Legalize Abortion?

[giddyboy]

---

Sec. Teodoro supports Reproductive Health Bill
Malaya, July 21, 2009

...For proponents of a national policy to address the major obstacles to the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals, the one big test of presidential timber is the fate of the Reproductive Health Bill in the Congress of the Philippines. If the bill is passed in either or both houses, all aspirants will be able to take credit for taking a pro-poor position on the issue – including even Malacañang supporters, should Mrs. Arroyo decide to sign it into law. On the other hand, should it fail, RH advocates will have many targets of opprobrium – these should include not only those who actively opposed its passage but also those who, out of sheer lack of intestinal fortitude or guts, failed to openly express support even if they believed in the principle that government has the obligation to provide reproductive information and services to the people.

For this reason, from now till the legislature adjourns late this year, RH advocates will have to closely track all utterances and actions of all "presidentiables" to determine if they have any significant contribution to either the passage or rejection of reproductive health legislation – the litmus test of this country’s commitment to the MDGs. The objective of such political "surveillance" is to ensure that all aspiring candidates are compelled to take definite positions on the issue and are not allowed to "paddle their canoes on two rivers

For this purpose, it may be useful to have a baseline preliminary assessment of the various personalities’ likely positions based on what they have said so far in the different "presidential forums" as well as some recent actions they have taken. Below is such an assessment:

Senator Manny Villar, current polls front-runner, may be rated as neutral but tending to opposition to RH. His wife is one of the known supporters of the bill in the House of Representatives but he himself has not shown interest in the Senate discussions and he has distanced himself from the overtly pro-RH groups. (though an insider story when Villar was in Cebu tends to show he is in support of the bill)

Former President Joseph Estrada is firmly listed as a supporter (of the RH Bill). Not only is his son a strong supporter in the Senate, he himself strongly supported a strong program of family planning and population management during his shortened incumbency as president.

Vice President Noli de Castro appears to be neutral at the moment but he may be tending towards support. His current silence on the issues is probably a gesture of loyalty to the administration but he has in the past taken populist positions in line with what the surveys show as prevailing public opinion.

Bayani Fernando in his last appearance answered the question on reproductive health by simply asserting, "I am a Catholic". This is may be interpreted as active opposition to RH legislation despite the fact that his wife, a mayor, supports family planning.

Gilbert Teodoro has taken a very definite supportive stand in line with his wife being a signatory to the House version of the RH Bill.

Senator Mar Roxas maintains a very guarded position, neither supporting nor opposing the measure. This is despite the fact that he is known as a strong proponent of progressive ideas of governance as shown by his advocacy of cheaper medicines.

full article:
Gilbert Teodoro ? 2010 Presidential Election - News - PoliticalArena - Sec. Teodoro supports Reproductive Health Bill

---000---

Bishop prods on schools to teach ‘proper’ *** education
MANILA, May 29, 2009— CUBAO Bishop Honesto Ongtioco will have no reservations with *** education in the academe for one condition: it should be taught “properly” by being in accordance with church teachings.

Further, the prelate added that *** education has to be taught to young people at the right time and with a Catholic perspective.

“The sacredness of *** is a gift from God. For me, *** education should be taught in a proper way and [should] match the age of the child,” Ongtioco said over Radyo Veritas.

“There should be a Catholic view of ***, meaning you are presenting *** in a proper way because others may be narrow-minded,” Ongtioco also said.

For a holistic approach, the bishop mentioned that an age-appropriate method and presentation are highly recommended for elementary school pupils, high school students and college students.

full article:
http://www.prolife.org.ph/news/index...***-education/

NO to Abortion!
TAKE ACTION! YES to age-appropriate S3x Education.
YES TO THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL!!!

[raski]

@giddyboy: I understand your frustration completely, whereas it is normal for people to get into arguments in this forum, intelligent debate presumes that those engaging in it have an understanding of the underlying language of discussion that adheres to the common, ordinary sense of words. Mannyamador is either a master at redefining words to suit his purpose, or alternatively, does not in fact have a very firm grasp of the English language.

It seems we are simply going around in circles here, because there is not that requisite shared and common understanding of the English language. Here we are on one side, presuming that the words BAN and MANDATORY mean what they simply mean, and there goes Mannyamador butchering the words and then reformulating it to suit his purposes. Then he declares that he "won" the argument. How anyone can have a decent discussion with the guy for any period of time is a true mystery to behold.

And in any case, by responding here we are merely playing into his hands and bumping this post to the top where it has the slight chance of piquing the interest of anybody because as far as I can tell, hardly anyone cares about what anyone, Mannyamador and both of us included has to say because hardly anyone cares about this topic except to say that they are for it or against it. Really, the purpose of Mannyamador is not to have intelligent debate, but to have his single-mindedness broadcast to anybody who might care to read it, in other words, propaganda. That was always his intention from the start, and for us to think we can have any kind of debate with the guy is a complete waste of time as such I suggest that you let him be because I doubt he is going to change anyone's mind here (that's presuming he can even get anyone to read this entire abortive thread) and he can do little damage to the RH Bill if any, at all.

I would just like to say though, that the best place for propaganda is a personal blog, so perhaps a link to his blog would have sufficed as opposed to the amazing waste of time this has been to everybody who has spent time trying to debate the topic intelligently. Peace.

[cebulifer]

maybe he has a blog. no one is reading it though.

Pass the RH bill and lets go discuss other topics.

[mannyamador]

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.

That's absurd. All you have to do is ALLOW PEOPLE TO CHOOSE. The idea of conducting such a referendum is silly. Yet you were using it as an "argument".

so what if PopCom is in cooperation w/ DepEd?

You are still missing the point. The issue is the COERCIVE NATURE of the proposed s3x education program. Citing that the Department of Education is the implementor proves nothing.

as what @raski said, u r very fond of butchering the English language.

Both of you are experts in deceptively twisting words to fit your propaganda. The classic one is "beginning of pregnancy", which the pro-RH fanatics have redefined to mean "at implantation". Your other deceptions are quite well explained in the article below:

Plan B Manufacturer Admits Morning After Pill Can Cause Death of an Embryo
Plan B Manufacturer Admits Morning After Pill Can Cause Death of an Embryo

But if Plan B may work post-fertilization, may cause the death of a newly-conceived human embryo, how can the drug maker say that the pill is only a "contraceptive," is "not effective if a woman is pregnant," and "is not an abortifacient"? The short answer is that the manufacturer appears to rely on recent (and perhaps politically motivated) redefinitions of conception, pregnancy, and abortion: According to the new definitions, "conception" and "pregnancy" begin at implantation rather than at fertilization, and "abortion" means the termination of a post-implantation "pregnancy." The drug makers can claim, rightly, that their statements are true under these new definitions.

One large problem is that the lay readers of the drug information packet are not told up front that these special new definitions are being used. Thus this "information" is quite unfair and misleading to average men and women who may remember from high school biology that fertilization and conception meant the same thing and that fertilization marked the beginning of pregnancy.

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 seem to have a long-time inability to understand English. The RH Bill explicitly states that contraceptive use must be taught to grade 5 to 4th year students. (note: those are minors). And these must be taught by ALL school,s including Catholic schools. The Catholic Church, however, has had a doctrine against contraception for nearly two millennia. So the RH Bill's proposed s3x education program will FORCE Catholic schools to teach something that contradicts their own religious belief. Gets mo now?

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?

The RH Bill does NOT require any feedback mechanism whatsoever. It should. This is another flaw. Since the program will be mandatory, then the POPCOM can do what it wants and the schools will be powerless to challenge it (except by challenging the RH Bill in court).

Even some of the Bill's supporters have objected to the COERCIVE nature of the Bill's s3x education component. Fanatics like you, however, who won't even listen to the more reasonable voices on your side.

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.

You are clearly conducting a smear campaign by using ad hominem arguments and citing false information. Whether you do this by yourself or secretly in coordination with pro-RH groups is irrelevant.

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.

That is the point. Those who are pushing for the mandatory s3x education component must also be the ones to justify it. So far, neither you nor anyone else has done so. Instead, you keep giving excuses NOT to justify it.

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?

You forget that they allow CHOICE. Over there, parents can choose to opt out. Schools can create or adopt their own programs in lieu of a government-mandated program. The RH Bill does NOT allow choice. That's the huge difference, which you are trying to gloss over. Deception again.

is there already an existing proposed s3x ed module that we can scrutinize? I don't think so.

Do your homework. There already are such modules being taught in some schools. And they are truly objectionable.

Bishop prods on schools to teach ‘proper’ *** education

I totally agree with the bishop.

What the bishop proposes is not mandatory, allows parents and schools to choose, does not force Catholic schools to teach contraception, allows schools to teach abstinence-ONLY programs (not "abstinence plus"), and allows schools to teach values and s3x in a Catholic perspective without other contradictory teachings. Good stuff.

The problem, however, is that the RH Bill's s3x education component is NONE OF THE ABOVE!

Funny how you should cite the good bishop who directly contradicts what you are advocating. Perhaps you didn't understand what he said? Good grief!

It seems we are simply going around in circles here...

As expected, no refutation of the logical arguments presented. Oh well...



“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]

This article clearly illustrates how the pro-RH and pro-abortion side has been twisting words to suit their propaganda and legalistic purposes. This deceptive use of language is also being done in the Philippines by various groups such as the PLCPD, RHAN, Cong. Lagman and the backers of the RH Bill (HB 5043), etc.


Plan B Manufacturer Admits Morning After Pill Can Cause Death of an Embryo
Special to LifeSiteNews.com by Prof. Richard Stith, PhD



Recent publicity concerning Plan B has been seriously misleading. The Plan B morning-after pill has been referred to as "contraception," even though it may act after fertilization to cause the death of a human embryo. This is an important mistake because, whatever one's judgment on abortion may be, I think we all agree that no woman should be misled into doing what she would consider to be taking a life without realizing that she is doing so.

There has been a shameful disinformation campaign on Plan B for years, and the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has failed to demand candor. Perhaps the simplest way to discern the truth is to look very carefully at the manufacturer's own "information" for consumers, found on its website at http://www.go2planb.com/section/about/index.html:

How does Plan B work (mechanism of action)?

Plan B is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium. Plan B is not effective if a woman is pregnant. Plan B is a contraceptive and cannot terminate an established pregnancy.

Will Plan B harm an unborn fetus?

There is no evidence that Plan B would harm a pregnant woman or a developing fetus if the product were accidentally taken during early pregnancy.... Plan B is not an abortifacient. It is an emergency contraceptive and should not be confused with RU486 or any other abortifacient.

Note that the manufacturer claims that Plan B is "contraceptive", "not effective if a woman is pregnant", will not "harm an unborn fetus," and "is not an abortifacient." Sure sounds like it doesn't destroy an unborn human life, and that's the message swallowed and spread by the media.

However, note also that the drug maker admits that Plan B "may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium [i.e. the lining of the womb]." In other words, Plan B may cause a newly-conceived embryo to die (and be expelled) because it cannot implant itself in the lining of the womb. For this reason, some South American courts have found the Plan B drug to violate an unborn child's constitutionally-guaranteed right to life.

In light of the manufacturer's own admission, its other statements above may at first seem to be flat-out lies. But careful analysis reveals them to be deeply misleading rather than flatly false. Although many people (e.g. the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin) use the word "fetus" to refer to an unborn child at any stage of development, in medicine a developing human life is usually called an "embryo" rather than a "fetus" prior to implantation in the mother's womb. The statement that Plan B does not "harm an unborn fetus" is true if we use this technical medical definition of "fetus," even though it may be misleading for those of us who don't distinguish fetuses from embryos.

But if Plan B may work post-fertilization, may cause the death of a newly-conceived human embryo, how can the drug maker say that the pill is only a "contraceptive," is "not effective if a woman is pregnant," and "is not an abortifacient"? The short answer is that the manufacturer appears to rely on recent (and perhaps politically motivated) redefinitions of conception, pregnancy, and abortion: According to the new definitions, "conception" and "pregnancy" begin at implantation rather than at fertilization, and "abortion" means the termination of a post-implantation "pregnancy." The drug makers can claim, rightly, that their statements are true under these new definitions.

One large problem is that the lay readers of the drug information packet are not told up front that these special new definitions are being used. Thus this "information" is quite unfair and misleading to average men and women who may remember from high school biology that fertilization and conception meant the same thing and that fertilization marked the beginning of pregnancy.

Moreover, the drug maker's insistence that Plan B does not terminate a pregnancy is a red herring to begin with. Nobody has any qualms about terminating pregnancies per se. After all, that's what birth itself does! What pro-life women and men don't want to do is to have an "abortion" in the ordinary sense of terminating LIFE. When the drug maker tells them not to worry because they are not terminating a pregnancy, they may conclude incorrectly that Plan B cannot cause the death of their unborn child. When they find out too late that they were misled and may have taken the lives of their own children, they may be devastated. And the drug maker, the media, and the FDA will be responsible.

In making this potentially lethal pill more easily available, the FDA should at least have required the drug maker to come clean, to say prominently on its label something like "WARNING: THIS DRUG MAY CAUSE THE DEATH OF AN EMBRYO." Its users would then be able to exercise informed consent about whether to take a chance on destroying a developing human life.




“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)

[gikapoy]

halah i legalize. its ur choice kung mag pa abort or dili

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

*** ed should be mandatory.. and tehre should be standard on what the course should contain.. kay basin sa scatholic school ila buhaton sa *** ed kay himo-ong science class...

[giddyboy]

You are still missing the point. The issue is the COERCIVE NATURE of the proposed s3x education program. Citing that the Department of Education is the implementor proves nothing.

You seem to have a long-time inability to understand English. The RH Bill explicitly states that contraceptive use must be taught to grade 5 to 4th year students. (note: those are minors). And these must be taught by ALL school,s including Catholic schools. The Catholic Church, however, has had a doctrine against contraception for nearly two millennia. So the RH Bill's proposed s3x education program will FORCE Catholic schools to teach something that contradicts their own religious belief. Gets mo now?

The RH Bill does NOT require any feedback mechanism whatsoever. It should. This is another flaw. Since the program will be mandatory, then the POPCOM can do what it wants and the schools will be powerless to challenge it (except by challenging the RH Bill in court).

Even some of the Bill's supporters have objected to the COERCIVE nature of the Bill's s3x education component. Fanatics like you, however, who won't even listen to the more reasonable voices on your side.

first, let us cite the RH Bill provision about this particular matter:

MANDATORY AGE-APPROPRIATE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH EDUCATION

"Reproductive health education in an age-appropriate manner shall be taught by adequately trained teachers starting from Grade 5 up to Fourth Year High School. The implementation of Reproductive Health Educationshall commence at the start of the school year one year following the effectivity of this Act. The POPCOM, in coordination with the Department of Education, shall formulate the Reproductive Health Education curriculum, which shall be common to public and private schools and shall include related population and development concepts in addition to the following subjects and standards:

Reproductive health and sexual rights; Reproductive health care and services; Attitudes, beliefs and values on sexual development; sexual behaviour and sexual health; Proscription and hazards of abortion and management of post-abortion complications; Responsible parenthood; Use and application of natural and modern family planning methods to promote reproductive health, to achieve desired family size and prevent unwanted, unplanned, and mistimed pregnancies; Abstinence before marriage; Prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and other STIs/STDs, prostate cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, and other gynecological disorders; Responsible sexuality; and Maternal, pre-natal, and post-natal education, care, and services."

Now looking at this guiding principle provision, I don't see anything wrong w/ it at all!!! which part of this provision do you not like huh? maayo ni maklaro nato gyud. is it the words "reproductive rights" angering you? why coz it is somehow reminding you of your political opponent which are the women's rights groups? is the inclusion of modern family planning info bothering you? what, you don't want the kids to know what it is? toinks!

remember, do not forget s3x ed should be taught in an "age-appropriate" way...

That is the point. Those who are pushing for the mandatory s3x education component must also be the ones to justify it. So far, neither you nor anyone else has done so. Instead, you keep giving excuses NOT to justify it.

the need for s3x ed in schools is already justified in its own right. be it abstinence ed, or what have you.

but if what u meant is what is the implementing details down to the nitty gritty stuff, unsaon lage paghimo, pagpakita, ug pgpa justify sa DepEd/POPCOM nga the legislators are still in the process of having the Bill approved? mag una diay ang implementation kaysa balaud? toinks!

unya naman na ipasa, scrutinize, debated, etc etc ang implementing internal rules sa DepEd/PopCom when the bill is already passed into law. But it seems you make it look like there already are implementing rules. wala pa gani!

again, the RH Bill only gives guiding principles. The implementor w/c is DepEd/PopCom will be the ones to create those implementing policies for implementation. and again, the feedback mechanism of DepEd applies.

mao btaw that bishop I mentioned said he is prodding schools to teach proper s3x ed the Catholic way. he didn't even mention that it should only be abstinence ed but we just assume it is. but not all schools are Catholic schools. the way he speaks in his article did not even bash anybody. and this is what I'm talking about.

He said he will have no reservations with *** education in the academe. that means he likes that idea that all schools will have s3x ed, a mandatory s3x ed, but on certain conditions.

He even further said that it is deemed necessary for the Department of Education to be the prime mover in disseminating this fact in coordination with the Catholic Church and other competent agencies. did he even mention about the RH Bill? wala. why? it's not the job of the RH Bill to implement. don't u get it?

this is like the bill providing rules and regulations regarding dispensing and sale of medicines. does the bill provide the nitty gritty stuff? NO. the bill only provides the guiding principles. and it is the BFAD my friend, as the implementor of those principles by making their internal rules and regulations.

---000---

let me re-iterate this part i mentioned earlier:

CLAIMED ERRORS OF ABSTINENCE-ONLY ED ADVOCATES
(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)

@giddyboy: I understand your frustration completely, whereas it is normal for people to get into arguments in this forum, intelligent debate presumes that those engaging in it have an understanding of the underlying language of discussion that adheres to the common, ordinary sense of words. Mannyamador is either a master at redefining words to suit his purpose, or alternatively, does not in fact have a very firm grasp of the English language.

It seems we are simply going around in circles here, because there is not that requisite shared and common understanding of the English language. Here we are on one side, presuming that the words BAN and MANDATORY mean what they simply mean, and there goes Mannyamador butchering the words and then reformulating it to suit his purposes. Then he declares that he "won" the argument. How anyone can have a decent discussion with the guy for any period of time is a true mystery to behold.

And in any case, by responding here we are merely playing into his hands and bumping this post to the top where it has the slight chance of piquing the interest of anybody because as far as I can tell, hardly anyone cares about what anyone, Mannyamador and both of us included has to say because hardly anyone cares about this topic except to say that they are for it or against it. Really, the purpose of Mannyamador is not to have intelligent debate, but to have his single-mindedness broadcast to anybody who might care to read it, in other words, propaganda. That was always his intention from the start, and for us to think we can have any kind of debate with the guy is a complete waste of time as such I suggest that you let him be because I doubt he is going to change anyone's mind here (that's presuming he can even get anyone to read this entire abortive thread) and he can do little damage to the RH Bill if any, at all.

I would just like to say though, that the best place for propaganda is a personal blog, so perhaps a link to his blog would have sufficed as opposed to the amazing waste of time this has been to everybody who has spent time trying to debate the topic intelligently. Peace.

i totally agree. u certainly have a better grasp of things at a birds eye view. you belong to the "real" world, open and reasonable. i think manny has a blog of some sorts pertaining to this issue. perhaps that's why gipanindigan gyud niya diri...and not only that, he continuously advertises his group. is that against our forum rules here? coz IMHO, those ads better be posted in the Classified ads section...

sakto, propaganda gyud ni iyaha. and it doesn't even need explaining...and single-mindedness too. such a waste of time.

[Lind]

naunsa nmn tawn na sila ui!

[elvandesantos]

halah i legalize. its ur choice kung mag pa abort or dili

up ko ani oi.. grabe ka well explained. period dretso! astig!