Legalize Abortion?

[mannyamador]

---

lets not go sa statistics sa effectivity sa contraceptive vis-a vis be it being an abortificient.. why? beacuse the number of health officers saying its abortificient is the same number as saying its not... tabla ra...

So what? At best for the RH side it can only show that the issue is UNRESOLVED. In which case we should take the SAFER APPROACH which is NOT to use possible abortifacients because they can might kill innocent lives.

You do not shoot a gun into a public area unless you are sure no one will be hit. if you cannot be sure, then you should NOT shoot. Same with abortifacients. Unless you can prove that these contraceptives can NEVER cause an abortion (and so far you have ZERO evidence for this) then you should take the safer approach and NOT use them.

In any case, what counts is the scientific evidence, not a popularity poll among health workers.

if we let all people choose, maabtan kag siyam siyam. we might even have to spend big for a referendum for that. now that will be a waste of money.

What referendum? You are being paranoid and overstating the case. No referendum is necessary. You simply have to allow schools to create their own values and *** education programs and then allow parents to choose which ones are good for their children. That is much cheaper than imposing a mandatory contraceptive-based program that parents and schools will have to undo.

and what people who are so mad about?

You seem to forget that even SUPPORTERS of the RH Bill are AGAINST the Bill's provisions for a SINGLE and MANDATORY s3x education program. They recognize that this violates religious freedom, academic freedom, and parental rights.

The state has the power to set educational standards, but when this violates the rights of people (such as religious freedom and parental rights), then there must be some justification. The state must show a very grave reason to justify its violation of people's rights. If no convincing grave justification can be shown (and none has been presented in the case of the RH Bill), then we must take the SAFER APPROACH and NOT violate people's rights.

and what belief will be trampled upon aber?

You know fully well that the RH Bill promotes artificial contraception in its educational component (it's right in section 12, part b and f). This directly contradicts Catholic teaching on contraception. One would have to be very dishonest to pretend such an obvious contradiction doesn't exist.

as i earlier said, "what you don't know won't hurt you" won't anymore apply to this day and age

But that is NOT the issue. You are engaging in a strawman argument.

Neither the Church or the pro-life movement is advocating ignorance (unlike the pro-RH faantics who are trying to fool people). The Catholic Church and other non-Catholic religious organizations have had teachings on *** for centuries. so they obviously do not try to keep people ignorant.

What the Church and many others are against (including supporters of the RH Bill) is the TYPE of "s3x education" that the POPCOM will impose, as well as the COERCIVE, MANDATORY manner that the RH Bill specifices such program will be implemented.

The RH Bill requires that all Catholic schools (and some others as well) must teach things that are contrary to their own religious beliefs. This is unreasonable and a clear violation of religious and academic freedom. That is the real issue. Attempting to cover it up only reveals the deceptive nature of the pro-RH smear campaign.

However, many studies have shown that combining the abstinence message with explicit discussions of birth control "is a realistic, effective approach that does not appear to confuse young people.

The studies show the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are claiming. You are ignoring the significant amount of scientific evidence which has already been posted here. That is quite deceptive.

At best, all you can claim is that the issue is again UNRESOLVED. In which caSe we must again take the SAFER APPROACH: ALLOW SCHOOLS AND PARENTS TO CHOOSE.

But you insistence on only ONE s3x education program that is MANDATORY reveals that it probably has very little public support! If it were so good, effective, and popular, then you would NOT have to FORCE people to attend it. But since you do so, you have revealed yet another flaw in your claims.

THE BOTTOM LINE: PARENTS SHOULD BE GIVEN THE FINAL CHOICE IN WHAT THEIR CHILDREN ARE TAUGHT ABOUT S3X!



DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS. REJECT THE COERCIVE, ABORTION-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043)!
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[mannyamador]

Bitaw! This @raski is such a child. Have the mods seen his posts?

Let's wait and see what other childish retorts he comes up with! He will look only sillier. I hope he realizes that.

[raski]

These are the same arguments that will appear on the Congress floor and in a court challenge. The point is to craft a better Bill and inform people of the flaws of the current Bill. But of course you don't want that to happen. If you don't want top discuss it because it's meaningless to you then you can shut up if it suits you.

You can do that without calling something unconstitutional. Finding points in a bill that you disagree with, and airing your concerns is one thing, calling it outright unconstitutional is presumptuous. I don't quite get why you belabor a point you have consistently failed to push, why not abort it as it's a stupid idea.

I already have, or do you have trouble understanding English? The state is generally bound to respect the religious beliefs of institutions unless there is some overriding, grave reason (such as protection of the state). A curriculum that FORCES an institution to teach something that contradicts its religious beliefs is unacceptable and violates freedom of religion. The backers of the RH Bill must therefore show an overriding, grave reason why freedom of religion must be suppressed. So far, you haven't been able to do so.

Oh no sir, it is you who don't understand English. For example, your inability to distinguish between banning and choice. Very simple concepts in the English language, I'm afaraid.

Tsk, tsk... You shouldn't start acting like a boor. it does NOT advance your cause any. Please grow up and try to remain rational. Lame Insults do not advance the discussion any further.

Me a boor? Now you're giving me a rollicking laugh. If I am indeed acting childish, then at least it's because I actually am a lot younger than you are. You on the other hand, a 50 year old, engaging in a word fight with others here and in that other abortive post, would make any thinking person wonder about your mental age.

I only have to show that such a curriculum will contradict the religious beliefs of an established religious institution, and I have done so. YOU must show why freedom of religion must be suppressed.

No.

Try to argue in a rational manner instead engaging in name-calling.

As soon as you start acting rationally and quit redefining plain English words to your vile purposes.

Do you know what "mandatory" means? It means parents will be forced to let their children attend the RH curriculum, whether they like it or not. That OBVIOUSLY eliminates choice. Look up the term "mandatory" in the dictionary, will you.

It is mandatory in school, not at home. Everything in school is mandatory. Would you kindly address the issue, the issue being are you in favor of letting parents control every single thing schools teach to their children, because if you say yes, then you quite frankly are out of your damned mind.

Catholic dogma has never been determined by popularity. Surely you have figured that out by now.

Surely you should have figured out on first reading, since you comprehend English, that I never said that.

Please don't attempt (again) to misrepresent what I said (that's a strawman argument, you know). Your silly notions of the Inquisition are a myth, not the existence of the Inquisition itself. But you glossed over that one, didn't you? And you also have a habit of engaging in strawman arguments.

You have got to be kidding me, so exactly what was the Inquisition to you then? A jokingly fun time made up to be the monstrous thing that all sane people know it is? Hitler loves revisionism, so do more of them.

You are imagining things. The separation of church and state was NOT even in the US Constitution. What was in there was the "interference" clause and the "establishment" clause and no more.

Please do not quote your blog, it is irrelevant and it presumes that there is anything there that is of value.

Children will be forced to attend the mandatory RH curriculum. There is NO choice on that matter.

I'm sure lots of people would like to ban lots of things from our curriculum, but CAN'T. You just have learn to live with it I guess because not enough people care enough to support your abortive cause.

Now you claim that parents can undertake home schooling or have their children attend extra schooling to counter the mandatory RH curriculum. But why should we place an extra burden on parents to undo what has been imposed on their children? If parents send their children to alternative classes for another six years, do you have any idea what that will cost? How many parents can afford that? And if the parents are working, how much time can they spend in home schooling?

If parents are not willing to undertake this burden, then that's too bad. Another failure for your side, I guess. That's just too bad.

You already know these burdens are almost impossible for most poor Filipino families to undertake. But you claim that there is "choice" on,ly because of the remote possibility that some parents can actually undertake an alternative six-year alternative-education course. Simply allowing expensive, un-funded alternatives to exist is nothing if you FORCE children to still attend a six-year mandatory course Where will poor families get the money for alternative schooling? Why burden both children and parents with more? You know most families will not be able to do so. That is extremely dishonest of you. Cut the BS.

You certainly have a very strange one-sided definition of BS. Most people would call your facile,

If, as you pretend, most Filipinos support the whole RH thing, then allow people to CHOOSE it.

If not, then it becomes obvious your idea does not have as much support as you pretend it does.

The fact of the matter is most people don't give a shit. That's why there's just two of us here and maybe 3 other people...

More of the same yada, yada. You're just trying to keep people from discovering the flaws in the Bill. We can see through that, you know.

Flattering.

You are assuming Catholics are rich enough to do so. Try thinking, will you? You can';t even prove the Church has the funding and yet you make ignorant claims about what it can afford? I certainly do not have the funds to support a re-education course to undo the damage done by a mandatory RH course. Most Catholics, even collectively, cannot afford that -- and you would have them fund the RH Bill's RH curriculum too. A double-whammy!

I made no such assumptions. But anyone who cares enough about something can always find money for it.

Have you ever tried to even think of how m,any students we are talking about ehre that must take another six-year course? Perhaps you have, and it is obvious you just relish the idea of the Church having to waste its scarce funds. But again we can see through that.

Is it really a six year course? That's quite comprehensive, I like it. But I hardly think it's necessary. A single class will do.

The evidence shows that even with contraceptives, teen pregnancies increase. In fact, it shows that providing condoms and contraceptives actually INCREASES teen pregnancy because of risk compensation, habit persistence, etc. The truth is not as obvious as you think, mister.

What evidence, and please cite credible ones not ones penned by a nun posing as a scientific researcher..

Have you looked up the meaning of "mandatory" yet? It means parents will have NO CHOICE. They are FORCED to attend the RH curriculum. No wonder I have to keep repeating things. Shouldn't there be something between your ears to process the info? Use it.

Mandatory is not equivalent to no choice. It simply means something is required, not that it is required at the exclusion of everything else. Mandatory is not equivalent to banning. The word BAN is what equates to no choice. But keep butchering the English language that you are not proficient in.

I said 1% have been ACCUSED, not convicted or even proven to be as so accused Can't you tell the difference?

Yes I'm well aware that you mentioned that, but like nearly everything you've mentioned you have not shown why it requires a second reading.

[mannyamador]

You can do that without calling something unconstitutional.

Why avoid the point of the objection? Just because it blows you out of the water? I am not obliged to avoid pointing out your logical errors.. The point of the my objection is that something in the Bill is unconstitutional and there are arguments to back up that assertion. Just because you refuse to listen to reason doesn't make it meaningless.

Oh no sir, it is you who don't understand English.

There you go again,. I know you aren't addressing the point because you CAN'T.

Like I said, the issue is not whether the state has the power to set educational standards. It does have LIMITED power to do so.. But when the exercise of this power violates other rights (such as religious freedom and parental rights), then there must be some justification for it to be lawful. The state must show a very grave reason to justify its violation of people's rights. The backers of the RH Bill must therefore show an overriding, grave reason why freedom of religion and parental rights must be suppressed. If no convincing grave justification can be shown (and none has been presented in the case of the RH Bill), then we must take the SAFER APPROACH and NOT violate people's rights.

And just saying "no" to this isn't an argument at all. If you disagree then you must refute the argument. You have failed to do so. MISERABLY.

If I am indeed acting childish, then at least it's because I actually am a lot younger than you are.

Are you a little boy? Not likely. But that seems to be your apparent mental age since you are acting like one. And acting as such doesn't say much for what you advocate and is simply not justified.

It is mandatory in school, not at home. Everything in school is mandatory.

Wrong. Right now, parents can still choose which schools to attend depending on what they offer. Their offerings are quite varied as is their quality. Parents can choose to pull out their children from a s3x education program to which they object. The issue, by the way, is NOT what is mandatory at home, in case you forgot.

The issue is that parents will be forced to make their children attend classes that contradict their religious beliefs and that schools will be forced to teach something that contradicts their beliefs. This is something you have avoided addressing for quite a while now. We all know why, of course. Try to find a real argument, please.

Please do not quote your blog, it is irrelevant and it presumes that there is anything there that is of value.

You are presuming you have been able to refute what's in my blog. But you haven't, just like you haven't refuted any of my arguments. Your arrogant and childish behavior does not count as an argument.

Is it really a six year course? That's quite comprehensive, I like it. But I hardly think it's necessary. A single class will do.

Are you also ignorant of the s3x education requirements of the RH Bill as well? From grade 5 up to 4th year high school, you know. Oh brother....

What evidence, and please cite credible ones not ones penned by a nun posing as a scientific researcher..

Just because your hatred of Catholics causes you to remain blind to the truth does not make the studies cited earlier less credible. Please try to find a real argument instead of regaling us with more acrimonious displays of bigotry.

Mandatory is not equivalent to no choice.

It means parents CANNOT CHOOSE whether or not their children will attend the s3x education mandated in the RH Bill. You can't be that bad at English so it is obvious you re just playing with words. But we already know what it means. Parents will have NO CHOICE on the matter of their children attending the POPCOM-designed s3x education program. Furthermore, Catholic schools also will be forced to teach a curriculum that contradicts their own religious beliefs.Your deceptive playing with words doesn't change that.

Yes I'm well aware that you mentioned that,

But you chose to ignore the distinction to make another false claim. YOU JUST SHOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT!

That is quite dishonest of you and really an expression of your blind hatred for the Catholic Church. Please avoid such bigotry. It isn't good for you. Hmmm... Have you ever expressed your deep anger and hatred in a violent manner? You are apparently a potentially very dangerous individual. You really should talk to someone before you go off the deep end.




“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
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[giddyboy]

What referendum? You are being paranoid and overstating the case. No referendum is necessary. You simply have to allow schools to create their own values and *** education programs and then allow parents to choose which ones are good for their children. That is much cheaper than imposing a mandatory contraceptive-based program that parents and schools will have to undo.

as i said before, DepEd is the one that makes the implementing policies. and their implementing policies are based on a feedback mechanism. that's even the reason why since 1972, they kept revising and revising their s3x ed modules.

You seem to forget that even SUPPORTERS of the RH Bill are AGAINST the Bill's provisions for a SINGLE and MANDATORY s3x education program. They recognize that this violates religious freedom, academic freedom, and parental rights.

but they are not MAD like you are. they just disagree on that certain provision w/o discrediting the entire bill. at least they talk about it on a civil manner...

The state has the power to set educational standards, but when this violates the rights of people (such as religious freedom and parental rights), then there must be some justification.

again, The RH Bill is not the implementor, it's DepEd. it's DepEd that should provide justification. and they have been providing justifications since eons ago.

You know fully well that the RH Bill promotes artificial contraception in its educational component (it's right in section 12, part b and f). This directly contradicts Catholic teaching on contraception. One would have to be very dishonest to pretend such an obvious contradiction doesn't exist.

promoting is one thing. educating or informing what contraceptives are in an age-appropriate way is another thing. how the hell got you thinking that the gov't via the RH Bill will promote contraceptives to minors?

The studies show the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are claiming. You are ignoring the significant amount of scientific evidence which has already been posted here. That is quite deceptive.

no, no, no. Obama's and Congress findings show the exact opposite of what you are claiming. and it is you who are ignoring the significant amt of evidence including their public statements.

did i make the claim? no. I am just re-iterating the claim of Obama and the Congress that abstinence-only ed is out-of-date and ineffective. if u want somebody be called deceptive, label it to them instead, not me. remember, it is your word against Obama...HILARIOUS!!!

But that is NOT the issue. You are engaging in a strawman argument.

Neither the Church or the pro-life movement is advocating ignorance

ows, your flock of the same feather has been misinforming people about the condom for years already. and that is a fact. First, you guys present a visual aid. you then say that the HIV virus is smaller than the pores of the condom latex, thereby alleging that the virus can easily pass thru the walls of the condom. isn't that supposedly advocating ignorance? well, that surely can't fool me!

those peeps saying those bull ought to go back to school and get spanked by their Physics professor...

[mannyamador]

as i said before, DepEd is the one that makes the implementing policies.

So you admit there will be NO costly referendum? Just as I thought. You were therefore engaging in deceptive scare tactics.

and their implementing policies are based on a feedback mechanism. that's even the reason why since 1972, they kept revising and revising their s3x ed modules.

The RH Bill says the s3x education program will by the POPCOM in cooperation with the Department of Education. So what? The issue is that it will still be MANDATORY (forcing parents to make their children attend) and schools will be FORCED to teach it (which will contradict their own religious beliefs).

We should also take note that the RH Bill does NOT mandate using a feedback mechanism, nor does it specify that the POPCOM or Department of Education are obliged to use any feedback mechanism. And you're joking if you think we can rely on the "goodwill" of the POPCOM to take into consideration the religious beliefs of parents and schools.

at least they talk about it on a civil manner...

Which is something you and your smear campaign against the Church do not do.

But that is beside the point. The bottom line is that even the Bill's supporters realize that the mandatory nature of the Bill's s3x education program is COERCIVE and violates peoples' rights. Whatever else they approve of and in what manner they do does not change this fact.

again, The RH Bill is not the implementor, it's DepEd. it's DepEd that should provide justification. and they have been providing justifications since eons ago.

Wrong. The current s3x education modules of the Department of Education are not mandatory for all schools. Nothing was justified 'eons ago". What a bald-faced lie!

The Department of Education has NOT been able to provide any justification why such a s3x education program should be mandatory and should be the only one that must be taught in all schools. There is no justification such a totalitarian imposition.

promoting is one thing. educating or informing what contraceptives are in an age-appropriate way is another thing. how the hell got you thinking that the gov't via the RH Bill will promote contraceptives to minors?

You apparently haven't even read the Bill. Do your homework. The inclusion of contraceptives is in the text. And in case you forgot, children in Grade 5 up to 4th year high school are minors. Maybe you were 18 when you were in that level, but most of children at those levels are between 10-16 years old (except for very few who may have reached 18 at 4th year.

The bottom line is that when it comes to the RH Bill's mandatory s3x education component, there is no justification whatsoever for it and apparently little public support. The Department of Education has not been able make its existing modules mandatory and even the Bill's supporters are fragmented on that issue. The fact that the RH Bill has to resort to COERCION to get its s3x education component accepted indicates just how little support it has.

no, no, no. Obama's and Congress findings show the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

Sez you. But that's beside the point. All that means it the issue is UNRESOLVED.

In such a case we must take the SAFER APPROACH: ALLOW PARENTS AND SCHOOLS TO CHOOSE.

And citing Obamarama is, as I said, to commit the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority). That error sinks your argument completely.

ows, your flock of the same feather has been misinforming people about the condom for years already. and that is a fact.

The bigger fact is that the pro-RH side has been fooling people about a great number of issues. These deceptions include redefining when human life begins, hiding the high failure rate of condoms and other contraceptives vis-a-vis NFP, misrepresenting Catholic doctrine on contraception, and falsely denying the abortifacient mechanism of certain contraceptives. In fact, YOU have been caught LYING outright on this thread several times.




DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS. REJECT THE COERCIVE, ABORTION-PROMOTING RH BILL (HB 5043)!
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[mannyamador]

Why the RH bill is controversial
A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison
(The Philippine Star) Updated August 24, 2009 12:00 AM
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=498748

A law is necessary and desirable if its purpose is to promote public welfare and advance the common good. And we can be sure that this is its purpose if it is based on the truth. This is the problem with the RH bill. It is based on grounds that are not true or accurate. Its proponents keep on advancing arguments that are misleading and deceptive.

Once again they are citing high population growth as the reason for enacting the bill into law. This time no less than the Finance Secretary is quoted as having admitted that economic benefits are not trickling down to the poor because “there are just too many people being added to the lower sector of society” so that they “will just have to make do with a smaller size of the economic pie”. This is misleading.

It is true that our population is growing. Population definitely grows in countries inhabited by men and women of reproductive age like the Philippines. The growth may still be comparatively high at this time, but statistics show that the growth rate is already on the decline. In the 60’s and the 70’s the average number of children per family was six (6). Now the average number is only three (3) per family. Hence there is no more need for population control being actually prescribed by the bill. The bill’s proponents fully realize this so they even changed “population control” to the more agreeable phrase “population management” in the bill’s title obviously to increase the chances of its passage.

Besides, if our economy is really managed properly there will be no unequal distribution of the country’s economic wealth even if there is a growing population. Blaming population growth is just a convenient excuse for failure to properly and effectively manage our economy.

The RH bill is controversial precisely because its proponents and supporters single out our growing population as the main reason why there is unequal distribution of wealth in this country and why we are behind our Asian neighbors in terms of economic growth. They overlook or belittle the effects of the twin problems of rampant graft and corruption in government and the gargantuan amount allocated for our legislators’ pork barrel. These twin problems must be addressed first. If our economy still remains in the same state as it is now after these problems are eliminated or at least minimized, then blaming our growing population for our economic woes may not be as controversial.

But even granting that the Finance Secretary is correct in claiming that our growing population is the main cause of these economic problems, the proposed RH bill should nevertheless be junked. It is true that the bill “repeatedly underscores that abortion is illegal and criminal”. Yet in almost the same breath and under the guise of promoting “reproductive health” it has made available to women, a wide range of artificial contraceptive pills and devices including those that have been medically proven as causing abortion or creating “abortion mentality” because of unwanted pregnancies despite taking these contraceptives. Furthermore, as medically proven, these artificial contraceptives do not actually promote women’s reproductive health or reduce maternal and infant mortality. On the contrary some of them cause cancer and other illnesses to mothers and their children. And what about the deformed babies born of mothers known to have used these contraceptives we see all around?. The bill may be “pro quality of life” as its author claims, but that quality is really bad.

The bill allegedly give couples “informed choice” in planning the size of their family, but it does not require any warning at all that some of the contraceptives made available to them are harmful and/or causes abortion. It thus gives couples the option to end the life of an innocent and defenseless unborn human being in the mothers’ womb.

The bill indeed faces an uphill battle because it is contrary to law, morals, good customs and public policy. These are reasons enough not only for the “influential Catholic Church” but for people in other sectors of society to block its passage. Actually our legislators need not get experts to realize these flaws in the bill. Maybe they will be awakened by this piece written by a 22-year old student in Xavier University-Ateneo de Cagayan, Maria Lovella P. Naces, which I came across in the internet. She was talking about the baby girl of her sister who got pregnant unexpectedly at an early age, without planning for it. This is what she wrote about the RH bill:

“This is the trouble with the Reproductive Health Bill. Much as I try to understand, I am concerned over how the bill considers conception as a whole. I have read it for my school report and it disturbs me to think that society would be so reluctant to welcome human being who is about to be born. The drive to promote ‘informed choice’, proper birth spacing, etc. in order to avoid unplanned parenthood seems to have making a baby something scary.

The proponents of the bill say that contraception (which is actually contra conception) is the solution to our economic problems. Because the country is over populated, they say, therefore we should have fewer children.

I don’t agree with their solution. Why should people adjust to the economy? Let the economy adjust to the people.

I feel offended. As someone who loves her, I feel hurt for my niece. She is what they consider an ‘unplanned one’. The people promoting the bill look at my niece or all those born or about to be born like her as a burden to the country and a liability. They say we need this bill because it prevents people like her from being born.

Why would anybody prevent anyone as beautiful as a child to come into this world? Regardless of who the parents are or how the conception happened, a child is separate from the parents. Every child is beautiful.

The bill also wants to promote *** education to teach adolescents, mothers and fathers about ‘safe ***’. Safe from what? From conceiving a child? Why? But why give more importance to the pleasure of *** than the pleasure of becoming a parent? We are becoming more like the Westerners. We have forgotten that to Filipinos, a big family is a better family”.

As our National Hero, Jose Rizal says, “the youth is the hope of our motherland”. Let us listen to them and not to the foreign funded NGOs and multi-national pharmaceutical companies aggressively pushing for the passage of the bill to promote their own selfish interest and their own sinister hidden agenda of controlling the population growth of the “inferior race”.




“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
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[mannyamador]

Abstinence-Only Education Works, Contraceptive S3x-Ed Doesn't
A listing of evidence

We should put sound science ahead of politics and ideology. The evidence is clear: abstinence-only programs work. It is now a matter of convincing the pro-RH ideologues to pay attention to the growing body of scientific data. If the pro-RH people refuse to listen to reason then why should we listen to them or support their RH Bill?

• “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).
  
  
  
• Efficacy of a Theory-Based Abstinence-Only Intervention Over 24 Months
  A Randomized Controlled Trial With Young Adolescents
  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010;164(2):152-159.
  http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...ract/164/2/152
  
  
  Conclusion: Theory-based abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement.
  
  
  
• Abstinence-Only Education Linked to Decreased Promiscuity in High-Risk Teens: Study
  http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10020108.html
  
  
  Theory-based, abstinence-only intervention has been linked a lower rate of sexual involvement among African American preteens, according to a study in the February issue of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, a publication of the American Medical Association.
• 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 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.
  
  
  
• Abstinence is a reality for most teens
  http://www.abstinenceworks.org/image..._abstinent.pdf
  
  
  
  
  Full-size JPEG: http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/245...cesurvey01.png

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

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

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

kini lang ako masulti *** ed should also be coupled with gender sensitvity class...

@manny

ignon ani man gud na mura ra sulti ta naa GInoo or wala... ana half naa.. an other half wala... depende ra na asa ka...

not unless mahimong majprity ang number sa med officers nasulti na bad gyud na ug ang benfits kay less sa sideeffects dinha na maban.. :d

[giddyboy]

So you admit there will be NO costly referendum? Just as I thought. You were therefore engaging in deceptive scare tactics.

u seem not to get the gist of our conversation between @wakkanaka. mao nay resulta nga mo butt in lng ka ug kalit.

what i meant was, if we have to ask all people to vote or not to vote for a mandatory s3x ed, the only best recourse is a referendum. but noting that it is not justifiable to spend big only for that matter (coz surveys and Congressional votes are already justifiable). what scare tactic are you talking about? are u smoking something?

The RH Bill says the s3x education program will by the POPCOM in cooperation with the Department of Education. So what? The issue is that it will still be MANDATORY (forcing parents to make their children attend) and schools will be FORCED to teach it (which will contradict their own religious beliefs).

so what if PopCom is in cooperation w/ DepEd? it's a cooperation between two (or if im not mistaken 3) agencies.

as what @raski said, u r very fond of butchering the English language. you make "mandatory" sound sooo evil by injecting negative verbs. did you happen to know that in a democracy, almost all our laws are monocentrically coercive in nature?

unsa man kunoy mkapa contradict sa religious beliefs nga all the s3x ed modules will do is just to inform students the age-appropriate way? you might just be confused as w/ @wakkanaka between what is religious beliefs and what is taboo. they are entirely different stories.

tanawa lang gud ni ang atong forums for example. even if it is not against forum rules to mention the word "s3x", still our modz automatically asterisks that word whenever it is being mentioned here. that's the difference on another analogy.

We should also take note that the RH Bill does NOT mandate using a feedback mechanism, nor does it specify that the POPCOM or Department of Education are obliged to use any feedback mechanism. And you're joking if you think we can rely on the "goodwill" of the POPCOM to take into consideration the religious beliefs of parents and schools.

OMG, did the RH Bill say in its provisions that it has to cancel the feedback mechanism policy that the DepEd has been currently having? It doesn't even have to re-iterate that DepEd policy! even w/ the RH Bill, Deped policies are still intact, except the inclusion of PopCom to coordinate w/ them.

btw, do you have a beef w/ PopCom? it seems that you have. another one in your hate list?

Which is something you and your smear campaign against the Church do not do.

as i've said before, I am not a member of any political org nor has the capability to do a smear campaign to anyone. I am just criticizing some of the church policies and their actions regarding how they treat the RH Bill issue.

now to continue disproving your claims that abstinence-only ed advocates are not advocating ignorance. The claimed errors included:

(1) misrepresenting the failure rates of contraceptives.
(2) misrepresenting the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission, including the citation of a discredited 1993 study by Dr. Susan Weller, when the federal government had acknowledged it was inaccurate in 1997 and larger and more recent studies that did not have the problems of Weller's study were available.
(3) false claims that abortion increases the risk of infertility, premature birth for subsequent pregnancies, and ectopic pregnancy.
(4) treating stereotypes about gender roles as scientific fact.
(5) other scientific errors, e.g. stating that "twenty-four chromosomes from the mother and twenty-four chromosomes from the father join to create this new individual". The actual number is 23. (hey, i'm familiar w/ this claimed error)

source:
wikipedia: US House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform—Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division (December 2004). "The content of federally-funded abstinence-only education programs"

But that is beside the point. The bottom line is that even the Bill's supporters realize that the mandatory nature of the Bill's s3x education program is COERCIVE and violates peoples' rights. Whatever else they approve of and in what manner they do does not change this fact.

mao ni tinuod: even the term "s3x ed" disgusts you. Having a mandatory policy doesn't always mean it violates people's rights. even if it is coercive in nature, same story. In a democracy, there are justifications for that.

Wrong. The current s3x education modules of the Department of Education are not mandatory for all schools. Nothing was justified 'eons ago". What a bald-faced lie!

The Department of Education has NOT been able to provide any justification why such a s3x education program should be mandatory and should be the only one that must be taught in all schools. There is no justification such a totalitarian imposition.

I did not say it was mandatory eons ago. but they wanted to make it mandatory for all public schools. i was saying that their s3x ed modules, being there (mandatory or not), was justifiable enough to exist. otherwise, they didn't have to bother making and revising it, do they?

so if you say there is no justification for s3x ed in our schools, why is the U.S. having s3x ed in almost all their schools? coz if im not mistaken, whether abstinence-only ed or what have you, fact still remains that all schools in America included s3x ed in their curriculum.

the fact that there is no implementing policy offered yet from DepEd if and only if the RH Bill is passed into law, means being paranoid has no place yet at this point in time. why? is there already an existing proposed s3x ed module that we can scrutinize? I don't think so. First thing first: The RH Bill must be first passed into law before anything else.

---000---

S3X EDUCATION (S3XUALITY EDUCATION)

Sometimes formal *** education is taught as a full course as part of the curriculum in junior high school or high school. Other times it is only one unit within a more broad biology class, health class, home economics class, or physical education class.

In Japan, *** education is mandatory from age 10 or 11, mainly covering biological topics such as menstruation and ejaculation.

In China and Sri Lanka, *** education traditionally consists in reading the reproduction section of biology textbooks. In Sri Lanka they teach the children when they are 17-18 years. However, in 2000 a new five-year project was introduced by the China Family Planning Association to "promote reproductive health education among Chinese teenagers and unmarried youth" in twelve urban districts and three counties. This included discussion about *** within human relationships as well as pregnancy and HIV prevention.

In France, *** education has been part of school curricula since 1973.

In Germany, *** education has been part of school curricula since 1970. Since 1992 *** education is by law a governmental duty.

In the U.S., almost all U.S. students receive some form of *** education at least once between grades 7 and 12; many schools begin addressing some topics as early as grades 5 or 6. However, what students learn varies widely, because curriculum decisions are so decentralized.

source: wikipedia

NO to Abortion!
YES to age-appropriate S3x Education!
YES to the Reproductive Health Bill!