going to reconsider this now,'" said Thierfelder.

Asked what he thought caused the reversal, Theirfelder said, "My understanding is it went to Washington, and that it was in Washington where this was decided, not the Charlotte office." He says he gathered this information "from conversations we had with people at EEOC here in Charlotte who told us that's where this had gone to, and that's where it was being discussed and decided upon."

Thierfelder said he did not know if it was the EEOC's initiative that brought the affair to a higher level, or the complaining parties. Multiple calls made by LSN to the EEOC Charlotte District Office were unanswered at press time.

The EEOC response also accused the college of causing a "chilling effect" by publishing the names of the eight faculty members in an internal memo. Thierfelder pointed out that the eight had already broadcast the affair to local newspapers and the Internet of their own accord.

Thierfelder said he believed the decision marked a dangerous precedent.

"From a religious freedom standpoint, you don't have religious freedom," he said. Thierfelder stressed, however, that the college has "gotten a lot of support from people who are not Catholic, and who may not share our beliefs on abortion, sterilization, contraception…they see the principle and what they're saying is, 'Belmont Abbey College is not trying to tell anybody what they have to do, it's just saying what Belmont Abbey College will do.' And I think that's an important distinction."

"To try to make us change [our beliefs], there's something very wrong with that," he continued. "And I think that's why this has garnered so much attention, and especially with the health care debates that are going on right now, and with all the things that are going on with Catholic hospitals ... what they are basically saying is, if you're Catholic, or if you are of any faith, it doesn't mean anything. You're going to do what the government tells you to do."

Thierfelder acknowledged that the fight could go to the courts, and emphasized that BAC officials were united in maintaining fidelity to Catholic Church teaching against pressure from the government.

"All of us need to have moral courage in today's world," he said. "We are so resolute in our commitment to the teachings of the Catholic Church that there is no possible way we would ever deviate from it, and if it came down to it ... we would close the school rather than give in.

"So it is absolute, unequivocal, impossible for us to go against the teachings of the Catholic Church in any way. There is no form of compromise that is possible."


To contact the EEOC:

Stuart Ishimaru
Chairman, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
131 M Street, NE
Washington, DC 20507
Phone: (202) 663-4900
TTY: (202) 663-4494
info@eeoc.gov

See previous LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Feds Accuse Catholic Belmont Abbey College of Sexual Discrimination for Not Covering Contraception
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09081005.html

Belmont Abbey College Removes Employee Benefits for Abortion, Sterilization and Contraception
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021509.html

[giddyboy]

Wrong. That is EXACTLY what the RH bill will do.

In Section 12 of the RH Bill, the POPCOM will impose a common RH curriculum in ALL schools (public and private), for Grade 5 to 4th Year High School, covering “Reproductive health and sexual rights” and “attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development, sexual behavior and sexual health”. It therefore DICTATES ONE way of thinking on these issues, without regard to the widely disparate views on these matters. Communities and groups with different beliefs will not be able to teach their own children according to their own sacred, religious or non-religious beliefs.

well, sorry but i will have to disagree. let's also not confuse w/ Obama's new s3x education policy to his new Medicare plan.

Obama has initiated changes to their nation's s3x education policy by eliminating abstinence-only s3x ed and replacing it w/ an evidence-based comprehensive ed (combining abstinence-only ed and contraceptive ed). the reason why he eliminated abstinence-only ed is that from 2001-2009 (if im not mistaken on the dates), they have bombarded this program w/ millions of funds yet showed little success. critics have said that is some kind of political favor to Planned Parenthood and proponents of abstinence-only ed insisted that it showed success (well, allegedly in "some" states). but the fact still remains that upon a series of Congressional investigations, the overall results say otherwise. so it is now his word (and the Congress') against the abstinence-only ed advocates.

the fact that the U.S. under a democratic framework similar to ours has a mandatory s3x ed to all their schools means it is a misnomer that it takes away responsibility from parents, and there is no reason why we can't adopt a similar s3x ed to all our schools. they have Catholic schools. we too, and lots of 'em.

we also have to consider that s3x ed curriculum in grade 5 will be different from those in high school. we have to think "age-appropriate" here and the amount of information being revealed.

what if what will only be included across the board from grade 5 to 4th yr high school will only be values ed, human anatomy, and that listings of family planning methods will be discussed on the later part of high school? what's wrong w/ that? they're even found in google. is honesty via age-appropriate means of teaching of lesser value than just let our students ignorant of things that they should know at their age?

which is better - ignorance or honesty?

wa pa gani ta kahibalo unsay ipasulod sa curriculum, mag praning na diay ta daan? Let's remember that even if and only if the RH Bill will be passed into law, the matter regarding comprehensive s3x ed will still have to be discussed further and wait for its implementing rules and regulations before being, well, implemented. Just like the newly approved Magna Carta for Women, even if it was already signed into law, it still awaits implementing rules and regulations.

and let's note that even w/ our mushrooming of Catholic schools and being predominantly Catholic, still, teen abortion in the Phils is at an all time high. Maternal and infant mortality is at an all time high. while we cannot blame religion, it only means that religion did not and cannot prevent or minimize teen abortion. But s3x ed can.

Yes, we can factor in poverty as one possible cause of teen abortion, but not all the time. There are also lots of rich kids that resort to abortion. And education is exactly one thing that can address it. another factor is lack of continuity: that for every term of a President, they have their own styles of implementing their own programs and policies; the next President doesn't continue (or even improve) on what has been started by the previous. that's why a national and comprehensive policy should be the answer, bsan kinsa pa nga presidente ang mag lingkod dha.

the church has been long against the use of contraceptives and condoms and informing students thereof, even if "age-appropriately" taught. but national policies favor statistics rather than faith. it has even been shown that teens in Catholic schools have about 5 times higher incidence of abortion than in secular schools.

while the church can always teach religion to their schools, they should not deny the students basic education such as age-appropriate s3x ed in their curriculum.

---000---

Thinking out loud

Perhaps about,say, 10-15 % boys and girls report having s3x before the age of 16.

But this could be nonsense. It could be so much higher. Maybe that's only the percentage of kids who are CAUGHT having s3x before the age of 16!!

This leaves me wishing more parents would parent. I mean that in so many ways, some of which are conflicting, like I wish parents would have frank, honest and open talks with their kids to resist peer pressure and encourage them not to have s3x until they're adult enough/married (depending on your views), but I wish those same parents would realize that if children are going to have s3x, they need to be informed of the implications, & protected both from unwanted pregnancy and STDs. Same w/ the school pud unta.

Sexual behavior after puberty is a given, and it is therefore crucial to provide information about the risks and how they can be minimized.

[mannyamador]

let's also not confuse w/ Obama's new s3x education policy to his new Medicare plan.

Let's not confuse Obama's anything with the COERCIVE RH bill in the Philippines!

the fact that the U.S. under a democratic framework similar to ours has a mandatory s3x ed to all their schools means it is a misnomer that it takes away responsibility from parents, and there is no reason why we can't adopt a similar s3x ed to all our schools. they have Catholic schools.

Let's not pretend that the two are the same. The RH bill is NOT similar to the US system. In the US, private and public schools can choose the most effective mans of teaching *** and values education. Religious schools, in particular, are allowed to choose or make their own programs based on their beliefs and values. Parents can even opt out of some programs in certain schools if they disagree with what is being taught.

The RH bill (HB 5043), on the other hand, mandates ONE curriculum to be determined CENTRALLY and will be IMPOSED on ALL schools. It is MANDATORY and parents cannot opt out, even in private schools. The government has no business dictating us what we should believe about s3x.

We should choose what to believe about s3xon the basis of our faith or free will. The government should not brainwash our children on that issue. As noted in the paper "The RH Bill: An Act of Religious Persecution"(http://fightrhbill.blogspot.com/2009...rsecution.html):

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 S3X?

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).

we also have to consider that s3x ed curriculum in grade 5 will be different from those in high school. we have to think "age-appropriate" here.

The parents should have the primary right to determine what is "age appropriate" for their children. Parents should be able to choose what va;ues program best fits their kids, or to pull them out and teach their kids themselves if they do not find any program that is suitable to their beliefs and values.

But with the RH bill, it is the POPCOM and DepEd that suddenly have that primary right, and can IMPOSE whatever it wants on ALL schools because of the RH bill. Parents have no real say whatsoever. That is very wrong and violates the Constitution.

which is better - ignorance or honesty?

Wrong question. What we should be asking is:
WHO SHOULD DETERMINE WHAT OUR KIDS LEARN ABOUT S3X-- PARENTS OR GOVERNMENT?
WHAT IS BETTER -- FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THE TRUTH OR GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA?

Yes, we can factor in poverty as one possible cause of teen abortion, but not all the time. There are also lots of rich kids that resort to abortion. And education is exactly one thing that can address it. another factor is lack of continuity

The scientific data OVERWHELMINGLY shows that "comprehensive" or contraceptove-based s3x education only leads to more unwanted pregnancies and even more abortions. Abstinence-until-marriage programs, on the other hand, have a prove trakc record of reducing unwanted pregnancies and demand for abortion. Abstinence work, contraceptives don't!

• “Comprehensive” S3x Education is Ineffective: Abstinence Works, Major National Study Shows[/SIZE]
  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).
  
  
• 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.
  
  
• CDC Figures Show Teen Abortions Lower in States Accepting Abstinence Funds
  http://www.lifenews.com/state4347.html
  
  
  Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new report relying on data from the Centers for Disease Control finds the states that accepted abstinence education funding saw greater reductions in teen abortions compared to states that didn't. The information provides another argument in favor of funding abstinence education programs.
  
  
• Abstinence Research and Studies
  http://www.physiciansforlife.org/con...gory/6/149/27/

Uganda, even though abstinence is more emphasized, it still did not eliminate contraceptive ed due to the same reason: combination of abstinence and contraceptive ed works best.

The data from Uganda show the exact OPPOSITE of what you are claiming.

• Increasing Condom Use Without Reducing HIV Risk: Results of a Controlled Community Trial in Uganda
  http://journals.lww.com/jaids/pages/...&type=abstract
  
  
  Conclusions: In this study, gains in condom use seem to have been offset by increases in the number of *** partners. Prevention interventions in generalized epidemics need to promote all aspects of sexual risk reduction to slow HIV transmission.
  
  
• A Framework of Sexual Partnerships: Risks and Implications for HIV Prevention in Africa
  Edward C. Green 1 , Timothy L. Mah 2 , Allison Ruark 3 , and Norman Hearst 4
  http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0
  
  
  The global diversity of HIV epidemics can be explained in part by types and patterns of sexual partnerships. We offer a typology of sexual partnerships that corresponds to varying levels of HIV-transmission risk to help guide thinking about appropriate behavioral interventions, particularly in the epidemics of sub-Saharan Africa. Declines in HIV prevalence have been associated with reductions in numbers of *** partners, whereas many other prevention strategies have NOT been demonstrated to reduce HIV transmission at a population level. We suggest a reorientation of current prevention efforts, based on the epidemiology of sexually transmitted HIV epidemics and trends in sexual behavior change. Concurrent sexual partnerships are likely to play a large role in transmission dynamics in the generalized epidemics of East and Southern Africa, and should be addressed through improved behavior-change interventions.

Again we can see that abstinence and fidelity are what made Uganda successful in fighting HIV/AIDS. Contraceptives, on the other hand, even held back the progress to some degree. Contraceptives were counterproductive.


More info on abstinence and purity at
True Love Waits Philippines

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

[mannyamador]

The roots of violence against women and children
http://www.prolife.org.ph/news/index...-and-children/

BASED on findings, the incidence of child abuse has increased dramatically for the last 20 years. This vicious phenomenon is attributed to the contraceptive mentality, the seed of which were sown in media and the school curricula around three decades ago. Most men and women who grew in that milieu imbibed the anti-life or anti-natal spirit. They are mothers who refuse to bear children, who use contraception, who abort and neglect their children. These are fathers who abuse their own children, who abandon their families, who regard women as commodities, who regard children as property.

Dr. Philip Ney, A Canadian child-psychiatrist, claims that abortion and contraception remove the guilt for killing innocent lives. No less than Judge Noonan of the American Jury considers the rise in the incidence of child abuse as one of the adverse consequences of the Roe v. Wade Decision that legalized abortion in the USA. In that country, there is widespread child abuse and wife battering despite the strong feminist movement. Incidentally, abusing their children is part of the Post Abortion Syndrome of women who had had abortion.

George Gilder, a sociologist, provides a similar explanation. He says that violence against women and children flows from the collective consciousness of men who are retaliating from society’s rejection of their maleness – their capacity to sire off springs (as in contraception), and their giving up their role as a provider and protector of the weak and defenseless (as in abortion). They then retaliate by performing “male” acts to prove their superiority, for instance, sexual abuse and brutality to those whom they perceive as weak.

Another factor contributing to violence is pornography. Two generations of Filipinos already have been exposed to such material through cinema, television, tabloids and magazines, comedy bars, internet, videos, and lately, the mobile phones. Finally, the values-free type of *** education (reproductive rights, “safe ***”) promoted by the population/birth control advocates targeting 8-12 years olds seriously disturb the latency period in the psycho-sexual development of our children. During this stage, sexual energy should be directed for the development of compassionate feelings are destroyed during the latency period are frequently devoid of this emotion. Without compassion, the youth plunge in surges of violent behavior. Thus pornography develops potential criminals.

Society is like a parabola where values form a fixed locus extend like lines reaching every point. When from the central point emanates philosophies that shape people’s values and culture towards annihilation of life, there follows a separation of the human experience from the Divine. Let us not be surprised if our society is prone to exploitation and brutality. As Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta has said. “The greatest destroyer of peace in the world today is abortion. If we allow a mother to destroy her unborn child, what is there to stop you and me from killing each other.”



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

[mannyamador]

Michael Coren: Ignoring the most important right of all
Michael Coren
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...ht-of-all.aspx

In an ongoing series, National Post writers are being asked a simple question: If you had the power to change a single thing about Canada, what would it be? In today's installment, Michael Coren argues that Canada's lack of an abortion law is a national disgrace.

It is tragically ironic that the most vital and profound issue facing this country is considered by many of its citizens and most of its establishment to be at best irrelevant and at worst a dangerous digression championed by zealots. The issue is, of course, abortion. And Canada is almost unique in the civilized world in having no abortion law at all. In other words, any unborn child can be aborted and in most of the country the taxpayer will finance the procedure.

Can we, however, genuinely regard ourselves as part of a "civilized world" if we treat our most vulnerable with such indifference? What is supposed to be the safest place for a human being -- the womb -- has been transformed into a slaughterhouse for humanity, with more than 100,000 abortions in Canada each year.

The biting hypocrisy of Canada's attitude toward the unborn was demonstrated particularly clearly last week when it emerged that a Winnipeg woman had been murdered in February for refusing to have an abortion. Even though the general and natural response was to regard this crime as being especially repugnant, and as the taking of two lives, her killer cannot be charged with double homicide. Instead of simply intellectualizing the instinctive and accepting the self-evident truth of unborn life, we twist and turn to deny what we know to be true.

If, for example, an obviously pregnant women sat in a bar smoking heavily and drinking profusely, the reaction would be one of disgust. If the same woman told friends that she wanted an abortion, the reaction would often be entirely supportive.

The inconsistency applies equally with dis-ability-based abortion. Our country boasts that it cares deeply for the handicapped, yet provides publicly funded testing so that handicapped children can be aborted. The gene for Downs Syndrome was discovered by a man who thought it would help us to prepare for Downs babies and improve their lives. Instead, it's being used to commit a form of pre-birth genocide on some of the most innocent, loving and beautiful people on Earth. Leave your car in a handicapped parking spot and you'll be fined. Abort your handicapped child and you'll receive government financing.

Some of the contradictions around the subject are acutely political. The Canadian feminist movement has campaigned obsessively for abortion rights but now finds itself in a quandary because so many female unborn babies are being selectively aborted in the developing world.

We swim against the tide of natural law and pretend that life is not life and killing not killing. With the help of overwhelming propaganda from the media, the entertainment industry, activists and politicians, an artificial world has been constructed.

But we still know that it's not tissue, it's not a fetus, it's not an accident and it's not unwanted. Most of all, it's not about "choice." The right to choose implies that the equation involves one person. It doesn't. A baby is a separate being, accepted by science as being unique at conception. It has its own distinct DNA, its own genomic character. At 12 weeks, an unborn baby is complete. It matures but nothing new develops. A toddler is different from an unborn child only to the extent a teenager is different from a seven-year-old. In other words, it is always a person. With inalienable rights and privileges.

The fact that it is dependant on its mother while in the womb is irrelevant. A newborn baby is also dependant on an adult to feed it and keep it alive. So for that matter are the seriously ill and the aged.

We have allowed the cult of the self to blind our vision of what is good and bad, right and wrong. Choice has become taste, sexual love has become appetite, people have become disposable. Unless we allow the weakest to be born we are denying what underpins the very compassion, fairness and progress we claim to admire. Some rights are more important than others and none is more sacred than the right to life.

http://www.michaelcoren.com

-Michael Coren is a broadcaster and author.


More info on abstinence and purity at
True Love Waits Philippines

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

[giddyboy]

The scientific data OVERWHELMINGLY shows that "comprehensive" or contraceptove-based s3x education only leads to more unwanted pregnancies and even more abortions. Abstinence-until-marriage programs, on the other hand, have a prove trakc record of reducing unwanted pregnancies and demand for abortion. Abstinence work, contraceptives don't!

i know that pro-life advocates have data to prove that abstinence-only ed works. but there are also data from Congress that proves it otherwise.

so now we have two conflicting statements: (1) from abstinence-only ed advocates that says it works, and in contrast, (2) from Congress that says it didn't work.

do u agree? so this will be a matter of which side you want to believe in: Obama and Congress, or, the abstinence-only ed advocates. (IMHO, I believe Obama and their Congress more)

ako, i am not a true believer that contraceptive-only based approach will work. I do like the idea of abstinence-only ed. But IMHO, a combination of both is best.

And due to this new development where Pres Obama eliminated funding for abstinence-only ed and pushed for a new evidence-based approach that will combine abstinence and contraceptive ed, a good thinking person will have to ask the question why.

Pres Obama & Congress have clearly stated that "eliminating funding for ineffective abstinence-only programs is a win for science and that for too long they wasted money on programs that are proven to be ineffective. We are finally putting sound science ahead of politics."

Those are very strong words...Do you think they will risk their reputation and careers by lying on this particular matter? I don't think so. the fact that they said that means they have the figures to back up their claim. coz by saying instead that there were political favors considered is just a hapless ad hominem tactic.

let me ask you this. Did the abstinence-only ed advocates bring their case to Congress refuting Congress' conclusion that abstinence-only ed is ineffective? if then, what is the result of the deliberations? or they just didn't and instead of barking at the tree (Congress), they resorted to the internet?

[mannyamador]

And due to this new development where Pres Obama eliminated funding for abstinence-only ed and pushed for a new evidence-based approach that will combine abstinence and contraceptive ed, a good thinking person will have to ask the question why.

Using the alleged authority of Obama and the US Congress to justify the RH bill is Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Neither Obama nor Congess are scientific experts. They are POLITICIANS. And politicians pay off political favors. The recent push by the Obama administration for contraceptive-based education is a POLITICAL decision, not a scientific one.

Obama in particular has a long record of being pro-abortion on any issue related to abortion (including s3x education). His history of paying off political favors is relevant and is not an ad hominem because you are relying on his authority in your agument. Therefore, his paying off political debts is a major blow to his credibility on this issue. It seems you do not understand what an ad hominem argument is.

We have to rely on the evidence, and their is no reason whatsoever to accept your conclusion.

Again, given a situation where the evidence has not resolved the issue, we must take the safer approach.

That safer approach is to allow people to CHOOSE. This is the real issue.


The real issue is whether we should allow non-elected officials (the POPCOM) to IMPOSE a SINGLE way of thinking about one of the most personal issues facing persons: s3x and values.

The real issue is: should parents determine what we should teach children, or the government?


The Philippine Constitution has the answer in Article II, Section 12:

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.

The government should NOT take away this natural and primary right and duty of parents by IMPOSING on ALL private and public schools a MANDATORY s3x education program. But that is exactly what the RH Bill will do.

In fact, even SUPPORTERS of the RH bill have spoken out against this totalitarian imposition.

For example, Prof. Felipe Medalla, at the joint general membership meeting of the Makati Business Club held at the Peninsula Hotel last October 17, 2008, stated that although he supports the RH bill and the inclusion of s3x education in the intermediate and high school curricula, he said it should NOT BE MANDATORY. He said that parents should have the right to demand that their children be exempted from s3x education classes.

But that right is trampled upon by the RH Bill. This is just one of the many provisions of the RH Bill that violate our natural human rights. Even supporters of the Bill have objected to it. And yet Lagman and his pro-RH fanatics just won't budge.

The s3x education provision in the RH bill is not only dangerous to our values and families, but also to our civil rights. Igt is the first step in imposing a form of control similar to what the Nazis and Communists tried to do. We must defend our democracy and should reject the RH bill.




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