Legalize Abortion?

[cebulifer]

---

philippines is a solid catholic country...abortion is not feasible here...

Abortion in Italy

Legal man gani sa Italy.

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

ang uban kay dili m8ubasa nsa bill mu-ingon dayon na pro abortion ang RHbill..

[mannyamador]

Philippines bishops and people resist attacks on pro-life culture and laws
http://www.spuc.org.uk/news/releases/2009/september6a

Derby, 6 September 2009 - Pro-life activists in the Philippines, including the Catholic bishops, are resisting attacks on the country's pro-life culture and constitution from overseas agencies including the Obama administration.

This message was today conveyed to the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children's annual conference by Mr Francisco Tatad, former leader of the Philippines senate, and Mrs Fenny Tatad, executive director of the Bishops-Legislators Caucus of the Philippines.

Mr Tatad told the conference that the Filipino people's faith in the sanctity of life was being daily tested by assaults from the media and pressure groups. Abortion nevertheless remained banned in that country. State-run contraception and sterilisation were the first steps on the road to legalised abortion. Families were getting smaller.

Legislators were promoting a reproductive health bill which contained policies which were against Filipino culture and constitution. The bill fell short of legalising abortion but contained much that was unethical. It would empower the state to prevent women from conceiving. Mr Tatad described the proposed measure as Orwellian; politicians should have blocked it from the start yet it was being debated. Scholars at a Jesuit university in the Philippines had said that Catholics could support it; Catholic academics overseas had rebuked them.

Mrs Tatad said that the media had not been neutral on the bill but its opponents had used blogs to spread their message. Parliamentary debate had been tumultuous and the Catholic bishops had also intervened to stop anti-life language from being inserted in a different bill on women. Anti-life activists had also tried to bring language on reproductive health into a bill on agriculture.

While the Philippines had a bloated reproductive health budget, there was insufficient money for basic healthcare and sanitation. Mrs Tatad said that some local councils had adopted reproductive health programmes and formed alliances with overseas organisations and governments.

Mr Tatad added that President Obama's over-riding of the ban on the use of US money for abortion overseas was a threat to the Philippines. UN bodies were also applying pressure to the nation to legalise abortion. There was a risk of the election of a morally indifferent president in the Philippines.

The UN had to be made to focus once more on its original mandate of promoting peaceful cooperation between nations, instead of intervening in the intimate affairs of families. It needed to have an international convention which would stop states and agencies from promoting birth control and abortion; instead, the UN should promote the sanctity of human life.

The pro-life struggle was God's battle first, not ours, and God did not routinely lose battles.




The RH Bill promotes Abortifacient Contraceptives
NO to the anti-life RH Bill
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[mannyamador]

this is just a hypothetical question just what if the patient has a heart ailment and pregnancy could endanger her life.. so the catholic doctor will say use calendar method, then the patient says doc i really have a very horny husband who dont listen to reason on why we should schedule the *** and just the love flow when we feel like doing it..

This is a description of an ABUSIVE relationship. If a husband loves his wife then he should not endanger her life by demanding s3x whenever he wants it. He should consider her health and only have s3x when it is absolutely safe: that means periodic abstinence (since a woman cannot conceive if she is not fertile}. A husband who refuses to wait is being abusive.

Contraceptives will NOT solve this problem. In fact, contraceptives may make the situation worse because the abusive nature of the relationship will just be covered up.

But the [pro-RH fanatics don't seem to care about such abuse. All you care about is that people screw whenever they want to no matter who gets hurt or killed. That's really sick.

By the way, the "calendar method" is NOT Natural Family Planning (NFP). We have pointed this out over and over again but it seems you are ignoring this information so you can try to discredit NFP. That is not very honest.

Duties & Responsibilities of Doctors
Listen to patients and respect their views
Respect the right of patients to be fully involved in decisions about their care
Respect the right of patients to a second opinion

Take note that the last line is NOT the same as making a referral. It only means that the doctor cannot stop a patient from seeking medical advice or treatment elsewhere (a second opinion). It does NOT mean the doctor has to directly refer the patient to someone else who will provide a morally objectionable service or medically unnecessary service.

The pro-RH fanatics are deliberately twisting the responsibilities of a doctor to make it seem as if a doctor must directly make a referral for ELECTIVE treatments. Birth control is an ELECTIVE treatment, meaning it is NOT medically necessary to save life or cure a disease, but it only something a patient WANTS but does not actually NEED.

Doctors are only obliged to provide what is medically necessary for a patient's health, and artificial contraceptives (for birth control) are NOT medically necessary since pregnancy is NOT a disease.

A doctor cannot stop a patient from getting a second opinion. But that is different from making a referral. A referral, in the context of the current debate on the RH Bill, is NOT a second opinion, but simply sending someone who asks for contraceptives to someone who WILL dispense it. It is NOT a second opinion. In fact, it may not even a medical opinion at all since the one referred to will simply just carry out the procedure.

third, the state have the right to force the catholic schools to teach information on contraceptives.
because it does not violate the catholic faith,

You don't seem to know much about the Catholic faith. Teaching people how to use contraceptives (which effectively promotes it) IS against the Catholic faith. Its use is considered immoral by the Church.

The Church is not hiding that contraceptives exist. What it is against is teaching a view that says contraception is morally acceptable or morally neutral. The government has no right to force people into believing certain things or to force people to teach what is contrary to their faith. Why do you insist on denying people the right to choose?

Di man gali na siya bisaya, so wa na siyay lugar diri sa istorya.

There's is no rule prohibiting non-Cebuanos (or non-bisayans) from participating in Istorya.Net. It's obvious you are just engaging in ad hominem attacks (which is a logical error) in an attempt to stop serious discussion. That's because serious discussion exposes the flaws of the abortion/RH Bill, which you cannot cover up.

Legal man gani sa Italy.

Thanks for exposing the real RH agenda. The pro-RH fanatics eventually want to legalize abortion (murder of the unborn) and the RH Bill is the vehicle to do so.




PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS. NO TO THE COERCIVE RH/ABORTION BILL (HB 5043)
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[robzred]

i'm a no no to abortion jud. gift na gud na ni god na magkababy maski accident ra.

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

hahahaha... are you in a relationship? hidni naman porke gusto ng ng lalake tapos hindi ka safe ayaw din ng babae... most girls wont admit it na sila mismo yung may gusto... come to think of it ang pinka fertile days sa babae kay kanang day na siya mismo mangahgad sa iya bana... kaana sad ang day na iya body temp kay taas... calendar method dili apil NFP? hello! kadaghna mga doctor mu-sulti na apil na siya kuyog sa getting the body temp, observation sa vaginal discharge, unsa man di ay nang rhythm method manny kana manang dili mo mag jer-jer kung dili safe days kana manang calendar method...

or basin ganahn ka mag post pa ko diri mga medical site namagpaptunay na kang rhythm metyhod kay apil sa NFP... its just widely known as calendar kase you have to observe your menstrual cycle...

there are alot of couple who practice MNFP... they use condom during these unsafe days or fetile days... ayaw ko ingna na dili apil anng calendar method sa NFP kay apil na...

actually manny doctors need not dispense contraceptives.. patient got to their doctors not to ask for contraceptives but its pros and cons... the doctors dont have to hand the contraceptives to patient manny heelo nakapunta kana ba sa isang OBgyne? women dont go to their doctors and ask for contraceptives they ask which contraceptive is better... lahi lahi man gud nang contraceptives manny.. depende na siya effect kada babae..

the doctor must at least answer the question of the patient concerning her choice on her reproductive health... if the doctors cannot answer such question he might as well refer the person to a more competent doctor kesa nasa limbo yung tao... beacsue the doctor imposes his/her religion on the patient...



you are the one denying the right of the people to choose by limiting the information they received...
We are not the one denying the right of the people to choose manny, you are... people ahve the right to know pros and cons before they can make their decisions and choice.. if you just give them one choice and information base on that choice only you are giving them a limited view... nakakatawa ka..

kami ang tinuturo mo na nag dedeny sa right ng tao pumili na ikaw mismo ang nagbabwal na maka-alam at maka-abot sa tao ang inpormasyon tungkol sa contraceptives...

una nasa approach lang yan sa pagtuturo... pwede na man scientific ang approach sa pagturo ng pag gamit ng contraceptives...

mula sa history ng birth control at herbal contraceptives... up to its present development


im pro-abortion (in special circumstances) manny unlike most of the RH bill supporters like Giddy and the rest.. and i dont think the bill is even half of what i want it to be to be called a pro-abortion bill...

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

@manny
it think what ******** is pointing out is that being a predominantly catholic nation does not hinder a state to make a law that violate the catholic faith.

[mannyamador]

actually manny doctors need not dispense contraceptives.. patient got to their doctors not to ask for contraceptives but its pros and cons... the doctors dont have to hand the contraceptives to patient

That's how it is NOW. But if the RH/abortiion Bill is passed that will change. Doctors WILL have to dispense abortifacient/artificial contraceptives (or refer requestors to those who will do the same).

Please read the text of Section 21, #5 of the proposed HB 5043 before making such inaccurate claims. You are confusing CURRENT practice with the PROPOSED CHANGES in the RH/abortion Bill.

beacsue the doctor imposes his/her religion on the patient...

Wrong. The doctor is NOT imposing anything on the requestor ("patient") since he is not forcing or restricting the requestor. The doctor is restricting HIMSELF. The requestor can always go to another doctor. There is no imposition or limitation on the requestor whatsoever.

The information the requestor seeks is available everywhere. THERE IS NO NEED TO FORCE ANOTHER PERSON TO PROVIDE IT.

im pro-abortion (in special circumstances) manny unlike most of the RH bill supporters like Giddy and the rest.. and i dont think the bill is even half of what i want it to be to be called a pro-abortion bill...

I know you are, and it's an ABOMINATION.

Murdering the innocent for the convenience of a few is never justified.

i'm a no no to abortion jud. gift na gud na ni god na magkababy maski accident ra.

Well said, brother! God bless!




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

[mannyamador]

More on the "overpopulation" myth.

A time bomb that will never explode
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle6812844.ece

Britain’s population has passed 61 million. But ignore the doom-mongers, it’s something to celebrate, not to be scared by

Good news: Britain’s population has climbed to a healthy level. Bad news: doomsayers will misrepresent triumph as disaster. History can give us a rational, informed awareness of how and why levels rise and fall and help us to welcome — happily, unequivocally — the new-born and the newly arrived.

Population anxiety is usually ill informed and often ill intentioned — targeted against the poor who “breed like rabbits” or immigrants who “swamp” natives. When Thomas Malthus provoked Westerners into stressing about population, the results were abominable. Fears of diminishing lebensraum and resources provoked wars in the 19th and 20th centuries. Misguided do-gooders harassed the poor into birth control, demonising big families that increased earning power and provided care for ageing generations.

Events exploded Malthus’s claim that only wars, famines and plagues could keep population and resources in balance. While population surged, resources increased even more. Yet Malthusian terror still ravages otherwise rational minds. China has only just begun to relax persecution of people who try to have a healthy number of children. Indian women still suffer the effects of compulsory sterilisation. Neo-fascists in Britain still scare voters with images of a “small island” overrun by unwanted people. Apostles of birth control still try to deny joy to mothers and life to unborn children in places cursed not with overpopulation but poverty.

Population increase causes none of the problems commonly ascribed to it. We face crises of biodiversity and resources — but because of our madcap consumption, not our numbers. In the 20th century, world population increased roughly fourfold, while per capita consumption has increased some nineteenfold — and, of course, that overindulgence was overwhelmingly concentrated in a few Western countries. With reasonable restraints on consumption, we could have experienced a hugely bigger population rise without greater stress.

We are aggravating global warming, but because of profligacy with energy. We have selective food shortages — but because of unfair distribution and warped priorities. If we prioritised food above biofuels, and biodiversity above junk food, and if we would pay the world’s peasants a fair price for feeding the rest of us, we could retrieve surplus without adverse consequences. Even with our current systems, we are slowly and fitfully bringing down the numbers of the world’s hunger victims.

So why do fears of overpopulation rack otherwise normal minds? The history of the past two centuries explains this. In the 18th century, global population suddenly began the “explosion” that continued, with gathering force, into our own times. Malthusian panic is intelligible against this background. But the past 200 years have been exceptional. For most of the history of the genus Homo, population has fluctuated wildly. Most hominids became extinct because there were too few of them, not through overcrowding. For Homo sapiens, population stress provoked progress — inducing hunter-gatherers to develop agriculture, stimulating the collaboration that turned chiefdoms into states and tribes into nations.

For the past 100,000 years or so, as far as we can judge, the overall trend — disfigured by occasional lurches up and down — has been of gentle increase, fed by sustainable adjustments in how we exploit the planet’s resources. The sudden and conspicuous surge since the 18th century has been the consequence of a peculiar turn of events.

Two were decisive. First, trade and exploration shifted food-yielding species — plants and animals — across the globe, increasing the foodstuffs available almost everywhere. China’s population doubled when maize and sweet potatoes supplemented millet and rice; Russia’s doubled when potatoes joined rye as a staple source of starch.

Second, for reasons we do not understand, disease-bearing microorganisms that once targeted humans mutated or shifted to new ecological niches. The “age of plague” that had dominated four centuries ended abruptly. The last European visitation of the Black Death vanished in Marseilles in the 1720s. Population rocketed because almost everywhere people — especially the poor — grasped the chance to boost the numbers of economically productive family members.

There are good reasons to think that this era is nearing its end. Like all commodities, life is cheapened by glut and the economic benefits of big families are falling. Prosperity is the best contraceptive: the rich need to breed less to be sure of surviving heirs. There is a fairly direct link between the poor and the philoprogenitive. That is why birth rates have been falling in rich countries for a long time.

Of course, there is always a time lag, as people culturally accustomed to large families adjust to new economic circumstances. That is why Britain’s immigrants tend to have more babies than their native neighbours. The trend to diminished fertility seems ineluctable, however.

Population alarmism tends to overinvest in short-term statistics, but on present trends the global population will begin to fall by the final third of the present century. The downside is the aged population that all prosperous countries face. Britain’s indigenous population is fairly advanced along the road towards long-term decline.

So the latest figures are a source of hope — showing that relatively fertile immigrants can, at least for a while, replenish the new generation of young people the country needs. In these circumstances, population fear-mongering is a kind of terrorism and the “population bomb” is a hoax. The real danger is that as people multiply, we will value them less. We should prize human life and try to continue to count it as precious, no matter how much of it we have.

Felipe Fernández-Armesto is the author of Civilisations and Food: A History



PROTECT THE UNBORN. NO TO THE COERCIVE RH/ABORTION BILL (HB 5043)
Please sign the petition AGAINST the so-called Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043)

[cebulifer]

@manny
it think what ******** is pointing out is that being a predominantly catholic nation does not hinder a state to make a law that violate the catholic faith.

thank you for writing what i thought eloquently. hehehe!